Australian Technology Park -

I have lived in Alexandria for 30 years and opposite the ATP's Garden St entry for the last 10 years. I have witnessed Alexandria's amazing transformation. It is good to see the ATP empty spaces finally being developed with a coherent group of well-designed buildings and with improvements to the public realm.

TRAFFIC
Although the site is very close to Redfern Railway Station, there will be a net increase in vehicle movements to and from the site.

If the exhibition/convention function is to be phased out and the workshops are to become an expanded technology hub, this is an improvement. It will remove the large volumes of traffic we have experienced in Garden Street when major events are on.

The traffic management study doesn't look closely at the Garden/Boundary and Wyndham St intersection which can experience long delays in peak periods as Garden Street is used as a 'rat-run' for vehicles travelling down from Henderson Road to Wyndham Street. An adjustment of kerb alignments/sightlines along Wyndham Street and relocation of the bus stop at this intersection would allow a free left hand turn on red to be introduced, which would improve flow from Garden Street.

Also Mirvac might consider contributing to the installation of a landscaped median strip along the centre of Garden Street, near between Henderson Road and the ATP entry or traffic calming measures (no noisy speed humps) to provide safer conditions for pedestrians crossing at this point.

With the increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic within the ATP, safety will need to be considered at the intersection of Central Ave and Davey Street, maybe a roundabout?

LANDSCAPING
The proposal is for the mature figs surrounding the Vice-Chancellors' oval to be removed. This shaded pathway has been many years in the making, so this will be a major loss. If the figs are to be replaced with deciduous trees, there should be super advanced teesplanted along the pathway to provide the earliest replacement of lost shading.

Regards

Mike Condon

The construction of Building 1 is over the allowable building (SEPP 2005) height based at the western end and will severely intrude on the Alexandria Child Care Centre and existing residents on Alexander Street. The size and mass of Building 1 will restrict all direct sunlight in the morning for the Child Care Centre and residents on Alexander Street in addition to introducing more privacy concerns for the Alexander Street residents. The current view for Alexander Streets residents will be totally destroyed by the scale of Building 1 and severely devalue the price of apartments along Alexander Street.

I have major concerns for health and safety of the children and workers at the Alexandria Child Care Centre during the construction phase, with high levels of dust and hazardous materials being present during the construction phase the health and impact of this development on the young children in the child care centre needs to be addressed.

On street parking is a major issue currently around the ATP site, with workers at the ATP site stalking residents that leave in the morning so they can get a parking spot, adding another 10,000 workers to the ATP would be a major issue to current residents.

I understand the ATP site has been zoned for future development for decades but all previous ATP master plans identified a 4 story building next to the Child Care Centre not the proposed 9-10 storey building that basically sits on top of the Child Care Centre, the only justification I see in the report is CBA need to have 42,470 spm of floor space.

I'm concerned about the amount of windows facing south affecting the privacy of our back yards. We would prefer less glass or more screens to improve privacy. Lessons learned from the #8 Central Ave building: no internal light fittings should visible from our neighbourhood, and zoned lighting with motion sensors should be provided so they aren't left on all night.

Also, in contrast to #8 Central Ave building, any emergency warning system should be specified to not be heard from our neighbourhood. This is an ongoing problem with the Chanel 7 building.

Also, provision should be made for temporary on site construction parking.

I like the designs from what I've see, much higher quality than #8 Central Ave building. The proposed 6star green star is a good outcome.
The community building with café/ restaurant use looks good, hopefully it will become a destination that would be attractive to weekend and evening trading.

A 7 story building effectively right in front of my unit will severely affect light and breeze in the area surrounding my unit. There is already a severe shortage of parking in this area for residents and visitors due to the channel 7 building as well.
It is very difficult to find parking in the streets around 49 Henderson road and this development will further increase the problem, in my opinion.
As there is a height restriction in Alexandria, I am led to believe, of 4 stories, this level may be more appropriate to keep with a better feel and not lose the green space feeling of the area.
I also believe a large building of this nature will seriously affect the property value of my unit.

My family's first major concern upon hearing about this proposal: that the green spaces would be built upon, appear to be unfounded, which is pleasing. We would like to be notified of any changes to the proposal, in particular anything affecting the grassed areas or height of buildings.
We are less than thrilled about the proposed height of building 2, but we understand the need to use land wisely.

