4oo/o /) /tA-./'- · proposed 4oo/o increase in the town centre population.. lmprovements in public...

DirectorStrategic AssessmentsDepartment of Planning &

lnfrastructureGPO Box 39SYDNEY NSW 2001.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Eppins Urbgn Activatiop Precinct Plan

As a very long term resident of Epping (over 30 years) I wish to advise the NSW

Government and the Department of Planning and lnfrastructure of the following

comments regarding the Urban Activation Precinct Plan for Epping:

. The height and density of the plan is grossly excessive.

. I do not agree with buildings in excess of 10 storeys in Epping's towncentre.

. The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the currentgridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping. At the present time it can

take me up to 20 minutes to get from the Western side of Epping to theEastern side by car. This congestion is not dealt with adequately in theplan. lt concerns me greatly that there is a belief that redevelopment

comes first and the infrastructure will follow. Surely this should be the otherway around.

. I do not agree with the rezoning of single dwelling areas to multi-unit and

residential flats.o The provision of only one lift access across Beecroft road is totally

inadequate. A ramp or escalator is required urgently.. The provision for open space is seriously inadequate to accommodate a

proposed 4oo/o increase in the town centre population.

. lmprovements in public amenity at street level (plazas, improvedpedestrian and bike access, tree planting) is supported.

. The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed

extension of heritage zones in Epping are strongly supported.

Regards,

/)

/6/+- /tA-./'"-

Robyn Whalan

7/24 Bridge St

Epping 2121

29th April 2A13

Robyn Whalan

Director Strategic Assessments Department o f Planning and Infrastructure GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

Jean Shead 4 William St Epping 2121

III 11III ..11111 . III

12.5.3013.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan

The proposed plan would result in an overdevelopment o f Epping and deterioration in

conditions for those living in Epping.

III

1. Traffic congestion The 2011 traffic study, commissioned by Hornsby Council, models traffic at the Carlingford

Rd/Beecroft Rd intersection and the Beecroft Rd/Epping Rd/Blaxland Rd intersection. Even a 5% increase in traffic will disproportionately affect transit times, as these intersections are already in gridlock. In peak hour it can take up to 30 minutes to travel from one side o f Epping

to the other.

The traffic modeling doesn't address the gridlock for local residents attempting to gain access

to these main roads. The addition o f 4000 units and houses would lead to delays for local

residents trying to join main roads. There are delays already at Bridge St/Carlingford Rd

intersection. The intersections onto Carlingford Rd, north on Beecroft Rd and south on Midson Rd from the western side o f Epping station will become gridlocked. The development

at Mobbs Lane and the brick pit will increase traffic on Midson Rd. I am concerned that this

level o f development will lead to significant delays as residents attempt to approach and leave

their homes by road.

Retail developments disproportionately increase traffic problems. Retail options should be

minimal and only service the needs o f the immediate population. There should not be

extended or 24 hour alcohol service licenses.

In addition to reducing the number o f units, there should be reduced parking available for each

unit, for example 0.5 parking spaces for a two-bedroom unit. In addition there would need to

be metred parking within a kilometer o f the station.

2. Lack of sunlight especially in winter There were no models o f winter overshadowing available. Given the proposed height of the

developments this will be a significant concern.

3. Lack of amenity and open space for the proposed increase in population

Boronia Park is already well utilized for organized and spontaneous sport, as well as children's play. There is no increase in amenity for the increasing population. Cities with good

experiences o f apartment living have excellent outdoor spaces.

4. Concern about infrastructure 's ability to cope with increasing demand

There have been concerns raised as to whether sewerage and electricity infrastructure can cope with increased demand. There has not been any funding allocated to improve this

infrastructure.

Submissions 1. The height o f the buildings should be limited to 14 stories along Beecroft Rd and 8 stories

on the west side o f Rawson St. 2. Units should have limited parking spaces to encourage train and bus travel. There should be

metred parking in the street up to one kilometer from the station.

3. There should be modeling o f traffic flows within Epping prior to development. There

should be improvement to roads and intersections before development begins.

4. Any improvement needed with regard to sewerage or electricity infrastructure should be

completed before development begins. 5. There should be models o f winter overshadowing. 6. There should be a pedestrian and bicycle ramp over Beecroft Rd to connect both sides of

Epping. This will also allow West Epping to access sporting facilities and bush at North

Epping. Currently the trip in peak hour can be 30 minutes and this will worsen with even a modest development. 7. Retail options should be minimal, and only service the needs o f the immediate population.

There should not be extended or 24 hour alcohol service licenses.

8. I agree with the extension o f the heritage listed areas.

Yours sincerely 7Th

J a n Shead

Email; [email protected] (subject: Epping UAP) or mail as below.(must arrive by

19th

May 2013)

Director

Strategic Assessments

Department of Planning & Infrastructure

GPO Box 39

Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Sir/Madam,


I wish to advise the NSW Government and the Department of Planning and

Infrastructure of the following comments regarding the Urban Activation

Precinct Plan for Epping.

• The height and density of the plan is grossly excessive.

• I do not agree with buildings in excess of 14 storeys in Epping’s town centre.

• The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion

in and through Epping and this is not dealt with adequately in the plan.

• This plans’ proposed population increase, particularly children, are not adequately catered for by

this proposal.

• Many Local schools are at capacity with limited space in the playground for the existing

population. There is limited space for more demountable classrooms and as they are added

(often onto the playground) play space reduces further.

• Increased pedestrian and road traffic will bring a decreased safety to our children.

• I do not agree with the rezoning of single dwelling areas to multi-unit and residential flats.

• The provision of only one lift access across Beecroft road is totally inadequate. A ramp or

escalator is required urgently.

• The provision of open space is seriously inadequate to accommodate the proposed increase in

the town centre population.

• There is a lack of proposed green space within this plan especially considering the proposed

increase in population. With an increasing obesity level future planning needs to address lifestyle

parameters and the availability and accessibility of open green space for play, sport and

recreation (including school sports events and carnivals).

• Improvements in public amenity at street level (plazas, improved pedestrian and bike access, tree

planting) is supported.

• The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed extension of heritage

zones in Epping are strongly supported.

Regards

(signature)……………………………………………….

(Date)……………………………………………

ALAN RUSSELL

19 DUNMORE ROAD EPPING NSW

……………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………

Director Strategic Assessments Department of Planning & Infrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001.

Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name)

(your address) 6 8 " CHE-S7,c/4zi21 re,19

F i ' P / A f a 2 / z j Epping

Urban Activation Precinct Plan

111

I wish to advise the NSW Government and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure of the following comments regarding the Urban Activation Precinct Plan for Epping:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The height and density of the plan is grossly excessive. I do not agree with buildings in excess of 14 storeys in Epping's Town Centre. The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping and this is not dealt with adequately in the plan. I do not agree with the rezoning of single dwelling areas to multi-unit and residential flats. The provision of only one lift access across Beecroft road is totally inadequate. A ramp or escalator is required urgently. The provision for open space is seriously inadequate to accommodate a proposed 40% increase in the town centre population. Improvements in public amenity at street level (plazas, improved pedestrian and bike access, tree planting) is supported. The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed extension of heritage zones in Epping are strongly supported.

Regards,

(signature) " ' (date)

. /

DepartmenL,

10 MAy Scanning 1.-R,,„loiri

z


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your n a m e ) . . . Nattl.ck (your

address) - 7 B o t _ f r c i C A , f r q Ccip Epping

Urban Activation Precinct Plan I

wish to advise the NSW Government and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure of the following comments regarding the Urban Activation Precinct Plan for Epping:

• The height and density of the plan is grossly excessive. • I do not agree with buildings in excess of 14 storeys in Epping's Town

Centre.

• The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping and this is not dealt with adequately in the plan.


• The provision of only one lift access across Beecroft road is totally inadequate. A ramp or escalator is required urgently.

• The provision for open space is seriously inadequate to accommodate a proposed 40% increase in the town centre population.

• Improvements in public amenity at street level (plazas, improved pedestrian and bike access, tree planting) is supported.

• The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed extension of heritage zones in Epping are strongly supported.

•

•

Regards,

(signature)

0 - Cs,4694-e

t

(date)

1 02_0 3


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name)SULI 74- N W 131.

(your address) 21 2 1 2 4 Epping




Centre.







•

•

Regards,

(signature) / - (date)

'8" .1


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name)-1-k---5c(A--• 141-4(4/./1 boilor)",

(your address) 2 - I Moc/C--e-aci_

0 = e t i v ? , çL4f.

Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan I



Centre.







•

•

Regards,

(signature) (date)


Dear Sir or Madam,

/1011,(A.-47

(your name) ... . ....... (your address) g ch-e-k-vvis y t o

v-aj Nic )4




• I do not agree with buildings in excess of 14 storeys in Epping's town centre.







•

•

Regards,

(signature) (date)


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) v i r i 1 4 > r\i/4 d r n 7/5

(your address) 3 d ,zys-i/v 02-7)-/











•

•

Regards,

(signature)

trite/OAS':

(date) LC/S7q


Dear Sir or Madam,


I wish to advise the NSW Government and the Department of Planning and

Infrastructure of the following comments regarding the Urban Activation Precinct

Plan for Epping:


• I do not agree with buildings in excess of 14 storeys in Epping's town

centre.

• The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current

gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping and this is not dealt with

adequately in the plan.

• I do not agree with the rezoning of single dwelling areas to multi-unit and

residential flats.

• The provision of only one lift access across Beecroft road is totally

inadequate. A ramp or escalator is required urgently.


• Improvements in public amenity at street level (plazas, improved

pedestrian and bike access, tree planting) is supported.

• The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed


•

Regards,

(signature). ,v;vctit'/ (date)


Dear Sir or Madam,











•

•

Regards,


Dear Sir or Madam,











•

•

Regards,

(signature) (date)


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) •CALQm t S (your

address) C l J 4 c V C 4 2 M P v

€ 1 1 P I N C r J L I 2(2 I











•

•

Regards,

(signature)...

(date) 1-15-1 3


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) 1--M-C-/ (your

address) ..37...Vy.r.g.




Centre.







•

•

Regards,

(signature) A A- r . (date)

Director Strategic Assessments Department of Planning & Infrastructure GPO Box .39 SYDNEY NSW 2001.

Dear Sir or Madam,

(your address) retktp, 40 -4912/1■14 Epping




Centre.


• I do not agree with the rezoning of single dwelling areas to multi-unit and residential flats..





•

•

Regards,

(signature)

(date) ‘ 6


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) (your

address) ( u s 10 P t/V











•

•

Regards,

(signature) C L O L (date)

......


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) A221--:3( (your

address) /.)c) £ ' DA' f Epping




Centre.





• Improvements in public amenity at street level (plazas, improved pedestrian and bike access, tree planting) is supported. 80,i ma- o 14.4ev


• A I den /7 ed 14,/ Cc, /) e ocr4i.frly , S t C C A / . 3

v a 1.4" (i.f - ( L a / I C / - r2"I' e) 71: r e 2 4 P e 6/c-,j-v 1 4 4 1 #

e j t e - f I C 4 1 ) 1. / / 4e 1.1 v C,4,1 c e i a s - la no ,/c.? a t i et t7L, e t •/-v

3gards, 4,:fx d e jAc.6./e, ,

0 ,27 4e

Regards,

(signature

(date) 7 -


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) M 4 7 e c r - A le,

(your address) address) S-3 7574--,-)--? Cz_6-T

r




Centre.







•

•

Regards,

(signature)

(date)

Name (Ms) Joan Wilcox

Address 1 / 2 1 Ray Road Epping NSW 2121

Email 0-rld..COM

Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct - feedback

(Ms) Joan Wilcox

111 111131 1 Ill I II 1. In general, I a m in favour o f .a revitalisation of Epping Town Centre, and if i t is imperative that

the population b e increased b y the number suggested, t hen some tall buildings (with adequate

off-street parking) may b e appropriate.

2. I approve o f t h e plans for including vegetation above the podium level o f such buildings and

ensuring tha t t h e distance between tall buildings will allow sufficient sunlight and n o t create

wind tunnels. I a l so approve o f t he plans for t h e public domain areas.

3. I a m pleased t o note plans for the provision o f pedestrian/cycle ramps across the railway line,

bu t suggest tha t a second lift adjacent to the one outside the Epping Hotel accessing the current

overpass would a l so be useful.

4. However,

• I would prefer that the tallest buildings not exceed 15 storeys. • Infrastructure (electricity, water, was te water , sewerage) should b e integral to the

planning. Land in nearby areas for additional pre-schools, schools, hospitals, etc.

should b e identified n o w as pa r t of Epping's development.

• It is qui te inadequate to see the road sys tem a s par t of the larger Macquarie Park

corr idor to be considered la ter - decisions need t o be made now. Plans for widening

certain intersections d o no t address even p resen t problems - t he most significant of

Which IS the traffic-choked section of Rawson Street between Bridge Street and

Carlingford Road. Currently, vehicles can en t e r t he Genesis Building only via "Chaos

corner" i.e. t he Ray Road/Rawson Street/Carlingford Road intersection, and can only

exit b y turning lef t Many drivers now use the open car park to make a U-turn, further

impeding the traffic at tempting t o access Epping Road from the west. Funnelling all

traffic down this section o f Rawson Street into Carlingford Road would be impossible

with t h e addition of multiple dwellings and shops. • I believe a commuter car p a r k to be essential. r"- 7Th ."-N71Derartri

7,Fit of Planning I 1

9 MAY */.013 ! 1

Iirlh'ICi ROOM ._..._2:-.1____J

• Signature:

Michelle Cramsie - Epping UAP

I wish to object to the current plans for re-zoning Epping Town Centre. My objections are as follows: 1. Increased traffic problems. The traffic situation,especially around Rawson st. Carlingford / Beecroft rds and Epping bridge is already intolerable, with frequent traffic gridlock and queues along Rawson into Bridge st.often occuring during peak times. For residents living on the west side of Epping station it can often take 20 mins. just to drive from Rawson street .across Epping bridge. 2. Unacceptable pressure on existing infrastructure. There are already a huge number of high density housing projects being erected in the Mobbs Lane area. The resulting traffic from these developments will already place a burden on existing roads and residential streets. A development of the scale proposed for Epping would only add to this and exacerbate pressure on other infrastructures such as local schools and hospitals,( which are already at capacity) and public spaces (which are already scarce and fully utilised) as well as parking. 3.The proposal is out of scale and context with the surrounding area and will result in environmental degradation. e.g. The proposed building heights will result in overshadowing, overcrowding and loss of a village feel. There will be a resulting increase in visual,noise and air pollution There will be a loss of trees and open grassed areas. There will be overcrowding and too many people competing for amenities and personnal space. Questions I would like answered are: !.Why was Sutherland Rd. Beecroft closed ? If this was re-opened it would provide a useful alternative route for Beecroft/Cheltenham residents and take some pressure off Epping bridge. 2.Why can't height restrictions be kept to 8 stories (as the Genesis building was originally.) and medium density developement spread along the Beecroft road corridor including Cheltenham and Beecroft both of which have accessible railway bridge crossings and viable road connections such as Copeland road.? Yours sincerly, Jan von Nida.

From: "Jan von Nida" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Date: 9/05/2013 1:32 PMSubject: Epping UAP

Page 1 of 1

10/05/2013file://C:\Documents and Settings\mcramsie\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\518CBBF1SYDNDOM2B...

II 11E11 •

/ 3 a //1,0 (76,

/-<2.ce,$) 6-7,.9/4/&.2r..2/

e A7J-sesT,),4-4,--Li4

c.)>e0/ 26 .2 Aizi

4-1..ee

C - 7 7 o x 3 7

/vs,&,) 12

".,zor3

/ 4 a /

Department of Planning

9 iv/AY

Scannin::.;iom

C

c z y p 0 / 2 et°

f r S ' c / E / 7 7 7 ( Z 2 1 7 P)

O t cp 4 t i c / //,

e A ,e_.6( ce'67/ ci/r0

1%2 crpk-k c e 0,9c--7 0 2 / y 71-ytel 6.)

A-51--

, 4, , „

6./ s 6-4> S e

k7

o 2 c - c t h

/ 7 - e 4 - - 1 V

c ( d r / L e &• r e - J

C ./;-,

740 (

1 -1/

/ 6 2 ; _ . Zee.v" 61 Cr Ce.„ 1 2 4 , ).)-

r,

4 77

1 , 6-7) —ry7cS i d ' 7 62 V(

),..2e- -)c9 t ' 1 .S" 7/-1., 0 Ai\ /

(-?)

",z1 / 7 - , / ( ; )

( „ / -77 ?e7

47 7\iY

7/ 140 ?e7 1-7 .1 7"1,-,471

A7 / -

2 J A r 4 71-ti • /-2 /I/0:9/,

7 1 " g x / a . 1 7 ( , ‘ , ( t ? ? , ( , 2 1,7u,2

L / (2 d y 7211 ?CA . v / 6 cy, ) -

L f 12 ?-- - / Gy: _71 6) '9_ / e c / S

•

1 ,

0 1 5 2-7 ",7(

(-1 e—y-7?/-‘-,i 2 (-2 /e-7,7 CY0_5-• A

7/7 9 2 9 77 0," a-‘," fr,.(pr /73y

A

11-N /12/1/7y-Th/V --) • - - ? 1 - c / c , 9 c e / 7Z,7.

