242-244 Beecroft Road,Epping

I wish to register my strong objection to the proposal to build new apartment complexes at the Beecroft Road site. Development in the Epping area, particularly in the Carlingford Rd precinct has been undertaken over recent years without any apparent regard for local amenity or capacity of supporting infrastructure. The intersection at Beecroft and Carlingford Roads, together with Ray Road and Rawson Street is unacceptably congested and not fit to accept the additional traffic burden that will accompany the proposed development.

I oppose the proposal for the State Significant Development at 242-244 Beecroft Rd, Epping (SSD-8784). As the resident and owner of a unit at 7 Ray Road, Epping, I am concerned about the impacts of overshadowing caused by the development, as well as increased traffic levels on Ray Road.

The Appendix E design report prepared for this SSD shows that 7 Ray Road will experience overshadowing impacts until approximately 11am in the morning. As the owner of an east-and-south-facing apartment, I am concerned this will significantly reduce direct sunlight to my property, resulting in significant reduction of both capital and rental values of my property. Has compensation for this loss been considered?

Additionally, I am concerned about the impacts of traffic in the area, particularly on Ray Road and at the intersection of Carlingford Road, Ray Road and Rawson Street. I do not believe that the EIS, or Appendix I to the EIS, adequately considers the impact of traffic on Ray Road, particularly during the AM peak. Congestion on Ray Road heading south is significant during the AM peak, with a car in peak hour traffic taking over 10 minutes to drive the approximately 500m from Ray Road to Beecroft Road heading south and east. I believe that a lack of planning for dealing with this increased congestion will result in significantly worst congestion once the development is completed.

If allowed to proceed, I hope the development will consider ways of reducing the overshadowing and traffic impacts in the local area. One mitigation would be to reduce the height of the building by reducing the number of floors. A residential development at the same density as currently existing residential buildings on Ray Road would have a significantly smaller building envelope, which would soften my opposition to this development. Increased congestion as a result of this development may be partially mitigated by regular enforcement of existing ‘No Parking’ rules on the eastern side of Ray Road during the AM peak, as well as the implementation of a new ‘No Right Turn’ rule for cars turning right from Ray Road onto Carlingford Road during the AM peak.

In its current form this project is detrimental to the people who live in Epping and surrounding areas including those who travel on its congested roads

Oppose the project
1. There has already been significant development in and around Epping and there has been very little support or improvements to local amenity, public space and reduction of congestion of traffic. Infrastructure and public amenity improvements must be prioritised over further development.
2. There is no clear outline of how this site will integrate to the rest of Epping town centre, or how it would form part of a master plan for the precinct. There are a number of other large developments also proposed in Epping, on the western side. All proposed plans should be made available for public comment at the same time so the compounded impacts to the community can be assessed. There needs to be a Precinct plan to lay out the future state. Parramatta Council should be involved in the approvals and review of this project as it relates directly to the Epping Town Precinct.
3. There are already significant traffic issues around the site (Ray Rd, Beecroft Rd, Carlingford Rd) and an addition of 350+ parking for residents will increase the congestion in the area, traffic dangers to children, and impact on air pollution. The document states there will only a 1% increase to the traffic on Epping and Beecroft Road corridor, but that volume is already very large. There is congestion for extended periods of time all around the site, this will increase with the other planned developments. There is a Baptist Church across the road (corner of Carlingford Rd and Ray Rd) that has a playground and hosts playgroups daily for infants to pre-schoolers.
4. Some of the buses are already full in the mornings for people wanting the 546 or 549 along Ray Rd towards Parramatta.
5. Epping Heights Public School has already increased its student numbers greatly and these developments will potentially add even more to the school population without any infrastructure improvements for the school.
6. The number of dwellings in the Epping precinct is already greater than what was initially proposed.
7. We need more commercial, rather than residential development to support local jobs and local businesses. There is a comment on p.4 that residential development on this site will enable the retail and commercial part of Epping to be more centralised. This site previously had a business occupant. There is little indication that there will be much commercial and retail in the central part of Epping as most of the development is residential.
8. There is very little capacity for the locality to absorb further changes to the visual character as the visual character of the area is being ruined by high density residential buildings. There is a significant increase from 6 storeys (buildings along Carlingford Road) to the proposed 15 storeys.
9. We need to minimise impact on what little nature and bush there is in the area. There is Blue Gum High Forest of State conservation significance, nearby in Kent St. It is listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). It is important to retain trees and vegetation to provide nature corridors for fauna. It would be useful to see the reasoning waving the requirement for a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report.
10. The proposal is not in the interests of Epping residents who have long been against further development in the area and have advocated for a proper master plan of the precinct and improvements to infrastructure and local amenity.

