Item
9.6 - Attachment 5 |
Summary of submissions |
ATTACHMENT
5: SUMMARY OF Submissions
Note: Concept 1
REFERS TO council’s adopted option (commercial only)
Concept
2 REFERS TO smda’s perferred option (mixed use)
No |
Location |
Issues Raised |
|
Individuals |
|
1 |
|
· Objection is raised to
the new east west road from Church Street to High Street. · The plans show a primary
new link to the south as an extension of Rosehill Street, linking with
proposed open space and providing a direct linkage to the station. This new
street link is preferred, as it aligns with the station, connects to open
space, has less effect on redevelopment potential of affected lands, aligns
with intersection of Rosehill and Church Streets, and provides a better mid
block connection. · The new street just
south of Marion Street is not supported. It is too close to Marion Street
and thus will operate as a rear lane access to properties fronting Marion
Street. The demand for such a link is not supported by any traffic analysis
or consideration of options. The resulting intersection with Church Street
is too close to the intersection of Church and Marion Streets which will
result in traffic management issues and restrictions on movement requiring
left in and left out only at Church Street and possibly High Street. It has
a detrimental impact on the redevelopment potential of 64 High Street, and
more importantly on the property to the west of 64 High Street which is
divided in half by the new road. · The focus of pedestrian
movement should be main streets not rear lanes. This facilitates safer
pedestrian movement patterns along streets over a 24 hour period on streets
that are generally wider and would provide more passive surveillance. · Mid block pedestrian
connections to provide pedestrian connections from Church Street to High
Street and then onto the station can be best achieved through the
development control process providing mid block connections within
developments activating spaces between buildings as · Supportive of renewal
however final plans should include an effective and real method available to
|
2 |
7
& |
· The proposed new block
structure with a street at the rear of the properties fronting Marion Street
will fragment the properties and limit the potential for future
redevelopment of these allotments. · The proposed new roads
will increase through traffic movement. There is vehicular and pedestrian
thoroughfare available along Marion Street 40 metres to the north of the
proposed new street. Introducing a new road is unlikely to provide any
additional servicing benefit. · The introduction of a
new road between Church Street and High Street would necessitate the removal
of a number of trees and damage the ambiance of the street. · Location of heritage
items has not been given proper consideration in determining the proposed
new road alignment and will further fragment land within the precinct, and
prevent the future development along Marion Street. · Object to few landowners
being burdened with the loss of their land to ac |
3 |
|
· Supports Concept 2 of
the Auto Alley exhibited material. · Believes that the
rezoning of Auto Alley and increasing the floor space ratio to 6:1 will
stimulate growth and support local businesses. |
4 |
|
· Does not support high
density apartment growth. Believes that it fragments the local · South Parramatta
contains low density housing worth preserving. · Proposes mixture of low
to medium density residential development with emphasis on pedestrian
amenity. · Concerned with traffic congestion
due to narrow streets. · Does not want future
development to solely be based on market demands. |
5 |
3,
5, 10, 19, |
· Supports rezoning of
Auto Alley precinct. · Proposes higher building
height limit (10-12 storeys) for Dixon Street due to proximity to CBD, and
will be consistent with Church Street zoning. · Believes impact of
proposed changes to Auto Alley will stimulate growth and support local
businesses in the area. |
6 |
|
· Concerned with the lack
of public transport and local amenities to support elderly residents in the
area. · Concerned that
apartments and retirement villages are being approved without considering
the needs of people living in the area (especially elderly and disabled
residents), as there are limited bus services to Parramatta. · Wishes for local retail
shopping development and parks to support the residents. |
7 |
|
· Does not support any
increase of car dealerships in the Auto Alley precinct, notably the use of
local roads for testing cars (citing traffic safety concerns). · Appears to be concerned
by increasing traffic congestion in the area. |
8 |
|
· Supports plan to rezone
the Auto Alley precinct, notably a mixed use zoning option to include both
residential and · Suggests that there are
much vacant office spaces in Parramatta and additional office spaces will
not benefit Parramatta. · Rental market demands
for residential units are high. · Believes that the mix of
residential and |