62 d

/ / 6 4

a2

1/ / 7/ Li! ) C. "2,v1"--7 69 2 (7:1 a ) ( . 5 / 1 0/

-5 311.1 (--‹ :79 ,27.J'Jr-e? PI (2, /9 p p / 0 , 2 „--.).1 (A2.341 V

A2 : V / n (-‘,-.1 51.-1 ,his itey)

c7/ J;) ( / e ,,?-21-1,•,7 (-7 c

e G., d') ( L„,

-Li (7 , ) / -)2/ Pe2ry!

./A1-, 1-,9 P-72 / ( y 42/ i7/a /

,),2c/ d74/

-2 r. e-e-,P 1 1 0 0 2 / - 4 7 - 3 / l o - c f - - 1 1 yy i cv

7 i -7, tr 2:2 77g .)-q- I ,//' 1.c9 I-V7 a 1/ s ( 7< P4211/

/ (1 "V -1---/.7-y/ 2;,f-,,,,,/-4../ • i / 2 0 ' L i /

A

t . " 0 S ' 4 2 -

,49,...,/,4_,:::„

, ,z) , ,./, ,/„d„ V 0 -: -I/ cv:V2k./,,& - 0 , , . . - i 7 - 7 -71 z--, ? , 1 4 /

- . / 9 / 7 / A 4 - /

/ 1 1 - 7 5 / 1 / ' 7 Y 7 ' z2

/ 6-7 6-7/ )? 1- as/2 0 t / .62o 2'

2-), sel)(/o•6/,. 7L--- 2 7 1-,9

GI O7f9?--,y

-L-70(.2t 70/71,-,2z,/ ,ert r j

eZia(y.f-," r,-co ee ("a r c i k

/ ) 6 , 4 0 ( A-4,6_ ,4.2,e, ceiL 72 a e - d , /94 ea(_

i e C . 6 , 4 / /1-erAe.c-cA--det-4//

u"'• Xefic". 4116t4c--A-/i e /72 i i i ) c e /c/Le s> itc..,?

A k e z . c o " t r , - -

6 C ' - e

t -ey Ve-C., 0 leOfit'S

6;1 J E e e ,`"7/6-

i t / op r i n • e , ( / - - ) e.P 6 (Le_ A) 0, /06,-

1,-.e,_/c, 6 / c , ■-■ 674 c c _ e a ? L c 0 7 4 ,

r

,

. 4 I t / J . / 7 7 2 t k ' e i ) c e a6:

1-7 0 de l 6 2 - - -

A

e/s?se ( f ae:-

t2-ek-Lf-- )2.4z. /iLe 6-6 ///i 6e-e ' 11 -Lez -1 -C O e -1

)t), 02 k-e p-t

/;0,;;,// /7\) c^e

, 1 d e iv

at_

)

0 Le u - e _ J-5/7---e-., a )6 1/, 4L---1271/ c't/v f • O V Gt./A-2., ; 4 a

1"-

A — / 1 1 e--e_ /7e4--A.a." /""-- 4 - y i a t,

/ 2 • c v ) e A--t

ag/4-

u I f c) d' I( LX-L, )" SzAc. / 2 2 / / d /

AAc V

, V

c,, 6, .1, 47'cc ct/v2

, /4-A /9 I I #7, /5' 62/.4%,e,,,,s.e (4.: /0

SY, — a( 4 ,--12 a 4, A 1-1? . • L A-c_

v / e V Le.. . r \ 4-1C IC-P S 14" A a v. -e, — L.; Lt :42) //Le_JL.1„ r c J c ,0( (k_. A a 71- ci/2 ;

A c.e

/5/2/9 -sr9

/ r1Le / ce e 4,../ a C 4-z_ al- Z., L A ( ,

J / - p4cy /-Zdt.„,

e / / a 7N-o a d , z-,3‘ NC3

1-3,0 e / t ) , ) / i f

C. a az4-ze /2/ce //oi

1 , 2 6 : o 1 4 ) 2 Le /Ice(

4-7.70 )4- " / y--6/

e-.( • "I eio.;7L c} Ake..2 ;bL /X LX / h

ea) .4-1 e /1.. c/1 a

/ r) 0 /..e„, I A Oe.;-. k i t ; Lid--1 / ( ) A e XI a ,--,az-e /7- / L i / 3 _3 i-)--)e /1--, 27,

- e - - /co,- A l e i--7<-1-e_

Cc 6 ) & / » ( , co 4-2 n 5. Jc. / L a _

r ,e-,:--- e" --7 x-/----(-- --C-"Z'S / 0 ' •--. c'e 1--'t / l CI .e- j ( ' i'

,42Ur \ t-la / i 6 ' G 7

6 , 1 / i ,e_S . Y-----A i' 4-' '/ 0 s • i----7-0 rle-e--' )1 C'e LC-5' 0.--' /0)"1-cci' — '7C '-'''''

S Aiikl-e__ 67&(:)--e(cy/yi Lc'," ?l-- O.') A) '7---1 0( it y e i / / Lc .-S' 6 / p c---

/1,-, /,,,t s-v, Lic,61...4..„„e //‘_e 0 /,--,t ,i.. /..,,9 cc / a et--It-c <Lk

/ 7 co - r ç / ; , b / Le__ A •-•-' -fa'

it_e_i ,.-- Co 3 S t )` - - I L. ) s ,p,_e ,,,-,, c / 0 i--).--, -,e___,'.2

- l ' i l y p \ c ) e / tv s-- r j v -e_ ciLe I:3 -e_ /c.vfi,,,,L4-1,4_,C)/ / .7-Xe.-• 7-6?

s, A I - a " - l e Le...... i j "?.0 /-

6-7/ V

•S:,11 5L-4 '/ OS

cl a L-7 e FA r i t e 4-1 a

6-,3 / 3 /ce 41 1-2

7 CC .3 co c. ),/ eapeVet%, e e‘e z 112 L.Azs'-el'. LALs-eY-.

c LA('

a L e / / S e9 fa2 G , A a ci di.e 47e.

/ 4 , k 7 /c/Le__ J7L.

1/4p_e7, 2 c3 . c e \ Le I k e _ re.y? c ez7 )

n ,,,j) /7,--1.0,---‘ct eco

• C.,) 1---9/9 0/2 4--/ a s. cc- V

ei /3I / ),e-

n z l o Aco //c)11/ /IS

c/ A ,2,

) 4 0 7 w , /1-7o 7 6 ) art - I' y 7 7

4 ;_r. a'

/ " 6 1 .

r I- 7 , a4eu,t >e L A - I a . / 1 I - 7

01-.• ha

i R / 1 / e i / ) ; - 7 / a r o

S e _ a Zeoz I A r i S y

A i L l 76. / A

'74 et32,-,e),erie Z‘( coi-Le /7,e Zep a , /

46 f r y L e . - j z at

Ve 01 L-1 cprau,k 4,6 4 / 4 a

, , , 2 e- / / v •79/2/ ?`"1'

Ei7/)

( I . a S. /L O-6 / 2 4 4, ce /1- g p//4;

v e 4 cx.)

/ 3 J g

//`

A - 4 - 1 4 c Aa"c",ec

at:

7, E.:-/22 cA) e , e

4_0 L C V C - 1 , 1 a /

J e f s ) ) 8 2 , , 6,,e 4-1

(;'•) )(- az. 1--7/6,, a / / t v ex-ic Epp

<9, / 4 7,41 &v. oo 4) / u i2X<,( s >Ce 011_ /5-/p .ffr

ey'r,4 12 r EP/2 S'N-D?"/ o U/

e ,v( 4.) C4. ) 2

/-1e Le,( ,A-k-r a 41-6-

4 7 e / e a 6, dzi pe.e /1 e LeY

/-R / 1 L , , t / ,e.-• e Cfr' "za,-,A.t.4.4 te-)r-e4, Ler,c-c. -

tro,h, A /1)1( At; 2-6/Q/

4.V xe-A-,

/2 el ) et, l j - e - C 9 6 - . P o c . ) / ) c k Le72/ &,1 /71ei f-z e

/ t.i &./S-7//.) / / / / / / , / Z / / / cy7//7) Z)/ /e)///

dc/S //'\et OL-1-‘, c al

/ef ( / / 7 0 4 h c / 2 - ( ,TCy41-/

r Oeee-A7

2,e-

,Tcy1,0(

ii ---ryA,

?-2 0 / t, 79 ,39 2 - 0 7 2-91-1

/1,7 .7/ -9/74,./

v--a,d16/2977

c-py

21/ '77/

/ /6' •-■.,/01L-,1/ 2

,77Th -Tht/ 0/e/3. -1-7/ a/

(72 e'1R74 7 7?-tr

/ A V / )/7s 1-7 7S -11-71

Iv 2 1 4 1 t ' d ? -?-t)

t, N1-7 • Al //1-77 r --A 1-1

s

7c5y/ 775/ -7-Y-2C 1- :1/ 79 Yer''

y -ay V

F 1-7 r

?.

74

— _____ 471-/ / ? " 707 ---7° S' /7(,57),// /..) J 4 57?-/ P ----'' 6" e/ .7!-7 r ./-.../ C"? -37 719`--e ), .7).-‘-f

?'.eil•C) \-e / ."-7).11 7"017.7( __/,_, 07) c / . 9 y —a

-P-v7s, • •-• 9- l y S 7 !---2 1-/ Oc2

, ) , - Z , . / - 7 e 9 - 1 - , N 9 ,

1 4 : , e

. 7 , / - - r x _ y e ".. . i 7 - y - 2 1 7 ; " . . 7 / - 7 9 y „06.40-,iy

F •/_ _CA9

z / 1- —.2. (1-i/c/c/,17-7 /

0 : 7 7 7 / ; 0 1 4 , 7 ? C r W/7

2V•,7—y/

/1-e/177zng-e_„ //- ,

i• 4-

Atae _tf / 4 / , 4-2 a

v-e_- v, Ste. 6- -';'Le Plat

ce

0,, c k /7/04,--is

eae c7 / & < N J lt4-j •

112.1 / • ?Z e ( 72 A 6,Q, 63.)

)LAo e g estYc-rr.c._ 0.) / 2 • s- .?Z‘e V A t

g - 4 X-:-/-,& —/4-.)' SLe_s_c i- & i--2 4_.) V/L.L. 6/ /9 . 7 3 a z.. 1--ki.,- Et/7 , ,D

ce,..v. )6,-. or, / '2 6

I

) g k d

' / 7 . i 0 / 0 ' 1 1 ' 1 '

V c y

/

) 4 - - 4 - e . - - a i l l / 1-t,

/4:--A.L„- A / di 2 /.4. (..• 0 Cr" a ' iz, i.), i-ri c7/ V.117

/ ./. / '4-, , //ry--. 7-le fre

C.; V."•er 274 f(Lk

/C r „

44--■ 4---/-/

/

/‹.-/ CI

61,1fr,-e ;-t. A c cles A e-)L. V 4..? „<,-/ XA_ 6e_ )(--

1. <.(y•---,

/ e r t70 S ' A c,/ / " . / i 6 ge-"`CI (:),A. 67( / 9

f i r i l t -e (1:/- f : S 02 1.-Ari 14 Le Le e ctIte.•2 )• Ac 2AP ol » Cr /4 S'41° 'PI

A , cy • /r-47713 /1/4 / / g c i / >/,--(29 d ( ) /-rt )-0 i e 'e-//1-(2- 0

- _ I ..•.s (-9 / I 0 „- , _

/3 -et 4-L (7/ a 414-,4-,

,(

(e..-/) V d /-tc /Lt. /(

,o,_ ii.--\ Lc /2 e., y' 67c /- I 6' ti /-:.(,) r - ‘ #4-\- C ' ' ' ' ' C ' ' - e - S

•

i l \ ) /V A ( IL-1.. 611, 'J

0 C i / 7 (

4-1 ' t

.--:. ir. X.4f_,,,,,,5,(-/ / C. ,, '1` 6

a 7 1 je--4.-e„ 60 7 - d / / ) ./( a t 7 e■-e / '-' ' ) r

&...,-,-, / / L-c i (/

y I i e X ILL_ / ) /

A/ e

SI

ev

477Y e C

r-2

4.,./ a •-c Ata / e-7/ n C V CA/ a l /72/X

/C.!, e • ( 1 - ' 2 / 2 _ 4 1 X X ce,^

se4,.

s 7>ice V

/ewCi /Le-,

ex_/- / 0 a e ox___ X-

i e S //2

.c a..9 I A i e."--1-2ce

/ y r\evy X a 7

S,4 621IT

V

az /4

a 2

1/ a /te,-, Z.,• /2 o evi,a77

A el ,e_ / / 2 X )z-___)

A_ a .x.-4 p, "2-e )6'i /1,-e de /

Ac

A1 12 Ao- 4 GA.; /4' c.) A Le_ S X ; I E

7 s t c , 11-07i .4 a e, / rozca

6; )4 47,k",‹ p-B-t jes,- v z

)

/Le a c9

1 V C.,/ ,"

ace, s4

a 7

4 . . )

e' / /

/ frAe 7 e

I t s c,

S

/(76,1-tY

/-ke.0^61,(,

)7(7), 4 4

ci

I s

c i Ce

c / ' 0 ( z-1. e;?C._ (a' (-1"

" a c t

cy„

_f?6,

J.- 6.96>Lor/,-,z6,6

oLcc-.:Prv-g a f i e ;

v1G-t ) )1-

e:y ecp

/XL_

/ 4-e )4,1 Le, n Le, cu-e, AJZ?

d ac_ x t t..)-e_v a' 7 v A • , , , ce z 4.t, l a

0-j1-e--161 /

cj cv

A a)

4,4. / ttr,- ,

7-17 .4) A ,t21,7 Y6/

/1) . p / / y v .2 6/

:267 2 2 7 2 , 4.9 /V 21 /L-f 074.7,,r-77y

7/e7 27 7

'

7y•t_•7 71- V 07-u6r

cd, 4-./ a 1 - 1 64917

1 / , . / ( - ) a ? c c 7

u / 1 0 /

72

- 2,0 Z.9,/

? , - , - ? • ? - y < f 2 r}-7(

, „ 69

74

0 (7) -7‹ 4,1)

4-9 --00/N-1 c7,1)/ 1//' 2y7/ / 0 -VI 17--/ /--9/ 1\ 7/V 7t,id 7111 CR;---IzJj

0-0 ?-(1-1-7

-1,-7 1 - . _ / - 7 -V

, t 7 7 J (I/ 0:27 -?-1-/ (71/

67, 6' '-(ry •=0/"-7

CD /

< Vele/2V

2 1 / 7 c 7 y - 1 K V 4 1 -

• )7,7 J V Y X X /

- ? y d2 5 IV

p 0

-A ('? :-70 -7" 07( c y 0 1 7 4 ly

F ) , - 7 ( e-wD172

_2( .7,(7 L./7<-7< 7 , / X v . 7.69

„ . c ( , / X 7e 2 ?< 4!

/ )--1/

,?7 c 2 / ? -'? -271, 737 A

r o ?5.2 1 - 0 7 , 0 ■ . : 7 9/ A227

f.:7 P

G I ) 1-)/0

/ 1-t-( 7e)

/ o---y / oT-1(1\1--/

j / y " D V 49 Cy ;,2

72 )3:2 A76ri / 19 L i ) / 7 ( C ( /

. 2 . JM74 .7 X ? - 7 / f f ig0A-A,71/

41' y — r y _ 7 ( • I / v 7 I (--) doe --a-d 5 ( a l y S

/

v—P r

/ 1--7•\„?2-1.-7

1 'y .',--,/ 1.7._7( 7 1----,P ? 3 2 ? \IC/ •--?-'9'y O___/ ' XI"? ;74 l :2 ur V 1-7 V ,A C (/' C 2c ,7 /C/ / 1-77 4 CO 4 - ' ' ' ' ' , 1 , ) t 7 ( / 6'17 7 7 a 3 - Ok y V 7 p

-?-,C.,....).- - 7 . 9 17 --A2 c r

' 4 1 / , . 7 ( . ) / 1 - - :? , y l i /

? " (-7-7, --ry---x ---y X 2 7 " X --1 Z7 1"--1-7

,---,' 16 ,41 /6 -7 - r y y - 7 0 v y

...j

) 0 L _ _ , (.2 1,---y -70 ‘.7._, , ? - : ( - 7 - , „ / - - - - - 4 . , -G-e-e 6 ? - 7 ( :7,., r - i 0 ,, ?,, 2-, .?„ -,,e,..■

— z - - - ) c r 1:7 4 0 /

. ? - c y -?e, - - - , ,), ---, ,.:7 ( 7 / ) - . /y•-■..,71007 /2:2„, , , / 1C7(91

---TY1 y o V t 7 X ,21-7

--2-27 ki7 A.9 V

czy

0PQ‘e) / (C z--? OLT -/1/)// eA "AL /62-it £//2 /Ad

4-1 a/L.6,4-7 co •L L.e / 0 1 - 7 . - J t

67 / . 9

_ / ‘ / 7 ..)

