76

97 Elliott Avenue EAST RYDE NSW 2113

28TH April, 2013

Dear Planning Minister and related people of concern

I strongly object to the scale and size of the State Government's Urban Activation Precinct {UAP} Program. This program sees the development of high rise {some up to 30 storeys in height) of areas around North Ryde Station, Herring Road Macquarie Park and Tennis World.

I have attended informatíon sessions related to this issue and the following issues cause me disquiet:

were as if it was all decided and "no discussion would be entered in to". Although we were told we could write submissions, one wonders the value of these if decisions have already been taken. This is not democratic.

Epping Road. ln order to turn to go to the city the traffic would be routed through already narrow and congested residential streets. Residential streets on the south s¡de of Epping Road are generally only wide enough for parking on one side and two lanes of slowly moving traffic.

housed in large tower blocks in the inner city and the social dislocation and dysfunction that this living produced. Fortunately most of these blocks have now been demolished. Why oh why would you want to repeat this?

more routes) that would enable easy access to the railway, community and retail areas.

residents. Demountab¡e classrooms willtake the space allotted for play area in the playgrounds

to accept more students?

private homes - homes where backyards will be overshadowed and overlooked by the tower blocks. Also the people in the blocks on the north side of Epping Road will need recreation space. The residents of the tower to be bu¡lt on the space where the Service Stat¡on on Epping Road in Lane Cove will also need recreation space. Tennís World and the current Blenheim Park are vital to the people of North Ryde who value these recreation areas.

there are few families and where mostly singles or couples live. I cannot see that this would be quite as acceptable to families.

services such as hospitals, fire, police and ambulance to cope with the expected increase in population. Please heqr and respond to the concerns of people who have invested their lives in making North Ryde one of the best places in Sydney to live and work and do not overdevelop the area.

Yours sincerely, t,*t &ar¡

{Mrs) Carol Bickerstaff WICKS RD PTY LTD ATF 115 Rd ABN 49 11A 470 143

1 May 2013

Department of Planning & lnfrastructure GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2OO1

ATTENTION: Director, Strategic Assessment

Dear Sir

NORTH RYDE STAT¡ON PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL

I speak for myself and my business partners who own the property at 1 15 Wicks Road, Macquarie Park. We operate a geotechnical and environmental practice along with a laboratory, as well as park and maintain the equipment that we use in our operations. lt was precisely this type of operation which was envisaged and encouraged in this area under the LEP at the time when we purchased the premises in 2006.

For the most part we find our location a sound choice for the type of operation we run, which involves up to 4O staff who have to visit or work at sites all over the Sydney region on a daily basis. The biggest drawback to our efficient operation by far is the existing traffic congestion, most particularly the evening peak hour when Wicks Road becomes gridlocked and our driveway entrance is blocked for extended periods. Not only is this frustrating but it is also dangerous.

The proposal we see put before us to allow high density development on the land adjoining our premises (the M2 site) has only one effective entry/exit for vehicular traffic and that is opposite the Wicks Road/Waterloo Road intersection. As traffic is already at saturation point at that intersection, it is illogical to state that "residential development will result in lower traffic volumes than commercial". The question that should be asked is "what additional traffic volume is Wicks Road capable of accepting?". The size and density of the development must be worked back from that point. Your current proposal is likely to make our business operation unviable. I see no evidence to indicate the effect of the eventual development on the Peter Board High School Site on traffic forecasts; we were already concerned about the effects of that development.

The only alternative we see if your high density residential zoning is to proceed would be for the whole of Wicks Road to be zoned similarly and we will take our business elsewhere. ls that really the outcome you advocate?

115 Wicks Road, Macquarie Park NSW 2113 r Tel:02 9888 5000 . Fax:02 9888 5OO3 Postal Address: PO Box 976, North Ryde BC NSW 1670

Last printed 1lo5l2o13 1:53:00 PM Ref : North Ryde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal May 2013 Page 2

Should you require any further information regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours faithfully For and on behalf of WICKS RD PTY LTD

P Stubbs Director

Last printed 1lo5l2o13 1:53:00 PM N @

22 Stroud Street,

East Ryde 2113

Apr¡128th,2113

r..r+¡/....! i,, Delr(1liirli,,, ;r:rrl:.irì Attent¡on : Director Strategic Assessment r' ':ì

Department of Planning and lnfrastructure, / g Apfi riil.1

GPO Box 39. \i..-'..,1 - UL,':rtil¡j!" 1 ;. 'i, Sydney NSW 2001

NORTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZON:NG PROPOSAL

We write to express the strongest objection to the proposal currently under consideration.

Such objection is based on the already congested major and local roads that w:ll have an increased and devastating effect on traffic flows near to, and further afield from the proposed plans.

For example the congestion along Epping Road in the morning peak hour forces vehicles from outside the iocal area to seek alternative routes, via suburban streets, attempting to gain quicker access to the Lane Cove Tunnel,Delhi and Mowbray Roads.

Twin Road being just one example as other feeder roads such as Lane Cove,Wicks and,Badajoz Roads become clogged.

This congestion causes potential danger to the several primary schools in the area, along with effect of delays for residen:s seeking access to local shopping centres and bustransport.

We would also draw attention to the present congest¡on on Delhi Road,complicated by a railway station,existing offices and a busy cemetery.No parking ex¡sts at the railway stat¡on and a drop off area is difficult to enter already.

As stated the future development indicates "a mix of residential,community and recreational use".which already exists ín the City of Ryde,and this precinct in particular.

High rise residential buildings in this area,adding hundreds more commuters to an already overcrowded environment is ludicrous.

Further development of the scale proposed would be catastrophic in relation to transport,road and community problems caused by over development when it appears that |ittle,or no study has been done regarding the issues of existing,and future road congestion. 2

Surely any new development should start with considering improvement in roads and allied infrastructure before a large area (approximately 14ha) becomes pertinent.

The previous planning by the City of Ryde in separating light industry to the northern side of Epping Road has worked well for both light industry and residents providing mutual community benefit.

Why this needs to be changed ín the interest of ill considered planning objectives is both confounding and unnecessary.

We would both declare that we have made no political donations in the past two years with the hope that this objection receives positive consideration.

Sincerely, ') A"Ø laÁ r u{' Christine Leek Norman Leek

cc. MrVictor Dominello

Member for Ryde.

5-9 Devlin Street,

Ryde NSW 2112 22 Stroud Street,

Est Ryde NSW 2113

26th March 2013

Mr Brad Hazzard,

Member for Wakehurst

Minister for Planning and lnfrastructure,

Shop 3 2 H/.R t 2u7j

637 -641 Pittwater Road, -t.r r'2,5

Dee Why NSW 2099

Dear Mr Hazzard,

Proposed Developments North Rvde Precinct

We write to add to the concern of many residents of North Ryde,including our Federal Member for Bennelong, regarding the proposed development on the southern side of Epping Road.

One of the features of North Ryde has been the earlier decisions of both state and local government to separate,effectively,the industrial ,commercial areas of the City of Ryde from residential areas.

This separation has worked well enabling schools to operate safely,provide a suburban family lifestyle and still allow for industry to function within a relatively short distance from the city.

While the need for some progress is understandable, providing high rise construction on sites such as Tennis World etc will have an disastrous effect on the already heavy traffic congestion clearly evident today.

For example traffic from other areas,using side roads such as Twin Road,Wicks Road,Blenheim Road etc to gain access to an already congested Epping Road and the Lane Cove Tunnel have reached hazardous risks for children and local commuters,particularly in peak hours. The North Ryde station presents another problem with no parking .Additional traffic generated by an increased population will create chaos on Delhi Road.

Before any decision is reached serious consideration should be given to the effect of any proposed development regarding traffic congestion,safety and pollution concerns and the effect on a community whose daily lives are about to be manipulated by the insatiable quest by developers (and dare we say it governments) for profit and the so called benefits of progress.

As a suggestion any planning must include the effect of road congestion in an area which feeds traffic from existing and planned motorways into Epping and Delhi roads.

Your considerat¡on to these matters is of vital importance,particularly the sabotage of green and open areas in a well established local community

Sincerel¡

/ , 'y'.¡ 1" Cq f*á Norman Leek Christine Leek

Cc .Mr John Alexander,OAN, MP,

Federal Member for Bennelong

PO Box 872,

Epping NSW 1710 NORTH RYDE STATION PREC¡NCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Name

Address

Attn: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Department of Planning & lnfrastructure, GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW 2001 Email: plan [email protected]

I Stronslv obiect to the North Rvde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal. The reasons for mv obiection include:

lnadequate community consultation: For a S1-2bn project that has been described by Transport for NSW as being comparable to Barrangaroo, the community consultation, has and continues to be woefully inadequate. This is contrary to the White Poper policy that requires community consultation at the strategic level. The two drop-in sessions provided to the community were a presentation implying what was to come, rather than an opportunity for the community to provide meaningful input. This consultation is nowhere near adequate for a rezoning proposal that will have long term and far reaching impacts on the City of Ryde for decades to come.

No independent, objective assessment process: There is no objective, independent assessment process for the rezoning study. The Department of Planning will be assessing its own study. The Minster for Planning will then be allowed to approve the rezoning without any other independent assessment required. This is completely unacceptable, especially for a rezoning that will hand over nearly 14Ha of public owned land to developers with massive profits to be made. This process has less independence in the approval process than the much despise Part 3a provisions.

The extreme building heights, density and lack of open space: Within the current design there are no considerations for the existing community of North Ryde in terms of additional open space, instead the proposal intends to remove existing open, recreational space from the community. The rezoning will result in only L4% of the 14Ha site being designated open space. This ratio of open space is significantly lower than other recent developments in Sydney including Harold Park 138%1, Victoria Park (41o/ol and even Central Park in the middle of the Sydney CBD (30%). The population density of the development will be approximately 32,6OO/km2 + , indicating that this population density is comparable to the most dense cities in the world. Yet the development area is not a CBD; it is bordered by a high tech commercial area, residential houses and a cemetery. The building heights proposed will create shadows over residential houses, child care settings and a school. The heights must be reduced to a reasonable level, and be capped at medium density so it is no higherthan its surrounding commercial buildíngs.

Our hospitals, police and schools, both publ¡c and pr¡vate are at capac¡ty: The figures used by the DPI are incorrect and out dated. For an area which has schools both public and private currently at capacity, there are no provisions for new schools for approximately 2,750 dwellings (consisting of L,2 & 3 bedrooms, including student accomrnodation and serviced apartments). We do not want to increase the size of our current local schools.

Tennis World has to remain a recreat¡onal facility for our children and future generat¡ons: Australia has one of the largest obesity problems in the world and need more recreational areas, not less. This site also backs onto family homes and any development will overlook their backyards and impinge on their privacy.

Traffic: Traffic congestion is already a significant issue in the whole Ryde area, and in particularthe roads surrounding the proposed North Ryde Station precinct. The notion that everyone is going to be riding bikes or walking is ludicrous. Sydney does not have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport. The reports presented do not provide any solutions. The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epping Road and Macquarie Business Park will be further exasperated in peak hours. Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand the full impact of proposed developments. We note also that the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) rejected the Allengrove Cres Development in 2012 for reasons including the adverse impact the 200+ apartments would have on the already congested local roads. The North Ryde Station Precinct is located only 800m from the Allengrove Development and yet is 10+ times the density.

Accessibility to train station: The development site, adjoining North Ryde train station is an ideal place for a transport interchange rather than high rise housing. A substantial car park and bus interchange could be constructed to enable better use of public transport while taking traffic from the M2 off Epping Road. North Ryde is the only station on the line that has sufficient space for such a transport oriented facility. The M2 site was set aside back in the 1950's for transport use and would be ideal for such a transport interchange.

Significant environmental impacts: The remnant Sydney Turpentine-lronbark Forest (STIF) located at on and adjacent to sections of the development site, is one of a few remaining areas left in Sydney of this critically endangered ecological community. lts' long term survival is questionable being stranded and surrounded by such high rise and development density. This will have ecological community consequences, not only on the STIF, but the surrounding Lane Cove National Park and the effects of run-off on the Lane Cove River catchment, the ground-water and the long-term effects of building shadows on the vegetation surrounding the development site.

We hope you will be a government who listens to and respects it people and not make mistakes now that will remaín with us for generations to come.

Yours sincerely ø

234 Epping Road ilililil tlliltililtlililtl!il North Ryde 2113 Ph/fax 9887 27A3 wilbyl [email protected] 17 April,20i3 Director of Strategic Assessment Deparimeni i;f íriannina Department of Planning and Infrastructure Ri:er:ivi:¡i GPO Box 39 i I APtt t01.j Sydney 2001 Sctiíriiilìg Fìr.'utl I Submission re: -.J North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct Rezoning Application

ï989 . . . 1992 . . .1997. . . 2008 . . .2013:It's said thatthose who cannot rememberthe past are condemned to repeat it. On many memorable occasions in the past 24 yeats, assorted bureaucrats and developers have suffered a sudden inspiration regarding landuse for selected spots in North Ryde. The community remembers. The bureaucracy may be doomed to repeat a well-deserved rejection. Due to the community's angry demand for straight answers, a public meeting was held ai the North Ryde community centre in Coxs Road, 18 June 1997. The exercise was virtually repeated, at the same location, on the evening of 1 5 April 201 3.

The history First time arould, the topic was thirteen Norrh Ryde land parcels, identified as M2 Surplus and eannarked by DUAP, Department of Urban Affairs, for rezoning and development. The thirteen rezoning proposals had been treated by State and Local Government authorities as one big "internal document" not available for public display. Outstanding features were: l. eerie similarity to the RTA's 1992 mapping of M2 acquisitions deemed suitable for handover to a private consortium, as an inducement to build a tollroad with an unsatisfactory rate of retum. 2. a fixation on bulky goods warehousing as the highest conceivable landuse for the best. biggest and most visible site. 3. claims that having so much Ryde bushland was selfish when some western suburbs were short oftrees. 4. apparently unshakeable conviction by designated DUAP personnel that rezoning of all thiteen rezonings were complelely and equally justified . . . and best managed by keeping the local community at the greatest possible distance. Six months after the Coxs Rd meeting of 1997, Ryde MLA Joh¡l Watkins brokered a new process initiated by DUAP Minister Craig Knowles, managed by a facilitator paid to be independent,- genuinely engaging the community and a seleclion of rather less rigid representatives of all State Government bodies involved. Appropriate usage of most sites was resolved in timely, rational, adult fashion. Two parcels, Tennis"World and RTA property near Bundara Reserve, were removed from discussion and untbrtunately left unresolved. Locals took this as a tacit admission that the parcels' small sizes, awkward locations and dangerous access rendered them hardly vyorth the trouble of rezoning. Regrettably, this inaclion left the lessee of thc Tennis World site and the tenants of the three RTA-owned homes at 23 , 2l A and 2l Epping Rd in a state of permanent insecurity. It also provided no certainty regarding the open land adjoining Bundara Reserve. As a result, bushcare and weed eradication on this land was sporadic in both timing and execution. On ra¡e occasions, the M2 Tollway operators sent in a team armed with brush- cutters and heavy-dufy weedicides. Although forbidden to work on this land, the local bushcare group dicl some hand-weeding to reduce weedspread into Bundara Reserve proper.

The repetition Since the 1997 rczoning push, private tollroad operators have demonstrated that they do not require gifts of extra land, high-rise vertical dormitories have replaced warehouses as the lalest landuse favourite, and there has been an admission that City of Ryde is actually short of green space. These days, there also is considerable talk (and varying degrees of real commitment) concerning community engagement. Sixteen years after the M2 Surplus Lands controversy. the drawbacks which favoured the status quo on Tennis World and the Bundara site have been overlooked by a ne\ry crop of planners. Untroubled by such concerns as poor access for both builders and end-users, limited return on investnent, and horrendous environmental impact, the class of 2013 recommends bigger buildings for higher occupancy, and far greater damage to supposedly protected bushland. Some of them were not bom during the lengthy struggle To stop or mitigate the impact of the M2 Tollway. Most would have been wearing school uniforms when M2 Surplus Lands became an issue. None appear to have researched f'ormer planning successes and failures. Their predecessors may have retired. The affected community does not enjoy that luxury. The threat to environment, amenity and even to owned propert-y-, is back again. Planning terminology and the names of departments and proposals frequently change*, but all appear to be used in support of the same old compulsion, i.e. to give every spare scrap of land a 'higher;' use via comn:ercial development. *'lTansporf InJraslrucÍure Developmenl CorporaÍion, TtansporT Construcliot¡ Authority, and fronsportfor Neu' SouTh Wales are some of lhe nlany wtmesfor ane organisalion. Departmenl of Main Roqds begat Roads and Trffic Authority which improbably begat Roads qnd lVÍarilime Services. Depcu'tmenl of Planning begaÍ Deparnnent of Urban Affairs and Planning hegat Department of Planning and Inft'astructure. In some previous reincarnations, 'envit'onment' also was part of the title. In dealingu,ith the public, thi,; entity appears lo have supplanted TransportJbr New Soulh ÍI/ales and even U'bis, the con,sultingfrm contntissioned to handle community liaison. ' Landcon recently ntotplrcd into lirhangrovytlt NSIT rtnct puhticly reveuled íTs irlvol,-enrcnt. llith varying degrees oJ'honesty, the proposal has been described çs everylhingfrom 'asset diveslment' to 'urban aclivaÍir¡n'. Legislation and governmenl decree slso have generated numerous readjttslments to a process which has proceeded undeterred towards the goal ofrezoning for rnaximtrrn profit to gavernment seller and corprtrale buyer. Sentqntics cnd acronyrns drift in and out of usage with the political climate, eg Part 3A, SS for Støte Significance, TOÐ þr Transport Orienled Developntenl, elc.