Dear Mr. Simon Truong,
While I support the overall plans to develop the ATP area with the proposed buildings 2 and 3, I would like to submit my concerns with and an objection to the proposed development of the high-rise building No.1 (9-10 floors) due to the following:
* High-rise Building 3 follows the line of existing Channel 7 and NICTA buildings, and low-rise Building 2 would fit in with the existing Biomed building and overall area pattern. However Building 1, in my opinion, would unbalance the overall mix of single dwelling residential and commercial use in the area.
* While east of Mitchell st intersection Henderson road consists of the commercial/industrial/multi-dwelling units, to the west Henderson road presents old character terraces and houses (potentially heritage value) on the southern side with adjacent Child Care Centre on the northern side. The proposed Building 1would overhang over this whole street block, overshadow the properties and destroy the feel and amenity. It will negatively impact the outlook of the houses and apartments, and thereby substantially reduce the property value. In my view it would be much more beneficial to develop this space as the park or sport centre or low-rise commercial/health/community space. If allowed the Building 1 development must be limited to not exceed 3 storeys.
* I would like to note obvious concerns with the overdevelopment such as lack of parking spaces, traffic congestion, noise, etc. For example since the completion of the Channel 7 building the parking in the area during business hours became almost impossible.
* Building 1 development will have a major negative impact of on the Child Care Centre, both during construction and after completion due to overshadowing, noise and other environmental impacts.
I am happy to be contacted to discuss matter raised above,
Yours sincerely,
Victor Shapilsky

As a resident of the area whose property faces onto the proposed development, I object to the building height of Building 1.
The height of the building will be very detrimental to my enjoyment of my property, especially in winter. My apartment faces east and is ground floor. We only get light in the morning and a large structure in the proposed position will reduce the amount of light that we get. Additionally, Alexander Street is already a wind tunnel, and this building is likely to make that effect worse. This means less time that we can spend on our balcony.
A building height of 3-4 storeys would result in the building being no higher than the current tree line and little effect to our current light and outlook. Part of the reason we bought this apartment was that you could actually see the sky, and I don't want that replaced with a commercial building.

The area isn't currently able to cope with any more vehicles during office hours. We have little problem parking near our home in the evening or during the weekend, but on weekdays it's impossible. If I have a visitor or a tradesman, they can't ever find parking and the visitor parking in our building is usually full too.

My daughter is on the waiting list for the Alexandria Child Care Centre and I think the biggest negative impact of this proposed development is on the Centre itself. The noise, dust and debris from the (up to 4 year) build would be horrible for the children every day. In addition, the Centre would be badly impacted by the reduction of light.

I hope that you take my concerns into account. I have no problem with expanding the ATP area for further commercial use, however putting city sized office buildings so close to residential property and a child care centre is excessive.

I can be contacted to discuss my points at any time.

Kind regards,
Aleksandra

I have some major concerns regarding this project and building/s.

The first MAJOR concern will be the height of the largest building.
At this height it will effect sunlight and the outlook of the property as well as the value of the units.

2nd MAJOR issue will be the parking which is already terrible for the area. With the construction and contractors on site none of the current residents will have parking available..

3rd would be the child care centre which is a 1 story building and we be effected in a major way both during the development with building chemicals dust and ground works as well as the noise alone. Also if the project goes ahead almost no light we be received to the area for the children.

I am extremely shocked this has even proceeded this far with the outstanding issues detailed above!

1)Planned height of Building 1 will negatively impact the light and outlook of the existing apartments in the area, and thereby their value.
2)Parking is already a problem in the area during business hours due to Channel 7 building workers and the number of workers planned for the ATP will exacerbate this.
3)Negative impact of development on the existing Child Care Centre, both the construction and the final building reducing light and outlook for the kids.

hi, thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the Mirvac ATP proposal. I support the application as it complies with the RWA masterplan of 2005. However it is important to link other adjoining projects to fully achieve the masterplan objectives. I stronly support the link across to North Eveleigh - this was a stand alone proposal by RWA but should also be linked into the Redfern Station redevelopment. It is vital to link these two sites and provide another access point across the main rail corridor which bisects the area. Hence ATP would have a direct link to Sydney University and Chippendale. I also suggest that the north east access to the site be resolved with the station redevelopment. The current situation has traffic/pedestrian conflict and a stronger link is required especially with another 10,000 workers on site. Mirvac should work with State rail to achieve this outcome. The proposed access ramp in the Cornwallis street park is schematic but not resolved and leads to the end of platform 10 with no complying access to the station. I strongly support the community building, but the uses within the building should be carefully thought through with the local community. Some community rooms for hire, artists studios or community startup organisations should be incorporated. I understand the need for child care, but perhaps using the community building is overkill. There are existing COuncil childcare at the western end of ATP, in the proposed building 1 and also in a recent proposal for 80-88 Regent Street, so perhaps the childcare in the community building is not required and the proposed area used for other activities. In terms of transport, the proposal has excellent existing and potential links to Rail at Redfern Station, but thought should be given to a more direct access to a bus route. The local Alexandria residents are very concerned about the impact on the limited street parking if many of the new workers do not use public transport.