,

h 6 i L c r S.)(2,S' >L0 / /-, a 6 /Le,

p 2 d a /11e / Se_cI ilcot /Vco--, fr7L.S,4y' /VG.),i) / A

cr.,--zip:./y-v•iatz„z,..., • •_ • „ _ , _

4 • e?0,-10,erie L/co A)

r .

co u iA.1Z-

( P a p , g

, 5 ‘ 64}Le., ,02 cyr,,-/ e 72,e a ,-,

te /cit 1 - 7 i 1 / 1 - 4 0 6 e i n . ,e)L.

f e c _ o

I ' _ e e a /-

(7/) 2),e x X6 4-6 7 2 6 a i t o CP 4-i

7/2/

A/c07-, "xi Le / 1 ) , , c / i 1 V c e o'c'uo '.?

7,

a - - e er,-e

A

z t / . / / a / 1 4 ( a G / e e a / S C ,

/ 5 : 0 0 7 , c 4 ;

/e, /V6., - 0700?‘--2c/s,

<9, / 4 z-/Le iv,/ 004 j /‘_)e /i/t) /2 7, A 0, / /(-7c. d".,..e 6.)91 6/272 ‘20 /

/I/ 7vez,.4 ,..,—/cp,a( 4 ) , /(.. > /

, 11,e &zit, a 72/ a 6€--) Y Le Vi7-7

S z k i r / L -

4 - 1 1 - P z 1 - - 1 . A e r 4),/,

7,---vo„„i r-kr-t

4 , t A - 4 / L A P / - 1 7 , 1-16

0 >1

L-7/272

2

/et

•1) ./&/"(

6 e f r N „ j e & S ' /

A - - - 1 ( C , 1 f r 7 /1L-(//le"..z /,46, /Th /2 ./) 66, Mc,/ of /2y. . i . . 1 G f C 0 6 - - 3 . 2 P u l e - L i %(A=

/ /a//(.2I // / a / A l i 1 / / / / , ff//

t4k., / i %I 7 4:=L

c A i

a Y.7? yAz

I

7..;-k-a ••-776) )

/7/\

/20,4, /v',ya,

e — r • c o u h 2

,

/ 3 6 ) 4 h c A - 7 / 1 - e

Le / 2 ) (

-

/

— -e /1/ •-e 7Le

( 56Ni(

Pioneers' Track B e e c r o f t

- C , a r l i n g f o r d - Epping

BEECROFT

M2 Motorway

ROSELEA PUBLIC SCHOOL

NORTH CARLINGFORD

SHOPS

Along the Pioneers' Track you will find interpretive signage with information about:

1. The history of Devlins Creek 2. The Martin Bros. Quarry 3. Orcharding in the area 4. The Ray family 5. Creeklife 6. The brick kiln and clay pits 7. The Tunics family 8. Forests and timber-getters 9. The Hazlewood orchard and nursery 10. First settlers and their homesteads 11. Charles Tucker and his family

TUNICS .•••• BRIDGE

EPPING

The information shelter near Roselea Public School contains information about:

• Local Aboriginal history Bushcare and bush regeneration The natural environment of the area Pennant Hills Wireless Station 'Early settler life Roads and transport of the local area

A •14,

slo

........

Parking

Information shelter

Park areas

Pioneers' Track

Bushland Reserve

C : : 0 1 2 Creek

Length: Entire length of track, return t r ip 2.8km Ray Park Circuit: 750m

Degree of Difficulty: Easy ( w i t h some slightly graded sections)

Timber-hauling u p Tunks Road, n o w Penliant Parade, around 1900

Pioneers' Track meanders through Epping, Beecroft and Carlingford and traces the early

European history of the area.

From this relatively small area of Hornsby Shire,

a vast amount of history has been gleaned from local family relatives, friends, volunteers and local historians. Ancestors, colourful local characters, childhood memories, tales of hardship and love

stories have come to life once again. _

Walk through this area and imagine the type of

people and lives they lead. Two hundred years

ago it would have been a very different place;

Tall, pristine forests where houses now stand,

fruit orchards and nurseries through which busy roads now run and large families living from the

land, making bricks from the earth and cutting timber from these forests for their homes and

livelihood.

The track can be accessed at several points including Ray Park, Little Ray Park, Ridge St. and behind the Scout hall on Plympton Rd,

Epping.

The interpretive signage on this track has been produced by Hornsby Shire

Council as part of Council's Centenary celebrations.

The project has been generously supported by community volunteers.

Hornsby Shire Council Celebrating 100 Years

1906 - 2006

The Sonter family orchard a t the corner of Ray and Midson Roads - 1911 Photo courtesy of LconardSonter

For more information about other walks around Hornsby Shire please call Council's

Bushland and Biodiversity team 9847 6832

For more information about the history of the local area please call Information and

Outreach - Local Studies 9847 6807

-14(e

Pioneers' Track

gford and Eppiii,

Itay Road-looking south towards Canon Road_ - ,Plit)fo by David Hazlewood 1909 Photo courrayafRodncy carr

Marcia Davis 64 Wyralla Avenue Epping 2121

Re Epping UAP

III 1111 111 111 PCU044236

I wish to advise the NSW Government and the Depai tment of Planning that I strongly disagree with the rezoning plans.

I do not agree with buildings higher than 14 storeys in the Epping Town Centre. The proposed 22 storeys are not set back enough, they will create wind tunnels such as in Chatswood and will certainly cause shade over a large area. No shadow drawings were included in the plans. I might add that Chatswood has nowhere near as many high rise residential buildings as you are proposing in a smaller area here! When I came to Epping from Chatswood 13 years ago, the trip down Carlingford Road from Midson Road, a distance of about 300 metres, could take 20 minutes and I'm not talking about peak hour. Since then, the Mobbs Lane and Brick Pit developments have been added and our quiet street has the steady hum of cars speeding past morning and night to try to avoid the traffic snarls. Absolutely nothing has been done to improve the Carlingford/Beecroft Road intersection or Epping Bridge and, it seems nothing is definitely proposed. In fact, at the community meeting on 18th April the Government Planners actually stated that infrastructure such as roads and traffic would be considered AFTER the development was completed, when they would be better able to see what was needed!! Surely any planner worth his salt should be able to predict ALL that would be required beforehand in a successful development.

With the proposed plan it appears that the present small council car park, next to Coles, would go and I could not see anywhere for this to be replaced or extended. Where are all the shoppers to park? Or are there to be no shops in the new buildings? Local people need to be able to park so that they can shop locally. I would support an improved Epping, but NOT a high rise, noisy, gridlocked centre, such as Chatswood became when we lived there. It is NOT family friendly.

Lastly, I recently heard a television report stating that units are becoming less popular

— people are finding them too small for families and lacking in play areas and open green areas for children — once again, NOT family friendly. Please take note of my concerns. I hope you will see fit to reduce the size of your plans. Don't destroy our way of life.

Yours sincerely

Marcia Davis

111

Department of Pla.nning

9 MAY 2013

PCU044236PCU044236

Michelle Cramsie - Epping Town Centre Urban Activation

Wednesday, 8 May 2013 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Director



GPO Box 39

SYDNEY NSW 2001.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Regarding: Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan

Please advise the NSW State Government and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure of my following comments regarding the Urban Activation Precinct Plan for Epping:

− The local schools need additional funding. Cheltenham Girls HS, Epping Boys HS, Arden HS and Carlingford HS are at capacity. Unless the local public schools receive allowances for their after school care for increased areas, these too are at capacity.

− Greg Smith MP’s comment “let the development be built then we will focus on infrastructure” is not acceptable. The area requires immediate money spent on upgrading existing roads, schools and access to medical facilities before any additional populous is squeezed into the area.

− The height and density of the plan is grossly excessive. I do not agree with buildings in excess of eight (8) storey’s in Epping’s town centre.

− The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and through North Epping, Epping and Ryde and this is not dealt with adequately in the plan. Significantly increased traffic will be funnelled past the public school and day care centres.

From: <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Date: 8/05/2013 1:32 PMSubject: Epping Town Centre Urban Activation

Page 1 of 2

9/05/2013file://C:\Documents and Settings\mcramsie\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\518B8372SYDNDOM2BRI...

− I do not agree with the rezoning of single dwelling areas to multi-unit and residential flats.

− The provision for open space is seriously inadequate to accommodate a proposed 40% increase in the town centre population.

− Improvements in public amenity at street level (plazas, improved pedestrian and bike access, tree planting) is supported.

− The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed extension of heritage zones in Epping are strongly supported.

Regards

Charles Zammit

12 Boundary Road

North Epping NSW 2121

Email sent using Optus Webmail

Page 2 of 2


Michelle Cramsie - Epping Town Centre Urban Activation

Wednesday, 8 May 2013 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Director



GPO Box 39

SYDNEY NSW 2001.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Regarding: Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan


− The local schools need additional funding. Cheltenham Girls HS, Epping Boys HS, Arden HS and Carlingford HS

are at capacity. Unless the local public schools receive allowances for their after school care for increased areas, these too are at capacity.

− Greg Smith MP’s comment “let the development be built then we will focus on infrastructure” is not

acceptable. The area requires immediate money spent on upgrading existing roads, schools and access to medical facilities before any additional populous is squeezed into the area.

− The height and density of the plan is grossly excessive. I do not agree with buildings in excess of eight (8)

storey’s in Epping’s town centre.

- The continued issue of parking and lack thereof has not been addressed with significant numbers of additional cars but no correlating parking spaces.

− The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and

through North Epping, Epping and Ryde and this is not dealt with adequately in the plan. Significantly increased traffic will be funnelled past the public school and day care centres.

From: <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Date: 8/05/2013 1:30 PMSubject: Epping Town Centre Urban Activation

Page 1 of 2


− I do not agree with the rezoning of single dwelling areas to multi-unit and residential flats.

− The provision of only one lift access across Beecroft road is totally inadequate. A ramp or escalator is required

urgently.

− The provision for open space is seriously inadequate to accommodate a proposed 40% increase in the town

centre population.

− Improvements in public amenity at street level (plazas, improved pedestrian and bike access, tree planting) is

supported.

− The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed extension of heritage zones in Epping

are strongly supported.

Regards

Angelita Zammit

12 Boundary Road

North Epping NSW 2121


Page 2 of 2


OA-O5-13;08:31 ; # 1/ 1

6 May 2013

The Director, Strategic AssessmentDepartment of Planning & lnfrastructureGPO Box 39SYDNEY NSW 2OO1 Fax'. 02 9228 645b

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Eppinq Towh Centre

I wish to express my concern of only allowing three (3) floors for the Properties nofth

of (Cliff Road, Epping and Hazelwood Place, Epping). Three (3) floors is not

commercially viable as I have consulted a local Real Estate Agent and Architect to

confirm my figures below.

a. Cliff Road & Hazelwood Place Properties General Current Value @$1.2 to $1.3 million.

b. Three (3) floors provides approximately eight (8) Apartments @ $170,000 per

site $1.36 million.c. Five (5) floors provides approximately twelve (12) Apadments @ $t 70,000

per site 92.04 million.

These properties will have little or no impact on propeÍies in Rosen Street, Epping

due to the bushland buffer of approximately 25-30 metres.

Three levels provide NO incentive as my above figures show for Property Owners

such as myself to sell for re-development. Therefore, the area simply will NOT be

re-developed, which is contrary to the Epping Town Centre concept of the re-zoning.

Yours faithfully

,/ {*Z*-"/

Anna SidorotfOwner- 48 Cl Road- Eooino

p RO p E RTY

8th May 2013

Mr Michael FileDirector, Strategic AssessmentNSW Department of Planning & InfrastructureGPO Box 39Sydney NSW 2001

Attention: Director, Strategic Assessment

RE: Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct- 16 Cambridge Street, Epping

My name is Justin White. I am receipt of your letter dated 21st March 2013. I am thesole Director of Bellpen Pty Ltd, which owns no. 16 Cambridge Street, Epping. I am insupport of the proposal.

I do have the following points I would like you to have further consideration;

1) The subject property comprises an established and well occupied commercialoffice building providing small to medium size office accommodation for theEpping market. The building sits on a good rectangular shaped site ofapprox.1917m2. This size site is just under the minimum 2000m2 land sizerequired in your proposal. The site could be developed without requiring any siteamalgamation negating cost and time delays associated with that. I thereforewould like to ensure that this site can be developed without this 2000m2 site areaconstraint (if it is going to be one).

2) The proposed FSR of 4:1, although an increase in current FSR, would not in myview create a value much greater than a fully leased commercial asset (in itscurrent form) in order to persuade redevelopment (knocking down existing leasedup building). I would urge you to consider a higher FSR to make way for redevelopment as envisaged in your study. An FSR of 4:1, in my view, would notnecessarily incentivise redevelopment but only increase rates and taxes for thebuilding and therefore occupants.

Justin WhiteDirector

3 Rosebank Avenue EPPING 2121

6 May 2013

Department of Planning and Infrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY 2001

Dear Manager

1111111111111,11111111111111 _.... Department of Plaiming

8 MAY 2013

,, . c a r i n i r i a T i 0' :- u i --*.'. EPPING

TOWN CENTRE URBAN ACTIVATION PRECINCT ATTENTION DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

We vehemently object to the proposed massive increases in unit construction around Epping town centre, the non-amelioration o f the existing local traffic chaos and the decimation of our environment. We do agree that the block surrounded by Beecroft Road, Bridge Street, Carlingford Road and Rawson Street does need redevelopment.

We see where the state government is planning to have clearways at weekends because of the volume of traffic on our roads at that time. You announce that at the same time you are proposing ludicrously small parking requirements for the new developments. Car pooling is a fantasy. Not all people can get to work by train and they go in many and varied directions. AND, then there is the ferrying of children to school and sporting fixtures. Your prediction that there will only be one car per unit, no matter how many bedrooms, and one visitor space for every 10 units, and that people will change their behaviour regarding using cars is insulting. No one with any intellect would believe this — I'm sure your "planners" have researched what happens in other parts of the world where this has been tried and doesn't work.

Have a look at the number of cars always parked outside the NEW units in Ray Road, which

are very near the station — there are always cars parked in the street, even at the WEEKEND.

Cars are parked in Rosebank Avenue all week. We can't have visitors during the week as there is no parking available. Tradesmen and delivery people have a huge problem in this street when trying to access our property. We had to have my father's funeral on a Saturday and pay an extra $700 for the privilege as it was not possible to have people back here during the week. We will not be able to have people visit, even on the weekends, as the street will be parked out with cars overflowing from close-by units.

My husband and I are getting on in years and I will have had several operations this year. I cannot have people here during the week to visit and I'm certainly not ready for the

retirement village. Are you trying to move all us oldies out? I have asked for the Council to provide resident parking but this has been declined.

The proposed development will not bring one advantage to those of us unable to sell out because we are in a Heritage Conservation Area: there is no planning for better environmental factors such as green space, better water/power management or a pedestrian crossing from outside the Epping Hotel to Epping station which is available AT ALL TIMES to those with disabilities or prams. (The lift is constantly breaking down).

Children, even now, use Rosebank Avenue as a skateboard park, even though it is parked out on each side and not safe. What will it be like with many, many more children moving into this area without any allocation of green space?

What will happen to the abundant wildlife around this area. We have grown large trees to attract birds and have been successful. In this era of global warming, taking down trees for high rise living units where energy guzzling clothes dryers will be used doesn't make sense. We don't like the Hong Kong-look either, with laundry hanging from balconies.

Actually, there has been NO PLANNING AT ALL. It's a developers' dream and a resident's nightmare.

There was no planning by your Department for the public meeting at the Epping Club recently; there were no leaflets for distribution after 10.10 am — the meeting opened at 10.00 am.

The plans on display were contradictory and so small that a lot of us older people had trouble reading them. It was stated that people were expected to 'walk' the 800 metres to the station in 10 minutes. Could we seniors challenge you on that?

Is it expected that we walk to the supermarket and not use our cars for conveying shopping home?

Cliff Road at the end of our street is a "rat run" now, and difficult to negotiate as there are cars parked on both sides and often blocking the end of our street. What will happen when all vehicular traffic from units facing Carlingford Road and those in Cliff Road feed into this street?

Your official Study of the Epping Precinct area was rough and incorrect. It stated Cliff Road was a dual carriageway. Dual carriageway is when there are two lanes going in the same direction. It also stated that existing units in Ray Road could be seen from our heritage Street and were imposing — implying that it is a "shame". Oh really, this street fought hard

and long not to be overlooked by units and these units are only two and three storey. Make up your minds!

We believe you did a "drive-by" study of "heritage" homes in Cliff Road — that would have been, of course, that your people could find nowhere to park or stop to inspect the houses properly — this is confounding, sounds like a huge joke just like the rest of this proposal! You are just thumbing your collective noses — plonk down units and overdevelop the area — who cares? We do. Recently we went for a trip to Westmead where there a lots of units which are let. The streets are a disgrace, with rubbish lying around. Absolutely no civic pride. We believe, on very good authority, that if Meriton, or similar, develop this area they would prefer to build one bedroom "to let" properties. Having seen what's happened around Marsfield, also, with too many students hot-bedding in houses not built to accommodate so many, we know what will happen around here. Your government seems to be pushing for a "race to the bottom".

