Mod 4

I object to the proposal.

I have been a resident in North Ryde for 10 years and have chosen to
live in the Ryde area largely because I value its natural amenity,
including unique and endangered vegetation communities such as Sydney
Turpentine Ironbark Forest, as well as the native fauna that depend on
this vegetation.

Bundara Reserve is one of the few remaining reserves with mature
native trees along the busy Epping Road and it deserves to be
protected and preserved both for public amenity and for its role in
providing valuable habitat for native fauna.

The original consent approval was granted on the basis that no trees
are removed from the reserve. Bundara Reserve is one of the last
remnants of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest. Sydney Turpentine
Ironbark Forest is listed as an Endangered Ecological Community in NSW
and listed as Critically Endangered by the Commonwealth Government.
With less than 0.5% of this type of forest left in the Sydney
bioregion it is essential that this reserve and its trees are
protected and preserved for future generations. No offsets would
adequately replace this reserve and its mature trees as there is so
little of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest remaining, making the
forest at Bundara Reserve all the more precious.

Bundara Reserve provides connectivity to nearby Lane Cove National
Park and removing trees could reduce or stop the movement of native
fauna between reserves, including swamp wallabies whose numbers have
been increasing in the Ryde area in recent years. Removal of
vegetation will also result in loss of habitat and adversely impact
native fauna, including threatened species such as the Powerful Owl
which reside in and around the Ryde area.

Additionally the proposed vegetation removal is inconsistent with the
Greater Sydney Commission's North District Plan, which lists as one of
its priorities to increase urban tree canopy, particularly along busy
roads such as Epping Rd to improve amenity and air quality.

Visually the bridge redesign is unattractive, looks out of context and
dominates the landscape both in colour and style. The bridge section
is also too wide by 8 metres at the Bundara corner.

I would also like to point out that the consultation period was not
long enough and included the Easter break when many people would be
away, and as a result many interested community members and objectors
may have had insufficient time to formulate their objections and
comments. It seems that the NSW Government is not making a genuine
effort in providing sufficient opportunity for the community to make
an informed decision on this proposal.

I strongly believe that this modification is not in the public
interest and should not be approved.

Please note that I and my family are opposed to any modification to the
Precinct Activation plan.
We also believe that all steps should be taken to ensure that any
pedestrian bridge and it construction should not impact in any way on
Bundara Reserve, greater efforts should be made to establish more
reserves of a similar nature.

I believe Bundara Reserve and the adjoining E2 zoned land should be
protected at all costs. I am totally opposed to any modification which
would allow the construction of a pedestrian bridge which would impact
on the Bundara Reserve site.

I believe Bundara Reserve and adjoining E2 Zoned (environmentally
protected) land, should not be impacted upon by the pedestrian
footbridge.
The Bundara Reserve is an important piece of bushland in the Ryde area
and although it is small, it plays a significant role in taking up the
carbon emissions from the thousands of cars travelling past it every
day.
Because is it small, every tree should be protected. The proposal to
cut down over 20 trees is ludicrous.

We are a local climate change action group in the Ryde area who seek
decisive action by governments at all levels to move to a zero carbon
emissions economy and 100% of our energy sourced from renewables such
as wind and solar.

To help reduce carbon emissions, bushland areas and trees play a vital
role in taking up carbon and storing it. Therefore, we believe Bundara
Reserve and adjoining E2 Zoned (environmentally protected) land,
should not be impacted upon by the pedestrian footbridge. The proposal
to cut down over 20 trees is ludicrous.

The Bundara Reserve is an important piece of bushland in the Ryde area
and although it is small, it plays a significant role in taking up the
carbon emissions from the thousands of cars travelling past it every
day.

I am opposed to the Modification 4 to SSD 5093 MS site, North Ryde
Station Activation Precinct.

I believe Bundara Reserve and adjoining E2 Zoned (environmentally
protected) land, should not be impacted upon by the pedestrian
footbridge. Although a relatively small parcel of land, the native
flora and fauna are significant and important remnants for North Ryde.

The removal of an additional 17 trees (total 43 to be removed on the
site) to facilitate the construction of the pedestrian bridge is
excessive and unnecessary. The reasons provided for the tree removal
are unsubstantiated.

I oppose allowing 24-hour construction of the temporary bridge
pre-assembly shed, the pedestrian bridge and works associated with the
delivery, installation and deconstruction of these items. This is
excessive and noise and truck movements will impact greatly on the
local North Ryde residents.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to ...