Comparisons 1. Today's OSL Site, was yesterday's Pârcel 3.In 1997, the area of the site was 5.0 ha. In 2013. it is 1.48 ha. Rejected as medium-density housing \n 1997 , it now is recommended for more intense occupancy within a smaller area, in a zone currently limited to two-storey residential dwellings, with poor access to a desperately busy, multilane road. The intended residents would not be the only ones to suflbr. An entire street of normal lbmily homes

) behind the development would be severely impacted. Despite the usual protestations, the small stand of Turpentine-Ironbark vegetation would inevitably succumb to root damage, changed ground levels, f'oot and vehicle traffic. Recommendation: Once again, dtop this site from the rezoning application. It is separated from the Precinct by the full width of Epping Road. The proposed development would heavily damage existing home-owners and remnant vegetation. Access would add to the heavy congestion and risk already associated with the Delhi RdÆpping Rd intersection. Even such gross over-development of this 1.48 ha site would contribute only negligibly to the total number of dwellings envisaged for the precinct. Position of the site would ensure a relatively low standard of amenity for the new residents. 2. Today's RMS site, was yesterday's Parcel 4,ln 1997, it was 1.0 ha. In 2010. it was 0.29. kt 1997, even the most rabid planners could suggest only open space and something vaguely described as 'highway seryices' for this tiny site. Even that recommendation was rejected for obvious reasons. The widest part of this triangular 'traffic island' is unavailable to developers. The narowest part now is recommended for three and four-storey apartment buildings, within the confrnes of three major roads Delhi Rd (access to M2 access, North Ryde Station, cemetery, crematoria, corporate park,- national park, Paci{ic Highway); M2 tollway in chasm-like cutting; multi-lane arterial Epping Rd. Despite often-repeated assurances that the Bundara Reserve Endangered Ecological Community will be protected, this most significant feature will be overshadowed by buildings on the M2 site to the west. Worse still. it is threatened by the cheaper and nastier version of a pedestdan/cycle overbridge intended to provide passage from the M2 site to North Ryde Station. It appears that in ordsr to indefinitely postpone part of the cost, only half the bridge will be built anytime soon. This variation will require grotesquely large footings, a lift and a stairway at the NW corner of the Reserve. One is reminded that only half of the Parramatta- Chatswood Railway itself has been completed. Without question, the presence of machinery and materials on the:iny RMS strip between the deep M2 cutting and Bundara Reserve would exe$ impact on the Reserve. Sandwiched between the sad sight of the Reserve, overlooked by multi-storey residences and backed by yet another of those extraordinary pedestrian-cycle paths (3m width, reinforced concrete, vegetation cleared either side, lighting installed), the private ow:rers of 23A, Epping Road would serve as another example of indifference to the inclividual's trust in hisiher government. Kecs!CImgldg4ion: Once again, drop this site from the rezoning application. This time, formally cede the vacant RMS strip to City of Ryde, so that it may be zoned and recognised asB2, part of Bundara Reserye. Retain R2 zoning for residences. Ensure thaT the narrow RMS area at the NW comer of Bundara Reserve is not used for the footings of a pedestrian-cycle overbridge, stairway and lift. Ensure that no pathway to and from Delhi Rd is constructed through the RMS lands, the M2 corridor or Bundam Reserve. The proposed gain in housing stock from this absurd development concept would be slight and its amenity would be low. Connecting pathway(s) would be damaging to the Reserve and dangerous for users. The cheap (hal$ version of a bridge between the M2 site and the Station would provide a continual source of damage to the Reserve. One only need examine the (unfenced) Delhi Rd lïontage to the RMS site litter, glass. dumped materials. 3. Today's M2 site, was -yesterday's Parcel S.In 1997, it was 9.25.|n 2010, it was 9.16 ha,

3 Then and now, this large site is the potential jewel in the development crowTt. From 1961, it had been designated as a road reservation. By 1997, use as anM2 depot site had destroyed all nâtural bushland on the bulk of the site. The'gateway' location was then considered ideal for light industrial zoning uses including bulky goods warehouses. Naturally, the small bushland and creek zone in the NW corner of the M2 site has always been regarded as precious. By 1998, suitably qualified State Government personnel were cooperating with local environmentalists To ensure that the bushland and creek on this 'Surplus Land' would be protected adequately. Similar cooperation occurred during construction of the railway on this same site. In the NE comer of the site, currently outside the site fence at the verge of the M2 on ramp, a'grandfather' tlee has survived all the clearing and construction which has occurred. This venerable Turpentine serves as a vital, aerial stepping stone fbr birds of the M2 conidor. Its presence to date represents a combination of good luck and hard lobbying. It must be noted that lack of progress on development of the Parcel 5iM2 site must be attributed purely to the NSW Govemment. Originally reserved for the county road eventually known as the M2, the parcel was used instead as an M2 worksite, then as an RTA dump for road spoil from other locations, a central tunnelling worksite for the new railway, and now as a worksite for the M2 widening project. Assuming proper protection for the NW bushland and creek, ånd the NE grandfather tree, the only baniers to development of this site a¡e factors which deuact from its amenity. Issues for the future residents more than the surrounding community may include: - the noise, smell and airborne particulates emanating from the M2 Tollway, f¡om the Resource Recovery Centre and ANL greenwaste facility on Wicks Rd, and from the Nalional Starch factory and unfiltered Lane Cove Tunnel stack to the east. - childcare facility relegated to a flood zone, a community centre poised on top of the train tunnels, and a lack oftruly useable open space. - road aocess to and from the site for both privale and commercial vehicles arnorrnts tc¡ access to aad from an intersection already rated 'F'. Recommendation: Proceed, with proper care for the environment, consideration for future residents ofthe site, and honest attention to traffrc issues. 4. Today's Goodman site was (more or less) yesterday's Parcel 1.In 1997, it was 1.5 ha. In 2010, it was nol included in the planning scherne at all. Now, although privately held, it is again included in a plan otherwise devoted to government-held land. Clearly a part of the Riverside Corporate Park, the original recommendation for open space ald commercial buildings of moderate height seemed complctely reasonable. The only objection to the new plan is the concept of a monstrous tower which will throw shadows all the way to Clarence Street and generally impinge on all its sunoundings. Reconrmendation: Ditch the phallic symbol and encourage good design in proportion to neighbouring buildings as an altemative. 5. Today's Station site was yesterday's television studio, not included in the 1997 rezoning scheme. Like the M2 site, it has been used as a works depot for the widening the M2 tollway. The only obvious future use is something closely relaled to the Station. If someone wants to live there, good luck to them. Recommendation: Proceed with proposal, rnaking provision for protection of the row of large trees at the eastern extremity of the site.

SUMMARY

4 1. M2 site, Goodman site, Station site: Be mindfu1 that proposals for these sites, which have real potential for development, have never attracted strong opposition from the community. There is a desire for a more sympathetic approach to environmental and visual aspects of some indicative designs, but it is accepted that these sites are destined for intensive development. Awareness of this acceptance may enhance bureaucratic willingness to work with (not against or around) the community. 2. OSL site: Accept that this property is not suitable for buildings higher than two storeys or, due to its difficult access, that it is not suitable for permanent habitation by much of anyone. This site would make a welcome addition to Blenheim Park open space. 3. RMS site: Accept that this tiny and challenging site is unsuitable for any higher concentration of buildings and people than are now present Abandon the plans for buildings and for the destructive pathway that would have led behind the buildings to Delhi Road. Abandon design for conslruction of an overbridge footing, stairway and lift at the NW comer of the Bundara-RMS interface. If a bridge linking the M2 site and North Ryde Station is genuinely necessary, build the entire bridge as one unit and avoid the need for heavy inûastructure at the Bundara midpoint. 4. The proposal as a whole: Admit that even if the community can resign itself to some consequences of intensive development, the designs developed Jo date are only "indicative" of what might be done. The developer may have his own ideas, and looming changes to planning regulation may leave the public out of the final decisions.

John McCain and Diane Michel, Affected local residents and active members of the Bundara Bushcare Group 17 Apti|20l3

NJ.rfu

5 Jtz

ilr llil I il|ililililililililil til til PCU043648

10 Clarence Street, NORTH RYDE, NSW 21.13 , 15th April ' 2OL3. Attentlon: Director , Strategic Asseasment, Depc. of Planning Delianment of Planninrl and InfrasEructure, F'.lrl€itji;C GPO Box 39, 1 I APR 20ß SYDNEY NSi{ 2001. Scinriing Roorn Dear Sir, Re: North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct. Havíng attended meetirigs as a member of the ComÌuuníty Llaison Group and also a comm¡Jnity informalion session (r+hich f can te11 you \.ras hostile torvard the plan ) I can say emphatically that I object t:o the proposal in its present forn. Here is a chance to make somethíng good of a large parcel of land (over-9 hectares). Instead we are presented viÈh a design which is pretty wé11 loathed by rnost. of the North Ryde communlty, I started off going to the meetings with an open mind, aft.er all ¡hat land had been an eyesore for many years and there was a posslbility 1t could be improved. There are to be re.staurants, a hote1, shops to explore. These cannot compensabe for the truly ugly buildings r¿hich. will stick up and stick out of a pleasanL sul¡urb where currently the tallest buildings are 8 sl-oreys. Now we are faced with buÍ1i1ings ranging îrom 2 st'6irels ro 33 storgys. Though they åré to be on the eastern side of Epping Road they will cast shadows (a1beít not. for long) onto the corner of my street (Clarence Street). üle already have as much traffic as the area can handle. Our side streets are clogged by Lhe cars parked for the day by people buses to r¿ork. It is fanciful for anyone to believe(there^catching ís good public transporL available there will be a drop in car usage. There has been no attempt to create an environment r¿hj.ch reduces electricity usage. Quire the conE.rary. It is ackno¡¡ledged that it will be necessary for those living near Epping Road t.o keep doors and windows closed at all time because of the traffic noj.se. Alr conditioners rúi11 8et a good workout, contributing to Rydets Carbon Footprint. 2

The schools in the area are all fu11 to capaciLy, an issue which 1s beiag ignored. Not thaL f believe it will be a problem, I cantt see families with young chj-1dren anxious ro live in a concrete jungle. 0f the parcel of land on the western síde of Ëpplng Road, known to you as OSL, to us as Tennis tr/or1d, i.C is unfair that people who bought homes in Morshead Street now face the prospect of having 4,6 and I storey buildings on thei.r back f ences. And how stüpld r,¿i11 an B sLorey buílding look beslde a si.ngle storey residence on Epping Road? Streets like Morshead, Clarence aod many ot.hers in this area are f,i11ed with families. Tn my street there are 7 people who have lived here for more t}:'an 47 years. lrle were here when Lhere weïe no footpaths, the public transport. was appa-1-ling, there r,/as no Macquarie Centre, no 3M, no Microsoft,when we could cross Epping Road anywhere at any tine after loolcing left and right, and certaiû1y NO TRAIN. In facL we only barely missed out on having an outside toileL, l{e were, in the eyes of friends, coming t.o the back of beyond. Now it is a desirable suburb and you want to ruin it. How would you like this beÍng done to your suburb?

(Mrs.) Pat Novak ,ít*i kø"-þ Dopa ¡lmsrrilí Piairning tìl¡lil*r¡¡.; 234 Epping Rd ð ¡qAy ilt ¡lll I lllllllllllllllllllllll ll lll North Ryde 2113 iûtJ PCU044196 Ph/fax (02)9887 2703 ,5il;ìtlrlrnü wilbyl [email protected] R()CI ¡Ti 6 May 2013 Director, Strategic Assessment Department of Planning and Infrastructure GPO Box 39 Sydney South 2001

SUBJECT: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION . FAILURES TO ENABLE TRUE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION re APPLICATION FOR REZONING, NORTH RYDE STATION URBAN ACTI\/ATION PR.gCINCT

We submit that stakeholders in consultation concerning the North Ryde Station Project have been assailed by a process which has been disjointed, misleading, and intentionally concentrated on trivial issues. The materials included in the Rezoning Application cannot reasonably be considered to justi! aspects ofthe proposal and process including incorporation of the RMS and OSL sites and unannounced abantlonment of EIS preparation.

l.Introduction The authors of this submission are not new to the formal prccesses of Public Participation.'

rThis listing excludes the very many Metropolitan Strategies, Regional Strategies, Subregional Strategies, Local Covemment proposals and applications, and other issues rcqliring attention simultaneously or in overlapping periods. The following topics refer only to public participation concerning transport-related impacts and Government-initiated alienation of public and private land in North Ryde. Issues closely related to the current North Ryde Station rezoning application and potential landtake appear in bold type. Submissions and appearances ør F2 Castlereagll Freetttiy Conmission of Inquhy; submissions snri appearance.\ at Norlh llesl Transport Links East end Wesî workshops preceding EISs; submissions to North lTlest Transport Links EISs East and lryest disclosure of misleading claitns thqt NWTL West wottld befederallyfunded; disclosure ofRTA background study re post-construction handover of 'M2 Surplus Land' to construction consorîium; North llest Trcnsprsrt Link East (M2 Tollway) CLGs; disclosure of alteredplansfor'M2 Surplus Lond'; successful representations to EPA re M2 construction-relatedflooding of 23 Epping Rd; sttccessful representaÍions to EPA and subsequent prosecution re lu'2 construction-related pollution of Lane Cove River; post-M2 construction cantpaign to enfc'rce environmental conditions of operation; comntunity campaign againsl secrecy and serious errors in Department of Urban Affairs and PkmnÍng ìnítÍatíve re rezoning M2 Sarplus Land in North Ryde only; participalion in subsequent, improved process revìewing M2 Surplas Lund rezoning pruposals: submissions to kEFsfor widening Epping Rd east of Pittwater kl in North Ryde and Epping Rd eost of Løne Cove River in Lane Cove; disclosure of RTA plans to conslrucl Epping Rd slip lane east of Delhi Rd, culminatíng in M2 overbridge leading to preparation of REF and eventual abandonmettt of proposal; supportive participation in Parramatta-Chatsu,ood

1 This degree of essentially political involvement is not a favoured activify, but from 1989 onwards, we have seen it as a necessary price for preserving what we can of: - the dwindling and precious bushland ofNorth Ryde, - the privilege of living near urban bushland, antl - the hard-won legislation which, until recently, has given some protection to both the nafural environment and the individual's rights to safety, good health and peaceful enjoyment of property. This experience leads us to believe thaT we are qualified to comment as follows on 'Stakeholder consultation' as it is described in Appendix G of the Planning Report.

2. Barriers to Credible Consultation It is only fair to begin by indicating a degree of sympatþ for some personnel delegated to represent this Project to the public. These individuals would appear to be the usual mixture of those who do all they can to assist, those who will assist on minor matters and those whose loyalty to their employer, their Project or their high opinion of their own omniscience renders them unsuitable for a consulting role. (Someone really should advise the latter that condescension is poison to the consultation process.) At least, the issue is not corruption. Apart from their salaries, none of the Project representatives involved in consultation is likely to profit overmuch from the damage and distress which some aspects of the Project are causing and will continue to cause. lfhat said, we suggest that the flaws which have adversely affected the consultation process are in two calegories, Project-related and administration-related. Sadly, the community's perceptions of the process and some aspects of the Project now are so negative that it would appeff difficult indeed to restore confidence. 'We say."sadly" because there is little cause tbr objection to the heart of the proposal - the idea that housing development could occur on the M2 site (more than 7ha, not counting 1.8ha identified for open space, and the 3.3ha Station sites (including the non-government-owned Goodman site). The major problems are easily identifiable and just as easily cured: - insistence on redevelopment of two small, traffic-affected land parcels which are not directly connected with the Precinct. For reasons obvious then and now apparently forgotten, both parcels were unsuccessfully included in a previous development drive by the NSW planning department of the day. - unconvincing pretence of effective measures for protection of Bundara Reserve, NW area of M2 site, treed area of OSL site. Other issues may be equally affecting, e.g. overburdened infrastructure, shortage of school facilities, increased traffic congestion road traffic. The difference is that these can be rectified later. Bushland and low-impact housing a¡e not prone to restoration.