Why not PLAN properly? The off-ramp from the freeway to Military Road was added at great expense and added expenditure for tolls because someone, originally, in the then RTA wanted to save money and look good. The M2 has recently had new lanes, bridges and connections added because it was not properly planned. Same with F2 and other motorways — all this happening in a relatively short time after original construction. Just as well the planners and builders of the Harbour Bridge were not so short-sighted. What with shooting in national parks; cutting education and TAFE monies; and the crazy proposal for the northwest rail link which will require standing for most for a long journey and changing trains, amongst other incredible actions by your government, perhaps we can't expect much, but we live in hope.

Yours faithfully,

Kathryn Chivers

,7716/M2

Gordon Chivers

Cc The Planning Department HORNSBY SHIRE COUNCIL


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) ..... qe4.-.„4,P. . ............ (your address) o.24)// P A - 4 1 W Am.a.-.

F-o4„),

111 1 .41111 0 1 Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan I










•

•

Regards,

(signature).

(date) / 7 1 7

------- Deparment of Planning


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name)

(your address) 3 1 ....

.. . ... .











•

•

Regards,

(signature)

(date)

i . , ,

'4>

5 May 2013 II 1111 111 Mil PCU044149

Director - Strategic Assessments Department of Planning & Infrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Sr,

II 1 11

RE: EPPING TOWN CENTRE URBAN ACTIVATION PRECINCT PLANNING REPORT

PROPOSED CHANGE IN REZONING FROM 18 METRES ( 5 STOREY) TO 12 METRES (3 STOREY)

FOR CLIFF ROAD / HAZZLEWOOD PLACE PRECINCT

We wish to object to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure's (DPI's) proposed height reduction from the 18 meters (5 storey) initially proposed by the Hornsby Shire Council in its Epping Town Centre Study of March 2011, to 12 meters (3 storey) for the 30 homes in the Cliff Road / Hazzlewood Place Precinct as outlined in the Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct (ETC UAP).

We believe the ETC UAP Planning Report's said proposal is inequitable, flawed, not feasible and will not achieve its goal of 3,500 new units in Epping. We recommend that the height/density reduction proposed be reversed to the original Hornsby Shire Council's proposal of 18 meters (5 storey) limit or be reviewed to enhance the development potential of the Precinct for the following reasons:

1. Concerns on "Visual Impact" on Homes in Rosebank Avenue HCA

a. Firstly the Hornsby Council's Epping Town Centre Study had earlier highlighted that the "southern portion of the (Rosebank Avenue) HCA may be suitable for increased density (as part of the Carlingford/Cliff Residential Precinct)." These 8 houses are presumably considered "low heritage value" and potential candidates for low medium density rezoning by Hornsby Council.

Subsequently the DPI has proposed not only to zone these 8 "low-heritage-value" homes under HCA, but to also reduce the height limit of the other 30 dwellings in the precinct. It seems inequitable that these few homes of relatively "low heritage value"

are disproportionally impacting on the zoning of the other 80% of homes.

We request that the DPI review and reverse the HCA zoning of the homes in the southern portion of the Rosebank Avenue HCA as recommended by the Hornsby Council.

b. According to the DPI's ETC UAP Planning Report, "The prime concern is the visual impact on the group and area and retention of a suitable breathing space and curtilage

so that the buildings and surrounding context are not overwhelmed and/or isolated."

We believe these concerns can be addressed without resorting to reducing the height limit to 3-storey with a 1: 1 FSR restriction for the following reasons:

i. There is a timberline of tall trees at the Western & Southern Boundaries of Rosebank Avenue HCA homes providing a natural green canopy to insulate these homes from multi-storey developments.

ii. The timberline of tall trees (with the necessary setbacks) will protect the privacy of the Rosebank Avenue HCA's homes from any 5-storey developments.

iii. The tree line also provides the homes at Rosebank Avenue with a green leafy backdrop in the line of sight when viewed from the street thereby hiding the multi-storey development behind them.

iv. Suitable setbacks from the boundaries of the Rosebank Avenue HCA homes with stepped increases in height limits like the ones adopted by the recent Woodlands Epping development in Ray Road (which backs onto the Roseland Avenue HCA homes).

v. Adequate separation of livable areas of 20 meters or more can also be achieved to protect the privacy of the Rosebank Avenue HCA homes and insulate them from the multi-storey developments.

vi. Use of the "building envelope" guidelines with suitable setbacks and stepped increases in height limits as adopted by the Hornsby Council for Carlingford and Waitara can minimize the visual impact of 5-storey development on the Rosebank Avenue HCA homes.

2. 3-Storey Residential Development Is NOT FEASIBLE On High Cost Land In Epping.

The Epping Town Centre Study dated July 2011 commissioned by the Hornsby Shire Council categorically states that "3-storey medium density residential development is NOT FEASIBLE" on high cost land in the Cliff Road / Hazzlewood Place precinct.

The ETC UAP Planning Report 's feasibility modeling for 3-storey unit development flies in the

face o f the Epping Town centre Study. We question the accuracy of its costing and assumptions.

Table 1 summarizes and compares the findings of the two feasibility studies.

Parameters

Area of Dwelling Land

Dept Planning & Infrastructure Epping Town Centre - Urban

Activation Precinct March 2013

800 m2

Hornsby Shire Council Epping Town Centre Study

March 2011

856 rn2

Difference %

Floor Space Ratio 1.0 0.8 Number Units Per Block 8 units 5 units

Average Area Per Unit 86 m2 95 m2

Average Sales Price $640,000 per unit $650,000 per unit

Sales Price Per Area $7,420 perm 2 $6,842 per m2 8% Total Construction Cost (incl. land) $3,828,790 $3,785,547

Total Construction Cost $ per m2 $5,549 psm $7,471 psm _35% Net Development Profit $791,950 $56,367 93% Development Margin on Cost 20.0% 0.5% Residual Land Value @ 20% Margin $986,616 per house $457,905 per house 54%

Table 1

a) Table 1 highlights the big discrepancies between the 2 reports. The DPI's construction cost is 35% higher than Hornsby Council's and its development profit 93% higher. How can the

cost and profit differ by such a big margin?

b) This resulted in the halving o f the residual land value o f the DPI's Plan of $1million to $460,000 in Hornsby Shire Council's Study; either case they are well below market value of the properties in our street and the latter is more than 60% below the market value of our homes. See recent sales values of our street below.

c) Some of the recent values o f home sales in the Cliff Road / Hazzlewood PI Precinct are well

in excess of the values attributed t o land cost in both the feasibility studies as seen below:

a. 7 Cliff Road SOLD 21/11/09 853 m2 $1.22m

b. 15 Cliff Road SOLD 21/07/07 853 m2 $1.23m

c. 24 Cliff Road SOLD 11/03/08 847 m2 $1.06m

d. 33 Cliff Road SOLD 19/09/09 853 m2 $1.30m

e. 6 Hazzlewood PI SOLD Dec 2010 1397 m2 $1.33m

Home owners will need to sell their homes at way below market prices to make the

proposed 3-storey development viable which is most inequitable and unlikely.

d) The DPI would achieve a very low take-up rate if it proceeds with this flawed rezoning to 3- storey apartments and will fail in its main objective to add 3,500 new dwellings in Epping. So why does the DPI reduce the height limit to 3 storey or 12 meters when it is not commercially viable?

e) The only way to increase the commercial viability of medium density development on these high cost homes is to improve their development capacity. This can be achieved by either:

i. Stepping up the height to 5-storey as you go further from boundary with the Rosebank Ave HCA homes as seen in the Woodlands Development at Ray Road, Epping, and/or

ii. Increasing the FSR to 1.5 as per the 5-storey development, and/or

iii. Removing the FSR limit and replacing it with a building envelope guideline

as is the case with the medium density developments in Carlingford and Waitara.

3. NSW Government Will NOT Achieve Medium Density Construction In The Cliff Road /

Hazzlewood Place Precinct Under Current Proposal of 3-Storey Development

The proposed 3-storey medium density residential development in the Cliff Road / Hazzlewood Place precinct is not viable and will result in low take up rates thus preventing the NSW Government from achieving its goal of 3,500 new residential units close to the transport hub of Epping. So why implement a rezoning that is doomed to fail?

4. Inequity For Residents in Cliff Road / Hazzlewood Place Precinct

Under the proposed 3-storey 12 meters height zoning we cannot sell out as such a development is not viable. We will be forced to live with the 5-storey developments around us and all the noise, traffic, dirt and dust pollution that comes with it. We will endure worst conditions than the residents of the Rosebank Avenue HCA homes we have been asked to protect. That is most inequitable as our lifestyle will be destroyed by a rezoning of our homes.

5. Homes NOT Adjoining or Share Any Common Boundary With Rosebank Avenue HCA Homes

There are many homes with NO common boundary with the Rosebank Avenue HCA homes

which are also being reduced to a 3-storey 12-metre height restriction. They should have their development potential increased via reverting to the 5-storey 18-meter height restriction. Alternatively their development potential can be increased by increasing the FSR and adopting the Hornsby Council's Building Envelope Guideline be adopted.

We are aggrieved by the proposed Department of Planning & Infrastructure's rezoning plan that is flawed, not viable and that will fail to achieve the 3,500 extra units targeted for Epping. We request that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure consider the following proposals:

1. The Rosebank Avenue HCA zoning south of the creek be reviewed and revoked.

2. The inequitable, flawed and non-viable rezoning of the Cliff Road / Hazzlewood Place Precinct be

reviewed and amended to increase its development potential via either:

a. Reversing the proposed 3-storey 12-meter height rezoning for the Cliff Road /

Hazzlewood Place Precinct homes to the original 5-storey 18-meter height zoning. This

can be done by stepping up the height to 5-storey as you go further from boundary

with the Rosebank Ave HCA homes as seen in the Woodlands Development at Ray

Road, Epping; and/or

b. Increasing the FSR to 1.5 as per the 5-storey development; and/or

c. Removing the FSR limit and replacing it with a "building envelope" guideline as for the

medium density developments in Carlingford and Waitara.

The residents in the Cliff Road / Hazzlewood Place Precinct deserve a fair and equitable way to sell out

and get a fair return for our homes just like the others in our street if the NSW Government wants to

destroy our tranquil lifestyle with the medium density rezoning.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

A : z 0 . A

(716()\

Hock Ooi 30 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121

Seow Kee 30 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121

Shen Ooi 30 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121

Jian Ooi 30 Cliff Road Epping NSW 2121

Rosebank Avenue

Epping NSW 2121

May 2013

Director



By email

EPPING TOWN CENTRE URBAN ACTIVATION PRECINCT

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the planning proposals

associated with the Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct (ETCUAP).

The undersigned residents of Rosebank Avenue Epping have considered the

documentation published on the DPI website and seek the following specific

amendments to the proposals.

1. An extension of the proposed Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)

classification for Rosebank Avenue to include, in the least, the residences

at numbers 18, 20, 22A and 22B Cliff Road Epping.

2. A limit on the maximum height of developments which will directly

interface with premises in the Rosebank Ave HCA (as amended per point

1 above) to 2 storeys rather than 3 storeys as currently proposed. The

directly interfacing residences are 16A, 24, 26 and 28 Cliff Road, 15A Ray

Road and 2, 4 and 6 Hazlewood Place. As a prime example of an inter-

war period housing development and streetscape that largely retains its

original subdivision patterns, building stock and natural features,

Rosebank Avenue warrants HCA classification. This view has been held

by the majority of Rosebank Avenue residents for many years who

incidentally have been waiting patiently for the HCA classification to be

formerly ratified by Hornsby Council.

of 11

However we feel the streetscape and aesthetic quality of Rosebank

Avenue, and the integrity of the HCA, will be totally compromised unless

the HCA is extended to include, in the least, the Cliff Road residences

numbers 18, 20, 22A and 22B, located at the entrance to Rosebank

Avenue. It is important to note at this point that in excess of the first 50

metres of Rosebank Avenue has residences with Cliff Road addresses.

This represents nearly a quarter (22%) of Rosebank Avenue.

These inter-war constructed residences clearly frame the gateway to

Rosebank Avenue and their inclusion in the HCA would make Rosebank

Avenue and its streetscape complete. Numbers 18 and 20, are of worthy

character and significance in keeping with the Rosebank HCA and meet

many of the evaluation criteria stipulated by the NSW Office of

Environment and Heritage. To not include these residences in the HCA

would by any objective standard, degrade and diminish an area of

recognised heritage and cultural significance.

3. Our overwhelming preference though is that Cliff Road Epping not be

rezoned from low density to medium and high density residential. As

described in the Epping Town Centre Heritage Review Report (prepared

by Permul Murphy Alessi), Cliff Road contains many fine examples of

inter-war and post war designed residences which were constructed

following the subdivision of the Hazlewood Estate.

Our recommendation therefore is that the Rosebank Ave HCA be

extended to include Cliff Road, east of Kent Street, and Hazlewood Place.

In making this recommendation we are aware that similar if not much

larger HCAs are proposed in the precinct plan for other parts of Epping

with historic residential and streetscape characteristics which warrant

preservation.

4. In the event this recommendation not be considered acceptable we

strongly advocate a reduction in the scale and height of proposed

developments at the interface with Rosebank Avenue HCA. While we

note that the precinct plan makes provision for a 3 storey maximum at

the interface with low density residential areas, like the Rosebank Avenue

HCA, we consider this scale of development to be of excessive height and

of 11

disproportionate to the existing single storey residences that are

prevalent in Rosebank Avenue.

It is noteworthy and concerning that the Heritage Review Report refers to

a "new development" in Ray Road that "is visible and has become a

“backdrop” to some of the dwellings". Figures 2.20, and 2.22 in the

report illustrate this detrimental impact. (Note that the apartments

pictured are 2 storeys.)

As a result, we contend that proposed developments at the interface

with low density residential areas, in particular those with HCA

classification, should be limited to a 2 storey maximum to reduce the

obvious HCA impact and significant privacy concerns and overshadowing

where applicable. Importantly our proposal is consistent with the scale

of the "new" development referred to in the Heritage Review Report, on

the former Emmaus Bible college site in Ray Road, Epping where 2 storey

of 11

town houses are the norm at the boundary with existing Rosebank

Avenue premises.

5. Residents of Cliff Road have advocated an increase in the proposed

medium density area residential height for Cliff Road from 3 to 5 or 5 to 8

storeys. We categorically reject any such proposal on the basis that it is

completely out of proportion and scale with the existing surrounding

development and would detract significantly from the quality and visual

appeal of the Rosebank Avenue HCA streetscape.

Other important issues that need to be addressed in the planning process

involve traffic management and car parking.

6. The residential and visitor parking rates proposed in the ETCUAP are

lower than the relevant rates for both the Parramatta DCP and the draft

Hornsby DCP. As both the Parramatta and Hornsby rates reflect the

proximity to the station, it is perplexing why the knowledge and

experience of these Councils has been discarded for a reduced rate in the

ETCUAP proposal.

Of further concern is that all three rates are lower than indicative rates

based on the actual Rosebank Avenue residences bedroom to car ratios.

We can see no plausible reason why the ratios required in the ETCUAP

should be significantly lower than those that currently exist in Rosebank

Avenue.

We take issue with the phrasing in the ETCUAP Planning Report on page

46 that claims that the "parking rates for the precinct require slightly less

parking than the Parramatta DCP and draft Hornsby DCP". It goes on to

say this reduction is appropriate given the proximity to public transport,

retail and other services and the town centre. Rosebank Avenue has

similar proximity (just outside the 400m station radius) and we contend

that the fact that the proposed parking rates are 27% lower than current

Rosebank Avenue rates, demonstrates inadequate capacity. Additionally,

the level of visitor spaces mandated, equivalent to 1 space per 10

dwellings, is also flawed.

of 11

The following table compares the various rates.

Bedrooms Car spaces mandated - using Rosebank actual

Number Rosebank

actual

P'matta DCP

> 400m

Hornsby DCP

< 800m ETCUAP

2 3 3.75 3 3

3 8 12 12 8

4 or more 8 16 12 16

Total actual cars = 37 31.75 27 27

% of Rosebank actual cars 86% 73% 73%

Visitor spaces per dwelling 0.25 0.14 0.10

We interpret this to show that the parking rates required in the ETCUAP

are less than necessary to meet actual demand. Given that on-street

parking is already fully utilised during the week, this matter needs to be

revisited due to the impact this will have on both weekend and weekday

parking levels.

Any shortfall will lead to increased on-street parking which is already over

utilised and we believe the parking rates mandated in the ETCUAP need

to reflect a rate at least equal to the current car rates in Rosebank

Avenue.

7. Residents of Rosebank Avenue are concerned that without the

development and implementation of a comprehensive traffic

management plan for Epping, traffic bottlenecks and congestion currently

experienced during the morning and afternoon peaks, will worsen.