Modification 4 to SSD 5093 - M2 site, North Ryde Station Urban
Activation Precinct

I was accepting of the original DA plans that were extensively
negotiated with the community during the original UAP, to create the
necessary bridge connection to station and minimise impact on Bundara
Reserve. I believe no modifications are required and the proposed
modifications will create unnecessary destruction of precious green
space and further extended excessive noise impacts on the community.

Removal of Trees in a highly significant state reserve;
Falling branches and bird dropping could be mitigated via other
methods that don't involve removal of trees, for a footbridge
bordering a bush reserves? The environmental damage is too excessive.
An alternative needs to be found that does not involve removal of
these trees.

7 day a week 24 hour working request;
I strongly oppose this. Not even the North Connex project has been
granted such working hours? Despite it being a much more significant
state project.
I would consider as entirely reasonable occasional night work, when
full or significant shut down of the impacted roads is required.
However 7 days 24 hours is totaly unacceptable and unjustifiable in
this case. Furthermore, I completely object to any work being carried
out on Sundays. The local community is currently subject to
considerable noise 6 days a week form construction at NR Station and
Lachlan's Line. Sunday is the only day where some respite is obtained.
All this work is part of the one UAP, irrespective of if different
developers are involved, the potential noise impacts of the requested
modification the a DA, cannot be considered in isolation.

Furthermore ..
Urban Growth is a government department, Governments in this case,
being developer and law makers, should hold the highest standards when
it comes to behaving consistently with the communities existing
expectations of the works to be carried out. Last minute request for
DA modifications create large uncertainly in the community and
distrust in government planning.


Sincerely
Scott

I support the footbridge, and think it will be a really gorgeous addition
to the neighbourhood, however the 5 m clearance on either side is just
cost saving lazy construction in my opinion.

The reality is that a good arborist can assess and remove branches as
required to greatly minimise the risk of branch fall, and a protective
canopy on the bridge could also reduce this impact.

Additionally the likelihood of bushfire being allowed to get to that
location at a significant intensity is extremely slim.

And the bird droppings? Please! This is ridiculous.Bird droppings are
supposed to be good luck.

As these are the only 3 reasons provided for the additional tree
removal I suggest the designer try again.

I oppose any damage to bushland along the Epping road. Bundara Reserve
provides a little greenery among the growing cityscape.

I strongly oppose this modification with the excessive removal of more
trees in an already heavily urbanised region. I believe Bundara
Reserve and adjoining E2 Zoned (environmentally protected) land,
should not be impacted upon by the pedestrian footbridge. I think the
fact that a pedestrian bridge creating grade separation is excellent
and is perfect infrastructure for the area but I do not believe it
should come at the cost of Bundara Reserve. Hopefully a more
environmentally sustainable solution can be found without the severe
impact and destruction of this part of Bandara Reserve.

The indigenous regional forest trees of this area are under continued
threat. The unwarranted loss of tree cover required by this proposal
is unjustified, especially on the specious grounds that bird waste and
tree sap will have a deleterious effect on the structure IF LEFT
UNATTENDED.

Clearly, if the environment is so likely to have a negative impact on
the bridgework, more robust materials should be used in its
construction, or a suitable plan of management for its maintenance and
upkeep developed. The proposala s amended is akin to saying we should
exterminate all the seagulls because they are likely to damage the
Sydney Harbour Bridge with their excretions.

I firmly believe Bundara Reserve and adjoining E2 Zoned
(environmentally protected) land should not be adversely affected by
the pedestrian footbridge, and if it cannot be constructed so as to
minimise its impact on its surroundings it should be re-specified,
redesigned or relocated.

n/a

I oppose the modification;
I believe Bundara Reserve and adjoining E2 Zoned (environmentally
protected) land, should not be impacted upon by the pedestrian
footbridge.
These trees are some of the few remaining in this area and to remove
them is something that should not happen.
Green space and trees need to be saved not removed.
This small patch of trees have been under constant attack by
development for a long period and should be seen as something that is
more important than protecting the paint on a bridge.
I am concerned as I still have children living in the area.

I strongly object to the proposed modified overbridge at Bundara Reserve
that now badly impacts its Sydney Turpentine ironbark forest (STIF),
an endangered ecological community within Bundara Reserve.
Now, Landcom has designed a second, modified, inappropriate bridge,
the materials and finish of which needs to be protected from trees,
fires and bird poo! Instead, this would have been an excellent
opportunity to build an appropriate forest high walk, not affected by
the above issues and would deliver improved urban bushland amenity and
the natural environment whilst saving the important endangered
Turpentine ironbark forest, that is the last remnant natural bushland
in North Ryde/Macquarie Park that has, in recent times, become an ugly
high-rise concrete jungle!

