Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

242-244 Beecroft Road,Epping

City of Parramatta

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Stage 1 Concept Application for a residential flat building development.

Modifications

Archive

SEARs (5)

EIS (25)

Response to Submissions (10)

Agency Advice (9)

Additional Information (10)

Determination (6)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (4)

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

21/06/2023

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 61 - 70 of 70 submissions
Ritu Shankar
Object
EPPING , New South Wales
Message
Traffic Issues:
Traffic hazard on Beecroft Road:
The Left and left out access from Beecroft Road is located a dangerous bend in the road. This will be a traffic hazard situation where vehicles will not be visible to oncoming traffic on Beecroft Road. The submitted Traffic Report has failed to provide details of sight visibility along this stretch of Beecroft Road.
Traffic hazard on Ray Road:
The potential traffic generated by 356 car movements at peak time from residents of this development on an already congested crossing of Ray Road with Carlingford Road has not be considered adequately. Any egress from the driveway located along Ray Road will cause potential conflict with not jus the vehicular traffic on Ray Road, but form a potential danger for numerous commuter pedestrians who park in vicinity to catch public transport.
Inadequate parking estimates:
The parking spaces provided for the number of residential units is grossly underestimated. This will result in excessive parking along the adjoining streets. It should be noted that due to lack of commuter car parking the surrounding streets are currently congested and any further increase is going to add to the existing traffic congestion.
Overdevelopment:
The proposed development will result in gross overdevelopment and will result in bulk and scale which will result in poor amenity for the adjoining sites. Due to lack of FSR requirements for the site, the proposed building envelopes provide large site coverage and minimal opportunity to provide landscaping and provide visual clutter which is not desirable.
Amenity Impacts:
The proposed development provides poor level of amenity to the residents of the towers as well and will provide excessive overshadowing to adjoining sites and sites across the road.
Inadequate CIV
The CIV provided for this Concept application is grossly inadequate and provide an underestimated value for the development.
Commuter Parking:
Epping Station which has been upgraded to form a major interchange provides inadequate commuter parking. This site should be rezoned to provide commuter parking.

Since the site is owned by Sydney Metro, the site should be used to provide Commuter parking
.Any development on site should include adequate car parking infrastructure to compliment the upgraded interchange status of Epping Station. It is suggested that large portion of the site should be dedicated to commuter carparking.
Not in public Interest:
The proposed development is not appropriate for this area. The current roads and intersection are currently overloaded with traffic. Any additional density will be detrimental to the area. In order to develop this site, emphasis should be paid on providing adequate commuter parking and
Name Withheld
Object
EPPING , New South Wales
Message
I have lived in Epping since 1986 and this site was always a commercial site. Epping needs more commercial sites not less to create community.
I have also been lucky enough to school my children in Epping as well as been able to work in Epping whilst my children were in school. This meant that if I was called to school when my children were injured or sick I was only a 10 minute walk away, a really practical way to create community. Because I work where I live and where my children go to school I can do without driving most of the time, except when I would have to pick my children up straight from school to take them to swimming lessons at Ryde or Piano at West Pennant Hills, I would need to drive because we were never able to walk to activities or sport. I reject the proposition that "if you live near a station you do not need a car". If you live in Sydney you need a car to get around and especially if you have children to get to sport training and other activities you need a car to get them around. Whilst I was able to walk to work most of the time, after school and on weekends both my husband and I would take our children to their activities mostly separately. As you are aware by my address I live a less than 10 minute walk to Epping Station, but we have always been a 2 car family, there are currently 3 adults living in our household and we are a 3 car family. I feel that you should go for a look around Epping and other suburbs where there has been numerous amounts of units built with not enough parking to see that in fact most of those units that house families will have a minimum of 2 cars per unit. Normally street parking would be used by visitors, but not any more, street parking is taken up by residents.
I am concerned that there has been no traffic study for Ray Road, but there has apparently been one for Beecroft Road and Carlingford Road.
There are always numerous accidents on the corner of Ray/Rawson Roads and Carlingford Roads. This increase in traffic will only increase the accidents.
I object to this development for the above and following reasons:
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. 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.
Graeme McVeity
Object
EPPING , New South Wales
Message
I object to the project as proposed.