Already residents of Rosebank Avenue encounter great difficulty entering

Cliff Road by car (and subsequently Carlingford Road) in the morning

peak due to traffic congestion on Cliff Road. It is not uncommon for it to

take up to 20 minutes to drive the 100 or so metres to Carlingford Road

due to the bank up of vehicles. Having finally entered Carlingford Road,

residents then queue with thousands of other motorists while they

of 11

negotiate the increasingly bad Carlingford Road, Ray Road, Rawson

Street, Beecroft Road, Epping Railway Bridge traffic black spot.

Of serious concern is that emergency services and utilities cannot access

Rosebank Avenue during the morning peak hour. By way of example, as

recently as April this year, Ambulance services were unable to access

Rosebank Avenue and in the end the paramedic had to grab her

equipment and run down Cliff Road due to the peak hour congestion.

Notwithstanding the proximity of Epping railway station as a public

transport hub, and the Government’s laudable promotion of public

transport, it is inevitable that more residential dwellings in the locality of

Cliff Road will mean more cars trying to access Carlingford Road from Cliff

Road thereby worsening the traffic congestion.

We extend an invitation to the relevant government department to

monitor the traffic levels in Cliff Road during the weekday morning peak

hour to objectively record traffic volumes, congestion and the level of on-

street parking.

Both Rosebank Avenue and Cliff Road are narrow streets that are already

challenging to navigate safely when cars are travelling in both directions.

We were advised at the Community drop in session that there are no

plans to widen or modify Cliff Road. Given the increase in traffic, street

parking, residents and children, there needs to be a safety contingency.

We also understand that there will be even further capacity demands

placed on Cliff Road as any Carlingford Road developments will be

required to use Cliff Road to access these properties.

In our view it would not be a responsible course of action for the NSW

Government to consider the ETCUAP until a proper traffic management

plan for the locality is developed, publicly exhibited for comment and

implemented.

of 11

8. Similarly, the ETCUAP must be accompanied by a fully developed and

costed commuter parking strategy.

Commuter car parking spaces in the streets around Epping, including

Rosebank Avenue, are already at a premium. Since the Epping to

Chatswood Railway line opened in 2009, there has been a major influx of

commuters seeking to park close to the station. To the extent that

Rosebank Avenue, Hazlewood Place and Cliff Road (to Kent Street) are

generally parked out by 7.30 on weekday mornings.

These streets are narrow and as well as the safety concerns, there is an

impact on the amenity of the area with visitors, tradespeople, and

delivery drivers often parking illegally and dangerously.

This situation can only be expected to worsen under the rezoning

proposals contemplated by the ETCUAP without sensible and long term

planning for commuters who drive their cars to Epping in order to park

and catch the train. Already a number of residents of Rosebank Avenue

have taken to parking their own cars in front of their homes in the

mornings to avoid the inconvenience resulting from commuter vehicles

partially blocking residential driveways as a consequence of limited

commuter car parking in the locality.

We advocate the introduction of measures to restrict commuter parking

in the vicinity. Options to consider include a two hour parking limit,

limiting parking to one side of streets or the introduction of a resident

only parking scheme.

Following are a few photos taken on two random weekdays that

demonstrate the usual street parking volumes.

of 11

Rosebank Avenue looking north

Rosebank Avenue looking north

of 11

Rosebank Avenue looking north (note car parked on the nature strip)

Rosebank Avenue looking south

Cliff Road looking west

of 11

9. Based on previous experiences with the Ray Road development on the

former Emmaus Bible College site, the residents are seeking assurances

that will provide protection should their properties suffer damage as a

result of ECTUA development. As a minimum this should include

mandatory dilapidation reports.

Given the number of elements affected, including aesthetics, amenity,

character, privacy, traffic, parking and acoustics, the Epping redevelopment

proposals will have a major impact on residents.

As a result we are keen to enter into dialogue with DPI to arrive at a more

acceptable outcome for residents. Please let us know if we can help with

further information; our email address is [email protected]

Signed by the residents of Rosebank Avenue

r

r-f-kn 6 vvf- of 1)/A ,1 Pea 51 r ar pping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct —

Name Kay Hoban

Address 18 Maida Road Eiming

Email kay hoban@hotmalcom III 111111111111,15111111111 As Maida Road is in the transitional zone our family is directly affected by she proposed multi-unit and residential flats proposal. There are many concerns that I have.

Firstly: Infrastructure As mentioned time and time again at the public meeting on -18;' Aprii, which wiiis attended by your representative, the Epping present and proposed infrastructure is totally inadequate to meet the demands of the proposed plan,

(a) Roads — The proposed road updates at Essex Street; Epping Road and iTiiilexiand Road/ Epping Road will not cope with the huge amount of extra local trate:. No mention is made of the extremely dangerous situation at Rawson Street and Ceding-Ford Road intersection, particularly 'for motorists turning right from Raviison St i eer. ,nto Cai:lingford Road. Also, there is a very dangerous and almost blead right turn from Forest Grove into Maida Road. Almost daily there is the screech of brekes„As Maide fiearl will become one of the a "rat races" for traffic from Essex Street trying to each Blaxianti Road, this intersection will cause huge problems. A roundabout is needed now.

(b) Schools- Schools in the local area are almost full now. Where will the new students go?

(c) Safety and Security- Safety and security issues have not been addressed adequately. Many new residents and the transport hub will bring further probleiT1S 'Co Epping. Station and the Core area. I fear more criminal and drug related activities and danger to public safety, particularly at night, will escalate. Is there any provision for o perrrnment police

presence in Epping?

(d) Train Capacity- the capacity to carry the huge extra volume of commuters is a problem. Already many trains from Epping are full, particularly the 4 car trains from Newcastle during the late morning.

Secondly: Parking

Department. of Pia'nnino

7 MAY 2013 7 MAY 2013

I Scanning Room The situation with parking in residential streets has not been endressed adenuirtennild-be upwards of 1200 new apartments in Epping, each of which appears to have only one car space allocated. It is naive to suggest that there will be only one car per family. Wiliam will these residents park their other cars? Is it possible to make it compulsory for two or three bedroom Apartments to

be provided with two car spaces? Also, many commuters need to drive to Epoirig to catch public transport because they live kilometres away from buses etc. and are not able to car pool, as suggested on your proposal. Where will they park? It is obvious that all local streets within at least a 1.5 kilometre radius will be permanently parked out. As it is now„ there are constant complaints from motorists who cannot find parking close to Epping. Motorists do not like rowing to have to pay for parking and this will result in further residential street parking problems. Could a large commuter car park be constructed close to the station?

Thirdly- The Character of Epping

I am seriously concerned about the rush to over develop Epping. The height and density of the plan is excessive. As an Epping resident for over 45 years of my life do not agree that single-dwelling

areas be rezoned to multi-level flats. The unique character of single dwelling houses and almost village- feel of Epping will be destroyed with your proposal. I am upset that Maids Road is included in the rezoning as I enjoy living in this quiet and convenient area. My house is on the southern side of Maida Road. In front and on both sides of us could be 3 story residential f i a t nut directly opposite there will be a 5 story building. We are the only house in Maida Road directly ce oosite this huge structure. Why could this not also be 3 stories? The rezoning proposal will cree: a physical problems including lack of sun and financial problems due to inevitable higher council rates.

In conclusion, I believe that it is imperative that all new infrastrocture be in place and completed before any new dwellings are allowed to be built, that the height zinc density of the Epping Town Centre be less that 14 stories, that proper commuter and residential oarklng he •orovided and that single dwelling areas not be part of the rezoning.

Please see attached, signed document as well.

( signature) 14/'

(date) 6 j .57:at2t3


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) . (your

address) ..../ ..




• I do not agree with buildings in excess of 14 storeys in Epping's Town Centre.







•

•

Regards,

(signature) (date) ...5.-4.--)g0../2

fir

34 Chelmsford Avenue EPPING N S W 2121

5th May, 2013

Director Strategic Assessments Department o f Planning and Infrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY N S W 2001

Dear Sir or Madam

1111111111011,1111111111111

Re Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan

DepartneW of P1,=7nning I

7 MAY 7013

SCHhAcu

I wish to advise the N S W Government and the Department o f Planning and Infrastructure o f the following comments regarding the Urban Activation Precinct Plan for Epping.

• Proposed buildings o f 22 storeys (72 metres) are completely out of character with the area. No buildings should be taller than the spire o f St Alban's Anglican Church. This would equate to about 12 storeys.

• No intrusion o f any medium density buildings into present single dwelling housing streets ie Cliff Road and Carlingford Road between Kent Street and Beecroft Road

• Tall buildings will punctuate the Epping skyline and spoil the now tree dominated views from Eastwood, EppingNimeria road intersection, West Epping, Cheltenham and Epping Station

• Creation o f wind tunnels

• Overshadowing in and adjacent to the CBD area

• Existing streets in and around the CBD area find it difficult to handle present peak hour traffic. Traffic from an extra 4,500 dwellings would make this intolerable

• Car parking spaces o f 1 per unit appears to be below recommended levels

• Whilst it is very convenient that Epping has good rail transport it does not mean that future residents are going to use the railway system for every journey

• No building should be undertaken until infrastructure is upgraded

• Disruption and noise over many years in quiet residential streets by heavy vehicles servicing the building sites

• Little or no provision has been made for additional open space.

Hoping you will give favourable consideration to these points when making a decision.

Thanking you very much

Yours faithfully,

Ronald D Dunstan


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) f /

e A; s-5-77--ig

o s s (your

address) I 7 C az) .) C c D -)1Q1 i E e i i '

Ill 0? /0Z

PCUO441 27


1111111



Centre.







• f i e_g r ecr.isaiv-ret - r A.1 t u -rti

Civ 1Y7 L.4 I N i

• FP/1 r t? R S H e u l t D 8 k - n D q N /-467-5;4:7 01 r t t sr, e/3,7 6-7\1 7- r v o - r irriR

A-7 s\J6-1. ty)45--rv

•

Regards,

(signature) 0/1-117AVX

(date) I Y m v 2oi3


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) 6 9 5 e - i n

air Wi/Son

rrsrfeet (your address) 1-71-.

ppi



• The height and density of the plan is grossly excessive

• The high rise 'tower' concept of 22 storeys is completely out of character with the village atmosphere of Epping and should be significantly reduced

• The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping.

• Strongly reject the rezoning of the Cliff Road precinct from the existing low density residential (2 storey) to medium density housing of 3-8 storeys

• There is seriously inadequate open space to accommodate a proposed 40% increase in Epping's population.

• Improvements in public amenity at street level (open space, tree planting) is supported

• Support for the protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed extension of heritage zones in Epping

•

•

Regards,

(signature) ' W - w r r (date) a 2 o $-•


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) ... . (your address) 4 t " 4/1/11P1 .



• The height and density of the plan is grossly excessive

• The high rise 'tower' concept of 22 storeys is completely out of character with the village atmosphere of Epping and should be significantly reduced

• The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping. The Plan's vague short term 'road improvements at intersections' will clearly not alleviate existing traffic problems

• Strongly reject the rezoning of the Cliff Road precinct from the existing low density residential (2 storey) to medium density housing of 3-8 storeys

• There is seriously inadequate open space to accommodate a proposed 40% increase in Epping's population. According to the 2011 Epping Study, provision for open space is already far below benchmarks as set by the Department of Planning.

• Improvements in public amenity at street level (open space, tree planting) is supported

• Support for the protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed extension of heritage zones in Epping

•

•

I wish to be informed on the progress of this Urban Activation Precinct Plan for Epping.

Regards,

(date)

(signature)


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) f i A ' A / C

-)E1 IV P a

" AO. .

(your address) ./.7....,(1'.4.zt(A . ....

. . . . . .




• I do not agree with buildings in excess of 14 storeys in Epping's Town Centre.







•

•

Regards,

(signature) (date) 77-4c-fif


Dear Sir or Madam,

Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan I wish to advise the NSW Government and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure of the following comments regarding the Urban Activation Precinct Plan for Epping:

. • The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current

gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping and this is not dealt with adequately in the plan. Rawson Street is a nightmare in peak hours. Citizens of Epping have tried for years to have a right turning light into Carlingford Road installed. It has always been rejected by the then RTA.

• There will be need for a facility for a helicopter/ambulance to land

on top of one of the buildings because an ambulance would not be able to access Rawson Street in peak hour. I recently saw an ambulance use the existing garage in Carlingford Road to make its way through the traffic. Since the garage site has been zoned for high rise residential this will no longer be possible, unless the building that goes there floats on air. Parking in new high rise buildings near the station should have very limited parking provided. If you live near a station and bus hub then use public transport like New Yorkers do and hire a car when needed.

• The planned railway development will increase problems for train commuters in peak hours because of the changing of trains that will occur in the future. Epping Station is already very busy in peak hours.

• I do not agree with the rezoning of single dwelling areas to multi-unit and residential flats. You end up with a hotch potch effect. It will be much

(your name) Margaret Sim…………………………………….…

(your address) …11 Victoria Street Epping………………………….………

……………………………….……..

better to concentrate on accommodation in the central area. I see nothing wrong with tall buildings as long as there is sufficient space between them to let sunlight through People are afraid they will be forced to sell out in e.g., Cliff Road because a 5 storey building will be placed next to them. You only need one householder to sell out and the rot will start because people do not want sunlight deprivation. Developers would see this as a good thing no doubt.

• The redevelopment of existing unit blocks now 3 storey in height will

require changes to strata legislation to allow this to happen. Has this been thought about?

• The provision of only one lift access across Beecroft road is totally

inadequate. A ramp or escalator is required urgently. People with bikes and prams believe it or not take up a lot of room in a lift. Epping has a lot of mothers and babies who need to cross to the other side for access to the Baby Health Centre, Coles Supermarket and the playground in Boronia Park. On the other side is the Library and medical facilities.

• What provision is being made to require these buildings in the

central area to provide office space for professional and business people? Do not make Epping a dormitory suburb where everyone moves out during the day

• The provision for open space is seriously inadequate to

accommodate a proposed 40% increase in the town centre population. Open space provision must be built into tall buildings approval.



• There seems to be no mechanism to prevent a certifier or indeed the Land an d Environment Court approving a building like the monstrosity at 1 Railway Parade Burwood which was opposed by Burwood Council. Does the public having a say in the design of such buildings? The one at Burwood looks like something out of post World War 2 Warsaw.

• Public consultation at this early stage means nothing. It is when developers get to the nitty gritty of designing buildings that the public needs a say.

Why is so much development planned for the one railway line when the changes which are planned for it are so bizarre. We have in my lifetime just managed to solve the problem created in the 1850’s when Sir Charles Fitzroy allowed the states to have different gauges and now we are going to replicate this problem by not having a line that can be integrated into future developments. What say did Planning and Infrastructure have in this decision? It smacks of each department doing their own thing regardless of the consequences down the track. I looked at the web site and found it successful as a colouring in exercise. It is not a plan unless it talks about the most important thing i.e. financing infrastructure. The only mention of money I could find was $16 million to fix up 3 intersections and put a bicycle lane on the bridge over the railway. Call that a plan! Regards,

(signature)…M. Sim…………………………….

(date) 6th May 2013…………………

Director Strategic Assessments Department of Planning and Infrastructure GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Madam/Sir,


111111 1111111111,1111111

I wish to comment on the latest version of proposed redevelopment of Epping. It is difficult to know where to start as this process is being tried on over and over again. The constant focus on ECONOMIC development is unacceptable as it is demonstrated that human development suffers from inadequate attention. It was cruel to send junior planners to present their power point talks to a meeting that could only laugh at some of their propositions. Clearly none of them have experienced crossing Epping Bridge on a workday morning. Inadequate transport infrastructure (part of your name !). The roads are not coping with either moving or parked cars. The massive amount of floor space proposed will attract people who all need facilities. Schools, health services, recreation and green spaces, culture ?? Where is all that going to go. Low cost housing ? ( not cheap built slum of badly designed flats). The shopfronts on Beecroft road have been left to rot- I'd say deliberately. They attract criticism, but in urban design terms they are far superior to the shop front designed for the Genesis develoment. There, shops are accessible only at the bottom of a lethal flight of steps - that should be illegal in any public space. The proposed towers are too tall. Who wants another Chatswood ? maybe the land owners who speculate on rezonings and live in more salubrious areas. The towers perched on a 3 storey massive block seems to be the sum total of urban design effort. Epping is suffering from being divided by council areas, train and road corridors and land owners bent on making a mint. You need some decent urban designers with a brief not to squeeze every inch of space to death but to provide human surroundings for human beings.

Angela Lindstad

34 Downing St. Epping 2121 NSW

c.c. Greg Smith SC MP

Michelle Cramsie - EPPING UAP

Dear Sir/Madam, I am a resident of Epping (4 Hillside Cres) and have only recently become aware of rezoning and infrastructure changes planned for Epping. To put it bluntly I am absolutely appalled. There is either a complete lack of knowledge of the area and its current traffic problems particularly with Rawson Street and trying to get over the railway bridge or that there is a swindle taking place with developers. The people of Epping do not want another Chatswood. More time and better consultation with the people of Epping must take place before any change can take place. I will obviously be taking my concerns to Greg Smith. Rgds Ted Campbell B.E.Campbell (NSW) Pty Ltd 144 Newton Road, Wetherill Park, 2164 PO Box 7042, Wetherill Park, 2164 Phone: (02) 9725 2233 or (02) 9612 1426 (direct line) Fax: (02) 9756 1336 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.becampbell.com.au

From: Ted Campbell <[email protected]>To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>Date: 6/05/2013 8:23 AMSubject: EPPING UAP

Page 1 of 1

7/05/2013file://C:\Documents and Settings\mcramsie\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\51878221SYDNDOM2BRI...

