Ivanhoe Estate Redevelopment - Concept

There are many other locations around Sydney where this project could be better placed without destroying one of the last remaining Turpentine forests we have here in Sydney.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on SSD 8807 Ivanhoe Estate.
My Objection is as below:
As a Sydney resident, I am alarmed at the potential loss of this native vegetation and believe this ecologically important remnant forest should be given full protection from any clearing.
The site in question contains unique and ecologically important native vegetation including the Sydney Turpentine and Ironbark Open Forest.
This ecological community has been classified by the NSW Threatened Species Committee as a Critically Endangered Ecological community.
This development proposal does not adequately address the findings of the Scientific Committee which states in their report (3.1.1):
Remnants of Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest are typically small and fragmented and are susceptible to continuing attrition through clearing for routine land management practices due to the majority of remnants being located in close proximity to rural land or urban interfaces (Benson and Howell 1994; Tozer 2003). Applications to the NSW Land and Environment Court demonstrate that there is ongoing pressure to clear STIF in the course of developing private properties or for the establishment of Asset Protection Zones (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au accessed 19/11/2018). 'Clearing of native vegetation' is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the Act.
As such the site should be given protection and enabled to survive into the future. Instead an offset credit system or bio-banking is suggested.
Offsets are not considered conservation. Protecting another area will not protect this remnant forest.
I urge the NSW Government to consider alternative designs which protects the site in its entirety.

Regards,
Shirin
A Sydney resident

I object to the project on the grounds that the endangered ironbark turpentine forest and wildlife corridor will be destroyed as part of this development. The entirety of this forest must be preserved.
Alternative offsets somewhere else are neither sufficient nor satisfactory.
We have a responsibility to retain this forest for future generations to understand the earlier days and natural history of our great city.
In addition the value of such a forest, for the protection of the wildlife and our biodiversity is very important.
Lastly the value of this life giving forest to help counter CO2 emissions and reduce hot spot warming in our cities is important.
We don’t just exist.
We co-exist..
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

As a lifetime Ryde resident I object to the current proposal because the ACCESS ROAD specified on the developments plans will destroy a significant section of the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and break up an essential wildlife corridor. All such forests are classified by both NSW and Federal Australian Governments as "Critically Endangered Ecological Communities" because only 0.5% of these forest areas remain. Therefore the NSW Biodiversity Offset Policy for Major Projects cannot make amends for destruction of any part of this forest because it would further reduce the remaining total, already disgracefully low. Even if the development goes ahead, this planned ACCESS ROAD IS UNNECESSARY. The plans also specify 2-way access to Lyon Park Road so traffic wishing to enter the estate could use Lyon Park Road which has an existing well-designed exit point from Epping Road. If the ACCESS ROAD through ENDANGERED FOREST is essential to this development, then the development should not go ahead as presently proposed. The welfare of Critically Endangered Sydney Turpentine Ironbark forest (that cannot be offset) and retention of the wildlife corridor intact must take priority.

1. After reading Appendix A_Detailed Response to Agency Submissions together with other documents, it seems like the applicant hasn't resolved some of the major issues brought up by Council. For instance, no clear gap has been provided between Building B2 and B1.2, variation to visitor parking numbers has not been changed, staging plan (stage A & B) is still unclear. It is a bit shocking to see that the applicant has chosen to ignore advice from local Council.
2. Local planning controls and advice from Council should be strictly followed. Department of Planning as Consent Authority for Masterplan and separate DA should not be lenient as the applicant seems to try to get away from local planning controls.

Please see attached document

Natural ground level slopes dramatically from Herring Road towards Shrimptons Creek. The 75m and 65m height limit control follows the fall of the natural ground towards the creek. If the design of Ivanhoe buildings comply with this height control, this will create a logical and beautiful skyline when viewed towards east from Epping Road.
Unfortunately, the applicant has proposed to vary the height control, resulting in a wired and boring building height plane.
I object to the project since the proponent chose to vary the height control when it could have been easily complied.

It is an OVER-DEVELOPMENT of Ivanhoe Estate.

With the GFA bonus from provision of Affordable Housing, the maximum FSR for the site is 3.32:1 with maximum GFA of 261,217sm. The applicant is proposing GFA of 278,000sm, 16,783sm more than maximum GFA with a bonus already applied.

This unrealistic ambition of maximizing GFA will have adverse impact on the neighborhood and set a bad precedent.

