King Street Multi-level Warehouse, Mascot

To whom it may concern

Please Travelodge Sydney Airports objections or requests for further details to the proposal.

1. General bulk of proposed warehouse with only 9 meter setback from Southern boundary on King street ( which is not inline with current setbacks on King St ) and only 10 meters from Eastern boundary. This seems bulk and reduced setback is excessive and we object to this variation.

2. Concern with increased movement and noise on King street especially by loud 19m semi trailer trucks.

3. O’riordan and King St intersection: Concern on traffic bank up exiting King st especially with slow moving 19m semi trailer trucks. Will require and block right lane( when on King street) if turning left onto O’riordan and cause delays for other vehicles turning right or left onto O’riordan. How is this going to be addressed by RMS at the lights to avoid delays for other vehicles? This will be an issue both during construction and more so during operation post completion.

3a. Dust and acoustic concerns during construction affecting hotel which is within 20 meters from construction site. What can Logos do or offer to mitigate same over the proposed 18 month build.

3b. As such during construction, periodical façade cleaning, at builders expense, would be requested and required.

4a Travelodge has serious concerns with proposed 24 hour 7 day operational hours of site. The truck ingress and egress on King street and also just as concerning are trucks goings up and down the proposed 5 story ramps and use of truck air brakes will be a significant issue to hotel especially at night. The install of additional specific acoustic materials to absorb noise is necessary and pressed along with ongoing monitors during operations especially as Logos is unaware of tenants and there potential use of warehousing. What is solution so trucks do NOT use their air brakes whilst on King St?

4b. Page 76 Picture 18. Can it please be clarified if the red line circling the site and the blurry truck symbol? Indicate that there is to be heavy vehicle traffic moving around the site and along the eastern boundary of site. Heavy vehicle traffic moving around the site in this fashion would create unnecessary noise for the Travelodge Hotel. We would have no objection to light vehicles only to use this eastern boundary route.

4c. Page 78 refers to vehicle movement on King Street. This would be based on vehicles and not trucks. The increase as such in particular on the PM is concerning. Is there an estimate on the overnight impact?

4d. Page 79 6.1.4.3 I don’t understand that with an additional 145 heavy vehicle movements per day ( excluding an overnight shift associated with a 24 hour operation ) how King street in it's current format would remain in good condition which would negatively impact the location impression the hotel enjoys.

5. What will become of the land locked factory unit at located at 295 King street?

6. Currently their is a walk way from north west corner of 289 King St car park onto 297 King street footpath/ walkway. We would like this to remain and incorporated post construction.

7. Logos to consider vehicle controlled access from Wilson parking North west corner to the 2 way road on eastern boundary of 297 King st heading to the on grade Logos car park and Bourke st.

8. There should never be banking up of trucks or vehicles on King street awaiting ingress or egress from Logos facility and blocking traffic access into 289 King street Mascot driveways. What measures can be put in place and offered?

9a. Based on the shadow drawings provided, the extreme bulk of the proposed warehouse will create significant overshadowing of hotel rooms on the western boundary of hotel in afternoons. What mitigation measures can be adopted pressing point 9c below.

9b. What additional measures can be adopted to make this façade outlook more appealing for Eastern boundary of logos property?

9c. The proposed multi-storey warehouse is well in excess of height permissible and FSR for said site which is excessive and we object to this increased size variation.

11a. Could some clarity be provided around the construction hours referred to on page 18 and on page 43 as they are different. We would object to the 7:00am to 7:00pm earthworks and external construction, 7 days, referred to on page 18 of the EIS. We seek normal building hours Monday to Saturday and no work on Sundays with loud and disruptive works within these normal hours due to the sensitivity of hotel.

11b. Noise monitoring to be in place both on King street and at Hotel to monitor traffic impact and construction impact during construction.

12. On page 48 3.2.3.5 - Utility Services could it please be clarified if the installation of the substations will result in any impact for the Travelodge Hotel operations. Who is responsible for loss of trade as a result of down time?