9 |
|
· Supports rezoning of Auto Alley to support a
mixed use zoning option to include both residential and commercial
development. · Suggests that the area has traditionally been
heavily promoted as an auto sales and commercial precinct, which has
negatively impacted on the area and demand (for auto dealerships) have
dwindled. · Does not support further increases in purely · Suggests that online auctions have replaced the
need to go to car sales yards. |
10 |
Boundary
Street, |
· Initial plans look positive. · Car vendors appear to be vacating the area. · Great opportunity and hopes that planning eventuates without
too much disruptions to transportation. |
11 |
Not
specified |
· Suggests an avenue of trees on either side of
Church Street between the M4 and Parkes Street to soften the outlook of
Church Street. |
12 |
312-332
and |
· Auto Alley is an underutilised precinct and
should play an important part of providing additional residences and jobs to
upgrade the ambience of the area. · Supports Concept 2 to achieve the desired
improvements. Although the proposed heights should be reviewed to maximise
the potential benefits. |
13 |
|
· Supports Concept 2. |
14 |
|
· The owners have lodged a preliminary rezoning
concept with Council. · A
rezoning submission requesting a B4 Mixed Use zone and a maximum building
height of 60 metres (approximately 20 storeys) to facilitate a predominantly
residential development. · The boundary for Auto Alley is arbitrary and
should include the subject site. Also requests the site be included in the
Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. |
|
Car Dealerships |
|
15 |
57,
63 & |
· The owners have lodged a
planning proposal with Council seeking to rezone the subject site. · The approach in Concept
2 of a mix of non-residential and residential is far preferable to Concept 1
in that it will deliver a more vibrant Church Street, and will better meet
the market for dwellings and the demand for · While in agreement with
the intent of Concept 2, believes that the residential building heights do
not take sufficient advantage of the strategic location of the subject
sites. · There is a high demand
for residential ac |
16 |
|
· The study does not
indicate whether it might be proposed to change any of the uses currently
permitted in the B5 zone. It is assumed that they will not be changed and
that automotive uses will continue to be permissible. · Owner and operator of a
large motor dealership on this land and intends to maintain a long term presence
in Auto Alley. The exposure to public view is of critical importance to any
vehicle dealership use. The proposed excision of substantial areas of the
premises to provide two new roads would be an unacceptable imposition upon
the utility of the land. Any proposed · Any treatment of the
Church Street which fails to · The proposed increases
in maximum floor space ratio and building height will result in buildings
which will cover most of the land area, thus eliminating the open display
spaces which are both functionally and · The current proposals
are likely to create a degree of uncertainty in the minds of current
landowners which may well result in a premature exodus of motor dealerships
from the locality long before any demand for new, non-automotive development
surfaces. There is therefore a real possibility that the area could be · Auto Alley has
established a well deserved reputation as the premier location for sellers
and purchasers of motor vehicles. The proposed controls will make this form
of development uneconomic as rents increase with the increased land value. · Preference would be for
the existing controls to be maintained and for further thought be given to
appropriate means of enhancing the precinct without forcing existing
operators to move elsewhere. |
17 |
|
· Supports rezoning of
Auto Alley precinct as the gateway to the Parramatta CBD, but does not
believe purely · Proposes a mixed use
zoning to better align the needs of the Auto Alley precinct. |
18 |
|
· Supports rezoning of the
Auto Alley precinct. · Proposes mixed use
zoning to include commercial, automotive, retail and residential rather than
purely commercial core. · Believes impact of
proposed changes to Auto Alley will stimulate growth and support local
businesses in the area. · Comments on current land
use and zoning restrictions as unpractical to land owners. |
19 |
|
· Supports strategic direction to rezone Auto
Alley in general as current zoning and land use restrictions have made the
area redundant. · Does not support Council’s proposal for a purely
· Believes that Council’s proposal Option 2B to be
effective, but only if it permits mixed use development to include retail
and |
|
Urban Taskforce |
|
20 |
Concerning
the entire precinct |
· Re · A strong advocate of
mixed use development. Argue that vibrant, exciting places are those that
include a mix of · Progressive and
contemporary planning focuses on land use mix and considers that successful