It’s a very dense project in an already over-supplied area. If they have the chance to break the FSR allowance rule, I think everyone in the area can follow the same practice as well! We obviously don’t welcome this result.
It should not be approved as Ryde Council is holding on approval of dense projects in this area!
No setback from the boundary, it’s even worse from the first lodgement. Podium is too close, uncompliant with ADG.
Building separation is so bad. They have plenty room on site but are breaking the rule of separation / setback.
I want to know the nature of Tower A1, it’s a huge block.
I want to keep the trees before my units.
The Arboriculture report by Ecological is contradictory with the Ecological, Master drawings for approval. The previous report is saying they must remove all trees, but the later drawings are showing that they should keep nearly all trees. My professional advisor told me that this is a tricky play and should be investigated by planning authorities.
Their Stage 1 should include the site where Tower A1-A2-A3 are located, otherwise I will be facing the construction and hearing noise for years, it’s a nightmare. My friends told me that if the podium’s setback is compliant, it could save trees along the boundary which is beneficial to both communities.
Building setback between A2/A3 and my units build by COLI Australia & Parkview are not the same. A3 is less but A2 is more, I don’t know why but they are not the same and are all less than normal requirements.
Traffic is crowed already, I doubt the feasibility of this kind of supply in this area.
I'm not sure if their wind tunnel test includes its impact on neighbor sites, I have a sense from their high buildings would adversely affect us.
No public parking in the surrounding areas, they should provide enough parking space for the surrounding areas.
More access for cars from southern part (near Shrimpton Creek) and Eastern Part, as there are less traffic.
Their are above height limit.
Last not not least, they are proposing for far too many units than what should be looking like here.

Please save the massive Sydney Turpentine and ironbark forest in the Ivanhoe Estate at North Ryde, which is listed as Critically Endangered. More than 850 trees will be destroyed along with an invaluable wildlife corridor used by endangered species such as the powerful owl. Sydney desperately needs these trees to be the lunges of the city, to provide shade to reduce soaring temperatures. With 18 of the hottest years recorded have been this century. These trees will not regrow to the same height and width in our life times or perhaps that of our children.

To whom it may concern,

Byles Creek Valley Union Inc objects to the

Ivanhoe Estate Macquarie Park SSD 8707

Due to the following concerning issues whereby the proposal

Does not appear to consider the environmental sensitivity of this site especially as regards the proposed construction footprint nor the road proposed through the forest from Epping Road . This road is completely unnecessary and MUST be removed from the proposal due to its adverse environmental impacts.

Does not protect the riparian zone – the E2 zoning must be extended to protect the riparian zones and Shrimptons Creek

Should but does not provide a vegetated buffer to the riparian zones for Shrimptons Creek

Threatens the viability of the riparian zones with planned bike paths within these highly sensitive areas

Would require unacceptable impacts to the topography of the forest and does not retain natural features

does not avoid impacts upon the 1.64 hectares of an Endangered Ecological Community of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and as noted by the Biodiversity Conservation Act and should be referred as such to the Commonwealth Govt as this proposal threatens the CEEC on site.

Will result in an unacceptable impact upon more than half of the Endangered Ecological Community onsite

Does not take into account the potential overshadowing of retained Endangered Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest

Does not contain a Vegetation Management and Rehabilitation Plan with strict conditions for ongoing rehabilitation, weed control and conservation strategies and the monitoring / certification/ timing of same

Notes the removal of at least five hollow bearing trees. The removal of Hollow Bearing Trees is a known and documented Key Threatening Process for endangered and Threatened Species such as the Powerful Owl recorded as frequenting this site

Does not but Must provide an assessment of the ecological impact upon the habitat of fauna onsite

Does not but MUST provide information re the impact on vulnerable flora onsite including the Vulnerable Melaleuca deanei occurring in the construction envelope

Does not but should provide an Aboriginal Heritage and Cultural Assessment

Does not but MUST fully assess the environmental impacts of the development

We request refusal of this development proposal.

- Staging plan is unclear. The school (Stage B) and aged care facility (Stage A) should be part of Stage 1 or 2.
- Building footprint of Tower D1 should be reduced.
- Show more respect to history of the site by preserving more trees, not just trees on the periphery of the site.
- The Envelop Control Plan indicates the maximum envelop under certain planning controls. Even if this plan is approved, it is unrealistic and unachievable. This plan makes no sense without indicative building footprint.

Please see attached document

submission as attached

I am a resident of Macquarie Park area and I am strongly opposed to the development of the Ivanhoe project.
In the past few years, our homes have been filled with dust and noise. At the same time, the trees and open spaces in the area are decreasing. Especially in the area where Ivanhole is located, our children will lose the last woods nearby. This area is simply too crowded & overdeveloped.

I want to express my concern that the future development may not be sympathetic with the unique ecological character of Macquarie Park. It is worrying that many of the trees on the site will be removed, and no dedicated and consistent tree retention plan was provided. I believe that should be a priority for future consideration of the proposal. There are still issues with regarding the scale of development that require rectification before I am comfortable with the proposal. This site comprises a large portion of the suburb and is likely to indelibly change the character of this community. In my opinion, any density growth above the current LEP should not be allowed as it will destroy the ecological characteristics of the suburb.

Residents in Macquarie Park also face significant traffic congestion. The proposal to include a significant number of new units in the suburb, especially on Herring and Epping road, understandably is of concern to me who is already frustrated by transport options in their suburb.Local knowledge suggests that the existing housing on the site have in fact generated significant traffic impacts and high rise residential development will add congestion to local roads, as occurred in Chatswood and Epping. With pressure from development along Herring Road and the ongoing prospect of high rise along the Chatswood to Rouse Hill Corridor, it is clear that infrastructure is already being pushed to its limits.