Dear Sirs / Madams

I live on the 2nd floor facing due east, overlooking the child care centre.
At present I enjoy a pleasant view. I cant attach a photo as file type not supported by Adobe.
Another 9 storey building just behind the child care centre will block my view by over 30% and block the early morning sun from my apartment for 3 months a year.
I will lose privacy as the proposed new building will directly overlook my unit.
There will be severe disruption to the quiet enjoyment of the neighbourhood during and after the build phase.

Yours faithfully

Chris Jenvey

I want to object to the development based on the following points:

1. Why does the risk assessment not meet child care
setting requirements - The close proximity of the Alexandria Child Care Centre has not been taken in to consideration when completing the Health and Risk Assessment. ie the assessment has not considered the potential direct exposure to soils within a child care setting.

While children from the child care centre will not be in direct
contact with the construction site, the area is prone to high winds , creating the real scenario of contaminated soils
spreading over the child care centre.

Wording from the proposed Health and Risk Assessment:
"Fill materials have been shown to contain elevated
concentrations of heavy metals (principally copper, zinc and
to a lesser extent lead), semi to non-volatile total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPHs)/total recoverable hydrocarbons
(TRH), PAHs (including concentrations of carcinogenic PAH
compounds as benzo(a)pyrene TEQ) and, in parts, asbestos."
Increases to height restriction zoning are being requested

2. Why does the proposed development exceeds the permissible height (4 storeys) as defined in the SEPP 2005 for the western portion of the building. Instead the proposal defines a 9 storey building on the entire site, which will impact on sunlight at a minimum.

I am a concerned local resident who lives opposite the first of the buildings in the Australian Technology Park redevelopment plan. I am also a concerned parent of a child who attends the Alexandria Day Care Centre four days a week - its close proximity to the new building creates a number of significant issues that are not discussed in the reports.

The new building requests to break current zoning regulations to build higher than four storeys at the residential end of the site. This will block significant sunlight from our property and restrict views, decreasing the value of my property. Restricting the west end of the building to four storeys will significantly help reduce the impact.

Parking is already a problem in the area due to Channel 7 workers using local street options and the outline for the new development does not include adequate space for the considerable increase in traffic and need for parking.

The child care centre being on the fence line of the new development has not been taken in to consideration. For example, reports state that further soil testing would be needed if a child care centre was on site, however one being right next door does not seem to qualify for further testing to be done. The high wind levels in the area mean any debris, fumes and pollution from the construction site will end up in the child care yard.

The noise and disruption the children at the child care centre will experience during construction has not been considered, nor has the safety of having cranes and large machinery in close proximity. No plans for safety have been outlined.

The finished building will also significantly negatively impact the amount of light children at the child care get throughout the day. And traffic right next to the fence line will increase a great deal - no studies appear to have been done on the level of pollution this will create for the child care centre and if it is it still within safe and acceptable levels.

Good afternoon,
I would like to comment on, and object to, the application by Mirvac Projects to redevelop sections of Technology Park (SSD 7317) to provide buildings for 10,000 Commonwealth Bank workers.

It is not the building, nor additional workers, that I am objecting to. What I want to raise is the unrealistic number of parking spots that are being intended. While I acknowledge that Technology Park has a provisional cap on the number of parking spots on-site as part of their ATP Masterplan and/or Green travel Plan - to suggest that an additional 121 car spots for an additional 10,000 workers is realistic is just nonsense. ATP will simply be pushing the parking problems associated with this increase in workers on to the already congested small streets surrounding it.