Rail EIS process and CLG, personal, cooperalive liaison during construction oJ'truncared Epping- Cltatswood Rail; Lane Cove Tunnel pre-EIS representqtíons, EIS submissions, pre-CLG representûlions re western surface works, CLG attendance, close cooperation with RTA project mqnager resuhing in post-EIS species impact statement for Puges Creek bushktnd and preservatiott of300m sq ofBundura Reserve; nutnerous submissions and personal representations to Staîe and Lr¡cal Governmenls re Møcquaríe Pork Coruìdor zoning of Bundara Reserve, prìvate home snd ndioíníng RTA holdíngs; NS\Y long Term Transport MasTer Plan; North Ryde Stution Precinct pre- CLG liaisan with TIÐC and TCA personnel; CLG participation.

2 2.a. Flaws in the Project and Administration It is always possible to find a morc diplomatic presenter, a better venue, or a better means of advertising and promoting a project. However, if there are fundamental flaws in the proposal, the consultation will be doomed and the political, public sector and/or private sector supporters of the proposal will be damaged. The unfortunate consultants have been lumbered with the responsibility for promoting the following unlovely aspects of the Proposal:

2.a.1. Inclusion of two (or perhaps three) inappropriate sites. The tiny RMS @undara,0.3ha) and OSL (Tennis \ilorld, L.2ha) sites have the least to offer developers and end-users. Their redevelopment to higher-density would offer nothing positive to the existing community and users of Epping Road, Instead, redevelopment would detract from the status quo by removing services currently available on the OSL site, by removing three existing 'affordable housing homes from the fuVíS sire, by devaiuing neighbouring homes, by permanent damage or destruction of native vegetation of high preservation value. The sites are so small, and thei¡ potential profit to a developer is so limited, that the NSW Govemment can expect relatively little net profit from selling. Unlike the larger sites in the Precinct, RMS and OSL already attract rent. Even the proponents' mappiags clearly indicate that these sites have no obvious connection to the Station Precinct - RMS separated from station by the M2 Tollway and M2 Conidor, OSL separated from station by Epping Rd. Additional trafhc entering or leaving either site would increase the current high risk on Epping Rd and the current peak period congestion at the intersections of Epping and Pitfwater Rds, Epping and Delhi Rds, and Epping and Wicks Rds. Blithe statements that some folks will prefer the train or bus do not address the inevitable impacts on safety and traffic flow. Planning on display illustrates provision for parking more cars. Common sense indicates that more dwellings also will attract more service vehicles, delivery vehicles and visitors. RMS and OSL are the sites in the proposal attracting strong feeling and opposition from the existing community. Residents and local environmentalists see the proposed developments as pointless and destructive. (The community successfully put forward the same objections in 1997, when Department of Urban Affairs identified OSL for medium-density housing and RMS for something vaguely described as highway services. Despite its enthusiasm for rezoning, DUAP seemed unable to suggest a specific, practical replacement for the single- storey homes on the RIf4S site.) Development of the Goodman site is not of itself a cause for objection. For several years, it has been accepted that this property would be developed as multiple commercial buildings of medium height. The sole objection now is that designers of the North Ryde Station Precinct Project envision construction of a 33-storey phallic symbol for residential use, ove¡whelming the character of its surroundings and overshadowing residential Clarence street . . . which is separated from it by the M2 Tollway, Epping Road including tollway portals, and the full width of Blenheim Park. Aparl from architectural egoism, it can be assumed only that this privately held land has been included in the Precinct to make the Project seem more plausible. Perhaps there also is hope that the owners and/or developers may kick the can for some preliminary infrastructure, thus reducing the cost to Government.

2.a.2. Perceptions of Uncertaintv

Ja The credibility of the entire Project suffers greatly from a perception that even the proponents lack conviction , i.e. - the 1997 Department of Urban Afflairs and Planning attempt to rezone the RMS (then Parcel 4) and OSL (then Parcel 3) sites was abandoned. (It is interesting to note that DUAP believed that it had 5 ha to dispose of as P3 and t ha at P4. In 2013, these areas for development have shrunk now Io a f'ar less profitable l.2baon OSL and 0.3 on RMS.) - Details such as building height have changed, often for the worse, throughout the cureat consultation. The most recent presentation indicates dramatic increases in height and mass of buildings at critical locations, where the Precinct interfaces with the real world of single dwellings and sun-requiring bushland.2 - The OSL and Goodman sites appear to have been inserted and removed from the Precinct and the Project at whim. The OSL site was included in the December 2011 State Significant Development Application, but the Goodman site was not. Neither were included in the June 2012ïndicative Layout Plan Reporf. Both have rejoined the project now.

2.a.3. irrelevance of lndicative Designs In addition to the changeable nature of the designs illustrated for the Precincto we must contend with the painful fact that all that imagination, artistry and expense may have little or no resemblance to the final constructions. This also suggests that the hours expended on consultation were to some extent a protraoted game of "let's pretend''. T'he Department of Planning and lnfrastructure, in concert with the City of Ryde, may inlluence zoning and conditions of development . . . but isn't it being a little bit precious to suggest that a developer would prefèr to erect a 3-4 storey building on the limited area of the RMS site when no one will dispute his decision to go for 5 storeys? And why not push the building heights a little more on the M2 site - why leave that sole remaining area of 8-storey development? why not a1l 20 and 30-storey? What the heck, why not go totally for 3O-storey? And let's not forget that it's always possible to push for a va¡iation later on. These random examples of Determinations are taken from the NSW Government Noticeboardpublished 1 May 2013: - "an fuicrease in the number of storeys; an increase in GFA and FSR; a modificøtion of the apartment number and mix; a change oJ'use oJ'the commercial building to serviced apartments; the provision oJ'car park spãces. . . " This Determination appears to be the third modification granted to a Meriton development in Chatswood. - " increase of 15 independent living uníts, reduction of building envelopes from I 3 to 8, amended buildingfotms, increa,ye of 6,6! 6rn (sq) floor area, increase of 42 car parking spaces, realigned east-u,esÍ road link and modified landscape strategl . . ." This Determination appea.rs to be the first modification of a Stockland project in Ashfield.

2.b. Failures in Communication and Consultation It is unlikely that those 'consulted' are ever fully satisfied with the process they experience,

2June 2012 Indicative Layout Plan Report: RMS site, 3 and 4 storeys; Aprit 2013 presentation, all4 storeys.M2 site 2012, mixture tf 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,18,20 and 30 storeys; 2013, rrutnolithic designs 8-30sloreys, dramaÍic increase in 20-30 storey, buildings directlyþcing OSL increasedJronz 6 and 10 storey to 16 slorey, buildingdirectlyfacing Bundara Reserve increased Ji"om 2,8 and l0 storey consolidated and erularged to l6 storey.

4 but in many ways, the North Ryde Station Precinct rates lower than one might have hoped. In particular, this process and its participants on both sides of the consulting table have suffered the adverse impacts of an astonishing lack of continuity in proponent identity, proponents' personnel, Project goals and Project identity.

2.b.1. Discontinuitv In the space of three years, Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation (TDIC) begat Transpott Construction Authority (TCA) begat Transport for NSW. This multi-named, transport-oriented initiator of the planning and consultation process was sidelined last year by Department of Planning and Infi'astructure (DP&I), descendant of Department of Pla:rning (DoP), descendant of Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP), descendant of a department which once included.'Environment' in its name. Known for rnany years as Department of Main Roads (DMR), the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), recently became the Roads and Marine Services (RMS).This puzzling consolidation of power owns three rentai homes and a small strip of unstable land adjoining a private dwelling, Bunda¡a Reserve and the M2 Conidor. Heaven only knows the antecedents of the Office of Strategic Lands (OSL), which seems to 'V/orld. have acquired Tennis A new arrival revealed only in March this year was Landcom, now is UrbanGrowth. The actual process affecting North Ryde has undergone similar metamorphoses. Delhi Rd Station on the Parramatta to Chatswood Rail Link became North Ryde Station on the abbteviated Epping to Chatswood Rail Link. Various planning instrumenls treating the rail link as part of the Macquarie Park Conidor suddenly took on scary new personae. The neighbourhood became a 'precinct', and the precinct became a 'project'. The 'project' featured rather quietly as part of Transport for NSW's Asset Divestment Program. That disturbing purpose was sometimes veiled under the title of TOD, Transit-Oriented Development. (Would JFIO have been a more suitable acronym, i.e. Just Flog It Offl) Mos recently, the whole lot has morphed once more and now is the North Ryde Station Urban Activation Project. Planning instrumenls and explanatory documents came and went ín dazzlingarrays of grand titles and initials. The 2004 Macquarie Park Masterplan, including the Delhi Road Station Precinct Plan, the 2008 DCP, the LEP, the PEA of 2010, the SSS, the SSDA, the ILP, the expected EIS, another DCP, the related DAs. From the perspective of CLG members representiag the community, continuity was flrther disrupted by the consultation hiatus from mid-Mareh to late August 2012 due to tttechnical issuestt.

2.b.2. You call this consultation? There are some constants in the prevailing planning flux, but they offer liule comfort to current residenls who have chosen North Ryde as a good place to live, Within the CLG and the wider community, it has not been uncommon to hear that this Project suffers from: - an ongoing eonfusion. - a chronic lack oftransparency. - a trenchant refusal to consult genuinely on major issues. - lack of empathy with the situations of the (bewildered, frightened, angry) community and the (frustrated, untesourced, unpaid, overcoÍlmitted) cornmunity representatives who have given their time and their best efforts to a lengthy consultation process.

5 It would be difficult, and probably ill-advised, to attempt naming all causes of this discontent. However, it does seem that the consultation process lost some of its humanity and helpfulness with the departure of Transport for NSW personnel.

2.b.3. The Community Liaison Group Meetings Sparing the writer and any readers of this submission from undue strain, no attempt will be made to catalogue the failings of the CLG process in full. However, some comparison must be made between the objectives of the consultation and the realities.3

Key Objective 1z "Elicit stakeholder (tn communily views . . ." ooeliciting The Reality: At CLG meetings, Project proponents concentrated on views" . . . which werc not critical of the Project. Other comment was accepted, but there was little done to encourage it. An example was the CLG4 division of the CLG into discussion groups devoted to (a) community facilities and uses, open space and landscaping in 'Placemaking', (b) Built form and look-and-feel in 'Design principles', (c) Pedestrian and cycle linkages, Linkages to station, and Linkages between existing and new neighbourhoods in 'Connectivity'. To canvass community views meaningfully, it might have been useful to simply asked what people would expect from the Project and what they f'eared from it.

Key Objective 2: " Include a broad range of 'communities' in Íhe process includìng existing residents, incoming residents, workers, ínstitutional stakeholders and politicians. " The Reality: Where were the incoming residents?

Key Objective 3: "Provide clear and accurate inþrmation about the proposal and the c ontext oJ' the devel opment ". The Reality: - The original 'context of development', Asset Divestment, was scrupulously avoided by Project proponents throughout the CLG consultation process. - Suggestions that commuter parking would improve patronage at North Ryde Station tryere discouraged. A statement thal palronage was so poor that the shop in the station \ilas not doing well could have been amended later in the process to say that the shop had closed. - By 3-6 April 2013, the time of presentations to the general community, "cleer ønd sccurqte informalion" had degenerated into a spin-fi1led, on-screen assurance that there would be ".Iy'o overshadou,ing of residential properties during spring, summer or üutumn". Of course, the time when residents most desire sunlight is winter. This presentation still remains on the DP&I website as of 6 l|;{ay 2013. - Throughout much of the process, ìn very many oral and wriften statements, it was claimed that Bundara Reserve would enjoy well-merited protection. Precious little was said about the footings for an overbridge to be sited mere centimetres from its NW boundary, or the nature, species, size and location of the "four trees" earmarked for felling only at the end of the

3Appendix G, Stakeholder consuftation report, North Ryde Sîalion Precincl - Planning Report, NSlt/ Planning & InJiastucture, Urbi.s Consultation Report Final, 3.1 Objectives, pg 6

6 consultation process, or the inevitable damage done by heavy machines and materials in a con{ined space, or the fact that the entire Reserve would be adversely affected by moving the edge and the edge effect nearer to the heart ofa small forest, or the on-again-ofÊagain threat of a paved pathway and security lighting at the M2 edge of the Reserve. - We ask indulgence for a failure to reference the DUAP/DP&I mantra which has arisen yet again. The suggestion was and is that the existing community's unwillingness to see alienation of its local area is a sign of rank selfishness. The dubious claim is always the same, i.e. revenue from the sale of land will be used to improve some other part of Sydney.In 1997 , oexcess' DUAP concentrated on how sale of Ryde's bushland would fund the purchase of open space for the less fortunate folks to the west. Since that time, it has been admitted that the City of Ryde actually is short of bushland. No doubt this shortage can be attributed to previous bursts of development.

The authors of these attempts to deceive could have bright futures in shonþ sales or stand-up comedy, e.g. the 1960s British sitcom and movie, 'Never mind the quality, feel the v'ídTh'.

Key Objective 4z "Encourage active community and stakeholder parlicipotion in overall

e I o c e s e s. dev opment pl anning pr ^s The Reality: How and when was this done? Most community participants applied to enter the consultation on their own initiative, sometimes admitted only after a less-involved group had been i:rvited and refused to take part. In spoken and written wotd, community paficipants were advised of their very few and quite superficial opportunities to influence the process. (See 'Key Objective 8'.)

Key Objective 5: ",Eslablish an atmosphere of inclusion and active particípølion through the design oJ'a responsive engagentent plan that satisfies the diverse socio-demographics of the Ryde local government eree." The Reality: This grab bag of once-trendy phrases does not deserve serious attention. Anyway, as the community leamed from DP&I personalities at the City of Ryde-sponsored information meeting l5 April, there now is a new ve¡sion of planner jargon.

Key Objective 6z "Ðevelop and provide timely and accessible inþrmation to stalæholders." The Reality: - There has been no shortage of material developed. It is difficult to determine how much of it qualifies as unbiased' information'. - The concept of accessibiliry raises questions of its own. For example, if there is any credible economic justification for the Project, it is nowhere to be seen in Chapter 7 or Appendix H of the Planning Report. Where is it? Who is permitted to see it? Who cares? - At the final CLG meeting prior to release of the Rezoning Application and supporting documents, the topic of changes in the Project's status was raised by the communþ. It was confirmed that the Nofih Ryde Station Precinct had been re-classified, from State Significant Site to Urban Activation Precinct. No representative of the Project proponents troubled to explain that the reclassif,rcation effectively removed the requirement for an EIS. The reclassification was far from timely for the Project under discussion. The failure to explain the disappearance of the EIS requirement is deserving of stronger adjectives.

Key Objective 7 z " Reporf on the findings oJ' stakeholder und the commttnity engagement

7 mechdtnisms To drqw out key areas oJ'support and concern in relation to the proposal. " The Realify: Is this the very report on which our current submission is based, i.e. 'Appendix G Stakeholder consultation report'? Why did the report, unlike the consultation, come to a halt in September 2012? It is after that time that substantial changes occuned in planning and execution of the project.

Key Objective 8z "Be transparent and clear about areas able to be most influenced by the community, namely place moking, design principles and connectívily." The Reality: The 'transparency' has been such that it took a direct request from a CCLG member and a wait until the next meeting before a proponent deigned to divulge which issues could and could not be influenced by public opinion. And now, about the double talk: Material in parentheses is provided by the authors of this submission. F'ollowing the CCLGI request, proponents revealed aT.CCLGZ that "project variables for consultationtt were: - open space use and design, (but not amount); - precinct identity, look and feel (in whatever way a 2011 reference may influence an unklown developer's eventual choice of omamentation in the disrant future), - building locations, mass and orientation, (but not overall gross floor area per site, and not even location, mass and orientation to an extent which would be a binding obligation to land buyers aad developers), - type of community facilities, on the designated parcel {which coincidentally is the small amount of land unuseable for profitable purposes due to location above rail tunnelling or at risk of flooding), - distribution of land uses (in the ratio currently popular with Government planners, i.e. lots of high-rise housiag. a shop for milk, bread and nev/spape$, a park bench or two on a lawn slowly dying from pedestrian traffic and overshadowing), - vegetation and landscaping (no doubt in accord with the surrounding monoculture affecting Riverside Corponte Park and North Ryde Station, and also providing an ideal propagation site for weeds in the areas where no one is contracted to mow, hack and poison.) - In addition to reference to gross floor area per site and amount of overall open space, the "project constants" included: - road connections to the sur¡ounding network (quite a necessity, one would assume), and - pedestian bridge location (This bridge would have the potential to exert terminal impact on Bundara Reserve, despite numerous assurances that the Reserve will be protected. The bridge's purpose would be to provide a shorter walk or bike ride to North Ryde Statlon than is required by the general rule of 800m. Grotesquely, the damage would be increased by the threatened possibility of building only half the bridge, thus requiring more substantial footings and a lift. More damaging at the outset and more costly in the long run, this idea may have been inspired by the decision to build only half of the Parramatta-Chatswood Rail Link. At one stroke, the halving of the railway maintained road congestion in an area of enormous population growth and also ensured a disastrously low patronage for Nofh Ryde Station.) At the sixth CLG meeting, 5 November 2012, the subject of 'non-negotiable' issues was raised once more. This time but not the first time, the meeting facilitator "noted that connectiviíy, along with community J'acilities, open space, and design principles were identified.fi'ont rhe.first CLG workshaps as cu'eas Jbr participant feedback".lt also was claimed on this second occasion thaf "other oprions were discussed including a tunnel or I anather station entry" . When and with whom these discussions of less damaging options were held are unknown. Adding insult to injured üansparency, a second presentation at the November 2012 CLG meeting stated as follows: " . . . The SSDA will be submitted early nexÍ year . . . An Envíronmentøl Impøct Sløtement (EIS) wíll accompany the SSDA øntl wíll cover impøcts ttssociated with the subdívísion, pedestriøn bridge, þotpsth and cycleway infrastructure, Íranspolt infrastructure upgrades on site, utilities and services, costs and staging. All details will be provided at exhibiTion."