I oppose this project on the grounds that high density development in the proposed location will negatively impact the liability of the people residing in Epping.

The Beecroft road and Carlingford road intersection is already a bottleneck that causes traffic problems for the residents of Epping, and people passing through Epping.
High rise developments, including the Langston towers have been approved and are under construction, adding to the traffic problem.
The new metro is already at almost full capacity in peak hours for people travelling in the direction of Chatswood in the morning, and travelling from Chatswood to Epping and further west in the evening. A huge amount of development to the west of Epping will add to this problem.

As a resident of north west Sydney for my entire life, and apartment owner in Epping now, my own experience in living in north west Sydney is extensive. North west Sydney has historically had problems with congestion from people travelling to their places of work. This problem cannot be resolved by adding high density development. This will only add to the problem. What is required is for the west, north west, and south west to be a destination for commuters, not just a place to live.

The commercial and industrial developments in Bella Vista and Norwest have been a positive advancement. I have worked in Bella Vista for around 10 years. Part of my reason for working in the area is the ability to travel westerly to work. I am lucky to be able to do this, because employment options in this area are a lot less than to the east of Epping. I propose there needs to be more commercial and industrial development in Epping and further west of Epping.

At the very least, the proposed area needs to be a greater mix of commercial and retail than the proposed amount.

I would like to object to this development. There are already many more homes than originally planned for Epping. This development adds 442 homes, which would mean approximately 1,200 residents. The development at 59-79 Beecroft Rd plus the developments at 49 and 53-61 Rawson St will add another 1,894 new homes. The roads are already very congested. In fact, Carlingford Rd/Beecroft Rd/Epping Rd is one of the worst bottlenecks in Sydney. We need to ease congestion, not add to it.
Originally the plans were for commercial and retail space, but in the current plans, this is negligible at 1.5%. As 10,000 jobs have left Epping, it is essential to have a much larger commercial and retail space to bring in more workers to Epping, so that businesses can be utilised during business hours. Epping needs to be revitalised as a business hub.
It is essential that infrastructure and public amenity improvements are made before more and more apartments are built. In particular, the schools are becoming very crowded. Epping West Public School now has almost double previous enrolments, making the school too large. Playground space has given way to demountable classrooms.
This development proposes virtually no open space.

I object to the project for the following reasons: -

1. 1.Recent residential development in terms of the number of dwellings is already well in excess of what the State Government originally proposed for the Epping precinct. Developments of this nature and size near the Urban Activation Precinct should be put on hold until necessary infrastructure and community facilities have caught up with population growth. This proposal plays down this growth by using figures from 2011 rather than the more recent population estimates in the council’s Epping Planning Review of 2016. This is very misleading.

2. Epping needs commercial development in parallel with residential development. This proposal allows for approximately 1.5% of the floor space for commercial uses, which is effectively none. This continues the deliberate and short-sighted approach of recent Epping developments which have seen more than 10,000 jobs leave Epping and will leave the suburb effectively a dormitory with little retail activation during the day.

3. The proposal includes a minimum of 5% affordable housing. In fact, that is a measly 22 units. There has been no affordable housing anywhere else in Epping during this redevelopment. This government-owned land has the chance to address this by undertaking a substantive housing project with an appropriate NGO agency.

4. This development will preclude the use of any of this land to ameliorate traffic on the Carlingford Rd/Beecroft Rd intersection, which an east-west link traffic link through the site may have provided. This link was a key element of the council’s Epping Traffic Study.