The City of Sydney introduced timed resident parking a few years ago in this area after a number of studies showed the streets around ATP in Alexandria were/are under a great deal of pressure from non-residents parking in them. Despite the resident parking, finding a parking spot in the surrounding streets is very difficult given the number of non-residents who are clearing driving to work at ATP and parking in surrounding streets. This is evident every day of the work week and you see commuters looking for spots from soon after 6am to ensure they get a spot. To add 10,000 workers, with only an additional 121 car spots on ATP simply means that ATP will be moving the burden of commuter car parking onto the residents of Alexandria in surrounding streets. While their 'Green travel Plan' may be laudatory, it is unrealistic - and pushes the traffic and parking problems associated with this development - which should be their problems - onto the residents of Alexandria. if they cannot or are unwilling to provide sufficient parking on site, then they should not increase development of technology park. Have a 'cap' on parking is not a solution - it is an arrogant moving of the parking problems on to residents surrounding ATP.

As a result, I want to lodge a strong objection to the proposed development unless the parking issue is revisited.

The redevelopment of the Australian Technology Park provides an opportunity to correct the endless planning mistakes at this site made since the 1990s.
Firstly the site is rather lifeless and resembles more of an car park as opposed to a thriving business park. The site does not integrate with the surrounding area and overall provides little community benefit. All attempts should be made to improve the social interaction of this area beyond the typical working day. Provision of additional recreational and community facilities should occur to properly integrate this area.
Vehicle speeds at the site need to be better managed to protect pedestrian safety. I have witnessed cars doing 20-30 kph over the signposted speed limit and motor scooters driving on pedestrian pathways.
Limit the amount of car parking at the site and improve access to public transport. The Channel 7 building just resulted in more people driving to work and workers parking in local streets. Of course nothing was done by the ATP owner and the problem was left for Council to manage.
Consider the impacts on the child care centre (sunlight, noise) etc. This is a valued community facility and its ongoing use is vital to the community.
The "Vice Chancellors Oval" is not a sporting facility and is a glorified detention basin used by dog owners with a few dodgy seats and BBQ facilities. Upgrades to this facility should occur to provide opportunity for more rigorous sporting opportunities.
Lastly where is the pedestrian crossing over the rail line that was promised when the site was first nominated as a development site.

1. I'm concerned about the additional 5 levels of the western portion of building 1 which breaks the allowable building envelope for this portion of the site. It would make more sense to add this area to building 2 which is furthest away from our conservation area. The proposal means that there are additional office windows looking directly into my backyard and living room.
2. The amount of glass means that there will be panoramic views into our yards and homes. Nothing has been proposed to mitigate these privacy issues.
3. I'm also concerned about the amount of light pollution that will invade our private living spaces. The Existing NEP building is still a problem regarding light and noise pollution, and the new proposed buildings need to address this better. Motion sensor zoned lighting, better window treatments, and recessed lighting which limit reflection out of the windows should be provided.
4. Please be sure to use a speaker system which does not include horn type speakers for the emergency warning systems of the building. We do not want to hear these being tested early Saturday or Sunday mornings as currently occurs from the NEP building.
5. What is happening to the landscape interface of building 1 and the existing tennis courts and pedestrian path. Nothing is indicated in the submission.

Otherwise,
-the development looks good, better than PTW's ugly monster that NEP occupies.
-the community building makes good design sense as a smaller building next to the oval, and moving this area to the bigger sites make good design sense.
-hopefully there can be good night time activity in this precinct which currently suffers from business park isolation.

Although I applaud any attempt to discourage use of private vehicles, we do have to be realistic. The parking situation around Technology Park is already a bad situation, and what is being proposed will make things much, much worse. I will use the term "Tech Park" below, to refer to Technology Park.

THE PROBLEMS

(1) The existing car park on the Tech Park site is not filled to capacity due to relatively high cost parking fees. This has resulted in excessive Tech Park employee vehicles parking on neighbouring streets and depriving local residents of available nearby parking spaces, forcing the local residents to apply for and be granted residential parking spaces with very few left for Tech Park employee vehicles. Already, existing Tech Park employees struggle to find parking spaces by 6:30am weekday mornings with many having to park many, many streets away from their workplace. This clearly shows that the existing onsite parking arrangements are already inadequate for the existing onsite workforce and causing those employees unnecessary frustration.

(2) 10,000 new workers on site anticipated, only 120 new parking spaces to be created - which equals about 1 new onsite parking space for every 83 new onsite workers. This may be adequate some years in the future, but it is not realistic at present.

(3) Combining the two issues above will undoubtedly cause significant issues and a lot of frustration for local residents, Tech Park existing and new the newly transferred workers who drive to work, and other drivers who commute through this area.

THE SOLUTIONS

(3) To better accommodate the workers who will be transferring to their new offices at Tech Park, they should be surveyed NOW, to determine how many will find it necessary to drive to their new workplace.