2.b.4 The Realit)¡ of Responding to the North Ryde Station Precinct Urban Activation Rezoning Application Anyone without a computer andlor the funds and know-how to browse the monstrous Application and Appendices on-screen has been offered only one means of access to the many inter-related documents: queue up at one of two libraries or at a CBD oifice. In the past, additional prinled copies of an EIS and supporting documents were avajlable on individual request. Also, libraries were supplied loan copies for borrowers as well as reference copies for use on site. One must be resourced with a modern computer and software to make use of discs givea limited distribution as a cheap altemative to hard copy. Minutes of CLG meetings conceming the project were available to the public only via the intemet. Advised of these issues early in the curent display period, the consultant undertook to pass on the comments but did not appear to do so. A DP&l contact later made the same assurance, apparently with the same nil result. These limitations on access to project and process information are particularþ diabolical in consulting a large local population of older residents.

3. The Missing EIS The failure to produce an Environmental Impact Statement is more than the failure of some consultants contracted to organise meetings, take minutes and answer simple questions. It hits at the very heart of environmental safeguards established h 1,979, another time of rampant high-rise development. Some but not all of the spirit of that legislation survived until recently. The surprising and unheralded absence of an EIS also appears to break a spoken ald published commitment to provide this essential form of consultation. This broken promise appears to apply to those NSW Government bodies and consultants involved inNorth Ryde Station Precinct consultation after the departure of Transport for NSlff laae in2012. The progression of this disappointment is as follows:- 1. DP&I response to submission by D. Michel & J. McCain re Development at North Ryde Station under Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development), 2071: "Appropriate design standards will be achieved during the assessment of SSD applications and consultation on índividual applications will be undertaken either by the Ðepartment or Ryde Council. " 2. The very next activity charted on the published Planning Pathway at December 2011, was: "Obtain Director General Requirements and prepare EIS'. 3. Director General's requirements for North Ryde Station Precinct State Significant Development Application: "During the preparation of the EIS, you must consult with the relevant local, State ar

9 Commonwealth Government aulhorities, service providers, community groups and fficted lsndowners . . . The EIS must describe the consullalion process and the issues raised, and identify where the design of the development hus been amended in response to these issues. Where amendmenls have not been made to address an issue, an explanation should be provided."a 4. NoÍh Ryde Station Precinct Project Planning Palhway issued 9 December 2011: Diagram illustrates two concunent pathways, including these simultaneous actions: - Lodge SSS Application (Major Development SEPP) with DP&I, and - Lodge SSDA (State Significant Development Appiication) and EIS. 5. Meetings, i.e. consultation, halted between March and August 2012 due to what consultants describe in Appendix G as "technical issues regarding the proiect". To out knowledge, no one in the community was aware that the EIS was no longer under preparation and that no EIS would be released. 6. Commitments to release an EIS were repeated and minuted at the November 2012 CLG meeting. 7. The most recent slide presenlation on the North Ryde Station Precinct, referring to the Urban Activation Zone, was displayed early in April2013. One visual, 'The history so far', features a curiously simplified 'Planning Pathway' which refers only to 'consultation'. There is no mention of the concunent 'Project Planning Pathway' in:roduced in December 2011. In fact, there is no mention of any planning instruments or documents whatsoever. L We obtained the truth only by direct questioning of the designated DP&I contact. The conversation was initiated while reviewing documents in order to prepare submissions . . ' after the 27 March2013 CLG meeting, the last to precede exhibition of the Rezoning Application documents . . . and after the 3 April public brie{ings by DP&I and consultants.

3. Summary These words are not used lightly or easily. in the course of the North Ryde Station Precinct consultatiol with the public, the truth has been handled carelessly and a long-awaited EIS has been 'disappeared'. These are serious matters. The lack of clarþ in the consultation process this year, and most of all, the absence of an appropriate assessment of the Project, indicate a massive failure in informing and consulting the public. We sincerely suggest that the approval process should not proceed under these extraordinarily dubious conditions. Listen to the community. Assess the real impacts. After that, it may be possible to regain the trust of the community and start again.

Mrs Diane Michel and Mr. John McCain, aff'ected residents, members of the Bundara Bushcare Group, active participants in liaison concerning the North Ryde Station Precinct 6May,2013 IrùÀ,r¡"rt .J *6il^

aAppendix G, Stukeholder consultation report, North Ryde Station PrecincT - Planning Report, NSW Planning & Infrastructure, (Jrbis Cttnsuliation Report Final, p 5

t0 Addendum:

Anonymity was an unusual and disturbing aspect of the consultation processes. The consultants will say that the CLG voted to be shielded in this way, but it would be interesting to ask who suggested that participants should not be named, who voted against secrecy, and where that vote was recorded. As the CLG process proceeded, even Project proponents began to assume anonymity. This odd development exerted its own adverse impacts on the process. It became difficult to trace the course of a minuted conversation and impossible to know who was pursuing which interest. At a general community meeting held early in April, it became apparent that residents who had not attended the CLGs distrusted and resented the "secret meetings". In other words, no one benefited from the appearance of clandestine consulting. \Nn*,., l\N^ù^"J tr ø/g^L

11 Page I of3

Malcolm McDonald - North Ryde Station Precint

Froml "Susan" To: Date: 910512013 9:48 PM Subject: North Ryde Station Precint

Att: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

I strongly object to the North Ryde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal.

The reasons for my objections are as follows:

I do not believe that there has been enough commun¡ty consultation regarding this development, it is of such a size that it has been hard to digest all the information about the development. Most of the information had to come from Government web sites which were only trying to sell the proposal omitting information that was not to their benefit. The few community meetings that were held left little time for questions of which none were answered satisfactorily.There is no independent assessment process for the rezoning study leaving The Department of Planning to decide the fate of its own proposal.

Building Heights: As a long term resident of North Ryde the building heights suggested for this development leave me dumbfounded. ln a area that is bordered by residential,The building heights of 17 to 30 stories will not only cast shadows over schools, houses and parkland but will stand out, dominating the skyline and not in a good way.The community is not against development but it must be done in sympathy with the community that already exists and this proposal does not.The size of this proposal does not provide enough green space and proposes to diminish it by taking the now Tennis World site and turning into residential as well. The parks and sporting facilities in the area are already at capacity with many ovals being double booked on weekends and you in your wisdom intend to put thousands more people into the area to compete for open space.

Traffic: The major roads around this site are already in gridlock at most times of the day and you cannot really expect us to believe that the majority of people living in this development will cycle or catch the train. The problems of tratfic in the area have been well documented and no development should be considered until the problems that already exist have been rectified, something that all departments seem to talk about but never act on. The local streets are already being used as a car park for residents from neighboring suburbs so they can access the buses and trains, with no car park near the station we residents are constantly put at danger trying to get out of our driveways or streets. The act of picking up your child from the local school has become fraught with danger as the school is surrounded by cars parked all day by commuters leaving children to be put at risk.Other developments such as Allengrove Cresent were rejected for reasons including the adverse impact on local traffic and only being a short distance from this new proposed development and considerably smaller means that the North Ryde precinct will have a far more debilitating impact on local traffic.

Capacity: As a parent with two children at the local high school I know first hand of the overcrowding that already exists. The figures that are being used to convince us that that there is no need for a new school are old enrollment figures and the tiuth is that

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mbmcdonald\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\5l8CBC09SYDNDOM... 10105/2013 Page 2 of3

most local schools spec¡fically high schools are already at capacity, we the locals know this for a fact. With the size of this development there are no provisions made for the safety or well being of the community. With high density housing comes problems with crime and at no stage has the impact on the lack of local police been taken into account or the inability of the local hospital and medical services to be able to cope with such an influx of new residents.

Tennis World: This site should remain zoned as a recreationalfacility. We constantly hear that this country has a obesity problem and therefore every effort must be made to preserve, maintain and update local facilities such as tennis courts for future generations.The Tennis World site backs on to houses and would significantly impede on the privacy of the existing residents and reduce sporting options offered by local schools to their students.

Environmental impact: I believe Lane Cove National Park will be compromised by shadows from building heights and water run-off into the Lane Cove River catchment Flora and fourna will be adversely effected by this over development and more traffic congestion will only compound air pollution problems.

Summary: I have grown up in North Ryde and am now raising my own children only a few blocks from where I lived and where my mother still resides. lt is the people like myself and my mother who have made this area into the community that it is and have watched it grow into a enterprising area offering a feeling of community. We understand that development is inevitable but it must come with a respect for what is already in existence and be done in a way to enhance that which is already in place. This proposal is a total over development of an area that is already suffering from a lack of planning. The idea that this will provide affordable housing is laughable as most of the people buying into this project will be overseas investors looking to make a profit by renting back to Australians.

I hope that the concerns of the residents will be listened to and acted on and not ignored. We do not object to progress only to grosse over development.

Yours sincerely

Susan Brazier 60 Ryrie Sfreef No¡th Ryde NSW 2113

FREE Animations for your ema¡l Click Here!

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mbmcdonald\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\5l8CBC09SYDNDOM... 1010512013 Norfhern Melrooc¡iilon Cerneleries lrusl ABN 33874656ô26 NORTHER\I METROPOLITAN T 02 9805 4499 t 029887 3320 W www.moccetr.com.ou CEMETERIES TRUST E [email protected] Corner of Delhi ond Plossey Rood, North Rycle 21 l3 NËW SOUTH WALES

Departrr"rer:t ¡;Í [:l¡¡ ¡ii11q 7th May 2013 lllllililllilltl lltliltlilillilil l.l;-r i. -1 | \..i.: r. PCI I 0 MAy l0tl

Scarini i'i g iì,-r,lr'f i

Director General Depaftment of Planning and Infrastructure Attn: Strategic Assessment Team GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2OO1

Re: North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct

On behalf of the Northern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust, I would like to make this submission following the public exhibition of the North Ryde Station Precinct Planning Report. The Station Precinct project will clearly be a major expansion of existing land uses next to our Macquarie Park Cemetery and Crematorium (MPCC) site and it will be important to avoid adverse impacts on our operations.

MPCC is one of the largest cemetery and crematorium complexes in Sydney and we currently account for about 3,000 cremations and interments per annum. To put this in context, we would be the second largest such facility in Sydney and demand for our seruices continues to grow each year. On a typical day we might receive 600 to 800 vehicles and many hundred mourners and visitors. it is always very difficult to predict final numbers and the people we serye are often in an emotionally stressed state, so things that might normally be shrugged ofl during normal conditions can assume enormous significance to bereaved families. For this reason, our motto is that everything must be perfect - every time.

fhe scale of the potential development will bring many thousands of new residents, workers and retail customers to the area. Parking facilities have dellberately been constrained in the development to encourage the use of public transpott. Whilst this is laudable, it also has the potential to adversely impact our operations. Those impacts could include greater traffic congestion, spill-over parking and impaired access for members of the community that visit us every day.

To provide the necessary level of service to the people of Sydney, we have expended significant funds over recent years improving traffic management roads, pedestrian access and safety improvements. We would not like to see these efforts nullified through inappropriate adjoining development. We drew the proponent's attention to potential impacts, but unfortunately there seems to be little in the exhibited plan that suggests that those impacts have been addressed, thereby alleviating our concerns.

tutÂCQ{lAiìliiPARK ì,tìt.t{CH¡ì FOREST {'r}:ìt, f {lLt, lilå:l f] lif lvlAt{S CEMETERY AND CRÊMATORIUI¡ Srlj;ri Åfri) a,:i.1i ii:Å\' C F ì.4 E I Ë IIY C E M i T Ë RY - l¡()Rl lÊYDt Üfvltra{ll.i :i laÙi-;riii.ì:l Access to the Site We currently have one main access that passes through the Delhi Road/Plassey Road intersection. The intersection is already saturated now during larger funerals. We work closely with the Roads and Maritime Authority to modiñ7 signal phasing during large gatherings. You can imagine though how distressing it is for grieving families to be stranded on our site after a service for more than an hour because of traffic congestion at our only public access.

The intersection has a difficult asymmetric layout, so phasing has to accommodate several different movements. This is exacerbated by very long pedestrian walking distances that conflict with turning traffic. The impacts of major local traffic increases from the proposed development will be significant.

By repofting average íntersection performance rather than focussing on the impacts in lulius and Plassey Roads, the potential impacts on our operations have been underestimated. Movements from Plassey Road are already at Level of Service F. Because this is a minor movement (at least as modelled), an additional east-bound lane in Delhi Road leads to overall intersection improvement but does lìttle or nothing to tackle exiting movements from Plassey Road. This is exacerbated by an increase in conflicting turning movements at Julius Road that can be atlributable to the proposed development.

It is significant that the traffic model did not appear to be specifically calibrated against actual counts at Plassey Road, Using a different model, the comparison between observed and modelled movements underestimated the actual traffic flows from our facility (see Appendix C of Appendix K). During the PM pealç only 56 movements per hour were considered instead of the observed 91 movements. Also the observed AM peak only recorded 38 movements. It was unclear whether this was a single day's count or an avemge, but based on our own knowledge of access patterns during major funerals, this would be a signiflcant underestimation.

We have obtained professional traffic advice that it would be feasible to improve the intersection by providing a sheltered left turn into Plassey Road to Delhi Road, and another turning lane Delhi Road into Plassey Road. We have retained futher traffic advice to understand the cumulative impacLs on our access requirements of the proposal. We were told that the traffic information contained in the Traffic and Access Repo* would not allow him to independently meaningfu lly model the future intersection performance.

A sketch plan of potential improvements to the intersection is attached. We are in the process of getting the sketch modelled and the works costed. Those costings would not include services relocation because they would already be covered under the proposed additional east bound lane augmentation of Delhi Road. We will make this information available to the Depatment when it is to hand, but in the meantime, we maintain our request that any ultimate approval should be conditioned to require the proponent to undertake the intersection improvements to Plassey Road as part of the project.

Upgrading of Delhi RoadlFullers Road Although the above intersection improvements may make some advance, the underlying problem is congestion on Delhi Road/Fullers Road itself, especially east bound from the M2. An additional lane is proposed to just past Plassey Road and this will no doubt assist, However, traffic will then converge back to a single lane at Fullers Road that continues as a narrow bridge at Lane Cove River. There are vague commitments to a regional transport study to address the wider picture, but it is not clear who will undeftake the study, what timeframe will be involved and how any ¡dentified ímprovements will be paid for, It is accepted that the proposed development will not be fully accountable for all the traffic on this artery, but adding 250,000m2 of residential land uses, 85,000m2 of commercial floor space and 6,000m2 of retail area must make the traffic congestion worse.

It would be reasonable to require the proponent to fund this study so that it can be completed in less than geological time.

Pedestrian Access from Macquarie Park Railway Station We commend the initiative of improving access to the area by public transpod through increasing the utilisation of Macquarie Park Railway Station. We note the intention to link various pafts of the development with a significant pedestrian overpass bridge, However, no thought appears to have been given to visitors alighting from the station and wanting to access the Cemetery, Delhi Road has barriers erected near the station and elderly visitors must make a very long and circuitous detour to reach our facilities, A minor extension of the overpass bridge across Delhi Road would make all the difference and we respectfully suggest this be included as a condition of approval.

Spill-over Parking Despite the Environmental Assessment suggestion that current parking provision is generous, we are already experiencing rogue parking from business park workers into our faciliÇ. The proposed development will consciously restrict parking to encourage use of the railway station, The only suggestion to ameliorate such impacb is for Council to consider paid and timed street parking. This will only further encourage commuters and workers to park long term ¡n the Cemetery. A condition requiring the proporient to prepare a comprehensive parking management plan, with inputs from the Trust, ma,¡1 assist in this regard.