5. The site is isolated from the Town Centre by busy Carlingford Rd and one of the worst bottleneck junctions in Sydney. How are the 1200 or more residents of these towers to gain access to the Metro Station? If these 1200 people have to use pedestrian crossing on Carlingford Rd, what effect will this have on the delays in excess of one hour at peak periods that are forecast by the Epping Traffic Study for the Beecroft Rd, Carlingford Rd intersection?

6. The EIS indicates that other massive developments on the western side of the railway line are currently under consideration. These include a 40-storey development at 59-79 Beecroft Rd (700 dwellings) and a 45-storey development at 49 and 53-61 Rawson St (1194 dwellings). Unfortunately, as usual each of these developments is being considered in isolation from the others but in fact they all affect traffic, infrastructure and community facilities cumulatively. We urgently need a precinct plan which looks at all proposed developments as a whole to work out what Epping will look like in the future.

7. The only Community open space provided with this development is effectively a small area around the through site pedestrian link between Cliff Rd and Beecroft Rd.

8. The consent and approvals bodies for each stage of this development are not clearly defined in the EIS. As a State Significant Development, this falls under the Minister for Planning for approval. However, that means this site is not being seen properly in conjunction with other developments, or within the greater context of the challenges facing the Epping Town Centre which the City of Parramatta council are having to deal with. The Trust would like to see Council front and centre of these approval processes, since we can at least talk to Council people; it is in our experience that it is almost impossible to talk to a State Government officer who has the capacity to make changes to a project.

9. More units here would create even more parking problems. Already Ray Road, Edensor Street and Rosen Street are full during business hours with workers and students parking there and walking to the station. As these towers never include enough parking for the residents, they would have to park in the streets too and this would clog up the surrounding streets even more.

10. There has not been enough consideration for the fact that the site is next to a creek which is home to many creatures, some species which are threatened. Our local environment needs to be considered seriously and handled with care, please don’t just let the developers do what they want and pollute our area.

Thank you for reading.

I object to the project for the following reasons: -

1. 1.Recent residential development in terms of the number of dwellings is already well in excess of what the State Government originally proposed for the Epping precinct. Developments of this nature and size near the Urban Activation Precinct should be put on hold until necessary infrastructure and community facilities have caught up with population growth. This proposal plays down this growth by using figures from 2011 rather than the more recent population estimates in the council’s Epping Planning Review of 2016. This is very misleading.

2. Epping needs commercial development in parallel with residential development. This proposal allows for approximately 1.5% of the floor space for commercial uses, which is effectively none. This continues the deliberate and short-sighted approach of recent Epping developments which have seen more than 10,000 jobs leave Epping and will leave the suburb effectively a dormitory with little retail activation during the day.

3. The proposal includes a minimum of 5% affordable housing. In fact, that is a measly 22 units. There has been no affordable housing anywhere else in Epping during this redevelopment. This government-owned land has the chance to address this by undertaking a substantive housing project with an appropriate NGO agency.

4. This development will preclude the use of any of this land to ameliorate traffic on the Carlingford Rd/Beecroft Rd intersection, which an east-west link traffic link through the site may have provided. This link was a key element of the council’s Epping Traffic Study.

5. The site is isolated from the Town Centre by busy Carlingford Rd and one of the worst bottleneck junctions in Sydney. How are the 1200 or more residents of these towers to gain access to the Metro Station? If these 1200 people have to use pedestrian crossing on Carlingford Rd, what effect will this have on the delays in excess of one hour at peak periods that are forecast by the Epping Traffic Study for the Beecroft Rd, Carlingford Rd intersection?

6. The EIS indicates that other massive developments on the western side of the railway line are currently under consideration. These include a 40-storey development at 59-79 Beecroft Rd (700 dwellings) and a 45-storey development at 49 and 53-61 Rawson St (1194 dwellings). Unfortunately, as usual each of these developments is being considered in isolation from the others but in fact they all affect traffic, infrastructure and community facilities cumulatively. We urgently need a precinct plan which looks at all proposed developments as a whole to work out what Epping will look like in the future.

7. The only Community open space provided with this development is effectively a small area around the through site pedestrian link between Cliff Rd and Beecroft Rd.

