Australian Technology Park -

Unacceptable increase in floor space, along with current building height restrictions by the submitted planned nine-storey building within an existing four-storey zone.

Overshadowing impacts on surrounding streets including large section of Henderson Road during the day and on the City of Sydney Day-care centre.

Light pollution impacting numerous houses at night as if the Channel 7 lights aren't already at unacceptable levels.

Loss of heritage items and the loss of access to heritage items with the increase of unnecessary services such as a supermarket when local businesses should be supported, these amenities are purely for the unacceptable 10,000 increase in non-resident workers.

Loss of public space for the local community and its children.

An increase in pollution levels from extra cars coming into the already congested local streets.

An exponential increase in illegal parking and over parking - both during construction, and once these buildings are occupied in our surrounding streets and near our local schools with no benefit to local communities.

As a local resident I strongly object to this development. It has not taken into consideration the heritage significance of the site.I am one of the residents Residents living near the site and am concerned about the impact of increased traffic and parking on local roads, overshadowing by tall towers and lack of public access to the site.

The EIS states that approximately $19.9 million will be spent on "Road, Public Transport and Access" in lieu of making S.94 developer contributions. This money should be spent on upgrading Redfern Station to cope with the additional 10,000 workers who will be working at the site, not on building car parking that will add traffic and congestion to local roads.

It is imperative that the crossing of the rail line is for bicycles and pedestrians only, not cars. Without these bridges being included in this construction, there is little hope of them ever being built given the fragmentation of the site due to privatisation.

The EIS states 2% of the total cost of the development will be spent on delivering 17 affordable housing units in the Redfern-Waterloo area as per the Redfern Waterloo Affordable Housing Contributions plan. This is unacceptably low.

It is my hope that you seriously reconsider this development and take note of my strong objection to it.

Does not comply with SEARs requirements. Does not comply with development controls. Traffic analysis is poor, ignoring all concurrent developments and and resultant future traffic. does not address parking impacts in surrounding areas. Does not address the impossibility of proposed workers to actually fit into the currently overcrowded trains in peak times. Hides the heritage buildings. Unacceptable privacy and light intrusion for homes in several local residential streets.Does not adequately address social heritage of the site. Blocks views of heritage buildings. Internal ATP site focus will present as a closed community rather than encourage local use of the public domain. Proposed alternative to payment of the Redfern Waterloo levy is not appropriate.

I object to this development for six main reasons:

1. The bulk and scale of the development is very unsympathetic to and significantly diminishes the heritage values of the site - the development as proposed screens and blocks the views and appreciation of the locomotive workshops from the south. The height and bulk of the building is inappropriate and should be significantly reduced. The roofing detail supposedly reflects the heritage of the area but this is a token gesture and serves only to increase the total height of an already over-height building.

2. The development will generate significant traffic and this has not been assessed in light of the 6-fold expected increase in traffic in the area as a result of the St Peters interchange of West Connex. In addition, the cumulative traffic impacts of other developments in the area have not been taken into account (eg Ashmore Estate - 5k more population and Green Square developments). The whole area is heading towards continuous traffic gridlock.

3. The bulk and scale of the development is inappropriate for the site in general - it will dwarf all other buildings on the site (eg the Channel 7 building) and the height should be reduced accordingly.

4. The EIS assumes that a significant proportion of the workers at the site will commute to the site via rail. Rail services are currently over-capacity so this would suggest that many will drive. Because of this I believe that local parking areas relied on by residents will become even more sought after by new workers - as a consequence, workers will park even further south into areas that currently do have some parking availability for residents.

5. The 24x7 proposed operation of the building will provide a source of light and noise pollution - light spill should be carefully managed with minimal external illumination. Significant attention also needs to be paid to noise emissions from building plant and equipment. On the nature of the operations, shift workers will also be looking for local parking spaces at night when there are no restrictions - this would need to be addressed.

I strongly object to the current proposal for the ATP.

I would like to endorse the submission made by the Alexandria Residents' Group (ARAG), which covers the major issues of concern for residents who, as do I, live close to the ATP. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the following issues, as they mean that the proposal as it currently stands does not meet the requirements as set out in the SEARs:

1) the lack of regard for the interface with the adjacent residential areas - in violation of SEARs no 3: 'consideration of the relationships and interface with existing buildings'. The loss of privacy, loss of solar access and levels of light pollution will lead to a substantial loss in the quality of life of those Alexandria residents bordering the ATP. Transition to the surrounding areas has been disregarded.
2) the lack of a sufficient Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment, as required by SEARs no 6. The EIS does not consider the congestion that this area currently faces, both in terms of local roads (which are already failing to cope with demand, let alone the exponential increases due to WestConnex and major local developments such as Ashmore Estate) and in terms of rail capacity (trains into and from the City are already fully, if not over- loaded).
3) the lack of consideration for the heritage value of the site. The current buildings are not sympathetic to their surroundings and do not meet SEARs requirement no 3: 'that the development retains and promotes the existing and future built form character and fabric of ATP.' This means that the request for variation that is made in the EIS must be rejected. The purchasers of the site were aware of these conditions at the time of the sale so there is no justification for asking to revise them now.

In short, the current proposal does not meet the key requirement of the SEARs no 3: that the EIS 'address the height, bulk and scale of the proposed buildings within the
context of the locality and ensure the proposal does not create unacceptable environmental impacts.' The height, bulk and scale demonstrably do create unacceptable environmental impacts. The proposed height, bulk and scale are clearly inappropriate given the many constraints posed by the nature of the site. The proposed development needs a fundamental redesign before it can be regarded as suitable to its surroundings, as well as compliant with the SEARs.