Ongoing Consultation Transpott for NSW consulted the Trust twice during the preparation of the Environmental Assessment, but our concerns were so sanitised and generalised in the subsequent specialist report that you would not be in a position to understand or take into account our issues. In the future, including during planning, construction and ongoing operation of the proposaf, we seek meaningful, consistent and focused consultation to minimise social and environmental impacts. A mechanism for this could be via a condition requiring a permanent consultation committee of surrounding property owners and the proponent to serue as a forum for repofting and formal consultation.

Thank you for this opportunity and if you need further information to assess the proposal, feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely

a .:l,x ñ#.^

Pauline Tritton Chief Executive Officer

Encl: Intersection improvement sketch MACQUARIE PARK CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM

(:--- rNcREAsE LEN.îH oF rHE C0mpassi0nate, Considerate. PAINTED RIGHT TURN BAY Commemorative WII-H COMPOSITE INCREASE /l IN ÏHË LENGTH OF NO STOPPING RESTRICTIONS d,l"q lu i: 'í l-ii-,:,,hi +'2 ./ o:¿-E-F2

¿^ tl,5l .ìr;;l CONSTRUCTA LEFT TURN , i tr r,=ii¡ri_:ir,: r. i:(..iiir:.ìi:. SLIP LANE ON THE NORTH ¡.tl ;\ì\ i\:.t.,\i I i:ì t;1É- ,:.:ti.lil i l.:iirl:\ EAST CORNER ,:ii y ' ' 'l i'j..rr:::ì: ¡: ;,/:r; CONSTRUCTA PEDESTRIAN ! ,/r-i -t 1( !r-/!, ì 11i 1.f ts i i.Jlil\; cROSStNc -1'li l;::');. ji, ,.'. ', _)l.,t i lirj-j:j ii\ltl .',i" lr lfì vvil!il;l L4¡j ij¡ CONSTRUCTA ',Ì /ì.jiri.ti;i i j PEDËSTRIAN ISLAND

*\- td *cr ,f ¡rÍ.&,t¿¡g \ :-De(tRo4D c.',¡!où! ì,; ç.

-\ I ,0¿tcdtors 4

-1-U i - f:i:'ì- L liii f: it i\¡ i hlG ''., -.. .. ' ¡:r,.;,.,i. .';1...: f-r ,ì,-¡¡ir suters -r. 'f. l./i l-:. ,..ir ' 1/J3Lr j i2:j.ra ì:' r - r' ,,¡.. ;. .¿ '{c f Pt¡ l't 29 Morshead Street ilt llil I iltiltlllililltilltllillt lil NORTH IIYDE NSW 2113 PCUO44282 8'r'May 2013

Department of Planning & Infrastmcture, Departrnent of Planning

f ':ìr}il\i , GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW zc¡ot 1 0 f,tAy Z0ti Attention: Director, Strategic Assessment Scaniirrig Rlrç¡¡¡ Dear Sir/lvfadarn,

We are residents of North Rycle ancl object to the ploposecl Rycle Precinct development because:

l. The overall density proposecllÌl'the project is CBD clersity ancl therefbre not appropriate or fair fbr the existinr resìc'lents of Nonh lìvcle,

2. The scale of builclings is excessive ¿nd rvill cailse shatle. loss o1'plivacy. excessive tralïc, pollution ancl noise lbr existing residents.

3. We do not \.vanl any cievelopr-lìent on the Ternis lYollcl site. The p:'oposed clevelopment on the OSL site is not in keeping ivith sulloundi:rg lesidential hornes ¿rncl not respecttil of the existing cornmunity. Honres ll,ill be shadeci; there r.vill be k:se privacy which is un¿ìcceptable to the existing resiclents iri Morslread Street. lt lvill create tlafïic chaos.

4. The ploposed bLrilclings lbr the OSL site (Tenris !Vu'lcl) rvili create an unmanageable traffic load for the residents in þlolshead Street urd Ryrie Street. When exitilg the OSL

site to go towards the city. it will be necessary tr: go ieft onto Epping Ro¿id, ther lefi a_sain into Rylie Street ancl then lefi again into Morshead Stleet. Morshe¿rd Street is already an ovel'Ltsscl l'esidential street (r'iit!': l ¡rr!n:u¡r sr:hool ) and not rlesignecl lor excessive trafl'ic

5. The junction at Eppin-e Roacl ancl Ryrie Stleet is a black spot ancl further tlafïic wili cause mol'e motor accidents ancl possìble fatalities.

6. Adclitional load r.vill be placecl on Truscoit Street Public School and Blenheim Park

Yours laithfully, X<8.*Â"\ -Suc, Tcrry, Jancl'le Ancl Leanne Budd To: Brad HazzardMinister for Planning

CC: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Submission on the proposals for the North Ryde Station Precinct.

[email protected]. gov. au (DP&I site for submission)

michael. fi le@planning. nsw. gov. au

offtce @hazzard. minister. nsw. gov. au

friend sofno rtbry de @änet. net. au

electorateoffi ce.ryde@parliament. ns\ry. gov. au j ohn. alexander.mp@aph. gov. au

Dear Minister,

I stronslv obiect to the scale and size of the proposed North Ryde Station Development, Tennis World development.

I have attended information sessions presented by the DPI. I found their presentation misleading trying to camouflage deficiencies of the project and exaggerate insignificant "benefits". In effect, the proposal has nothing positive in it, either for prospective or existing residents.

. There has been a complete lack of community consultation up to this point. This is contrary to the White Paper policy that requires community consultation at the strategic level. The presentations came across as describing an established fact rather than a proposal. The process used is flawed as it fails to follow the white paper's scheme as it puts rezoning ahead of community consultation, and ahead of the Regional Planning Boards . It is completely undemouatic, and in fact totalitarian, as there is no independent review nor right of appeal. In fact if a Council objects, the objection can be, for the O'Farrell Government, a cause to sack The Council.

. These developments are not family friendly. High rise developments are unsuitable for families and children. This has nothing to do with growing population (a "fact" which itself is grossly exaggerated by the Department). This development could be only suitable for overseas investors to buy as a rental property. It is easy to predict it will become a ghetto.

The proposed development has less than l5o/o of open space. This is completely unacceptable. A figure like 40% open space is needed for the development to be able to breathe The proposed density cannot be justified with any rate of population growth. It is comparable to New Delhi and similar places.

. Our schools, both public and private are at capacity. The data used by DPI to prove otherwise is old and outdated.

. Our open space and recreational areas are being destroyed in the process. Extra apartments will make the situation untenablen increase crime and conflict in the area.

. Tennis World, has to remain a recreational facility for our children and future generations. Australia has one of the largest obesity problems in the world and need more recreational areas, not less.

. Our public hospitals, ambulance stations and other public services are barely coping now. Again the flrgures used by the DPI are incorrect and again out of date.

. Traffic is a major issue in the whole Ryde area. The reports presented do not provide any solutions. The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epping Road will be impassable in working hours; Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand the full impact of proposed developments. Irresponsible increases in density will further exacerbate traffic problems and put a question mark on the survival of the Macquarie Business Park which currently is in traffic grid lock much of the day.

. The notion that everyone is going to be riding bikes or walking is ludicrous. Sydney does not have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport. Your consultants are urging people to use slow overcrowded buses and ride bikes while they get away in their BMWs paid for by the taxpayers' purse.

. The North Ryde Station is not accessible to the residents. There is a need for a public car park at the station. North Ryde Station is the only station on the line that has sufficient room for a commuter car park. This would reduce the traffic from M2 and get people to stop, park and take a train to the city.

. Environmental issues are huge. This development is next to the Lane Cove National Park, which will suffer with overshadowing and urban run-off. This will affect vegetation and amenity. The endangered ecological community of remnant Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest which runs adjacent to parts of this development will also be impacted.

V/hilst the North Ryde Station development is completely irresponsible and ill conceived, the cumulative effect of proposed development in the Ryde area ishonific. The biggest travesty to the North Ryde people is the Tennis World site. This site backs onto family homes and any development will overlook their backyards and impinge on their privacy . This area has been a family home area for years, and originally was a war veteransf home area.

We want to see this proposal changed to include as follows:

a Tennis \Morld should most definitely be left as recreational space.

. The height and density of the proposed development at the North Ryde station needs to be reduced to max 8 floors with a minimum 40o/o of open space.

. No Development south of Epping Road whatsoever. The dormitory area of North Ryde to retain its original character.

Additional shopping centres and retail areas are not needed in North Ryde.

Yours sincerely

Joanna Subotic

43 Edmondson St.

North Ryde, NSW 2113 Page I of2 @

Malcolm McDonald - North Ryde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal

From: Jane Stergio To: Date: 14105/2013 l:34 AM Subject: North Ryde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal CC: ElectorateOffice Ryde ,

Attention: Director, Strategic Assessment

Re: North Ryde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal

I understand the State Govemment would like to

. build more housing close to transport hubs - in this case utilising its land adjacent to the M2 in North Ryde ¡ increase patronage of the North Ryde Train Station

I believe these objectives could be met with a lower population density, by not using the OSL site on the southem side of Epping Road, and by providing some drop-off zones and parking near North Ryde Station,

I object to the current proposal:

l. The development is too large, creating an extremely high population density in a relatively small geographic location. The number of apartments should be significantly reduced. 2. The proposal does not adequately address capacity in public schools. 3. The proposal does not adequately solve the cufrent traffic congestion problems, but instead increases them. 4. The proposal should not include the OSL site, as this removes existing recreational space and will increase traffic in local back sheets. 5. There are other ways to increase the use of the North Ryde Train Station. Local residents would use it if there was appropriate access.

The proposal states that the population of North Ryde will increase by nearly 50% due to 4565 new residents in the UAP, adding to the existing 10115+ residents in North Ryde. This increase in population will have a huge impact on community life, including a) Schooling

I object to the assertion that local "schools have potential capacity to accommodate additional students"

The proposal suggests there would be 185 children aged 5-9 and 170 children aged l0-14 arrd225 children aged l5-19.

I have a child at Truscott St Public School, the primary school closest to the UAP site. It currently has 291 students and does not have the capacity for an increase in enrolments anywhere near 185. I would not like to see demountable classrooms covering the existing play areas. If there was a large increase in numbers of children in the school, the play areas would be needed even more. The school is surrounded by residential streets, so there is no possibilþ ofincreasing the physical size ofthe school.

Ryde Secondary College is the local high school and it is already over capacity. They would not be able to accommodate 300+ extra enrolments. Epping Boys High School is also at capacity.

It is a shame that Peter Board High School in Epping Road was closed down in 1998. It would be the perfect location for a school for residents of the UAP as well as for existing residents.

Any UAP development in North Ryde must make proper provision for the education of its young residents. b) Road traffìc and congestion

I object to the increase in traffic congestion, and to the methods of access to/from the OSL and RMS sites. The proposal admits that the existing road network is already "operating close to capacity.l'Adding so many apartments in such a small area will just increase the congestion.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mbmcdonald\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\5192ODD4SYDNDOM... 14/05/2013 Page2 of2

i. The Epping Road Left-in/Left-out access to the OSL site will result in increased traffic along the residential streets to the southwest when OSL residents want to drive their cars towards Chatswood or the City.

o The left turn into Ryrie St is already an accident hot-spot. An increase in residents may increase this problem. ¡ The cars would then travel past Truscott St Public School increasing risk ofaccidents with young childen. . Moreshead St usually has commuter cars parked on both sides with a single lane available for 2-way traffic, so extra cars on this street would exacerbate an existing problem. ¡ Blenheim road and Pithvater road are already very congested in the moming peak, with cars short-cutting down Warwick St and Clarence St, making it impossible for residents to travel in the opposite direction for a period of time. This is already a serious problem for my street.

If the OSL site is developed against local resident wishes, then please consider a traflic light opposite Delhi road, so the new OSL residents could access l)elhi road or Epping road in either direction without having to travel around back streets.

ii. The Epping Road Left-in/Left-out turn for the RMS site will increase traffic at the Delhi Rd/Epping Rd intersection, as those residents will need to access Delhi road in order to travel north west along Epping road, or they will access the back streets as mentioned above, but in the opposite direction - again increasing congestion in local streets.

iii. The Waterloo Rd/Wicks Rd intersection is the only viable access for the M2 site, but it is a very congested traffic area already. My children have played hockey at the hockey field on Waterloo road, and it is a nightmare getting them there for training. Workers in those streets have only 2 options: Epping Road or Lane Cove Road, which are both heavily used roads. Traffic comes to a standstill on Wicks Road and Waterloo Road and extra traffic from the UAP will only increase the problems.

c) Recreation areas

I object to the conversion of an existing recreational area, Tennis World, into housing, on the OSL site. The UAP is supposed to "increase amenties, services and improve public spaces". The removal of Tennis World will not fulfil this particular goal. In fact it removes a recreation area that is currently seen by local residents as an area for public use. While recreational areas will be created within the UAP, they will be seen as part of the development for use of residents within that development and not for use by the wider community.

d) North Ryde Train Station

The North Ryde Train Station is not well utilised by existing residents because there is no safe drop-off or pickup point near the station entrance, and no parking anywhere nearby. A more useful way of increasing the use of the station for existing residents would be to provide a safe area for 5 minute drop-ofß and pickups and to provide a parking area for commuters - even a bus interchange! The Station Site North and South would be the most appropriate place to put these facilities.

My children belong to East Ryde Scout Group, who utilise train transport for some activities. The leaders choose West Ryde station as a meeting point even though it is some distance away, because at West Ryde station there is a safe place for parents to park cars and take children to join their leaders. It would be more convenient to be able to use North Ryde Station, but there is no place for parents to park their cars. They cannot even drive past and drop the children off as there is no provision for that. The station was not built to service residents, but for commuters. It is not surprising that it is under-utilised!

Regards Jane Stergio 7 Warwick StNorth Ryde

flrle://C:\Documents and Settings\mbmcdonald\Local Settings\TempUGGrpWise\s192ODD4SYDNDOM... 14/05/2013 @

To: Brad HazzardMinister for Planning

CC: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Submission on the proposals for the North Ryde Station Precinct.

[email protected]. gov. au (DP&I site for submission)

michael. [email protected]. gov. au

offrce@hazzard. mini ster. nsw. gov. au

fri end sofno rthry de@änet. net. au

electorateo ffic e.ry de @parliament. nsw. gov. au j ohn. alexan der .mp @aph. gov. au

Dear Minister,

I stronelv obiect to the scale and size of the proposed North Rvde Station Development. Tennis World development.

I have attended information sessions presented by the DPI. I found their presentation misleading trying to camouflage deficiencies of the project and exaggerate insignificant "benefits". In effect, the proposal has nothing positive in it, either for prospective or existing residents.

. There has been a complete lack of community consultation up to this point. This is contrary to the White Paper policy that requires community consultation at the strategic level. The presentations came across as describing an established fact rather than a proposal. The process used is flawed as it fails to follow the white paper's scheme as it puts rezoning ahead of community consultation, and ahead of the Regional Planning Boards . It is completely undemocratic, and in fact totalitarian, as there is no independent review nor right of appeal. In fact if a Council objects, the objection can be, for the O'Farrell Government, a cause to sack The Council.

. These developments are not family friendly. High rise developments are unsuitable for families and children. This has nothing to do with growing population (a "fact" which itself is grossly exaggerated by the Department). This development could be only suitable for overseas investors to buy as a rental property. It is easy to predict it will become a ghetto.

. The proposed development has less than l5o/o of open space. This is completely unacceptable. A,figure like 40% open space is needed for the development to be able to breathe The proposed density cannot be justified with any rate of population growth. It is comparable to New Delhi and similar places.

. Our schools, both public and private are at capacity. The data used by DPI to prove otherwise is old ¿ind outdated.

. Our open space and recreational areas are being destroyed in the process. Extra apartments will make the situation untenable, increase crime and conflict in the area.

. Tennis \ilorld, has to remain a recreational facility for our children and future generations. Australia has one of the largest obesity problems in the world and need more recreational areas, not less.

. Our public hospitals, ambulance stations and other public services are barely coping now. Again the figures used by the DPI are incorregt and again out of date.

. Traffic is a major issue in the whole Ryde area. The reports presented do not provide any solutions. The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epping Road will be impassable in working hours. Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand the full impact of proposed developments. Irresponsible increases in density will further exacerbate traffic problems and put a question mark on the survival of the Macquarie Business Park which currently is in traffic grid lock much of the day.

. The notion that everyone is going to be riding bikes or walking is ludiuous. Sydney does not have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport. Your consultants are urging people to use slow overcrowded buses and ride bikes while they get away in their BMWs paid for by the taxpayers' purse.