Before starting when did 4 Ray Road become 22-44 Beecroft Road.
It is obvious that this has been done on purpose to blur the impact of this proposal.
The sign on the building near the entrance to the work site still bears this address.

Existing Conditions
The previous building was two floors of all Commercial space with parking underneath.
This proposal does nothing to address the lack of retail and Commercial space in Epping,
I am guessing there was significantly more Commercial space in the original Buildings.
The talk of bikes and Bike spaces is wonderful, but Sydney’s terrain is not suited to the recreational bike rider, and these will be a waste of time.
Vehicle trips do not reflect the data on Journey to work paragraph, (see below) whereby 45% use their vehicle to get to work.
There IS NO MENTION OF TRAFFIC EFFECTS ON RAY ROAD
The 1% increase appears to be based on nothing and given that there are far more developments of similar size happening and set to happen in Epping a lot of 1% will still add up to a great deal of difference to a road system that by your writings is already a bottleneck.
This is a lets muck it up more and someone else can fix it over the next 30 years .
Journey to Work Data
The areas chosen TZ 1407 and TZ1406 are primarily Commercial zones or areas where other developments are taking or to take place. 45% travel by car to work.
In the EP 240-244 Beecroft Road (known formerly as 4 Ray Road) there could easily be a similar number of residents (proposed 442 dwellings).
Household Travel
Travel by purpose
Shopping is a major problem in Epping. The State Govt. has recognized Epping as a hub, but if something clever is not done all the residents will have to leave Epping for their food shopping and it will be in their car.
Mode
Already 48% this also does not support your traffic movements of 60- 80 cars during peak
Existing traffic conditions
Again, conveniently there is no mention of Ray road, from experience I know if I travel down Ray road to Carlingford Road before 7am I will get around in one set, sometimes maybe two sets of traffic lights, If this journey happens around 8 o’clock it could be 5, 6 or even more sets to get onto Carlingford Road.
By your own document the roads are operating at Saturated traffic levels (even 1% will make a big difference).
Epping Precinct 240- 244 Beecroft Road (FORMERLEY KNOWN AS 4 RAY ROAD)
Height 48 metres , is this because Landcom is to scared to say 15 – 18 stories high?
(that is the best I could work out without any building background)
5% affordable is less than Councils 10% which undermines Parramatta councils position.
1.7% floor space retail/commercial – slightly less than the previous 100%
Parking
Sounds good in writing but we all know there will be far more than 350 cars for this dwelling with the excess flowing over in Ray Road, Rosen and Fernhill Streets.
I would have said Edensor Street, but it is already full of cars from the units that are there.
I conclusion, I find this Traffic and transport Impact Assessment to be yet another example of very poor planning that appears to be purely based on getting as much back for the State Govt, rather than serving to provide value to the people of Epping and NSW,

Graeme McVeity
3/09/2019
Rachel Hill
Object
CHELTENHAM , New South Wales
Message
Epping town centre is already a traffic nightmare. Epping Road is standstill for increasingly long periods of each day. We don’t need more units at this vital traffic intersection. Schools are over crowded. My son goes to school in Epping (thankfully out of area enrolment used to be possible before the apartment boom) and his oval has been eroded by demountables due to the surging local population. Enough. Improve the infrastructure to cope with the current and projected population before adding more soulless apartments and further destroying the look and feel of this suburb,
Name Withheld
Object
Epping , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Dominic Perrottet MP
Object
Epping , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Sydney Metro
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
City of Parramatta Council
Object
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please find City of Parramatta Submission attached
Attachments
Sydney Water
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES DIVISION
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached.
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-8784
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Rail transport facilities
Local Government Areas
City of Parramatta
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister
Last Modified By
SSD-8784-Mod-1
Last Modified On
19/09/2023

Contact Planner

Name
Russell Hand