places include a mix of uses, including jobs, retail, entertainment and
residential apartments all coexisting, working together to make a place
attractive and successful at all times of the day and week. · The B4 Mixed Use zone
does provide the necessary flexibility to permit innovative land use and
design solutions to a challenging locality. · Considers that all land currently
zoned B5 Business Development along Church Street be zoned B4 Mixed Use. It
is also suggested that the B4 Mixed Use zone also extend deeper into the
adjacent R4 High Density Residential area. · To encourage renewal,
controls that permit an increase in urban density, height and population
intensity in key locations must be provided. |
|
Feedback Forms |
|
21 |
Resident
and landowner in Auto Alley Precinct |
· Supports increase in business development
potential along Church Street now. · Supports higher residential densities and
building heights in the broader area however recognises the need for greater
accessibility to public transport and the Parramatta CBD and the need to
address parking, traffic and recreational areas. · Suggests open theatre and community facilities
to support local events, private functions, weddings, parties etc. · Suggests a bus service would be required to
shuttle residents between Auto Alley to Parramatta train station, and other
key areas (i.e. University of Western Sydney). · Requests to incorporate 28 Lansdowne Street
within the boundaries for |
Landowner in the Auto
Alley Precinct |
· Supports changes to the Auto Alley Precinct to incorporate business
and high density residential development. · Supports higher residential densities and building heights between
High Street and Station Street. · Suggests greater accessibility to public transport and the Parramatta
CBD, especially Harris Park Station. · Concerned with traffic congestion and pedestrian safety. · Suggests open space and streetscape improvements to improve local
amenity. · Suggests cycle way access to Harris Park and Parramatta Station. |
|
23 |
Resident
living nearby the Auto Alley Precinct |
· Is content with proposed 6 storey development
along Church Street. · Does not support high density residential
development of 6 storeys behind Church Street façade, currently 3 storeys. · Concerned about solar access if high density
residential and · Suggests that proposed changes will
significantly alter the neighbourhood “village feel” and the current height
limit of 3 storeys should be the limit. · Suggests public open spaces, family friendly
areas and dog walking parks to improve local amenity. · More bus services required to service the area
and suggests more train services to Harris Park station. · Concerned about current traffic congestion in
peak hours. · Believes heritage value of Harris Park should be
maintained. |
24 |
Resident
living nearby to Auto Alley Precinct |
· Supports changes to the Auto Alley Precinct to
incorporate mixed use development to include residential and · Supports residential density and building height
increases in the Auto Alley Precinct, on the condition of strict planning
controls, site suitability additional public roads and pedestrian access. · Suggests free street car parking is required to
support local businesses. · Upgrade of Harris Park Station, including
pedestrian access and parking as well as improvements to the timetable. · Parramatta has outstanding heritage and suggests
renaming “Auto Alley” to “The Crescent” which was the original name given to
the area. |
25 |
Resident
and landowner in Auto Alley Precinct |
· Need higher density business and residential in
a manner that optimises health and quality of life. · The highest buildings and densities should be
closest to Church Street so as not to adversely impact on existing dwellings
and residents. · Density increases need to address traffic
congestion, parking, social isolation, walkability etc · Seeks public domain improvements in the form of
green space, shops, opportunities for social interaction etc · Divert traffic away from existing residential
streets, improve access to Parramatta CBD and Harris Park Station, and
reduce through-traffic on Church Street via ring road. · Need strategies that avoid low style/quality
apartments, walkable neighbourhoods with green spaces, safer streets, new
shops and child care centres and good access to the CBD. |
|
Community drop-in
session Saturday,
26 May 2012 at the Parramatta City Council Chambers Building |
|
|
General
remarks |
· Need to protect heritage items and conservation
areas. i.e. no demolition, overshadowing or other negative impact. · Support business/office along Church Street. · Connection to Harris Park Railway Station is
poor. · Need more trees and the right trees. · Precinct has gradually declined over the past 50
years. · Residential to the west is unlikely to turn over
because of strata and not enough incentives. · Mixed use located to the rear of auto alley
supported. · Provision and delivery of the new lanes and
street trees. |