Director Strategic Assessments Department o f Planning & Infrastructure GPO BOX 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001

1 May 2013

Dear Director,

III 111111 III III Department o'

6 MAY 2013

nrunci

I would like you to hear my concerns regarding the Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan:

I do not agree with buildings in excess o f 10 storeys for Epping, or with the planned open areas between the multi-storey towers which will only become unsafe mall areas. I am concerned Epping will become an urban ghetto, and that I as a resident o f Epping will feel unsafe.

The planned increase in the local population will cause increased traffic and pedestrian congestion around the Epping Railway Station. The local traffic and associated pedestrian safety will become a nightmare, and pedestrian safety will be placed at risk.

This increased congestion o f traffic will worsen the bottleneck at the Epping Railway Bridge crossing (which is already unacceptable), as well as any attempts to turn right into Carlingford Rd from Rawson St. The traffic situation is already so frustrating and dangerous for cars and pedestrians.

The lack o f planning for road and traffic infrastructure is a major problem, and as the two Town Planners who presented the Epping Precinct vision are aware this issue was voiced loudly and clearly at the public meeting AT Epping on the 18/04/2013. I felt both these young men were unsupported by your department and lacked the information and facts necessary to clarify the public concerns raised at the meeting. In addition to the public meeting, I also attended the information meeting presented by NSW Department o f Planning and Infrastructure at the Epping Club in early April. At this meeting, there was no RTA representation, no plans presented, nor any explanations o f planned traffic flow management for the Epping precinct. I was disappointed the Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan information evening held at the Epping Club was such an informal, causal approach with minimal staff, resources and support to speak and clarify with residents what the actual plan was about and to listen to residents' concerns and clarify concerns. Epping residents , like your staff were left with minimal assistance and many concerns unanswered.

As you are aware, public parking in Epping is already limited to one small council car park (near Coles). Also, unlike our neighbouring stations, Epping Railway Station has no commuter parking. Any development o f the Epping area will need to include well developed plans for off-street commuter parking i n preparation for the increased commuter traffic associated with the Epping railway and bus interchange.

I would like the N S W State Government to require additional green open space and tree planting be provided in the Epping development plan to help make up for the loss o f visual air and open space. I acknowledge we have Boronia and Forest Parks, but with the increased population we will need increased social structures to serve the increased community. Where

are the provisions for increased services necessary for the increased population o f Epping-such as schools, hospitals, child care, aged care, as all o f these are as important as the rail and

road concerns?

I am terribly concerned about the lack o f planning for provision o f essential services such as water, sewerage, electricity and gas, as well as ambulance or fire services for the increased population o f Epping. I also have concerns regarding security, and the plans make no mention o f a planned police station for Epping.

I hope that you will, in making recommendations to the NSW Government, listen to my concerns in regard to the proposed Epping urban precinct plan.

Yours faithfully

-447( Felicity Macdonald 75 Essex Street EPPING NSW 2121


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) , - (your address)

111111 Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan

L a I

HO I I wish to advise the NSW Government and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure of the following comments regarding the Urban Activation Precinct Plan for Epping:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The height and density of the plan is grossly excessive. I do not agree with buildings in excess of°1-4-storeys in Epping's Town

a. Centre. The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping and this is not dealt with adequately in the plan. I do not agree with the rezoning of single dwelling areas to multi-unit and residentia I flats. The provision of only one lift access across Beecroft road is totally inadequate. A ramp co--eseatatar is required urgently. The provision for open space is seriously inadequate to accommodate a proposed 40% increase in the town centre population. Improvements in public amenity at street level (plazas, improved pedestrian and bike access, tree planting) is supported. The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed extension of heritage zones in Epping are strongly supported.

Regards,

(signature)

1 1st May 2013 III

The Hon Barry O'Farrell MP

Premier o f NSW GPO Box 5341 Sydney NSW 2001

The Hon. Brad Hazzard MP

1111,1111

Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Governor Macquarie Tower Level 31, 1 Farrer Place

SYDNEY NSW 2000

Director - Strategic Assessments

Department o f Planning & Infrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001

The Hon. Greg Smith, MP

Suite 303 Level 3 51 Rawson Street EPPING NSW 2121

Hornsby Shire Council

Planning & Building Department PO Box 37 HORNSBY NSW 2077

11 1 1 1 PO Box 50

Glenorie, NSW 2157

Department. of Planning

5 MAY 2015 Scarnrici Room

Dear Sirs

RE: EPPING TOWN CENTRE URBAN ACTIVATION PRECINCT PLANNING REPORT PROPOSED CHANGE IN R3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL REZONING FROM 18 METRES ( 5 STOREY) TO 12 METRES (3 STOREY) FOR CLIFF RD / HAZLEWOOD PLACE PRECINCT

I wish to object to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure's (DPI's) proposed height reduction from the 18 meters (5 storey) initially proposed by the Hornsby Shire Council in its Epping Town Centre Study of March 2011, to 12 meters (3 storey) for the 30 homes in the Cliff Road / Hazlewood Place Precinct as outlined in the Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct (ETC UAP).

I believe the ETC UAP Planning Report's proposal is not treating all residents of that precinct equitably and because of flaws in the proposal may not result in the Government achieving its goals of providing an additional 3500 new residences close to the centre of Epping infrastructure development. I recommend that the height/density reduction proposed revert to the original Hornsby Shire Council's proposal of 18 meters (5 storey) limit or be changed to allow for greater density to match the original development potential as set out in the Hornsby Council's Epping Town Centre Study.

In the original Hornsby Council's Epping Town Centre Study the finding was that the "southern portion of the (Rosebank Avenue) HCA may be suitable for increased density (as part of the Carlingford/Cliff Residential Precinct)." They were considered to be of "low heritage value" and were potential candidates for low medium density rezoning by Hornsby Council. In the ETC UAP the proposal was to zone these as HCA which has a negative height restriction impact on the surrounding houses on Cliff Road and Hazlewood Place.

Also the Epping Town Centre Study concluded that 3-storey medium density residential development was essentially uneconomic because of the high cost land in Cliff Road and Hazlewood Place and both this study and the ETC UAP appear to undervalue the land in these streets when compared to recent close by real estate sales.

Aspects of this that concern me are that developers would be reluctant to purchase these blocks because under the ETC UAP rezoning to 3 storey apartments would make any thought of redevelopment not commercially viable. This would have a number of impacts. It would mean that residents in Cliff Road and Hazlewood Place would be financially disadvantaged and would not be able to achieve a fair market value for their homes but have to remain while up to eight story apartments blocks are being built two house blocks away. It would mean that residents would also have to put up with the movement of heavy trucks and machinery, additional builders and resident's vehicles on what are currently quiet streets. The heavy trucks, machinery and builder's vehicles will eventually subside but the additional residents vehicles will only get worse along with the parking situation.

Also without the take up of these sites by developers it may be impossible for the Government to achieve its goals of providing an additional 3500 new residences.

I request the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure and Hornsby Shire Council adopt the proposed 5 storeys or 18 meters height zoning for all Cliff Road and Hazlewood Place. In doing this it is hoped that all residents in the affected area will achieve a fair and equitable price for our homes and allow them to move to a quiet and peaceful location away from this development.

I ask that consideration be given to this proposal.

Yours Faithfully

,rt,tja Mrs. Elizabeth Anderson and Mr. Geoff Randall (as joint guardians for Mrs. B S Randall of 20 Cliff Rd Epping.) All correspondence to be addressed to PO Box 50, Glenorie NSW 2157 please.

‘AlYit-NO

// -/ -72c44/Trim) 411 gz,v spelp 0,/ dry Ziti

(65-gen° 11/ 77

0?)

ri-44 "Y. :Tr /V4 /f frig'? 1•2600" 27,W, /76-2211,fr

Tre imAno

V7 277%7P? pqr izpr 9-00"

wezvi wry

-7•497°

WW1/ SI-71 ier/44V

IWP C/12,1794

fr VP° V/

7.1

22A, AV

77pe log/ "Ivor 7 7P 4pr w

e za

r //r-rimatiz -747t/ 7171W/

49 'rt 119f /h/J

/ v11/7

Irr-qw.p

Zei°v7/5 taiV

1-71 ff

777<W/iv/TV,

zaly9,/ IF

Nr gr

- //7r7P

Pr/c77/

T/7°V r

_5-s° ri? cir3 (YV. - r

7 1/A, i7f,-4/76iffp

fa

if Nfr

r#,17 iv

777 7rOgt

1-30i flige

Z2/C/ ±/i/PYYc;ziJ4//14.°J k. 4/1 :ay

pe4 wool buluums

/'?7 /kV- Z96E170113(1

Eu!uueas i•oz Avvi

6u!uueid j.c) ueu.4.1edeo

1111111111 111

Ill 111111113111 Director, Strategic Assessments, Department of Planning & Infrastructure, GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Sir,

Re: Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct

Ranjit Dutta 7 Kirkwood Avenue North Epping NSW 2121

23 April 2013

Depatnent of Planning

1 MAY 2013

Scann Rooming oom

3,650 new dwellings are proposed in the Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct. (Ref.: Chapter 6.2 Epping Urban Activation Precinct Structure Planx.pdf, page 23)

There is no indication given in the documentation as to the increase in population that this will give rise to. There-fore one is forced to make a reasonable assumption. If one is to assume that each dwelling will house approximately

two people, that is an increase in the local population of 7,300.

The first question relates to this increase in population:

Where will the money come from to provide the requisite services f o r this increase in the resident population?

These services include childcare, hospitals, ambulances, primary and high schools, aged care, social services, police and fire brigade support.

State government institutions are already strapped for human and monetary resources. Many have been scaled back in recent years due to the state's inability to adequately fund the existing needs.

Public hopsitals have been at breaking point for decades — waiting times for non-elective surgery never seem to fall and hospital beds are in short supply. (Ref.: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/elective-surgery-delays-worsen-but-only-in-nsw-20100616-ygjm.html).

Which hospitals will be upgraded to cope with the expected increase in the regional population? Ryde? Royal North Shore? Westmead? Concord?

Public education is barely adequate — having gone through the public system in the 70's and early 80's, and having put two children through the public system in the first decade of the 2000's, the new crop of teachers of today are functionally illiterate, atrocious at spelling and grammar and are effectively innumerate, even the "feat" of mental arithmetic is beyond both current day teachers and students. (Ref.: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/more-cash-fails-to-budge-school-scores/2007/01/30/1169919341542.html, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/educational-sevenyear-glitch/2007/06/13/1181414383792.html)

The thin blue line of the current Police force is under strain — it doesn't serve to deter crime, it merely acts as a mop up crew to record the details of crimes that have been committed. (Ref.: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/change-to-police-numbers

-prompts-fear-of-cri me-ri se-20111120-1npeo. html)

Then one needs to consider the additional resources required as a result of the overall population increase for greater Sydney: electricity, water, gas, sewerage treatment, waste recycling plants, garbage disposal and airports for these new residents.

Electricity prices are rising (ref.: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/power-price-revolt-20130330-2h06f. html) and the city's electrical utility Energy Australia is already in foreign hands (ref.: http://www.smh.com.au/business/next-round-of-electricity-price-rises-ahead-20121203-2aq89.html).

Our drinking water comes from one dam, Warragamba — which has only recently returned to a reasonable level after several years of being at record low levels. NSW residents outrightly oppose drinking treated effluent water (Ref.: http://www.smh.com.au/news/scorchedearth/nsw-goes-agai nst-flow-on- water/2007/01/02/1167500125064. html) despite Europeans having done so for the better part of a century.

The state has recently "mothballed" a desalination plant, built and maintained at great expense to the state. (Ref.: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/desal-plant-closure-not-waste-nsw-govt-20120626-20z7d.html )

The city is in need of another sewage treatment works. Sydney Water is already under capacity constraints and has resorted to dumping untreated effluent out to sea, which washes back onto the beaches posing health risks. (Ref.: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/look-wh os-polluting-sydney-waters-shame-20111022- lmdjr.html). Where will the state find the money to build a second sewage treatment works?

There have been plans for a second airport for Sydney since the 1970s, but successive governments have failed to take leadership on where to locate it, and more air traffic continues to flow through Sydney.

In terms of motor vehicles that will be present (either garaged or parked on the street), one also needs to assume a level of ownership of at least one vehicle per dwelling, or 3,650 additional motor vehicles within the areas.

Finally, since Epping is to become a major transport hub, not unlike present day Chatswood, with its rail and bus interchange. If the state intends to encourage commuters to use public transport, and Epping is to be a transport hub, naturally one would expect people to drive from their homes, park in Epping and commute to and from their work-places.

Thus the second question is then:

Where will these commuters park their cars?

Sadly the answer to the question of commuter parking appears in the documentation (ref: Epping Town Centre Pre-cinct Planning Report v3.2x, p. 54)

"Due to congestion on the road network and the range of other travel options for accessing Epping Railway Station, it was determined that commuter parking would not be appropriate."

This also ironically refers to existing congestion on the existing road network.

In terms of managing extra drive through traffic in Epping, the incredibly wise government contract negotiators agreed to a thirty year exclusion of widening the rail bridge over the Epping train line to support one of the privately owned roads & tunnels, which has since economically failed.

In the public documentation available for the Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct, we see beautiful art-ists impressions — what the streets will look like with glittering towers of steel, glass and concrete, almost no addi-tional

traffic, lots of people on the streets — these images invoke a similarity to the present day suburb of Rhodes, a few train stations along the rail route towards Strathfield. The documents are graphics rich and information poor, and are principally concerned with rezoning.

Considerable expense and thought has been dedicated to zoning, the anticipated construction works and the resultant buildings. But bricks, glass, concrete and steel don't define a city — they're objects to be used by people. People need services and utilities to support them. This is where the greatest considerations need to be directed.

Private enterprise will profit greatly from the short-term construction of buildings — offices and dwellings. The cash injection and temporary job growth from the construction efforts will wane quickly. Property speculators and devel-opers

will become fabulously wealthy.

The true cost of the development will be borne largely by the perpetually cash-strapped state government of NSW, and in part by the in-deficit, federal government regardless of which parties hold the reins of power, for as long as there is an Epping.

There is scant evidence in the documentation of any forethought as to how it will be funded, who will provide the essential services, and the impact on natural and man-made resources. If Epping is to flourish and grow sustainably rather than turn into a glass, steel and concrete urban ghetto, the planners at the Department of Planning and Infra-structure

need to greatly increase their appreciation of these matters.

Yours sifNerely,

Ranjit Dutta.

Director, Strategic Assessments Department of Planning & Infrastructure GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW 2001 1 May, 2013 [email protected]

Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Proposals Sir/Madam, We wish to make comment in response to the exhibition of proposals by the Department in regard to the Epping Town Centre Urban Activation project; specifically in regard to the local precinct within your assigned R3 medium density area in the block of Cliff Road / Kent Street / Carlingford Road, and nearby. Introduction To you this is an exercise in broad-brush town planning, to be carried forward to seek the ‘tick off’ of certain metrics according to government housing policies, and deliver long term results. Fair enough. To us however it is an earthquake affecting our family’s home and neighbourhood of over 35 years, and of family connections 20 years prior to even that. We therefore seek fair, quick and certain resolution. It has been years in the making, not just a few months, as we have been the collateral damage of change via wider government transport initiatives such as the M2 motorway, Chatswood – Parramatta (cut to Epping) and now NW rail-lines. Housing targets by successive governments have driven our Council to look to increase density of housing. This culminated in the Epping Town Centre Study in 2010-11, in which we argued valid reasons, for us, for no change. These were duly considered and rejected, and Hornsby Shire Council (HSC) then passed it on to you! Thus densification of our home block and neighbourhood is not a proposition that we have not seen coming for some time - and we now understand it is an idea whose time has at last come. Nor, must I may make it clear, has it been without considerable interest from the real estate development industry – we have had them quite literally on our doorstep since mid 2012! It is a once in a generation (probably two) chance to get excellence in planning for our little area, raise housing stocks close to the station, and hopefully see fairness and quick and proper recompense for us as we lose our homes, neighbourhood and assiduously acquired amenity. So we have to ask, have you got this right? Clarity of zoning proposals and controls Firstly we point out that there is some confusion in the DP&I documentation between its parts, the pertinent diagrams (attached) area: Maps HOB_001 where our area is coded as either T (28m), P (18m) or M (12m) FSR_001 which translates that to ratios of 2, 1.5, and 1 respectively and that at 5.3 in the Structure Plan that translates those to 3 storeys, 5 storeys, and 8 storeys. This was explained at a “drop-in” session as being because there is a hierarchy, but that was of little use to the residents, who weren’t privy to that.