8. The consent and approvals bodies for each stage of this development are not clearly defined in the EIS. As a State Significant Development, this falls under the Minister for Planning for approval. However, that means this site is not being seen properly in conjunction with other developments, or within the greater context of the challenges facing the Epping Town Centre which the City of Parramatta council are having to deal with. The Trust would like to see Council front and centre of these approval processes, since we can at least talk to Council people; it is in our experience that it is almost impossible to talk to a State Government officer who has the capacity to make changes to a project.

9. More units here would create even more parking problems. Already Ray Road, Edensor Street and Rosen Street are full during business hours with workers and students parking there and walking to the station. As these towers never include enough parking for the residents, they would have to park in the streets too and this would clog up the surrounding streets even more.

10. There has not been enough consideration for the fact that the site is next to a creek which is home to many creatures, some species which are threatened. Our local environment needs to be considered seriously and handled with care, please don’t just let the developers do what they want and pollute our area.

Thank you for reading.

I object to the project for the following reasons: -

1.Recent residential development in terms of the number of dwellings is already well in excess of what the State Government originally proposed for the Epping precinct. Developments of this nature and size near the Urban Activation Precinct should be put on hold until necessary infrastructure and community facilities have caught up with population growth. This proposal plays down this growth by using figures from 2011 rather than the more recent population estimates in the council’s Epping Planning Review of 2016. This is very misleading.

2. Epping needs commercial development in parallel with residential development. This proposal allows for approximately 1.5% of the floor space for commercial uses, which is effectively none. This continues the deliberate and short-sighted approach of recent Epping developments which have seen more than 10,000 jobs leave Epping and will leave the suburb effectively a dormitory with little retail activation during the day.

3. The proposal includes a minimum of 5% affordable housing. In fact, that is a measly 22 units. There has been no affordable housing anywhere else in Epping during this redevelopment. This government-owned land has the chance to address this by undertaking a substantive housing project with an appropriate NGO agency.

4. This development will preclude the use of any of this land to ameliorate traffic on the Carlingford Rd/Beecroft Rd intersection, which an east-west link traffic link through the site may have provided. This link was a key element of the council’s Epping Traffic Study.

5. The site is isolated from the Town Centre by busy Carlingford Rd and one of the worst bottleneck junctions in Sydney. How are the 1200 or more residents of these towers to gain access to the Metro Station? If these 1200 people have to use pedestrian crossing on Carlingford Rd, what effect will this have on the delays in excess of one hour at peak periods that are forecast by the Epping Traffic Study for the Beecroft Rd, Carlingford Rd intersection?

6. The EIS indicates that other massive developments on the western side of the railway line are currently under consideration. These include a 40-storey development at 59-79 Beecroft Rd (700 dwellings) and a 45-storey development at 49 and 53-61 Rawson St (1194 dwellings). Unfortunately, as usual each of these developments is being considered in isolation from the others but in fact they all affect traffic, infrastructure and community facilities cumulatively. We urgently need a precinct plan which looks at all proposed developments as a whole to work out what Epping will look like in the future.

7. The only Community open space provided with this development is effectively a small area around the through site pedestrian link between Cliff Rd and Beecroft Rd.

8. The consent and approvals bodies for each stage of this development are not clearly defined in the EIS. As a State Significant Development, this falls under the Minister for Planning for approval. However, that means this site is not being seen properly in conjunction with other developments, or within the greater context of the challenges facing the Epping Town Centre which the City of Parramatta council are having to deal with. The Trust would like to see Council front and centre of these approval processes, since we can at least talk to Council people; it is in our experience that it is almost impossible to talk to a State Government officer who has the capacity to make changes to a project.

9. More units here would create even more parking problems. Already Ray Road, Edensor Street and Rosen Street are full during business hours with workers and students parking there and walking to the station. As these towers never include enough parking for the residents, they would have to park in the streets too and this would clog up the surrounding streets even more.

10. There has not been enough consideration for the fact that the site is next to a creek which is home to many creatures, some species which are threatened. Our local environment needs to be considered seriously and handled with care, please don’t just let the developers do what they want and pollute our area.

Thank you for reading.