. The North Ryde Station is not accessible to the residents. There is a need for a public car park at the station. North Ryde Station is the only station on the line that has sufficient room for a commuter car park. This would reduce the traffic from M2 and get people to stop, park and take a train to the city.

. Environmental issues are huge. This development is next to the Lane Cove National Park, which will suffer with overshadowing and urban run-off. This will affect vegetation and amenity. The endangered ecological communþ of remnant Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest which runs adjacent to parts of this development will also be impacted.

V/hilst the North Ryde Station development is completely irresponsible and ill conceived, the cumulative effect of proposed development in the Ryde area is honific. The biggest travesty to the North Ryde people is the Tennis World site. This site backs onto family homes and any development will overlook their backyards and impinge on their privacy . This area has been a family home area for years, and originally was a wâr veteransr home area.

We want to see this proposal changed to include as follows:

a Tennis World should most definitely be left as recreational space.

. The height and density of the proposed development at the North Ryde station needs to be reduced to max 8 floors with a minimum 40o/" of open space.

. No Development south of Epping Road whatsoever. The dormitory area of North Ryde to retain its original character.

a Additional shopping c'entres and retail areas are not needed in North Ryde.

Yours sincerely

Ivan Winkç

43 Edmondson St.

North Ryde, NSW 2113 Page I of2

Malcolm McDonald - RE: NORTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

From: "Colin C" To: Date: 13105/2013 l1:37 PM Subject: RE: NORTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CC:

We Strongly object to the North Ryde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal. The reasons for my objection include:

lnadequate community consultation: For a $1-2bn project that has been described by Transport for NSW as being comparable to Barrangaroo, the community consultation, has and continues to be woefully inadequate. This is contrary to the White Paper policy that requires community consultation at the strategic level. The two drop-in sessions provided to the community were a presentation implying what was to come, rather than an opportunity for the community to provide meaningful input. This consultation is nowhere near adequate for a rezoning proposal that will have long term and far reaching impacts on the City of Ryde for decades to come.

No independent, objective assessment process: There is no objective, independent assessment process for the rezon¡ng study. The Department of Planning will be assessing its own study. The Minster for Planning will then be allowed to approve the rezoning without any other independent assessment required. This is completely unacceptable, especially for a rezoning that will hand over nearly 14Ha of public owned land to developers with massive profits to be made. This process has less independence in the approval process than the much despise Part 3a provisions.

The extreme building heights, density and lack of open space: Within the current design there are no considerations for the existing community of North Ryde in terms of additional open space, instead the proposal intends to remove existing open, recreational space from the community. The rezoning will result in only 14% of the 14Ha site being designated open space. This ratio of open space is significantly lower than other recent developments in Sydney including Harold Park (38%), Victoria Park (40o/o) and even Central Park in the middle of the Sydney CBD (30%). The population density of the development will be approximately 32,6001km2 +, indicating that this population density is comparable to the most dense cities in the world. Yet the development area is not a CBD; it is bordered by a high tech commercial area, residential houses and a cemetery. The building heights proposed will create shadows over residential houses, child care settings and a school. The heights must be reduced to a reasonable level, and be capped at medium density so it is no higher than its surrounding commercial buildings.

Our hospitals, police and schools, both public and private are at capacity: The figures used by the DPI are incorrect and out dated. For an area which has schools both public and private currently at capacity, there are no provisions for new schools for approximately 2,750 dwellings (consisting o11,2 & 3 bedrooms, including student accommodation and serviced apartments). We do not want to increase the size of our current local schools.

Tennis World has to remain a recreational facility for our children and future generations: Australia has one of the largest obesity problems in the world and need more recreational areas, not less. This site also backs onto family homes and any development will overlook their backyards and impinge on their privacy.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mbmcdonald\Local Settings\TempU(PGrpWise\5l920DD4SYDNDOM... 14105/2013 Page2 of2

Traffic: Traffic congestion is already a significant issue in the whole Ryde area, and in particular the roads surrounding the proposed North Ryde Station precinct. The notion that everyone is going to be riding bikes or walking is ludicrous. Sydney does not.have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport. The reports presented do not provide any solutions. The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epping Road and Macquarie Business Park will be further exasperated in peak hours. Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand the full impact of proposed developments. We note also that the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) rejected the Allengrove Cres Development in 2012 for reasons including the adverse impact the 200+ apartments would have on the already congested local roads. The North Ryde Station Precinct is located only 800m from the Allengrove Development and yet is 10+ times the density.

Accessibility to train station: The development site, adjoining North Ryde train station is an ideal place for a transport interchange rather than high rise housing. A substantial car park and bus interchange could be constructed to enable better use of public transport while taking traffic from the M2 off Epping Road. North Ryde is the only station on the line that has sufficient space for such a transport oriented facility. The M2 site was set aside back in the 1950's for transport use and would be ídeal for such a transport interchange.

Significant environmental impacts: The remnant Sydney Turpentine-lronbark Forest (ST¡F) located at on and adjacent to sections of the development site, is one of a few remaining areas left in Sydney of this critically endangered ecological community. lts' long term survival is questionable being stranded and surrounded by such high rise and development density. This will have ecological community consequences, not only on the STIF, but the surrounding Lane Cove National Park and the effects of run-off on the Lane Cove River catchment, the ground-water and the long-term effects of building shadows on the vegetation surrounding the development site.

We hope you will be a government who listens to and respects it people and not make mistakes now that will remain with us for generations to come.

Colin Christian

file://C:\Documents and Settingsþbmcdonald\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\5l92ODD4SYDNDOM... 14/0512013 13th May 2013

Attn: Director, Strateg¡c Assessment, Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Department of Planning & lnfrastructure, GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW 2001 Email : [email protected] cc [email protected] friendsofnorth [email protected]

RE: NORTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

We Stronglv obiect to the North Rvde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal. The reasons for mv obiection include:

lnadequate commun¡ty consultation: For a St-Zbn project that has been described by Transport for NSW as being comparable to Barrangaroo, the community consultation, has and continues to be woefully inadequate. This is contrary to the White Poper policy that requires community consultation at the strategic level. The two drop-in sessions provided to the community were a presentation implying what was to come, rather than an opportunity for the community to provide meaningful input. This consultation is nowhere near adequate for a rezoning proposal that will have long term and far reaching impacts on the City of Ryde for decades to come.

No independent, objective assessment process: There is no objective, independent assessment process for the rezoning study. The Department of Planning will be assessing its own study. The Minster for Planning will then be allowed to approve the rezoning without any other independent assessment required. This is completely unacceptable, especially for a rezoning that will hand over nearly 14Ha of public owned land to developers with massive profits to be made. This process has less independence in the approval process than the much despise Part 3a provisions.

The extreme building heights, density and lack of open space: Within the current design there are no considerations for the existing community of North Ryde in terms of additional open space, instead the proposal intends to remove existing open, recreational space from the community. The rezoning will result in only L4% of the 14Ha site being designated open space. This ratio of open space is significantly lower than other recent developments in Sydney including Harold Park (38%), Victoriq Park (40%) and even Central Park in the middle of the Sydney CBD (30%). The population density of the development will be approximately 32,60O/km2 + , indicating that this population density is comparable to the most dense cities in the world. Yet the development area is not a CBD; it is bordered by a high tech commercial area, residential houses and a cemetery. The building heights proposed will create shadows over residential houses, child care settings and a school. The heights must be reduced to a reasonable level, and be capped at medium density so it is no higher than its surrounding commercial buildings.

Our hospitals, police and schools, both public and pr¡vate are at capac¡ty: The figures used by the DPI are ¡ncorrect and out dated. For an area which has schools both public and private currently at capacity, there are no provisions for new schools for approximately 2,750 dwellings (consisting of L,2 & 3 bedrooms, including student accommodation and serviced apartments). We do not want to increase the size of our current local schools. Tennis World has to remain a recreational facility for our children and future generations: Australia has one of the largest obesity problems in the world and need more recreational areas, not less. This site also backs onto family homes and any development will overlook their backyards and impinge on their privacy.

Traffic: Traffic congestion is already a significant issue in the whole Ryde area, and in particular the roads surrounding the proposed North Ryde Station precinct. The notion that everyone is going to be riding bikes or walking is ludicrous. Sydney does not have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport. The reports presented do not provide any solutions. The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epping Road and Macquarie Business Park will be further exasperated in peak hours. Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand the full impact of proposed developments. We note also that the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) rejected the Allengrove Cres Development in 20L2 for reasons including the adverse impact the 200+ apartments would have on the already congested local roads. The North Ryde Station Precinct is located only 800m from the Allengrove Development and yet is 10+ times the density.

Accessibility to train station: The development site, adjoining North Ryde train station is an ideal place for a transport interchange rather than high rise housing. A substantial car park and bus interchange could be constructed to enable better use of public transport while taking traffic from the M2 off Epping Road. North Ryde is the only stat¡on on the line that has sufficient space for such a transport oriented facility. The M2 site was set aside back in the 1950's for transport use and would be ideal for such a transport interchange.

Significant environmental impacts: The remnant Sydney Turpentine-lronbark Forest (STIF) located at on and adjacent to sections of the development site, is one of a few remaining areas left in Sydney of this critically endangered ecological community. lts' long term survival is questionable being stranded and surrounded by such high rise and development density. This will have ecological community consequences, not only on the STIF, but the surrounding Lane Cove National Park and the effects of run-off on the Lane Cove River catchment, the ground-water and the long-term effects of building shadows on the vegetation surrounding the development site.

We hope you will be a government who listens to and respects it people and not make mistakes now that will remain with us for generations to come.

Yours sincerely

Karen & Scott Kennedy 43 Morshead Street North Ryde NSW 2113 Page 7 of2

Malcolm McDonald - NORTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

From: "Jonathan & Yael" To: Date: 13105/2013 7:07 PM Subject: NORTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CC: ,

Attn: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

We wish to reqister our stronq obiection to the North Ryde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal. The reasons for our objection .include:

lnadequate community consultation: For a $1-2bn project that has been described by Transport for NSW as being comparable to Barrangaroo, the community consultation, has and continues to be woefully inadequate. This is contrary to the White Paper policy that requires community consultation at the strategic level. The two drop-in sessions provided to the community were a presentation implying what was to come, rather than an opportunity for the community to provide meaningful input. This consultation is nowhere near adequate for a rezoning proposal that will have long term and far reaching impacts on the City of Ryde for decades to come.

No independent, objective assessment process; There is no objective, independent assessment process for the rezoning study. The Department of Planning will be assessing its own study. The Minster for Planning will then be allowed to approve the rezoning without any other independent assessment required. This is completely unacceptable, especially for a rezoning that will hand over nearly 14Ha of public owned land to developers with massive profits to be made. This process has less independence in the approval process than the much despise Part 3a provisions.

The extreme building heights, density and lack of open space: Within the current design there are no considerations for the existing community of North Ryde in terms of additional open space, instead the proposal intends to remove existing open, recreational space from the community. The rezoning will result in only 14o/o of the 14Ha site being designated open space. This ratio of open space is significantly lower than other recent developments in Sydney including Harold Park (38%), Victoria Park (4O%) and even Central Park in the middle of the Sydney CBD (30%). The population density of the development will be approximately 32,600/km2 + , indicating that this population density is comparable to the most dense cities in the world. Yet the development area is not a CBD; it is bordered by a high tech commercial area, residential houses and a cemetery. The building heights proposed will create shadows over residential houses, child care settings and a school. The heights must be reduced to a reasonable level, and be capped at medium density so it is no higher than its surrounding commercial buildings.

Our hospitals, police and schools, both public and private are at capac¡ty: The figures used by the DPI are ¡ncorrect and out dated. For an area which has schools both public and private currently at capacity, there are no provisions for new schools for approximately 2,750 dwellings (consisting of 1, 2 & 3 bedrooms, including student accommodation and serviced apartments). We do not want to increase the size of our current local schools.

Tennis World has to remain a recreational facility for our children and future generations: Australia has one of the largest obesity problems in the world and need more recreational areas, not less. This site also backs onto family homes and any development will overlook their backyards and impinge on their privacy.

Traffic: Traffic congestion is already a significant issue in the whole Ryde area, and in particular the roads surrounding the proposed North Ryde Station precinct. The notion that everyone is going to be riding bikes or walking is ludicrous. Sydney does not have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport. The reports presented do not provide any solutions. The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epping Road and Macquarie Business Park will be further exasperated in peak hours. Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand lhe full impact of proposed developments. We note also that the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) rejected the Allengrove Cres Development in 2012for reasons including the adverse impact the 200+ apartments would have on the already congested local roads. The North Ryde Station Precinct is located only 800m from the Allengrove Development and yet is 10+ times the density.

Accessibility to train station: The development site, adjoining North Ryde train station is an ideal place for a transport interchange rather than high rise housing. A substantial car park and bus interchange could be constructed to enable better use of public transport while taking traffic from the M2 off Epping Road. North Ryde is the only station on the line that has sufficient space for such a transport oriented facility. The M2 site was set aside back in the 1950's for transport use and would be ideal for such a transport interchange.

Significant environmental impacts: The remnant Sydney Turpentinelronbark Forest (STIF) located at on and adjacent to sections of the development site, is one of a few remaining areas left in Sydney of this critically endangered ecological community. lts' long term survival is questionable being stranded and surrounded by such high rise and development density. This will have ecological community consequences, not only on the STIF, but the surrounding Lane Cove National Park and the effects of run-off on the Lane Cove River catchment, the ground-water and the long-term effects of

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mbmcdonald\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\5l920DD4SYDNDOM... 14/05/2013 Page2 of2

building shadows on the vegetation surrounding the development site.

We hope you will be a government who listens to and respects its people and not make mistakes now that will remain with us for generations lo come.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan & Yael Rottanburg 28 Bridge Road North Ryde

file://C:\Documents and Settings\rnbmcdonald\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrp\Mise\5l92ODD4SYDNDOM... 1410512013 @

13th May 2013

Attn: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Department of Planning & lnfrastructure, GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW 2001 Email : [email protected]

cc: [email protected] friendsofnorthryde@iinet. net.au

RE: NORTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

We Stronqlv obiect to the North Rvde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal. The reasons for mv obiection include:

lnadequate community consultation: For a St-Zbn project that has been described by Transport for NSW as being comparable to Barrangaroo, the community consultation, has and continues to be woefully inadequate. This is contrary to the White Paper policy that requires community consultation at the strategic level. The two drop-in sessions provided to the community were a presentation implying what was to come, rather than an opportunity for the community to provide meaningful input. This consultation is nowhere near adequate for a rezoning proposal that will have long term and far reaching impacts on the City of Ryde for decades to come.

No independent, objective assessment process: There is no objective, independent assessment process for the rezoning study. The Department of Planning will be assessing its own study. The Minster for Planning will then be allowed to approve the rezoning without any other independent assessment required. This is completely unacceptable, especially for a rezoning that will hand over nearly 14Ha of public owned land to developers with massive profits to be made. This process has less independence in the approval process than the much despise Part 3a provisions.

The extreme building heights, density and lack of open space: Within the current design there are no considerations for the existing community of North Ryde in terms of additional open space, instead the proposal intends to remove existing open, recreational space from the community. The rezoning will result in only L4% of the 14Ha site being designated open space. This ratio of open space is significantly lower than other recent developments in Sydney including Harold Park (38%), Victoria Park (4O%l and even Central Park in the middle of the Sydney CBD (30%). The population density of the development will be approximately 32,6OO/km2 + , indicating that this population density is comparable to the most dense cities in the world. Yet the development area is not a CBD; it is bordered by a high tech commercial area, residential houses and a cemetery. The building heights proposed will create shadows over residential houses, child care settings and a school. The heights must be reduced to a reasonable level, and be capped at medium density so it is no higher than its surrounding commercial buildings.

Our hospitals, police and schools, both public and pr¡vate are at capac¡ty: The figures used by the DPI are incorrect and out dated. For an area which has schools both public and private currently at capacity, there are no provisions for new schools for approximately 2,750 dwellings (consisting of L,2 & 3 bedrooms, including student accommodation and serviced apartments). We do not want to increase the size of our current local schools. Tennis World has to remain a reçreational facility for our children and future generations: Australia has one of the largest obesity problems in the world and need more recreational areas, not less. This site also backs onto family homes and any development will overlook thgir backyards and impinge on their privacy.

Traffic: Traffic congestion is already a significant issue in the whole Ryde area, and in particular the roads surrounding the proposed North Ryde Station precinct. The notion that everyone is going to be riding bikes or walking is ludicrous, Sydney does not have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport. The reports presented do not provide any solutions. The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epping Road and Macquarie Business Park will be further exasperated in peak hours. Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand the full impact of proposed developments. We note also that the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) rejected the Allengrove Cres Development in 2012 for reasons including the adverse impact the 200+ apartments would have on the already congested local roads. The North Ryde Station Precinct is located only 800m from the Allengrove Development and yet is 10+ times the density

Accessibility to train station: The development site, adjoining North Ryde train station is an ideal place for a transport interchange rather than high rise housíng. A substantial car park and bus interchange could be constructed to enable better use of public transport while taking traffic from the M2 off Epping Road. North Ryde is the only station on the line that has sufficient space for such a transport oriented facility. The M2 site was set aside back in the 1950's for transport use and would be ideal for such a transport interchange.