(4) After the results of the survey are known, plans should be adopted to construct the proper number of affordable onsite parking spaces to suit these employees. It is important that these parking spaces be ready prior to the employees being transferred to Tech Park.

(5) Over time, onsite parking costs, public transport and other alternative transport alternatives can always be increased / improved, to help encourage less dependence on personal automobiles. And in the future, as onsite car parking spaces become under utilised, they can be replaced with something which better suits the site or lease holder.

IN SUMMARY

The current proposal (re number of new onsite parking spaces) is not realistic and will make an already bad situation, even worse. Every person being transferred to this site, who drives their own vehicle but cannot obtain or afford one of the new parking spaces, will face an extremely frustrating issue with parking virtually every day. Rather than wait for this inevitable situation to occur and be forced to take urgent, costly corrective actions or face the likelihood that a significant number of transferred employees will look for other work elsewhere, the issue of adequate numbers of affordable onsite parking spaces must be dealt with immediately,

It is important that the workers being transferred over to this new Tech Park facility can focus on their work and help their employer succeed, rather than be excessively burdened and distracted by the pending parking frustrations. Some bad things are avoidable - and this is one of them.

Whilst i welcome development in the ATP site, i think this development has not made enough effort to fit in with the community.

My Issues:

1. Overshadowing. The diagrams show that in the middle of winter, my hours will be robbed of virtually all direct sunlight between the hours of 9am and 3 pm. This shadow will cover all of my north facing windows and my skylights on my roof, depriving my family of natural light. My neighbours will be similarly affected.

Further to this, the houses along this stretch of Henderson RD are terrace houses. Terraces do not have side windows, and rely on north facing windows and skylights for their natural light. We do not have the luxury of side windows.

Solar Panels existing and future will be made inefficient during winter, and will rob the affected residents of their right to sunlight.

The building is so massive, that the shadows will be felt for most of the day, and not just an hour or two.

The design of the building has made no attempt to shape the building to eliminate overshadowing to the south. With such a large building over 3 sites at ATP, The building could easily be built higher to the North, and lower at the south with would achieve the same outcomes without this overshadowing issue.

2. Bulk.

This building fails to appropriately integrate with the community.
The building turns it back to the community (literally). There is no attempt to graduate the heights of the buildings to gently rise away from the Heritage Area of housing to its south.

The building was planned at 4 stories next the child care facility (existing). This has risen to 9 stories and is therefor non-complying. Additional floor space should be utilised on the smallest of the 3 site minimizing Bulk near residences.

3. The development is 5% over the approved floor space. This is an unacceptable overreach and over development.

4. The wording of the submission in regard to residents of Henderson rd is offensive and inaccurate.

The submission notes that there will be overshadowing, but says that we are already overshadowed by trees so it does not matter. Trees provide filtered sunlight, as well as cleaner air and a more pleasant environment. To dismiss these local residents without any consultation is offensive. To claim that the overshadowing is acceptable for such a large development is also offensive. The design is lazy, because the overshadowing is completely unnecessary. The building should be redesigned to eliminate the overshadowing.

Thank you.

I am in general support of redevelopment of the ATP site, however I am concerned by the size and bulk of the buildings planned for the southern section of the site bordering Henderson Road.

With a building height of 9 stories the inherent character of the streetscape will be lost. I suggest that the buildings lining Henderson Road be limited to the original plan of 4 stories, similar to existing residential size on the opposite side of the street. This could graduate to a higher rise of buildings within the site.

An even greater concern is the shadow that will be cast in winter, robbing my neighbours and I of natural morning light. A human example of the detrimental effect of this lack of light lies with my neighbour. I have a disabled neighbour who is housebound and moves around her house in a motorised wheel chair. The only opportunity for her to sit in sunlight is in the mornings on her verandah, which faces the ATP site. This is also her only social time, chatting with neighbours as they pass. This opportunity for natural sunlight would be gone for her.

Please take into account the views of the neighbours of ATP. I welcome the redevelopment of the site. It could be a wonderful thing for the community. The lifestyle we currently enjoy with natural light and healthy and attractive streetscapes need not be compromised.

overshadowing that will impact large sections of Henderson and other nearby streets during the day
light pollution that will impact many of the same houses at night
loss of privacy, with offices looking into peoples windows and back yards
loss of heritage items, and loss of access to heritage items
loss of public space
increased illegal parking and overparking - both during construction, and once these buildings are occupied