I hope above concerns will be seriously considered and responded to.

This masterplan could bring over 3k families into the suburb, the shopping centre is crowed enough, those newly built apartment is highly enough, we have less and less trees and privacy.

The biggest change the applicant has made is removal of Tower C2 and relocation of GFA on top of other towers, resulting non-compliance with height limit.

Concerns / comments from public and Ryde Council have not been addressed properly. The applicant needs to reduce height and GFA, retain more trees instead of focusing just on over development and profit margin.

1.9% of GFA reduction? And now you call it a RTS (Response to Submission)? Please send it back for more work to be done.

Ivanhoe Estate Redevelopment Concept proposal submission

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission regarding the biodiversity impacts of the proposed development at Ivanhoe Estate SSD-8707.

The current proposal does not adequately protect and enhance the biodiversity values within the development site, nor that of the Shrimptons Creek ecological corridor, nor in particular, the remnant forest vegetation between the development and Epping Road.

It is, also, most disappointing to note the total disregard of scientific advice to preserve and plant more trees, to mitigate both the effects of Climate Change and Heat Island Effect, improve our air, quality of life, and health benefits and sustainable lifestyle in this, already, overdeveloped precinct.
Instead, the approval has been given for tree removal, by the Department of Housing, with a proposed cumulative loss of 858 or more trees from this once idyllic, sylvan, low-density public housing estate!

Moreover, such massive tree removal is, at the minimum, injudicious, as it will negatively impact the native habitat and ecological corridors of local wildlife, including the population of Powerful Owls, resident in the area.
It will also, unacceptably, impact the plant community of Sydney Turpentine and Iron Bark open forest (STIF) as well as the hallmark green, open space, landscape character of the area.

The ecological significance of this vegetation corridor must be protected. In 1998, natural bushland of this type was listed as Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest and placed on the endangered list under the then, Threatened Species Conservation Act.

Furthermore, all STIF forests are classified, by both the NSW and Australian Governments, as Critically Endangered Ecological Communities, because less than half a percent of the original distribution of this forest type remains in the Sydney basin.
And, the NSW Biodiversity Offset Policy for Major Projects cannot make amends for destruction of any part of this forest, as it would further diminish the remaining total.

Given that the NSW Government wholly own the Ivanhoe Estate development site and the NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) has been working to transform the site, it follows that the final design and form of the development is under the complete control of the NSW Government.
Thus, it could be expected that this development should have been an exemplar to the entire development industry that, of late, is too often exposed to get rich quick, shoddy, poorly planned, overdevelopments, leading to cracking buildings, whilst showing complete disregard for the natural environment.

However, instead, the Ivanhoe Estate redevelopment, appears, to be maximising overdevelopment, at the expense of open space, and the ecological values of the site, and in complete disregard to its already woefully congested Macquarie Park location, in which it is situated.

It is significant that the, astute, local federal member, John Alexander, when announcing four billion dollars funding to combat urban congestion, drew public attention to the “negative impact of local overdevelopment in our suburbs, most visibly on our congested roads at Macquarie Park.”

It is of much concern that both this state sponsored development and relevant State laws are, seemingly, failing to protect biodiversity in NSW.

Further, like so many other residents, across Sydney, who are either trying to protect their local suburbs, their local heritage, their local flora and fauna and open space etc., it is extremely disturbing, to me, to actually observe such dismal government results, when compared with Ryde Council’s proven record of prudent planning as exemplified by their laudable planning of the Macquarie business Park, due only to our duly elected Council’s undemocratic and unwarranted loss of control over environmental planning within its own LGA.

As a long-time local resident, I have always been gratified to see that the buffer of STIF forest, between the Ivanhoe Place estate and Epping Road, has remained intact and unspoilt as an effective habitat and screening buffer between the road and the existing low-rise housing units.

Moreover, having regard to relatively small area of the STIF when compared to the total 8.2 hectare area of the Ivanhoe Estate site and the fact that the NSW Government is ultimately the proponent, it is entirely reasonable that the proposed development be revised to ensure that all the STIF and more of the Urban Forest on the site is retained.

In the event that the proposed, apparent, overdevelopment were to be approved, the planned access road, and slip road is unnecessary. The plans include a two-way access to Lyon Park Road, so that traffic wishing to enter the estate could use Lyon Park Road, which has an existing well-designed, safe, exit point from Epping Road.

If the access road through the forest is essential to this development, then the development should not go ahead as presently proposed; the retention of the STIF forest must take priority.

I object to the removal of 858 or more trees and the destruction of the endangered ecological Urban Forest and essential habitat and corridors of local wildlife.

I object to the impact that this development will have on the Shrimptons Creek ecological corridor.

I object to the seeming overdevelopment of the site, and the additional negative impact that it will cause to the already gridlocked peak traffic conditions within the locality

I, further, object to the current proposal, because the development plans specify an access road, which would destroy a significant section of the protected STIF forest and break up the wildlife corridor.



Sincerely,