Significant environmental impacts: The remnant Sydney Turpentine-lronbark Forest (STIF) located at on and adjacent to sections of the development site, is one of a few remaining areas left in Sydney of this critically endangered ecologicalcommunity. lts' longterm survival is questionable being stranded and surrounded by such high rise and development density. This will have ecological community consequences, not only on the STIF, but the surrounding Lane Cove National Park and the effects of run-off on the Lane Cove River catchment, the ground-water and the long-term effects of building shadows on the vegetation surrounding the development site.

We hope you will be a government who listens to and respects it people and not make mistakes now that will remain with us for generations to come.

Yours sincerely

Paul& Lisa Mach 22 Conrad Street North Ryde NSW 2113 @

Jenny & Rubert Shakesheff ¿ / uavrd Ave 4tlorth Ryde NSW 2113

13 May 201"3

Depar{rñen:t af Flan n ing & I nfrastructure ÊP0 Sox39, SYDÏ\I,Ë.Y NSw 20t1

Attn: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

By ãmaÍI: pi an*eotïrne nt@ p I a n ni n g. nsw. gov. âu

NCIRTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

,i$lt¡lnpiv:O'þiectrtc tþe8. .fllt'.ßfde $.tatiol precinct RezoninÊ Fropoqa!. fhe reasons fef.r"riy,.obiec.tion inglude:

:fnadequateeomrnunity cohslrliationi For a 51.-2bn projectthat,has beea desc¡ibed bylransport for NSW as beTng comparãble ts Barrahgaroo, the community consultation, ha$ and çsRtinues to be uroetully inadequate. This is.cont-r.afylo the tllliite,Psper policv that requir.es comr¡unity consultation a,t the. strategic level. The two drop-in sqssions provÍded to the community were.a presentation irnplying what'wasto come, rather than an opportunity for the community to provide rneanlngful input, This consultation is nowhere neär adequate for a fêioning progosalthatwlll,have longtê.rm and f.ar reaöhifigiírnpa.cts-on the City o-f Ryde for de-€âdes ts co¡ïe.

'f{o.¡ndg.riéfidenti c.bje¿tïve.âs.sêssmênt'Frûce.ss,: Tåqre is no. qþfé.Ëtivê indep-e¡dent assessfiient Broc€qs for the r:ezoning stU.dy" rhe Department of Planning,w.ill bc as$s¡ing lt* own st'udy, îhe Minster fcr Planning wfll then be Allowed, to approv.ej the i'eidnir¡g r¡vithogt antr1,atþer inde¡endent:à$sêssrnent r€quired. This ís completely unaccepta,ble, espeeially fgy a,r,e¿oning thât witl hând Õver,nearly 141:la ofìpublie owned land to developers with massive profits to be made. This process has less independence in the approval proress than the much despise Part 3a provìsions,

T,he extre.rnê buildtng,heights,deaslty and tack 6f.o,pen.$Ba-cêi, Wilhinthe çurrentdesign ther€ a,re no to'tX$ldêla$çRsf.grith'e€,¡dst¡ltgcommga¡tlrjof:Nìo"rthRydeinte¡r,nçofad itic'nal,Ope¡¡pace"insteadtheproposal fittg,-ñdE to,remöv,Êj ex¡sling,opea, r€cr€atiÕnã.1 space,Ir,om tlie ccrnmunlty. The rezoningwill result in only 3"4% pf 'This the X4Ha $íte þe¡ng designated npen spâce. ratio of open space is,sig¡ifi.eantllr lowerthan other recent developments in Sydney including l-larold Fark þ8%), Victoria Park {40%} and even Central Park in the middle of thé,SJ¡dri€l¡'eBÐ {å0 .}. The population density o,f the devetÕÞ,rnênt'ü'¡ill be,àB, r.oxim.atef 32¡60Üll(fi?+, irrdi tlrlg,thåt this p--oïtulat¡on dêfisity is,ðornp¿i,rable to the rnost de nse cliiê$'in .the world. Yei the develaprnent '¡s ,a,nd ãre¡ hot ã ËBÞ; it is bi¡fd.erêd bV a, h¡gh têrh comrnêtçiê|, a.ea,. r:esidþntlal houses * semetely" The bui.lding he.ightsp¡opoçed,W.lllc.rçateshadowsoverreside-nt-ial,hsuge-s,ç.T.i.rl çaresettings,anda*hool. Theheightsmust be reduced to a reasonable level, and be capped at medium density so it is no higher than its surrounding commercidl buildings. Our hospitals, police and schosls, both pubiic and priv.ate are at capacity: The figures used by the DPI

âre inccrreet and out dated. Ëor an area whìch has schools both public anel priv*te e urrently at capacity, the re âre no provisions for new schools 1o¡ approxirnately f75t dwellings {consisting of | ã & 3 bedrocrns, including student gceomrnodation and serviced apartments), We do not wänt to increasethe size of nt¡r current local schoals. é')

Tennis World hasto remaln a recreational faeility for our children and future generationsl AusÍralia has ane of the lar:gest obesity problerns in the wÕrld and need rnore recrqational äreas, nst less. Thís site also backs onto family homes and any development will overlook their backr¿ar.ds and im,pinge on their privacy.

Traffie T¡af,fic eongestiun is:afread* a significant issue'in the whCIle Ryde area, and in particular the roads surrsLfnding:the proposed North Ryde Station precinct. The noti,on that ever.yune is goingto be riding bikes or walking is ludicrous. Sydney does not have the topography suítable for cycling as an eve,¡y$ay,meãns sf n'Ìãss tränsp-ort. The reports presented do not prov¡de any solutions. The side raads tAppeñdix l{ íssuingto Epping Road and Macquarie Business Park will b-e fuither exasperated in peak :hours. :Further studies need to be prepared for the entirê area to understand the frJll irnpact of praposed developrnents. We nöte also thatthe Flanning Asssssment Commission (PAC| rejected the Âllengrove Cres Development ín 2012 for reasons including the adverse impact the 200+ apartrnents would,have an the al,ready-congested laealroads, The North Rr¡de Statíon Frecinct ÍS loeated only 80$rn t¡om the:Allengrove Þev,elopment and yet is L0+ times the densitr¡.

AeCessibilÍty, ts traìn station:'Thê devêlopr,nent site, adjoining North Ryde train stat¡on is an ideal place fo¡,a transpart interchange rathe,r than high rise,housinç As¡bstantial car park and bus interchange could be constructed to enable better use of public transport while taking traffic from the M2 off Epping Road. North Ryde is the only station on the line that has sr¡fficient space for such a transport oríented facility, The M2 site was set aside back Ìn the, 1950's for transport use and would be idealfor sach a transport interchang:e.

Signífieant environt?entäl ¡ríFa€t$ The remnan,t syd¡xey Turpêntine.-k:qnþark Fo,rest:tSÏlFllci'catetl at ÕR -and, adjacent to sections of the development site, is one of a few remaining areas left in Sydney of this critically ê,ndangered ecologieal community,,:lts long term survival is questionable being stranded and sur,rounded bysueh h,ìgþ,r¡se ând development density. This wilf have ecological communíty cçnsequences, net enly on the,SIlf, but the surrounding Lane Cove National Park and the effects of run-off on the Lane Cove River catchment, the ground-water: and the long:term effects of buitding shadows on the vegetation surrounding the development site,

We.hgBe Vou will be a go-v.ernrnênt who listens to and r€spects it peopte âad, not .rnake,mistakes now that will rernain with us for generations to come.

Vours sineerely

fi. fc: iyde@þa,r"lia mênt asw.goú.ãu; f rien dssfnnr,thrideúp,ilnet.net.a* NORTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Sarah Robson 1 Berryman St North Ryde NSW 2113

May 13th 2013.

Attn: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Department of Planning & lnfrastructure, GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW 2001 Email: plan [email protected]

I Stronglv obiect to the North Rvde Station Precinct Rezoning Proposal. The reasons for mv obiection include:

lnadequate community consultation: For a St-Zbn project that has been described by Transport for NSW as being comparable to Barrangaroo, the community consultation, has and continues to be woefully inadequate. This is contrary to the White Paper policy that requires community consultation at the strategic level. The two drop-in sessions provided to the community were a presentation implying what was to come, rather than an opportunity for the community to provide meaningful input. This consultation is nowhere near adequate for a rezoning proposal that will have long term and far reaching impacts on the City of Ryde for decades to come.

No independent, objective assessment process: There is no objective, independent assessment process for the rezoning study. The Department of Planning will be assessing its own study. The Minster for Planning will then be allowed to approve the rezoning without any other independent assessment required. This is completely unacceptable, especially for a rezoning that will hand over nearly 14Ha of public owned land to developers with massíve profits to be made. This process has less independence in the approval process than the much despise Part 3a provisions.

The extreme building heights, density and lack of open space: Within the current design there are no considerations for the existing community of North Ryde in terms of additional open space, instead the proposal intends to remove existing open, recreational space from the community. The rezoning will result in only 14% of the 14Ha site being designated open space. This ratio of open space is significantly lower than other recent developments in Sydney including Harold Park {38%), Victoria Park (4Oo/ol and even Central Park in the middle of the Sydney CBD (30%). The population density of the development will be approximately 32,6}0/km2 + , indicating that this population density is comparable to the most dense cities in the world. Yet the development area is not a CBD; it is bordered by a high tech commercial area, residential houses and a cemetery. The building heights proposed will create shadows over residential houses, child care settings and a school. The heights must be reduced to a reasonable level, and be capped at medium density so it is no higher than its surrounding commercial buildings. Our hospitals, police and schools, both public and private are at capacity: The figures used by the DPI are incorrect and out dated. For an area which has schools both public and private currently at capacity, there are no provisions for new schools for approximately 2,750 dwellings (consisting of I,2 & 3 bedrooms, including student accommodation and serviced apartments). We do not want to increase the size of our current local schools.

Tennis World has to remain a recreational facility for our children and future generations: Australia has one of the largest obesity problems in the world and need more recreational areas, not less. This site also backs onto family homes and any development will overlook their backyards and impinge on their privacy.

Traffic: Traffic congestion is already a significant issue in the whole Ryde area, and ín particular the roads surrounding the proposed North Ryde Station precinct. The notion that everyone is going to be riding bíkes or walking is ludicrous. Sydney does not have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport. The reports presented do not provide any solutions. The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epping Road and Macquarie Business Park will be further exasperated in peak hours. Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand the full ímpact of proposed developments. We note also that the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) rejected the Allengrove Cres Development in 2OL2 for reasons including the adverse impact the 200+ apartments would have on the already congested local roads. The North Ryde Station Precinct is located only 800m from the Allengrove Development and yet is 10+ times the density.

Accessibility to train station: The development site, adjoining North Ryde train station is an ideal place for a transport interchange rather than high rise housíng. A substantial car park and bus interchange could be constructed to enable better use of public transport while taking traffic from the M2 off Epping Road. North Ryde is the only station on the line that has sufficient space for such a transport oriented facility. The M2 site was set aside back in the 1950's for transport use and would be ideal for such a transport interchange.

Significant environmental impacts: The remnant Sydney Turpentine-lronbark Forest (STIF) located at on and adjabent to sections of the development site, is one of a few remaining areas left in Sydney of this critically endangered ecological community. lts' long term survival is questionable being stranded and surrounded by such high rise and development density. This will have ecological community consequences, not only on the STIF, but the surrounding Lane Cove National Park and the effects of run-off on the Lane Cove River catchment, the ground-water and the long-term effects of building shadows on the vegetation surrounding the development site.

We hope you will be a government who listens to and respects it people and not make mistakes now that will remain with us for generations to come.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Robson o NORTH RYDE STAT¡ON PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Name:

Address:

Attn: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Department of Planning & lnfrastructure, GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW 2001 Email: plan [email protected]

We Stronelv obiect to the North Rvde Station Precinct Rezonine Proposal. especiallv OSL site (Tennis Worldl. The reasons for our obiection include:

Privacy: Our house backyard is facing Tennis World (OSL site). New buildings in OSL site severely interfere our privacy The privacy issue is not only for us, but also for people living in all houses on Morshead Street with odd numbers. Any development will overlook our backyards and impinge on our privacy.

We strangly demand fåot O5[ síte (Tennís Wartd ] hos to remçín a reæeçtional facílíty. Our community needs this open space to facilitate local people.

Traffic: Current road infrastructure is not there to serve another extra 2,750 dwellings. Traffic congestion is already a significant issue in the whole Ryde area, and in particular the roads surrounding the proposed North Ryde Station precinct. The notion that everyone is goíng to be riding bikes or walking is ludicrous. Sydney does not have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport. The reports presented do not provide any solutions. The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epping Road and Macquarie Business Park will be further exasperated in peak hours. Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand the full impact of proposed developments. We note also that the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) rejected the Allengrove Cres Development in 2012 for reasons including the adverse impact the 200+ apartments would have on the already congested local roads. The North Ryde Station Precinct is located only 800m from the Allengrove Development and yet is 10+ times the density.

The extreme building heights, density and lack of open space: The rezoning will result in only L4% of the L Ha site being designated open space. This ratio of open space is significantly lower than other recent developments in Sydney including Harold Park (38%), Victoria Park (4O%l and even Central Park in the middle of the Sydney CBD (30%). The population density of the development will be approximately 32,600/km2 + , indicating that this population density is comparable to the most dense cities in the world. Yet the development area is not a CBD; it is bordered by a high tech commercial area, residential houses and a cemetery. The building heights proposed will create shadows over residential houses, child care settings and a school. The heights must be reduced to a reasonable level, and be capped at medium density so it is no higher than its surrounding commercial buildings. Our hospitals, police and schools, both public and private are at capacity: The figures used by the DPI are out of date. There are no pan for new schools for approximately 2,750 dwellings. Current primary schools are small schools. How these schools can cope with such high demanding for kids schooling?

Accessibility to train station: The development site, adjoining North Ryde traín station is an ideal place for a transport interchange rather than high rise housing. A substantial car park and bus interchange could be constructed to enable better use of public transport while taking traffic from the M2 off Epping Road. North Ryde is the only station on the line that has sufficient space for such a transport oriented facility. The M2 site was set aside back in the 1950's for transport use and would be ideal for such a transport.interchange.

Significant environmental impacts: The remnant Sydney Turpentine-lronbark Forest (STIF) located at on and adjacent to sections of the development site, is one of a few remaining areas left in Sydney of this critically endangered ecological community. lts' long term survival is questionable being stranded and surrounded by such high rise and development density. This will have ecological community consequences, not only on the STIF, but the surrounding Lane Cove National Park and the effects of run-off on the Lane Cove River catchment, the ground-water and the long- term effects of building shadows on the vegetation surrounding the development site. lnadequate community consultation: For a St-Zbn project that has been described by Transport for NSW as berrrg comparable to Barrangaroo, the community consultation, has and continues to be woefully inadequate. This is contrary to the White Poper policy that requires community consultation at the strategic level. The two drop-in sessions provided to the community were a presentation implying what was to come, rather than an opportunity for the community to provide meaningful input. This consultation is nowhere near adequate for a rezoning proposal that will have long term and far reaching impacts on the City of Ryde for decades to come.

No independent, objective assessment process: There is no objective, independent assessment process for the rezoning study. The Department of Planning will be assessing its own study. The Minster for Planning will then be allowed to approve the rezoning without any other independent assessment required. This is completely unacceptable, especially for a rezoning that will hand over nearly 14Ha of public owned land to developers with massive profits to be made. This process has less independence in the approval process than the much despise Part 3a provisions.

Culture (Feng Shui): Asian or Chinese from mainland China are dominate buyers on the market. 99% off-plan units next to Macquarie University have been sold to Asian or Chinese. ln Chinese Feng Shui, a property is bad luck if it can overlook cemetery or the property is close to it. We can ensure units which can clearly overlook cemetery, will not be easily sold to the Asian or rent out for Asian.

We hope you can consider our concerns. Please keep our details confidential.