Having eventually determined that the allowable heights are a key, matter it became obvious that they are still affected by FSR and development controls. The commercial core is assigned a Local Environment Plan, and DCP; but no such DCP is set out for our area. Rather somehow use of heights, and FSR is supposed to mesh with a DCP to be developed with Hornsby Shire Council. Application of the height categories that are proposed for Epping Town Centre would according to HSC result in a ‘convoluted hierarchy’ of planning controls in both the draft Hornsby LEP and draft Hornsby DCP that would be difficult to interpret and implement. The proposed floor space ratio strategy for the residential zones does not match the floor space ratio philosophy promoted under the Hornsby LEP for the rest of the Shire. There are no FSR controls contained in the draft Hornsby LEP for residential zones. Instead a suite of controls to manage bulk and scale, including site coverage, building heights, setbacks, landscaped area and outdoor living area is included in the draft Hornsby DCP. The proposed SEPP maps should be amended to address the inconsistency between the draft Structure Plan LEP maps and the Zoning, FSR and Height strategy applied by Council under the draft Hornsby LEP/DCP. Zoning and heights of Cliff Road (southside) It is noted that properties in this precinct are show as being medium density at a maximum height of 5 storeys (as per the ETCS) despite the band referred to in your proposals providing for up to 6 storeys, and with adjoining 8 storeys to the east. As this area it high ground it may be to reduce bulk but the land is generally falling away to the north and east from higher ground out-side the zone. It is not understood why the full 6 storey limit could not apply, providing for units more viably. Certainly though, whichever of those heights is adopted this is the prime, early development ready, high-take up area in the whole UAP. Don’t blow it! Surprise ‘heritage’ items marked in Cliff Road

We, along with neighbours, and tellingly the often long term owners of the 5 ‘surprise’ heritage item listed homes on the southern side of Cliff Road were astounded to see these in the documents. They came, ‘out of the blue; apparently a sort of heritage ‘drive-by-shooting’ as all that supports the Heritage Review is a few photos and a frankly unsupported statement;

“It is recommended that the Cliff Road items be listed as a group item as a good and highly intact congruous group representing the mid 1920s to mid 1930s development of the local area. The group demonstrate adherence to a building covenant that required a particular quality, streetscape character and setbacks which with the subdivision pattern remain evident today.”

Where did they come from? Unlike the Rosebank HCA which has had a 20 year gestation with much suggestion, study, debate, and deliberation this appears to be a brainstorm by someone (a HS Councillor perhaps?) who without any consultation thought ‘they look nice’ and they got into the process somehow.

Well they do ‘look nice’, a reflection of many decades of care and attention from their owners. Many decades in fact of redevelopment. Let us look at them more closely.

9 Cliff Road Lot 29 DP 12051, 11 Cliff Road Lot 30 DP 12051, 15 Cliff Road Lot 31 DP 12051, 17 Cliff Road Lot 32 DP 12051, 19 Cliff Road Lot 33 DP 12051 No. 19 – We live near to these and have done for 35 years. This is extensively extended and internally renovated in the 1970 and 1980s. In the 2000’s modifications made to the verandah,

garage, a car port added. The front fence is a matched post-war replacement. The lead-light windows were added in the 1970s/ No. 17 - The assessment notes “The front façade features two prominent faceted bays with leaded windows”. The main leadlight was installed by the owners in 1988. It is a reproduction. The window of the original house NEVER had a leadlight. It was an open front veranda that was later enclosed in the 1950s with a plate glass window. Therefore, any heritage significance is not valid. It notes – “a stencilled concrete driveway extends parallel to the eastern site boundary to a detached double garage located at the rear of the house.” This driveway is not original. It was constructed in 2000. The original single garage was demolished in 2000 and the double garage was built at that time. Further, “the building is a good, representative example of an Inter-war Bungalow probably constructed in the in 1930s that overall retains its original scale, form and features”. This is not correct. Extensive renovations were carried out in the 1990s which significantly increased the scale of the house compared to the original. This was ignored in the heritage report. The rear of the house is built in modern style and increased the floor space by at least 30%. The “form and feature” of this extension are not of heritage significance. Because this could not be viewed from the street, the heritage assessment ignored this and assumed the whole house “retains its original scale, form and features” No. 15 – without going into the same detail, this house was extensively extended and modified in the 1980s. It does not have a front fence as many were wooden not brick. Plantings are not at all in keeping, including palms. No. 11 (no 13) – perhaps the least changed of the homes due to the long-residence of previous owners. It however has little in the way of notable features from the period other than being double brick and tile (shared with most of the wider neighbourhood). It is arguably less significant that No. 7, which is not listed. The quote here “The house appears largely intact with no changes visible from the street” is a dead giveaway of the superficial, snapshot, cut and past, tick a box nature of this study – none of the owners were approached for access. No. 9 – ‘Randalls’ - The oldest house in the street from the Hazelwood Estate – from c. 1926/7 not 30’s as the others listed – and although in the California Bungalow style it has an enclosed verandah, probably from the 1960s; and with the Randall’s departure in our time a large rear extension in mid 80’s style. Plantings are a complete change from original, with 1990s Australian natives. As well as this sort of superficiality in the review therefore lacking public credibility, compared to the much more well researched coherent Rosebank Avenue case; it has far worse impacts. Let me spell this out – potentially these 5 so-called heritage items ‘take-out’ 12-14 blocks from viable 5 storey development. That is perhaps a yield reduction of 230-250 residential units! These faux heritage items should be removed from your plans. Need for and Viability of zoning height and controls in Cliff Road (north) and Hazelwood Place It was a surprise too to see the ETCS recommended heights for all the north side of Cliff Road reduced from 5 storeys to 3 in your plans. The reason for this appears to a new extended consideration for a ‘step-down’ for the Rosebank Avenue HCA. Why the provisions in the ETCS were changed is not clear.

The report does comment in regard to the Rosebank Avenue HCA, that, “The 18 metre height zone on the sites to the south of the area around Cliff Road is of some concern as land is relatively flat and would have greater visual impact”. As such consideration could be given to extending the 12 m height buffer zone along the northern side of Cliff Road (Nos. 18-50) and properties about Hazelwood Place (Nos. 1-16)”. So in the absence of any other direct reason, it appears that due to a seemingly throw away line - “visual impact” – somehow blocks clearly to the south and west of the RAHCA, in some cases a long way west (up to 150m away, not in line of sight, and having no overshadowing impacts being in the west-south-west), take-out around 13 blocks from the 5 storey area – an impact of up to 100 units. In fact it could be far more serious as the Land values are quite high in Epping and as a consequence the properties that are being considered to be reduced in height and FSR in Cliff road / Hazelwood Place from 5 floors to 3 floors will not be redeveloped into the distant future. This rezoned but not viable leads to lack of maintenance and residents stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Do the figures on a site combining 3 properties in Cliff Road (say. 42,44,46 Cliff Rd total area approximately 2650m2)! Under the 3 storey scenario the site may yield 24 apartments or 8 per home site. Under a 5 storey scenario the site may yield a minimum 36 apartments or 12 per home site. Unit sites under the 3 storey scenario will need to achieve $150k per unit site to achieve $1.2m which would be what the homes would be currently worth as a home today.

To see how unreal the claims of your somewhat quixotic Economic Feasibility Report into ‘Big House Apartments’ (not allowed in controls anyway) are; details of homes sold over recent years in the Cliff Road area -

7 Cliff Rd sold 21/11/09 853m2 land, price $1.22m






42C Kent St sold 9/2/13 567m2 land, price $1.32m

Not one comes within ‘coo-ee’ of the $800K land content figure that might make 3 storeys viable along the south side of Cliff Road. In short the bulk of Cliff Road on the north side (say from 26) should be re-instated to 5 storey heights, without any clear direct visual impact on the Rosebank Avenue HCA.

Rosebank Avenue HCA The Rosebank Avenue HCA is supported, although its ‘protection’ from nearby medium density development should not be overblown and lack public credibility. We are in a way sacrificing what exists of streetscape in Cliff Road, to allow this area to be protected. Summary We stress again, it is a once in a generation (probably two) chance to get increased housing in our precinct. We accept that but ask that it be done right, with both a good return in terms of additional dwellings and good urban design, BUT also fair treatment for the existing residents, done swiftly, with clarity and certainty. Our area is one that is ready, with high take-up likely. You can get early wins and targets here. Ensure medium density along Cliff / Carlingford Rds of at least 5 storeys. Removed the 5 so-called ‘heritage items’ in Cliff Road Re-instate 5 storey heights along most of Cliff Road (north) Reconsider controls such as FSR to make them for flexible and in keeping with HSC DCP. We await hearing of progress, and the gazettal of LEP/DCP. Names and address withheld from publication


Dear Sir or Madam, ll (your name) 2,4y (your address) . 2 . )324eVA1A" 11111111111111

A / 0 4 & / / LMOVZ

1.1111 111 .)11;41




Centre.







• g:".4.1, ../pracfri,4444u40/ 1:

/z)4.4."2.A..// /424.A.4. /Adi-zIk /-1=4

4 I2

/-4-1)2A' • _4,4 jj A 4 t , z "

Regards,

(signature) (date)

Department of :lanning

1 MAY 2013

Scannina Room

Michelle Cramsie - Attention: Director, Strategic Assessment

Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to express support of the Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct. I believe that with good planning and design we can have a better medium density living options with good transport, more sustainable living spaces and development of communities. I think the constant sprawl out westward so far away from the city is not a viable solution long term. I do not wish for my name to be made available on the department's website. Yours sincerely,

Date: 30/04/2013 7:43 PMSubject: Attention: Director, Strategic Assessment

Page 1 of 1

1/05/2013file://C:\Documents and Settings\mcramsie\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\5180E5A2SYDNDOM2BRI...


Dear Sir or Madam,

(your name) i b z e . E N ,72--A/K/ /1/

(your address) / / 2 / 4 4 1 1 Y / c

et74), / / I C 11111111111111111111




Centre.

• The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping and this is not dealt with adequately in the plan. -






• -77-406: a / / " / i v

. • • /

•

Regards,

Departme0 of Planning F.:(3 cc iVOCi 0 APR 2013

Scanning Room


Dear Sir or Madam,

JfflaDLIF-F-V5 P R&I (your name) go-kW.

(your address) .).7.../3 . 0.4

. E-17 WAlSuiJ




Centre.







/1/4/ JS (002— 1 5 r - i / v 6

6_, y y • 4EK jefeei1Or_comm

Regards,

(signature) 1

(date) .... 0 t

4bL-r+H 41-(11

There is absolutely no reason to rezone the Epping Town Centre in the way proposed by the Dept. of Planning and Infrastructure. There is no necessity to rezone Epping and provide high rise development of such an excessive nature.

We already have major high rise in areas such as North Sydney, Chatswood, Hornsby and Parramatta. These are the centres where further high rise development should be considered.

There is no necessity to try to develop Epping along similar lines as the above centres as Epping Station is only expected to be a rail junction for people commuting from the proposed North West Rail Link to other rail stations.

Developing Epping in the manner proposed will put impossible pressures on the roads which are already not coping with the existing traffic flows. Remedying the existing situation will be very expensive and is unlikely to be fixed without very heavy expenditure, and the funds allocated to the plan for this purpose are already grossly inadequate.

The Town Core Tallest buildings should be No more than Max 8 storeys.

The Town Core High Rise buildings No more than Max 6 storeys.

The Medium Density Residential No more than Max 4 storeys.

The above changes should be reasonable and will preserve the character of Epping without creating a little Paramatta where it is not wanted by the majority of Epping residents.

We believe that to proceed with the present plan would be a disaster for the current State Government and particularly for both Hornsby and Parramatta Councils. They will certainly be left to deal with a very unsatisfactory development which is out of control and out o f character with the existing locality, and will create immense problems as far as infrastructure is concerned.

6-7r- L

III lifi 11,11111111111 Director Strategic Assessments Department of Planning & Infrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Sir or Madam,

/ / if 2f


Department of Pnning 1 PecPiveci

30 APR 2013

S c b r n g Roo,11


• Minister, Brad Hazzard has promised in an interview on ABC TV — No increase in development without infrastructure (legislate for this in the white paper).

• Parramatta council approved 14 storey less than 18 months ago and has been signed off by state government.

• The height and density of the above plan is grossly excessive, therefore I do not agree with buildings in excess of 14 storeys in Epping's town centre.

• The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping and this has not been dealt with adequately before and in the plan.


• I'm TOTALLY opposes the increase in population within the "Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan" because this will put even more pressure to our already overcrowded local schools and hospitals.

• Inadequate infrastructure in our local area such as: electricity, water, sewer, garbage collection, etc. This MUST be addressed before any urban planning take place.

• Planning controls MUST be given back to local council. • The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed


Regards,

(signature) • ".

(date)

Director Strategic Assessments Department of Planning & Infrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Sir or Madam,


_ta-77647,

1-<ig


• Minister, Brad Hazzard has promised in an interview on ABC TV — No increase in development without infrastructure (legislate for this in the white paper).

• Parramatta council approved 14 storey less than 18 months ago and has been signed off by state government.

• The height and density of the above plan is grossly excessive, therefore I do not agree with buildings in excess of 14 storeys in Epping's town centre.

• The planned increase in population will greatly exacerbate the current gridlock traffic congestion in and through Epping and this has not been dealt with adequately before and in the plan.


• I'm TOTALLY opposes the increase in population within the "Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan" because this will put even more pressure to our already overcrowded local schools and hospitals.

• Inadequate infrastructure in our local area such as: electricity, water, sewer, garbage collection, etc. This MUST be addressed before any urban planning take place.

• Planning controls MUST be given back to local council. • The protection of existing heritage conservation areas and the proposed


Regards, _

(signature) 4"

(date) / 5

Michelle Cramsie - Response to Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan

Rachel Sullivan and David Malka<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

74 Norfolk Road

North Epping, NSW 2121

Email: [email protected]

Director, Strategic Assessments NSW Department Planning and Infrastructure GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001

By e-mail: [email protected] Cc: Greg Smith, member for Epping

30 April 2013

Dear Madam or Sir,

Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on the Department of Planning’s plans for the Epping Urban Activation Precinct.

While I appreciate some attempt has been made to conserve some aspects of the area’s urban character, if the new development proceeds as is and allows excessively tall buildings into an area characterised by low density buildings that rarely exceed three storeys (and whose appearance can be softened by the presence of large trees) it will fundamentally change the suburb, taking it from a homogeneous area to one that exists in two parts. It should also be noted that on the eastern side of the tracks the underlying topography means that tall buildings will appear even more so, and cast long and unappealing shadows over the area.

However, my overriding concern with this plan is that not only is there little provision for parking, there is no allowance for any additional infrastructure that will allow Epping residents to leave their suburb and join arterial roads. I appreciate that it is the Planning Department’s short tern objective

From: "Rachel Sullivan" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>Date: 30/04/2013 10:48 AMSubject: Response to Epping Urban Activation Precinct Plan

Page 1 of 4


to squeeze extra people into transport corridors, however, if the underlying transport is inadequate then it is merely creating a very expensive problem to be solved by future incarnations of NSW Planning. Surely, it is better to do it once, and do it right?

We are residents of North Epping, and joining Beecroft Road or Blaxland Road through Langston Place is already painfully slow. Even on a Saturday, it can take as much as half an hour to get through the lights at Epping Bridge, a natural bottleneck for all traffic coming and going through Epping. Widening or duplicating Epping Bridge seems to not be part of any current plans for the area, and this is only one of several pinch points and accident black spots the plan fails to address.

When I raised this concern with both the consultant and planning representative present at the meeting held on Saturday at the Epping RSL, the consultant’s response was to say there is simply no more room for any infrastructure, and that – essentially – we will just have to live with it (a). The consultant also said that in 10-20 years there will be fewer cars on the road, as more people will use public transport (b) .The Planning Department representative said that Epping is one of the most well-serviced areas in Sydney when it comes to infrastructure (c).

I would like to address each of these points in turn.

a) The widely acknowledged reason that Sydney’s transport is so congested is that development consistently precedes the provision of adequate infrastructure, and that decades later people are still paying the price while developers have long since moved on to greener pastures. If the current volume of residents struggle to leave the suburb – even when they only use their vehicles sporadically, what will at least 4000 additional cars mean?

b) The consultant’s assumption that fewer people will have cars is at best naïve and at worst negligent. Even if people opt to cycle, take the train or bus to work, on weekends they will still jump in their cars to take their kids to sport, visit family and friends, have family and friends visit them, go to the supermarket to buy groceries, take a trip to the garden centre, to the Blue Mountains or undertake any one of hundreds of other activities.

c) Epping is indeed well serviced for infrastructure compared with other parts of Sydney. Yet, as outlined above, it is almost impossible to find parking in the commercial part of Epping (where this development will be concentrated), and leaving the suburb can take a very long period of time. We are unusual for Epping in that as a family we have consciously decided to go from two cars to one, with one partner cycling to work and working from home, while the other is required to drive. Wherever possible we cycle around Epping and to Macquarie Centre, but we still use the car to buy groceries, take children to swimming and other lessons and so on. As our children age, I expect our usage patterns will change again depending on need; in line with demographic data recently released by the ABS I also expect that our children will stay living at home at least until their late teens, when they will no doubt want to buy cars as well – just like all of the other Epping teens/young adults.