I object to the proposal.

It runs counter to the objectives of the State Plan, and to good sense. At a time when we should be moving jobs closer to people, this proposal does the opposite. It takes jobs from Western Sydney, where they are needed, and it moves them into a part of Sydney which already struggling with the load of residents and commuters that it is expected to carry. There is a sense that anywhere close to station has good transport links. This is wrong. Many stations, and Redfern is no exception, are over capacity, and with little expectation of an upgrade in the near future. Waterloo Station will not help - it will only carry traffic from a single line, and it will not open soon. We need to develop Western Sydney, and this proposal does the opposite.

Refer attachment

I am writing to object to the Mirvac ATP Redevelopment, SSD 15_7317, on the following grounds.
I expect you to acknowledge this objection and take each of these considered and significant objections into full-account as part of the decision making process.
I would appreciate notification that this objection has been received.
The objections I'm making are listed below in point form .

1. Scale
I object to this proposal and request it be amended on the grounds that the proposed development is grossly over-scale for the site. The proposal breaks several guidelines for State Significant Projects (SSPs) and the site building allowances.
Both buildings 1 and 2 are exceptionally massive and completely out of character with all other housing and large building developments in the area, and in particular, nearby housing and the low-rise locomotive sheds.
Therefore I propose that the Commonwealth Bank and Mirvac moderate the occupancy plan proposal and develop innovative solutions around desk-sharing, role-sharing and tele commuting allowing for a suitably scaled building occupancy plan.
2. Heritage
I object to this proposal and request it be amended on the grounds that the proposal is demonstrably unsympathetic to and destructive of the heritage values of a nationally significant building, the sheds. These iconic buildings are currently able to be viewed in their entirety and with good visibility. The proposed buildings 1 and 2 reduce the views of these iconic building to narrow channels.
Buildings 1 and 2 should be `pulled back' from the edges, with construction restricted to approximately 66% (about 2/3's) coverage of the existing 2 major car -parks footprint . This would allow for significant open-space set-backs around the buildings.
Increased set-backs would have several positive effects for the amenity of this site. It would:
* Reduce the 'tunnelling' effect of the proposed buildings
* Maintain natural breeze movements and reduce `wind-tunnel' and heat island effects
* Provide generous open, `truly public' spaces on the building margins
* Maintain some perspectives and sight-lines to the historic ATP sheds (particularly on the west edge)
Therefore I propose that the Commonwealth Bank and Mirvac demonstrate good citizenship by significantly altering the alignment of buildings 1 and 2 to preserve significant views of the historic buildings and provide for more public space around these massive buildings.
3. Building Forms
The current building 1 form is a monolithic and unimaginative rectangular building. It is rather ugly and quite unsympathetic to its immediate environment. The indicative angles maximise the floor-space foot-print for the prospective tenant but dominate and alienate locals and new users alike through channelized access and constrained margins.
A more sympathetic and imaginative design could imagine a world-class, eco-friendly building such as central park, pulled back from crowding the existing pathways with curved or rounded edges. Consideration might be given to additional height on building 1 as this site sits directly behind an existing building.
Therefore I propose that building 2 be reduced on the eastern and western edges to preserve access to at minimum a partial perspective of the frontage if this historic building. The larger setback should be on the western edge.
I propose that building 1 be reduced on a more sympathetic angle on the eastern edges to preserve a significant portion of the existing visual perspective of the historic locomotive sheds building.
4. Parking
I object to this proposal and request it be amended on the grounds that the proposed number of car parking spaces is a huge increase on the current actual use. The current typical `average day' use is in the order of 200 to 300 cars in the 2 main car-parks per day. The site should be encouraging the use of bicycles as a form of transport and provide significant amounts of bike parking. Mirvac should also be encouraging the use of public transport and reduce the number of car spots available. Redfern is a transport hub and should be promoted as such. There should be a reduction in the number of car spots not an increase.
The current modelling of traffic impact does not take account of recent local population increases, the arrival of 6,000 new residents by 2020 at the Ashmore Estate, the proposed large scale residential developments of City to Eveleigh and the 60,000 cars projected to utilise Euston road on the completion of the WestConnex. Cumulatively, the impacts of many developments encouraging car movements into already saturated roads has not been adequately modelled.
Therefore I propose that the Commonwealth Bank and Mirvac develop a zero-car development for the ATP and design for a sustainable, future -oriented, public and alternative transport model.
5. Lack of transparency about community access
I object to this proposal and request it be amended on the grounds that the proposed `community' facilities (child-care, cafes, boutique supermarket) appear most likely to service the needs of the major tenant and not the local community.
Therefore I propose that Mirvac as the developer provide increased space and places for childcare facilities and transparently nominate or create covenants on the operation and access of the local community to child-care places at these facilities.
6. Overshadowing of Alexandria Childcare Centre
I object to this proposal and request it be amended on the grounds that the proposed western edge height of building 1 will significantly overshadow the Alexandria Childcare Centre. The developer has requested an exemption from the current height restrictions on this portion of the plan but has not demonstrated strong reasoning for why this should be allowed.
Therefore I propose that the current height restriction be maintained and no consent be given for over- height development in this area.
On all the grounds outlined above I strongly object to the approval of the ATP redevelopment as currently described in SSD 15_7317.

I object to this over sized proposal that is going to make Alexandria even more crowded with no proper infrastructure or services. Why are the rules being ignored in allowing this building to be bigger than others? Just because its CBA doesn't mean you get to ignore the needs of the Alexandria residents.

See attached PDF

see attached letter of submission

PDF submission attached.

Attached below-

Attached please find our submission in PDF form

We object, as per the attached pdf.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.