Regards

Yours sincerely

NORTH RYDE STATION PRECINCT REZONING PROPOSAT SUBMISSION

Name: Anne Green

Address:4 Donald St North Ryde

Attn: Director, Strategic Assessment, Department of Planning and lnfrastructure

Department of Planning & lnfrastructure, GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW 2001 Email: [email protected]

cc: [email protected] friendsofnorth ryde@íinet.net.au

I stronqlv obiect to the North Rvde Station Precinct Rezonins Proposal. The,reasons fof..nty.obiection include:

lnadequate community consultation: For a $1-2bn project that has been described by Transport for NSW as being comparable to Barrangaroo, the community consultation has been, and continues to be, woefully inadequate, This is contraryto the White Paper policy that requires community consultation at the strateg¡c level, The two drop-in sessions provided to the community were a presentation implying what was to come, rather than an opportunity for the community to provide meaningful input. Thís consultation is nowhere near adequate for a rezoning proposal that will have long term and far reaching impacts on the City of Ryde for decades to come.

No independent, object¡ve assessment process: There is no objective, independent assessment process for the rezoning study. The Department of Planning will be assessing îts own study. The Minster for Planning will then be allowed to approve the rezoning without any other independent assessment required. This is completely unâcceptable, especially for a rezoníng that will hand over nearly 14Ha of public owned land to developers with massive profits to be made. This process has less independence in the approval process than the much despised Part 3a provisions.

The extreme building heights, density and lack of open space: Within the current design there are no considerations forthe existlng community of North Ryde in terms of additional open space, instead the proposal intends to remove existing open, recreational space from the community. The rezoning will result in only 14% of the L4Ha site being designated open space. This ratio of open space is significantly lower than other recent developments in Sydney including Harold Park(38%1, Victoria Park(40o/ol and even Central Park in the middle of the Sydney CBD (30%). The population density of the development will be approximately 32,600/km2 +, indicating that this population density is comparable to the densest cit¡es ¡n the world. Yet the development area is not a CBD; it is bordered by a high tech commercial area, residential houses and a cemetery, The building heights proposed will create shadows over residential houses, child care settings and a school. The heights must be reduced to a reasonable level, and be capped at medium density so it is no higher than its surrounding commercial buildings. Our hospitals, police:and sçhosls, both publicand private are ãt capacity: The figures used by the DPI are incorrect and out dated. For an area which has schools, both public and private, currently at capacity, there are no provisions for new schools for approxim ately 2,75A dwellings (consisting of 1, 2 & 3 bedrooms, including student accornmodation and serviced apartmentsJ.,,We do not,wãnt to increase the size of our current local schosls.

Tennii World has to remain a recreational'faeiliti for our chitdren and future.generâtionsl Australia has one sf the largest obesityprablems in the worldand rêed.s ¡'nore recreationalareas, not less. This site also backs onto family homes and any developm'ent will overlook theír backyards and impinge on their privacy.

Tr¡fïicl Trafflc congestion is aiready a :rgnificant issue in the whole Ryde area:¡rRd¡ in particular, the roads surrounding the proposed North Ryde Station precinct. The notion that everyone îs going to be riding bikes or walking is ludicrous. Sydney does not have the topography suitable for cycling as an everyday means of mass transport, The reports presented do not provide any solutions, The site roads (Appendix K) issuing to Epplng Road and Macquarie Business Park will be further exasperated in peak hours. Further studies need to be prepared for the entire area to understand the full impact of proposed developments. I note also that the Planning Assessment Commission {PAC) rejected the A!lengrove Cres Development in 2012 for reasons including the adverse imFãst the 200+.¡¡i¿6¡1*nts would hilVe öh tilê, âlready eonÊested.loeal roadS. The North Rydê,Stat¡on Precinct is located only 800m from the Allengrove Development and yet is 10+ times the density,

Aecessibility to train stationi The developmênt s¡t€, adjain,ing Nor:th Rydetrainstãtion is an ideal place for a trãnsÞör{ interchange,rather,-than high rise hóusîngo A,i.tlbstärìtiäl car park and bus interchange could be constructed to enable better use of public transpor.t while taking traffic from the M2 off Epping Road. North Ryde ,i5 t-hè:only-statio¡ on the.line that has:su,fficieñt pdee fot,,súchrä trànsport oriented,fãcil¡ty. Thè M2 site was set aside back in the 1950's for transport use and would be ideal for such a transport'interchânge.

Signfflcant environmental impacts-i The remnant Sydney Turpent¡ne-lronbark Forest {STIF) located at on and a{jacgnt,to sections,of thedeve,lopment.$ìtg, is one of 3.few remaining areas left in Sydney of thìs,critically endängered ecofogica,lcorfirau¡it¡/.lts lo¡g terr¡ sullval is questionable being stranded and surrouRded by such: .hig,þ rise and,develoþment,de¡,sily, Thi!,luil!,havg,e.csl,q.BiËå.!$alr¡fiun¡ty consequences, n,9t only on the STiF] þ¡¡,t tli¡¡úrr.ounding !an,e,COveNåtÌoaâf,,Pårk and+he,effedts:o;f¡t¡n;ojf .on the.la,ne.Cóve Riyer'eatchnlent, th€ ,SrÕütid-W.ãtêrâJ:td,thê lgng,:tef.m,:gf,feets¡f:þuilding shadows on the veg€tation surround,ing the. develo.p-rnent site.

,Wg.h-ór you:wil!.bê â€overnment who listensæ äad,r€spêcts its,Feople,and not- raakê ftibtak.es no-w th.qt ¡vjl! remain with us for generations to come.

-Y:oùlssinceielf A¿ ¡rq_lt:4.e,r,t a

PIRASTA PTY LIMITED ABN 66 001 987 855 Suite 594, Level 5 Tower Building Chatswood Village 47 Neridah Street GHATSWOOD NSW 2067

Tel: (02) 9374 6600 Fax: (02) 9374 6699

By email: [email protected]

11 May 2013

The Director, Strategic Assessment Department of Planning & lnfrastructure, GPO Box 39, SYDNEY NSW 200L

Dear Sir/Madam

North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct Submission on the exhibited proposal

We provide the following submission in support of the exhibited proposalfor the North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct (the "Proposal").

This submission is made by Pirasta Pty Ltd as the owner of a significant land holding in Macquarie Park comprising the business park at 277-283 Lane Cove Road, Macquarie Park ("Macquarie Link", formerly North Rydelink Business Park - title reference Lot 11 in DP 617845).

Macquarie Link comprises over 5,500 sqm of multi-purpose business space. lt represents a significant part of the Lane Cove Road/Metro Route 3 eastern frontage between Waterloo and Talavera Roads and is very strategic holding in the context of the Macquarie Park Station Precinct.

Our support for the Proposal is based on its context within the accepted strategy for the Macquarie Park Corridor ("MPC") whereby any mixed use / residential development must be contained at either end of the corridor, thereby retaining the integrity of the MPC core as a commercial precinct.

By locating the urban activation precinct to the east of Wicks Road, the Proposal respects this principle and reinforces the policy adopted by both Department of Planning & lnfrastructure and Ryde City Council that resident¡al development must be located outside of the 83 and 87 zones identified in Council's Draft LEP 2011.

On this basis, the Proposal represents an appropriate response to the opportunity that the North Ryde Station Precinct represents to make a substantial contribution to housing targets. lt does so without compromising the integrity of MPC as a nationally significant employment generator.

The proposal appropriately states that: "The Macquarie Park Corridor (MPC), which includes the Precinct, is identified in the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 (Metropolitan Plan) as a strategic centre and the northern anchor of the'Global Economic Corridor'. The Global Economic Corridor is an

Page 1 of2 area of global economic activity stretching from Port Botany and Sydney Airport, through the CBD, North Sydney and St Leonards to Macquarie Park.....this region accounts for the majority of Sydney's globally oriented commercial businesses and over 10% of the National Gross Domestic Product."

We also note that the updated Metropolitan Strategy identifies Macquarie Park as a Specialised Precinct with the following objectives: r Continued development as a metropolitan-scale office park with a technology focus in the Global Economic Corridor, supporting and supported by the growth of Macquarie University Research Park, Macquarie Hospital, Macquarie Centre, Macquarie Park and Riverside Corporate Park. . Expand office space to increase productivity advantages and prioritise office space over Housing o Provide capacity for at least L6,000 additionaljobs to 2031

Accordingly we request the Department's resilience in keeping housing out of the MPC core as represented by the current extent of the 83 and 87 zones and its acceptance of Council's proposed amendment to DLEP 201.1 to prohibit separate titling of serviced apartments within these zones.

As background we provide (by attachment to the covering email) a copy of our letter to Council dated 11 December 2077. This expresses concern that a Council resolution made 12 June 20L2 appears to encourage an adjoining landowner to pursue a residential master plan in respect of 33 Wateiloo Road, which is zoned 83.

Pirasta seeks the Department's assistance in ensuring that any Planning Proposal made in response to this resolution is rejected immediately.

Yours faithfully,

Tim Flett Property Manager, Dunnet Group For Pirasta Pty Ltd

Page 2 of 2 PIRASTA PTY LIMITED ABN 66 001 987 855 Suite 59A, Level 5 Tower Building Chatswood Village 47 Neridah Street GHATSWOOD NSW 2067

Tel: (02) 9374 6600 Fax: (02) 9374 6699

11 December 2072

The General Manager, City of Ryde Locked Bag 2069 NORTH RYDE NSW 1670 By email Dear Sir

Draft Ryde LEP 2011- Submissions and Related Matters Representat¡on to Council Meeting on 11 December 2Ot2

We refer to Pirasta's written submission dated 13 July 2013, the writer's verbal submission at Council's meet¡ng on 24 July 2OL2, and the Summary of Verbal Submissions provided as Attachment 6 to the Agenda for tonight's Council Meeting (Agenda No.23/721.

Both the written and verbal submissions on the exhìb¡ted Draft Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2011 ("DLEP") and Draft Development Contro¡ Plan 2011 {"DDCP") were made by Pirasta as owner of the following properties in Macquarie Park:

o 277-283 Lane Cove Road, North Ryde {"North Rydelink Business Park"} - T¡tle reference Lot 11 in DP 617845.

a Shop 7, 285 Lane Cove Road, Macquarie Park - Lot 7 in Strata PlanL8L24,

As stated, these properties represent a significant part of the Lane Cove Road eastern frontage between Waterloo and Talavera Roads and a very strategic holding in the context of the Macquarie Park Station Precinct.

This further representation relates to Council's reporting of verbal submissions, which lists the writer as speaker 14 in Attachment 6 on Page 52.

We are concerned that the summary provided does not accurately reflect what the writer said at the 24 July meeting, and request that Council considers and records the actual context as follows.

Pirasta letterto Ryde Council '1111212012 Page 1 of 2 The speaker summary correctly refers to Pirasta's support for Council's proposal to prohibit strata titling of serviced apartments and the continued prohibition of all other residential uses. However, the summary refers to the 87 zone only. The writer's verbal submission referred to these matters in relation to both the 87 zone and in particular the 83 Commercial Core zone. The writer also expressed a specific concern that another property owner (lnvestron Pty Ltd) has made a submission on the DLEP seeking amended controls to enable residential development at 31-33 Waterloo Road, which adjoins North Rydelink Business Park.

The writer's address to Counc¡l made it clear that Pirasta objects to any residential development of land adjoining or nearby the North Rydelink Business Park and explained that the primary reason for this objection is the incompatibility of residential use with the established North Rydelink Business Park. The estate caters for a wide range of commercial, technology and light industrial uses, consistent with the objectives of the 83 zone. lf residential apartments are developed nearby our tenants will inevitably suffer from complaints against leg¡timate commercial activity such as access by delivery vehicles.

Pirasta's position is supported by Council and Metropolitan policy that the commercial spine of Macquarie Park is to remain as a state significant employment generator. This policy was reinforced with detailed explanation by the Group Manager, Environment and Planning at the Workshop on Amended Controls for Macquarie Park held on L1 September. The Group Manager's comments at the workshop were in answer to a question from the writer.

We add that Council's response to the lnvestron submission, as set out in the reporting of submissions, is potentially counter-productive by referring to the 12 June resolution inviting the proponent to submit a commercial/residential master plan for 31-33 Waterloo Road. This could be construed as encouragement!

Accordingly we reaffirm Pirasta's opposition to all forms of residential development in the vicinity of North Rydelink Business Park and request Council's unambiguous rejection of any proposal that has potentialto undermine the commercial integrity of the precinct.

As discussed with the Manager Urban Planning we request that this letter be included in the briefing papers for Councillors attending the meeting tonight.

Yours faithfully,

Tim Flett Property Manager, Dunnet Group For Pirasta Pty Ltd

Pirasta letter to Ryde Council 1111212012 Page 2 oÍ 2 Page I of2

Malcolm McDon¿ld - Email2 of 2 - Pirasta submission - North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct

From: Tim Flett To: "Malcolm McDonald ([email protected])"

Malcolm,

Attaching as prom¡sed two extracts from the TMAP

Both relate to potential upgrading of the Waterloo Rd intersection at Lane Cove Road with an additional right turning lane westbound:

a Page t27 / item 5 diagram. This indicates that the additional road width compr¡ses a new left turning lane along the southern s¡de of Waterloo Road, with the existing left-turn lane converted to a through lane, suggest¡ng that widening will occur on the southern side of Waterloo Road.

o Aerial overlay from TMAP Appendix I (near the end of exhibited PDF Appendix K / part 3) showing the same intersection proposal, but seem¡ngly different in conf¡guration suggest¡ng widening on the northern side of Waterloo Road.

The latter proposal could affect our access at 31 Waterloo Road, which compr¡ses a right to way to the rear of 33 Waterloo Road.

I will call aga¡n to discuss.

Regards Tim

From: Tim Flett Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013 5:36 PM To:'malcolm. mcdonald@plan ning.nsw.gov,au' Subject: Pirasta submissÍon - North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct Importance: High

Malcolm,

Further to our conversation I attach a copy of the Pirasta Pty Ltd submission compr¡s¡ng the cover¡ng ema¡l below and the attached letter to the Department dated 11 May 2013 along with (as background) a copy of our letter to Ryde City Council dated LL Dec 2012.

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mbmcdonald\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpV/ise\5l927B98SYDNDOM2... 1510512013 Page2 of2

Note the submission is supportive.

As discussed we are cons¡der¡ng an additional submiss¡on in relation to the potential upgrading of Waterloo Road at Lane Cove Road and in this respect will forward relevant extracts from the TMAP exhibited for the North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct.

Regards Tim Flett Property Manager Dunnet Group / Pirasta Pty Ltd

PH:04L3 304711,

From: Tim Flett Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013 7:45 PM To:'plan_comment@ plan ning. nsw.gov.au' Cc: Dunnet, Bob ([email protected]); Meryl Bishop Subject: North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct Impoftance: High

We provide the attached submission by Pirasta Pty Ltd on the exhibited proposalfor North Ryde Station Urban Activation Precinct.

A copy of Pirasta's letter to Council t1,/t2/2012 is also attached as background.

An acknowledgement of the submission by return email will be appreciated, thank you

Regards Tim Flett

Dunnet Group / Pirasta Pty Ltd Suite 594, Level 5 Tower Building, Chatswood Village 47 Neridah Street CHATSWOOD NSW 2067

Tel: 9374 6600 Fax: 9374 6699 Mobile: 0413 3O47L1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mbmcdonald\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpV/ise\51927898SYDNDOM2... 15/05/2013 tllßsots North Ryde Station Precinct P¡oject - Transport Management and Accessibility Plan BF/NCKEBHOFF

l:Efi:r¡ïrarærEn¡fr¡mrEGw?¡llmlEtr;ten

5. Provide additional capacity on Waterloo Road at Lane Cove Road: r add 130 m long left-turn bay on Waterloo Road and convert lefr-turn lane to through lane ¡ convert shared throughlright tum lane into an exclusive right-tum lane. Wåa6 Rðd (Wl 1-

g 5 Ê ¡ I I ã I

fr

Wffirodlg) 6. Redesign on-ramp tom Rivett StreeUlucknow Road intersection inside Riverside Corporate Park to Epping Road.

g N E Ë t Ë É

n E d Þ H È F fl fl h

Ë E! E Eg Et ffiF ritæ

The intersection of Epping Road and Wicks Road is expected to experience increased congestion in the future, even with the upgrade package listed for item 3 in Table 9.3. One of the issues experienced by this intersection is the limited length of the right-tum bay from Epping Road eastbound into Wicks Road southbound. The queue length for the right-turn exceeds the bay length at peak times currently, and the occurrence of this is expected to increase. When this does occur, the throughput of the adjacent lane is reduced, requiring more green time to move the same amount of traffic.

PÁRSONS BRINCKERHOFF ADP-1 207-TRA-3032 TMAP-RevC Page 127 BPilNCKENHOFF Ë#e? Potén NORTH

= road upgrade area

Parsons Brinckerhoff, 201 2 This sketch is preliminary only and has been produced to illustrate the concept. lt has not had any input from a suitably experienced road designer. The extent of works may change after road design input. No services search has been performed - identification of services and relocation items has been based on a viSual inspection only. Additional land requires surveying.

For investigation purposes only, Draft 1 - 24 July 2012, Not to Scale

ADP-1207-TRA 4/8