Ivanhoe Estate Redevelopment - Concept

Please find my submission attached.

I am opposed to Ivanhoe Estate Redevelopment for the following reasons:
1. This development should not even be considered until the gridlock traffic congestion, lack of parking and all infrastructure issues within the Macquarie Park area have been resolved.
After describing concerns relating to the significant loss of trees, building envelopes, inappropriate built form, inadequate building separations, streetscape, overshadowing, exceedance of floor space ratio etc the City of Ryde Council described these and and other matters as “typical signs of overdevelopment of the site.
[Furthermore, the state member Hon. Victor Dominello has voiced his concerns about overdevelopment and federal member John Alexander has raised many concerns about traffic congestion in the area.]
2. Excessive size, bulk and scale and lack of setbacks of the development.
3. Opposed to a high school within the development that will have neither the essential space for children to run and play, nor necessary, off road bay, area for parents to drop off and pick up children, safely, in an already gridlocked location, at peak.
4. Reduced local and regional dispersion of emissions generated by traffic - especially along the Epping Rd corridor.
5. The removal of significant amount of endangered ecological community including the removal of around 800 healthy, mature trees and their important habitat values, And, now that the basement footprint aligns with the buildings walls, providing more deep soil, I request that space be found to replace the 800 trees, in the varietal mix of the removed trees.
6. The loss of Critically Endangered STIF-two trees removed near the onsite infrastructure, relating to the former Ivanhoe Estate development, and pockets, to the south west and north west. I request that these Critically Endangered STIF trees be replaced to equate to 100%,of the original site coverage. Pages 1 and 2 of the Assessment state that there is a 3m buffer around built forms to be removed and that it may be possible to save some trees that fall within this demolition buffer.
It is also states that the development footprint includes a 2m buffer around the proposed earthworks and the actual impacts may be less than those presented.
On page 2 the Assessment states that the retention of a retaining wall along the CEEC boundary will protect the occurrence of STIF onsite. (Reference is made to photograph 1 but this does not seem to be included in the document). Page 2 also states that intermittently along the CEEC, alcoves are recessed into the landscape and only two of these that occur at the CEEC interface will be removed. Taking into account the significant change in the footprint for the proposed development to retain 94% of the CEEC it is not clear from the documents why it is not possible to develop a plan that addressed the above items. It would seem entirely reasonable to further revise the plan to achieve 100% retention of the CEEC.
[Trees are essential to life because they absorb pollution and carbon dioxide, provide us with essential oxygen, clean air and shade to cool our cities, provide habitat for wildlife, and a gift to future generations. Moreover, “people in urban areas have a lower risk of developing psychological distress and have better overall health if they have more trees within a walkable distance from their homes,” a study by University of Wollongong (UOW) researchers has found. “In neighbourhoods with a tree canopy of 30 per cent or more, adults had 31 per cent lower odds of developing psychological distress, and 33 per cent lower odds of rating their general health as “fair” or “poor” over six years.”]
7. Impacts on wind penetration to neighbours further from the development preventing desirable cooling conditions during hot summer conditions.
8. Adverse impacts on Shrimptons creek bush corridor, especially due to future two-lane bridge construction work.
9. Any Shrimptons creek line work must be carried out by the Council of City of Ryde, because the developer, Frasers Property, was cited in two adverse articles in the local TWT paper for having left the "Putney Hill" site, on which they had worked, in an unsatisfactory state together with a pond with poisoned water and dying ducks.
10. Lack of any serious assessment of impacts on Shrimptons Creek bush corridor (including its ecology). Eg shading effects, Wind shadow effect.
11 Lack of sympathetic building planning with the hight remaining consistent towards Shrimptons Creek.
12 Any work along Shrimptons Creek should involve Ms. Bev DeBrincat who, with her Habitat group, has performed much bush regeneration work and replanting, in that location long before any development was ever proposed for the adjoining Ivanhoe Estate.