Recent residential development in terms of the number of dwellings is already well in excess of what the State Government originally proposed for the Epping precinct. Developments of this nature and size near the Urban Activation Precinct should be put on hold until necessary infrastructure and community facilities have caught up with population growth. This proposal plays down this growth by using figures from 2011 rather than the more recent population estimates in the council’s Epping Planning Review of 2016. This is very misleading.

Epping needs commercial development in parallel with residential development. This proposal allows for approximately 1.5% of the floor space for commercial uses, which is effectively none. This continues the deliberate and short-sighted approach of recent Epping developments which have seen more than 10,000 jobs leave Epping and will leave the suburb effectively a dormitory with little retail activation during the day.

The proposal includes a minimum of 5% affordable housing. In fact, that is a measly 22 units. There has been no affordable housing anywhere else in Epping during this redevelopment. This government-owned land has the chance to address this by undertaking a substantive housing project with an appropriate NGO agency
This development will preclude the use of any of this land to ameliorate traffic on the Carlingford Rd/Beecroft Rd intersection, which an east-west link traffic link through the site may have provided. This link was a key element of the council’s Epping Traffic Study.

The site is isolated from the Town Centre by busy Carlingford Rd and one of the worst bottleneck junctions in Sydney. How are the 1200 or more residents of these towers to gain access to the Metro Station? If these 1200 people have to use pedestrian crossing on Carlingford Rd, what effect will this have on the delays in excess of one hour at peak periods that are forecast by the Epping Traffic Study for the Beecroft Rd, Carlingford Rd intersection?

The EIS indicates that other massive developments on the western side of the railway line are currently under consideration. These include a 40-storey development at 59-79 Beecroft Rd (700 dwellings) and a 45-storey development at 49 and 53-61 Rawson St (1194 dwellings). Unfortunately, as usual each of these developments is being considered in isolation from the others but in fact they all affect traffic, infrastructure and community facilities cumulatively. We urgently need a precinct plan which looks at all proposed developments as a whole to work out what Epping will look like in the future.

The only Community open space provided with this development is effectively a small area around the through site pedestrian link between Cliff Rd and Beecroft Rd.
The consent and approvals bodies for each stage of this development are not clearly defined in the EIS. As a State Significant Development, this falls under the Minister for Planning for approval. However, that means this site is not being seen properly in conjunction with other developments, or within the greater context of the challenges facing the Epping Town Centre which the City of Parramatta council are having to deal with.

My name is Jackie Pan. I am an apartment owner in Epping and hold a Master's degree in the field of town planning.

I oppose the development plan due to the following reasons.

The information in section 6.1 of the development application is in direct contradiction to the findings and recommendations outlined in "Epping town centre Commercial Floorspace Study" from SGS Economics and Planning, including the following direct excepts from this study:

- Prior to the Priority Precinct process, the Epping town centre contained a relatively even mix of industries, providing local retail and services as well as employment opportunities across a range of industries.
- Recent development activity has seen the development of new residential floorspace at the expense of existing office floorspace that has been supporting this local employment. The quantum of retail floorspace remains the same as existing sites are redeveloped.
- Epping continues to experience demand for retail and office floorspace, however development activity has seen commercial uses unable to access appropriate floorspace to support their business.
- In light of this demand, forecast population growth, the size and infrastructure investment in the centre, Epping is considered to function as a sub-District centre, playing a more significant role than other nearby local centres.
- In light of this sub-District centre function, over the next 20 years there is forecast demand for 13,000 square metres of retail floorspace and 55,616 square metres of office floorspace in the Epping town centre.
- Current patterns of development are unlikely to deliver the quantum of floorspace required by 2036. A
non-residential floorspace ratio is recommended as a means to deliver commercial floorspace.


The proposed development also contradicts the planning strategy of greater Sydney of cutting commute times and creating more business hubs. A lack of investment in commercial space would be a missed opportunity to invest in another of the many growing business hubs along the north west metro line; joining Norwest, Bella Vista, Macquarie Park, North Ryde, Chatswood and North Sydney.


The proximity to North Ryde and Macquarie park makes Epping an ideal location for commercial and retail use. This space would be more appropriately utilized by development of commercial, office, and retail floorspace, rather than high rise residential.