While Australian planners like to point to European or Asian public transport usage patterns, one of the key differences is that either the whole city is densely populated with small shops of every sort in the base of all apartment buildings (such as Nice or Florence, for example) meaning that people are less reliant on supermarkets to meet their needs, or in the case of Singapore, public transport is

Page 2 of 4


fast, ubiquitous, stops every couple of hundred metres, and generally goes where people wish to go. When it comes to bringing home the weekly groceries, a plentiful supply of cheap taxis fills the void. We have lived in both Singapore and France and can say with conviction that neither Sydney in general, nor Epping in particular comes close to matching these models.

Take what appears to be the convenient link between Epping and Macquarie University/Centre via the North West Rail Link. The model proposed suggests that people moving into the new developments will rely solely on public transport. As this area is a family area, and is also undergoing demographic change as migrants settle in the area for its good quality schools, it is likely that extended families will be the main occupants of the new apartments. Most of the families in this area, particularly those of Asian background, take a very strong interest in the children’s academic and sporting pursuits. There are many providers that meet these needs, with Macquarie University’s Aquatic and Leisure Centre teaching many local kids swimming and gymnastics. The train station is almost 1km from the sports centre, and few parents would be willing to devote either the time or the energy to forcing their children to walk that distance before a sports lesson, and then back again afterwards when they are tired and hungry.

And this is just one example of how looking at lines on a map does not reflect the reality of how people live in their local area.

Other concerns In addition, the planners have clearly attempted to design podium-style buildings that do not overshadow the existing streetscape, especially in Oxford Street, although in the concept drawings that were on display at the Epping Club, old photographs of the street were used, that is they predated the extensive works undertaken by Hornsby council to remove kerb and guttering, widen footpaths, plant trees, and reduce available parking spaces by at least a third. In order to present an accurate picture of the streetscape these concepts need to be updated to reflect the current, look, feel and dimensions of the street. There is also no doubt that at certain times of the day, tall buildings on either side of Oxford street will take turns casting long shadows over the street, changing its sunny character, making it much harder for the attractive street plantings to reach maturity, and generally creating a dark, cold, oppressive canyon-like feeling.

There was also no clear word on what controls would be put in place to ensure that developers comply with the style of building the planning indicates. Knowing the developers who own the bulk of Epping’s commercial real estate, and their determination to wring every last drop out of any new development, I would like to know how NSW Planning will ensure a homogenous streetscape will be assured should this plan be rubber-stamped.

Finally, there seems to be no provision for increased pressure on local schools and recreational facilities that will come from a conservative 10,000 new residents to the suburb. During peak periods local parks/ovals are already straining under the weight of competing user groups wanting access to the facilities to play organised or casual sports, walk their dogs or kick a ball with their kids. The development plan does not seem to allow any additional green space (no money in it for developers perhaps?) or even community garden style facilities for those living in the new apartments.

Page 3 of 4


We look forward to reviewing the revised plans for Epping, and are very happy to comment further on my submission by either contacting us on the above email address, or by telephone at 9617 0122.

Sincerely

Rachel Sullivan and David Malka


Page 4 of 4


Michelle Cramsie - Comments on Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct.

Dear Sir/Madam, I understand from your web-site that any comments on the Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Project may be made to this email address. I write to complain, first about the process adopted by planning agencies in arriving at the latest Epping Town Centre Plan, and second, at the development proposed for Epping in the plan. I am a resident of Epping for ten years. I was convinced to make my home here at least in part by the work of the Epping Commercial Centre Master Plan, prepared by Parramatta and Hornsby Council. This plan, prepared by professional planners and architects, was adopted by the Councils in December 1999. In brief it allowed for a pedestrian scale to the northern end of Rawson Street with a two to three story height limit. Beyond this, with a setback of five metres, it was considered appropriate to allow a height limit of eight storeys. Elsewhere in Epping Centre, a height limit of four storeys was considered appropriate. Some years later, 2009 to 2011, Parramatta and Hornsby Council worked to develop a Local Environment Plan for Epping. These plans were based upon population densities nominated by the then state government, and must have fully comprehended the transport network that had developed around Epping as a hub. After lengthy public discussion, Parramatta Council accepted an LEP in which building heights in the Epping Town Centre were generally limited to 14 storeys or below in height. This LEP was gazetted by the present Government. Many people were unhappy with that increase in building height, particularly given the poor infrastructure in the area, but accepted that there had to be increases in population densities.. However this latest plan based on the Urban Activation Project developed by NSW Planning and Infrastructure effectively ignores the core recommendation of the Parramatta LEP as to building height limits, and raises them to 22 storeys. I personally strongly object to such an increase in building height. It will destroy the amenity of the town of Epping, creating shade and windy environment between buildings. It is a gross overdevelopment. And the increased population will only exacerbate the problems with present inadequate roads, footpaths, parking areas, and other infrastructure. I believe that the building heights and other features of the Parramatta LEP should be maintained. Sincerely, Michael James MOFFATT P3/38 Victoria St, Epping, NSW 2121 02 98686776 0421 859070 [email protected] ,

From: "Mike Moffatt" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Date: 30/04/2013 1:13 PMSubject: Comments on Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct.

Page 1 of 1


(30/04/2013) Michelle Cramsie - Submission - Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct Seite 1

From: <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>CC: <[email protected]>Date: 24/04/2013 4:10 pmSubject: Submission - Epping Town Centre Urban Activation PrecinctAttachments: Epping Town Plan Affecting House No 7[1].doc

TO:Director, Strategic AssessmentsDepartment of Planning & InfrastructureGPO Box 39Sydney NSW 2001 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: SUBMISSION - EPPING TOWN CENTRE URBAN ACTIVATION PRECINCT

We draw your kind attention to the plans currently under exhibition for the Epping Urban Activation Precinct and wish to express some serious concerns over the Department’s proposal.

Your present proposal has medium density five and six storey buildings on three sides of our dwelling, i.e. the North, West and South, and is very detrimental to our property in terms of privacy, health and value. Under your proposal, the following adverse effects to us will be evident:

1. We will be surrounded on three sides by tall buildings and our property will be aesthetically diminished in outlook.

2. There will be severe overshadowing of our property and this is evidenced by the shadow diagrams attached. In winter time, our backyard will be deprived of sunlight throughout the day. Our living areas will also be substantially darkened during the day. The secondary effect will thus be a significantly colder and darkened household.

3. Loss of ventilation. The proposed buildings on north, south and west will seriously reduce the amount of natural ventilation to our property.

4. Loss of privacy. From a position of total privacy which we presently enjoy, your proposal will jeopardise this aspect of our living to a total loss of our privacyresulting from apartments overlooking into our property.

We sincerely hope you understand that your proposal as it stands is untenable and unacceptable to any ordinary citizen and resident of your community as it compromises our privacy, affects ventilation and could result in health issues associated with the loss of sunlight and ventilation.

We therefore respectfully request you to exercise sensible and reasonable care and reconsider your proposal in light of our arguments.

We also would like to advise that we are a party to a joint submission by our town-planner, Urbanesque Planning Pty Ltd, for the group of residents in the area.

Your acknowledgement of this submission and any comments would be appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

……………………………............................ .........................................................

Wei Han Kim Yee Fong Kim

(30/04/2013) Michelle Cramsie - Submission - Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct Seite 2

Owners of No.7, Norfolk Road, Epping, NSW 2121

Michelle Cramsie - Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct

19 Forest Grove Epping NSW 2121 30 April 2013 Attention: Director, Strategic Assessment Department of Planning & Infrastructure PO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Dear Sir, Re: Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct My family and I object to the proposal for the following reasons: We would like to expand on the traffic and parking which are issues that we raised in our submission on 29/04/2013 at 11.39pm. Not only is it difficult to reverse out of our driveway from 4pm to 4.30pm but it also difficult to enter our driveway at that time. Traffic is banked up on Forest Grove and is at a standstill for a long time. This morning my husband and I were driving to work at 8.45am. We observed that there was no parking space available in Forest Grove and Maida Road. We had difficulty turning right into Maida Road from Forest Grove as the parked cars were parked too close to Forest Grove and blocked our view. This has been a problem for a few years. I often see residents of the existing units parking on Forest Grove. Building five or higher storey units on Forest Grove will seriously worsen the parking situation because residents of those units will want to park on Forest Grove and Maida Road. Please consider our issues. Please do not make our names available to interested public authorities and we do not want our names to appear on the department's website. Yours faithfully,

From: To: <[email protected]>Date: 30/04/2013 2:34 PMSubject: Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct

Page 1 of 1


29 April 2013 Philippa Esdaile 4 Rockleigh Way Rockleigh Park Estate EPPING NSW 2121 Attention: Director, Strategic Assessment I am writing regarding the proposed Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct. There are some aspects of the proposal that I support, in particular the plan to improve Oxford and Rawson Streets, the planned public plaza in Rawson Street with underground car parking and the increased retail and commercial activities. These planned changes do not infringe on existing residential homes, yet they allow for new apartment blocks, retail, office and open public spaces and will revitalise Epping Centre. I also support retaining and extending the existing Heritage Conservation zones and I would also strongly suggest that there should be a commuter car park built at Epping Railway Station to relieve the problem of commuters clogging up the surrounding streets by parking their cars all day. Another aspect that has not been addressed in this plan is a second pedestrian crossing at Beecroft & Carlingford Roads to access the railway station. However I strongly object to other aspects of the proposal on the following grounds: 1) As an owner/ resident of a property in (currently classified Medium Density B) Rockleigh Park Estate fronting Essex Street, my home is directly affected by the proposal to rezone both Rockleigh Park Estate and Essex Street to allow 3 – 6 storey apartment blocks. If this proposal was to proceed and existing single residence dwellings in Essex Street are subsequently demolished and replaced with 3 -6 storey blocks, they would tower over my home, creating a totally invasion of my privacy, block my natural light, cast shadows over my sunny courtyard gardens and wipe hundreds of thousands of dollars off the value of my property. 2) The act of rezoning this land will immediately destroy the value of my home if I try to sell it, even if these neighbouring properties are not sold to property developers for another 10 years. This is an outrageous situation and one that I never anticipated when I purchased my home 13 years ago and then subsequently totally rebuilt it following a house fire 10 years ago. 3) I’m shocked and appalled that a highly desirable quality development such as Rockleigh Park Estate that is beautifully designed for medium density living in quiet garden settings can be suddenly rezoned by a government department for 3 – 6 storey intensification. This would totally destroy the ambience and the nature of our Community development of 36 homes. Surely Rockleigh Park Estate should be held up as a model medium density design in order to create quiet family friendly leafy community developments bordering Epping Town Centre. 4) The added congestion caused by the additional volume of traffic with hundreds of extra residents living in Essex Street would have a very detrimental effect on the suburb and our lifestyle.

I am horrified that the NSW State Government would propose this major rezoning plan and subject Epping residents to seeing their property values tumble and losing their privacy as well as the leafy charming residential atmosphere that attracted them to the suburb in the first place. Please accept my submission and I await to hear that the NSW Government and the Department of Planning & Infrastructure takes residents’ concerns into account and amends this excessive proposal. Yours Sincerely Philippa Esdaile

Michelle Cramsie - FW: Epping Town Centre

Subject: FW: Epping Town Centre

From: David Cale [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013 2:48 PM

Subject: RE: Epping Town Centre

Dear Sir/Madam

It is positive to see that the NSW Government is revitalising the Epping Town Centre. Whilst the concept is

good we believe there are some major issues with heights and FSR. We were originally contacted by Hill PDA

whom prepared the Epping Feasibility Analysis of Key Sites for information regarding unit sales and

commercial and retail rates for lease and sale.

We have had architects look at a number of sites where the State Government proposes to reduce FSR and

heights in areas including, Cliff Road, Hazelwood place and Forest Grove and the seven eleven fuel station

corner of Beecroft Rd and Carlingford road (3000m2). The figures for redevelopment in these areas are

simply not feasible.

Land values are quite high in Epping and as a consequence the properties that are being considered to be

reduced in height and FSR in Cliff road Hazelwood place and Forest Grove from 5 floors to 3 floors will not

be redeveloped. A reduction in FSR for example of a property at 16 Cambridge street Epping which is

situated on approximately 1917m2 with a proposed height of 72m and an FSR of 4.5 to 1 will yield

approximately 32 apartments. The current owner purchased the property which is a commercial building in

2011 for $6.5m. This equates to $203,125 PER UNIT SITE. This site will not be redeveloped and is one of the

larger land holdings in the CBD.

We have also had an architect do the figures on a site combining 3 properties in Cliff Road (42,44,46 Cliff

Rd total area approximately 2650m2). Under the 3 storey scenario the site may yield 24 apartments or 8 per

home site. Under a 5 storey scenario the site may yield 36 apartments or 12 per home site. Unit sites under

the 3 storey scenario will need to achieve $150k per unit site to achieve $1.2m which would be what the

homes would be currently worth as a home today. Please find details of homes sold over the last several

years in both Cliff road and Forest Grove, please note details may not be exact but are very close-





49 Cliff Rd sold 22/3/07 935m2land, price $1.24m

42C Kent St sold 9/2/13 567m2land, price $1.32m

9 Forest Grove sold 23/6/11 980m2 land, price $1.21m



25 Forest Grove sold 20/8/11 1043m2 land, sold $1.155m

29 Forest Grove sold 17/10/09 894m2 land, sold $1.08m

From: "David Cale" <[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>Date: 30/04/2013 10:57 AMSubject: FW: Epping Town CentreCC: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Page 1 of 3


There have been a number of areas rezoned under the NSW Housing Strategy near Epping which have been

recently sold. Properties in Carlingford and Beecroft. These sites are zoned for apartments to 5 floors or

17.5m .Please find details below

CARLINGFORD

64 Keeler St Carlingford sold 9/1/12 . 892m2 land sold $1.5m


66 Keeler ST Carlingford sold 17/2/12 . 892m2 land sold $1.425m




BEECROFT

7 Chapman Ave Beecroft sold 13/9/12 .1043m2 land sold $1.62m

7A Chapman Ave Beecroft sold 13/9/12 .710m2 sold $1.62m

7B Chapman Ave Beecroft sold 13/9/12. 710m2 land sold $1.62m

7C Chapman Ave Beecroft sold 13/9/12. 710m2 land sold $1.62m

The NSW Government has had the courage to make this change, I respectfully request that these issues are

seriously considered, we do not want to go through another rezoning in another 5 to 10 years.

I would also request the NSW Government rethink their plans for the number of parking required in the

new apartment rezoning . Parking in the Genesis building (corner Beecroft road and Carlingford road Epping)

is one of the major problems that the owners corporation deal with on a day to day basis. If there is not

enough parking in the buildings then the roads will be choked with cars from people who are living in

apartments. This is a problem now.

I hope this has been of some assistance. If you would like concept plans or further information please

contact.

Sincerely

David Cale

Licensed Real Estate Agent/Auctioneer

Director

P 02 9869 7266

F 02 9868 2679

M 0419 827 588

IMPORTANT INFORMATION *** This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential or

legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis-transmission. If you

receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must

not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions

expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority,

states them to be the opinions of Cale Property Agents. Neither the sender nor Cale Property Agents warrants that any

communication via the Internet is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Information is distributed

without warranties of any kind.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013 10:48 AM

To: [email protected] Subject: FW:

From: Ray Williams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 24 April 2013 10:01 AM

To: '[email protected]'

Page 2 of 3


Subject: FW:

Dear Bruce ,

As per your request for a meeting with Andrew Jackson of the Department of Planning,

I have attached a disclosure form which is required to be filled out by yourself and anyone else proposing to

attend this meeting.

Once the forms are completed would you please forward them to me and I will pass on to the Ministers

office on your behalf.

A meeting will then be arranged.

Regards Ray Williams

Page 3 of 3


2 Brucedale Ave Epping 2121 30th April 2013 Attention: Director, Strategic Assessment Department of Planning and Infrastructure GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001 Dear Mr File, Re: Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct Having examined the relevant information documents I appreciate that there are some positive benefits of the plan including the preservation of existing heritage conservation zones and proposed new zones, as well as a blueprint for the future Epping Town Centre development. However my concerns or objections relate to:

- Existing traffic congestion can only be made considerably worse by the plan with such a significant increase in people and vehicles. This issue has not been adequately addressed in the plan. Encouraging people to use public transport makes sense however past governments have done little about solving commuter parking.

- No significant increase in public open space to cater for the increased

population. - No proposal to deal with already overcrowded schools.

- Up to 22 storeys would seem excessive in this area and I feel height restriction

of 12 storeys would be more in keeping with the area and existing building heights.

-

Yours sincerely Derek Boult

4oo/o /) /tA-./'- · proposed 4oo/o increase in the town centre population.. lmprovements in public...

Documents

Transcript of 4oo/o /) /tA-./'- · proposed 4oo/o increase in the town centre population.. lmprovements in public...