13. On Page 49 it refers to no identified tenant. Is this still the case? If not, then it is even more important to future proof this site again with noise impact for surrounding business's.

14. Page 85 Cumulative impacts in practical terms - how is this managed? Who gets precedence? How is this monitored, how & when do they communicate this and what are the consequences as these are more than likely going to be separate building companies &/or project management team ( if the same one ).

15. For the record, no consultation has occurred between Logos and hotel for design and input by hotel owner.

Kind Regards
Justin Style
Travelodge Hotel Sydney Airport

Please see attached letter of support.

Bendamere presents as another unfortunate profit over people development . It is wrong on the following basis :
1. There is no conducive strategic land use planning to support the project.
2. It conflicts with cumulative impact assessment for the lower New England REZ
3.

20/08/2023
Objection To:
SSD-49734709 297 King Street Mascot NSW 2020
(Lot 4 DP 234489 and Lot 103 DP 1282564)
Exhibition of State Significant Development Application
King Street Multi-Level Warehouse, Mascot

To Whom This May Concern,
I wish to object to the proposed King Street Multi- Level warehouse development regarding a number of planning concerns.

In regards to the Environmental Impacts Statement (EIS), according to the NSW Government the adjoining property owners must be informed by consultation regarding this development.

I am the immediate adjacent property owner to this proposed development and there was no direct approach by Logos regarding their planning intentions.

With recent experience regarding Bayside Council, they encourage adjacent property owners to be amalgamated with larger proposed developments to improve streetscape and eliminate unnecessary setbacks and isolation of properties.

This proposed development will clearly cause the adjacent property located at 295 King Street Mascot to become completely isolated. This will consequently cause, inappropriate lot consolidation patterns that would isolate and unreasonably restrict redevelopment on a single lot.

Methods of consultation, should also involve acquisition of adjoining properties based on land valuations provided by accredited land valuers.

The position of the proposed multi-level warehouse is at the western end of King Street which is a dead-end street.

My understanding of this warehouse involving logistics is the use of heavy-vehicles which are not electric or hybrid.

The Green Travel Plan (GTP) that is mentioned by the proposed developer does not appear to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or improve local traffic flow, if there is constant use of heavy vehicles 24 hours 7 days per week. Noting also that there is a large car park (Park on King) to the south of this development which will encourage further use of private vehicles.

There is mentioning of widening the cul-de-sac at King Street, however I believe this will not improve traffic flow.
Clearly it would be ideal if this was a throughfare main road.

The Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes Pty Ltd Transport and Accessibility Impact Assessment for the proposed multi-level warehouse states that, “construction methodology, process and staging for the proposed warehouse development has not yet been precisely defined”.

The proposed warehouse footprint facing south across King Street is forward to the building line of the Travelodge Hotel which is to the east of this proposed development. There will be overshadowing impact to the Travelodge Hotel which is essentially residential short-term accommodation. This is clearly noted in the proposed overshadowing diagrams provided by Lacoste & Stevenson Architects.

The height of the proposed development is in breach of the BLEP 2021 and noting the building line is further south to that of the Travelodge hotel which will further magnify the overshadowing impacts. Planning should involve increasing upper-level setbacks and possibly positioning the proposed development in line with the Travelodge hotel.

This is not an appropriate location for a massive multi-level warehouse located at the end of a dead-end street, amongst hotels and residents.
This will cause unnecessary traffic flow issues.
The constant use of heavy vehicles will only cause further traffic congestion and noise.

It will not improve the local community and does not complement the existing commercial buildings. Clearly the proposed development is not suited to this site and will only be beneficial if the western end of King Street was a main road thoroughfare.

Alternative planning proposals should involve complementing existing commercial businesses and one such proposal could be another hotel or short-term accommodation facilities.

Kind Regards,
Adjacent Neighbour 295 King St Mascot

Refer to uploaded Attachment