Enhanced submission:
The full potential for the Parramatta Light rail will not be realised until the line is extended from Carlingford Station to Carlingford Court and beyond to Epping station ("the Extension").

It appears from https://is.gd/jAM0Pe that the Parramatta to Chatswood line and the North West Railway (now Sydney Metro) were intended to converge under 240-244 Beecroft Road Epping. The question of The Extension is still being considered by Transport for NSW. The topography of the land between Carlingford station and Epping station is challenging for light rail on the surface. Carlingford Road is at capacity at times and narrow Keeler Street, (a vaguely suggested alternative) has recently been developed with new apartments. The original proposed Parramatta to Epping station route seems the only possible one and would be the best outcome to exploit the transfer of passengers at that station or even to connecting buses on the eastern side of the line.

Whereas the T6 Carlingford line connects to Sydney Trains at Clyde station for services in both directions, the Parramatta Light Rail makes this connection at Parramatta Square, a short distance from Parramatta Station itself. Much residential development has taken place near Carlingford station and there is vacant land nearby for more. The full potential of Parramatta Light rail requires it cater for customers who have business in Macquarie Park, Chatswood and the CBD as well as in Parramatta.

240-244 Beecroft Road should remain in public ownership until a final decision is made about the future of Parramatta Light Rail stage 1. If the land is used for that service to be connected to Epping station as envisaged, it would then be possible to build over the lines for uses such as 24/7 call centres with pedestrian tunnel access to the station. This would be the best use for this uniquely placed parcel of land closer to where a large employment pool lives.

The site is adjacent to three extremely crowded intersections. These intersections are so congested and dangerous that they make shopping, commuting through and travelling in this area extremely stressful. Too many apartments have been built in Epping with no infrastructure. The parking situation in Epping is difficult and frustrating as there are too many apartment dwellers in the area who have moved in recently with a surge in population. Similarly local schools are at pressure point with my children's school playgrounds taken over by portable buildings to house the influx. PLEASE REFUSE THIS APPLICATION

Epping does not require any further high rise apartment buildings outside the immediate CBD. The proposed apartment towers have a significant visual, environmental and traffic impact on the surrounding residential properties and are out of character with the other buildings in the area of Epping which are primarily individual one and two-storey homes. There is not enough infrastructure in Epping to support the existing population which has ballooned exponentially from the number of high density apartment buildings built over the last few years. No further developments should be approved until traffic issues, lack of commercial shops and community facilities are adequately addressed.

attn. Mr. Rob Stokes, Minister for Planning and Public Spaces
& Planning Team
In regard to the Stage 1 Concept Application for a residential flat building development proposed at 242-244 Beecroft Road, Epping.

Dear Sirs,
I oppose the proposed development from the traffic view point.
Driving at peak hours on Carlingford Road - from Midson Road lights to the Beecroft Road lights: 10-15 minutes +.
Unless road infrastructure is upgraded first to deal with existing traffic, no further medium or high rise developments should be allowed in the proximity of Epping station or Carlingford/Epping area. Other, smaller scale developments might prove to be more appropriate for the specific urban context of the site.

However, if this proposal is considered worthy of further assessment, please note that both conclusions of the Traffic and Transport Study are wrong. 356 additional cars in the proximity of an already jammed intersection will definitely have adverse traffic implications. Adding 356 additional cars , close to a major train station and so many bus stops, is inappropriate and exactly the opposite to a sustainable and environmental friendly scheme.
Moreover, taking into account the 2019 traffic volumes, applying parking quotes per dwelling from a 2013 LEP (instead of merit based assessment) is not strategic forward thinking and further degrades the amenity of the built environment. With excellent access to public transport and public buses within 200m radius, there should be NO residential parking spaces. If one wishes to proceed with this concept DA, the basement car parking should incorporate:
0 (zero) residential parking spaces;
45 visitor parking spaces;
10 car sharing spaces;
10 non-residential spaces.
Taking into account the adverse environmental impacts on traffic, the proposal that incorporates 298 residential parking spaces (or any residential parking spaces for that matter...) does not fully meet the Objectives of the EP&A Act and it is contrary to the provisions of the Section 4.15, contrary to zoning objectives and definitely it is not in the interests of the public.

Kind Regards,
Ana