The original overbridge design, that took account of its sensitive
landscape context, did not impact Bundara Reserve, which was to be
protected. However, the inferior, modified overbridge turned this
sensitive approach on its head, and now badly impacts the reserve,
requiring the unnecessary removal of many protected trees. The
community is entitled to feel duped by the extensive community
consultation process, the results of which an earlier approved
overbridge, that protected Bundara Reserve, was completely reversed at
a later phase.
Clearly it is Bundara Reserve that merits preservation; Not a modified
ovebridge, the design, materials and finish of which are inappropriate
to the needs of the environmental bushland situation.

I strongly object to the proposed modified overbridge at Bundara Reserve
that now badly impacts its Sydney Turpentine ironbark forest (STIF),
an endangered ecological community within Bundara Reserve.
Now, Landcom has designed a second, modified, inappropriate bridge,
the materials and finish of which needs to be protected from trees,
fires and bird poo! Instead, this would have been an excellent
opportunity to build an appropriate forest high walk, not affected by
the above issues and would deliver improved urban bushland amenity and
the natural environment whilst saving the important endangered
Turpentine ironbark forest, that is the last remnant natural bushland
in North Ryde/Macquarie Park that has, in recent times, become an ugly
high-rise concrete jungle!

The original overbridge design, that took account of its sensitive
landscape context, did not impact Bundara Reserve, which was to be
protected. However, the inferior, modified overbridge turned this
sensitive approach on its head, and now badly impacts the reserve,
requiring the unnecessary removal of many protected trees. The
community is entitled to feel duped by the extensive community
consultation process, the results of which an earlier approved
overbridge, that protected Bundara Reserve, was completely reversed at
a later phase.
Clearly it is Bundara Reserve that merits preservation; Not a modified
ovebridge, the design, materials and finish of which are inappropriate
to the needs of the environmental bushland situation.

I oppose this modification completely. For the sake of habitat
protection, green space, climate change, ecosystem preservation and
reducing the build up of heat in urban spaces during hot summers,
Bundara Reserve must be preserved in it's entirety. It is vital to our
natural heritage and a sustainable future. It is environmentally
protected, E2 Zoned land, and should not be impacted upon by the
pedestrian footbridge.

A proposal to cut down trees to protect a pedestrian bridge from bird
droppings is ludicrous. The Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark forest in
Bundara Reserve is only a small part of this Endangered Ecological
Community left in the Rye area. I was told many years ago this would
never be impacted on because it is so special. Both Federal and State
Governments agree that we need more not less trees to absorb carbon
dioxide to reduce the effects of climate change and to keep the Sydney
suburbs cooler with increasing temperatures due to climate change.
Another reason to keep the trees is that animals live in that small
piece of bushland and we shouldn't destroy their homes to save some
paint from deteriorating. A better solution would be to put a roof
over the bridge or not build the bridge at all. Perhaps a tunnel would
provide a climate controlled walkway and the people could travel along
it in all weather conditions and the birds and mammals could keep
their habitat.
In regard to falling branches I have been travelling to North Ryde to
work at the RSL Youth Club for 23 years and I have never seen a fallen
branch on the road or in the reserve.

There is no need to cut down trees for that bridge. I object.

This development is s great example of the problem of progressive
diminution of our environmental resources. It goes without saying that
the area affected is covered by both State and National Endangered
species legislation. Yet it has been subject time and time again to
attack in the name on necessary progress.
The area was firstly (in recent times) affected by the development of
the M4 motorway, reducing the tree cover and isolating it from the
nearby Lane Cove National Park. At the time of that development trees
were removed from out side what was then channel 10, with the promise
that they would be restated when the development was completed. It
never happened.
Next was the Delhi Road station development. Friends of LCNP became
involved when they realised that an area of the EEC STIF opposite the
station was being affected. That area was recognised as STIF by both
TIDC and OEH and as a result some off set compensation was paid for
work in Wallumatta Nature Reserve.
Then came the current road works which removed all of the remaining
STIF opposite the station and maintained that no compensation was
required because according to the Planning Minister it was no longer
STIF.
Now we have a redesigned pedestrian bridge that apparently can not
possibly be designed to minimise its effect on the reserve and which
also requires trees to be removed so that birds do not excrete on to
the bridge.
How many more essential changes will there be before there is no
reserve remaining and we are told it has no further value except maybe
as a carpark or a site for another high rise building.

I object to the removal of trees to construct a footbridge. With all the
development in the area there is enough disregard for nature and it is
not necessary. Trees should only be removed if they are a danger, not
because they are an inconvenience.