AMY STREET PLANNING PROPOSAL (PP-1/2013)
SUBMISSION BASED ON COMMENTS RECORDED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD
7 MAY 2015 AND THE FEEDBACK FORMS DISTRIBUTED AT THE MEETINGS
This is a submission collated by Auburn Council on behalf of the community, on the planning
proposal for 2-4 Smith Street, 116-132 Amy St, 1, 3, 5, 7, 7A and 9 Maunder Street, Regents
Park.
The summary includes comments put forward at the two public meetings held 7 May 2015
and those stated in the feedback forms provided at those meetings.
Note that where representatives of the Labor Party raised an issue the person making the
comment is identified.
1. SUMMARY OF ORAL COMMENTS AT THE PUBLIC MEETINGS
Traffic impacts











Traffic crawls on Amy St. This is a major issue.
Donna Davis (Luke Foley’s Office): Amy St is a carpark. The development is not
feasible.
Traffic issues and widening of the rail over bridge should be addressed before any
new development is considered in Regents Park.
The main problem intersection is Amy St/Rookwood Rd.
The Amy St/Regent St intersection is also a problem.
The existing traffic is already unacceptable. This proposal will make it worse.
Traffic congestion has not been addressed. There is no change resulting from the
studies.
Heavy vehicles should be prohibited on Amy St during peak hours of the day.
A sign stating “No Compression Braking” on Amy Street is again requested.
Traffic that passes through Maunder Street to Amy Street has a large impact. Getting
out is dangerous. Cars are banked back to Nottinghill Road.
The traffic report did not consider the Maunder/Smith Street exit.
Height and density and housing type in relation to the surrounding context








Residents don’t want their community to change into Auburn, Strathfield or
Chatswood.
The studies state that there is a strong underlying demand for housing, but no one
wants high rise development on the site. There is enough old housing stock to
support the demand in Regents Park.
You can’t start a family in units.
The suburb would be wrecked by high density.
Townhouses or villas are preferred. Why hasn’t an R3 zoning been considered? A
resident disagreed that the morning meeting accepted R3.
Most of the residents agree that the land should remain as R2 Low Density
Residential.
Residents are not against development but they want development done well.
Why not build a retirement village instead? This would be good for Regents Park.
1




The services to Regents Park are already deteriorating (train services, track works,
flooded train lines, trips requiring four connections). Being near the train station isn’t
enough justification for high density.
The developer doesn’t need high density to make a profit. He could still develop the
land within the provisions of a R2 Low Density Zone and make a profit.
Residents are concerned that the proposed high density development will reduce
their land value.
Donna Davis (Luke Foley’s Office): The rezoning of employment lands (Jenkins St
PP) and others within the LGA is a concern. The Department of Planning and
Environment is making overriding decisions. So much development is occurring in
other areas of the LGA, Regents Park should not be subject to it.
Impact on residential amenity and parking










A resident of a neighbouring site does not want a 9m high building at the back fence.
No one wants to live next to a spot re-development. There should be at least 10m
gap between building and fences to protect amenity.
Residents will lose access to sunlight from overshadowing
The development will result in close proximity between the residential flat building
and surrounding low density dwellings, which will have privacy impacts.
There will be increased noise from loud music.
High rise units are mostly purchased by overseas investors and occupied by
transient renters. Some are new to Australia and don’t have a sense of ownership of
the environment, some don’t respect others’ privacy, and some are likely to throw
rubbish (eg cigarette butts) out of their units.
Regents Park will become a slum if higher rise units in an island development occur.
The proposed development will result in a lot of rubbish being thrown out into the
street when tenants move out.
A lot of rubbish bins will also be stacked along the road, which will lead to a
prohibition of parking on the street.
Ratepayers are not getting the benefits they deserve. They pay Council rates and the
parks are not up to standard and nothing has been done to address the traffic issues
on Amy Street.
The proposed development could create isolation.
Increase in anti-social behaviour



High rise development will bring new and transient residents to an area, which will
create social problems. Auburn has been named ‘the murder capital of Sydney’
(Auburn Review dated 28 April 2015) and residents of Regents Park don’t want any
more high rise.
The park at the end of Nottinghill Road, Regents Park, is not very safe as syringes
are found there.
Nottinghill Road is already used as a drag strip at night; it is unsafe to be on the road.
Removal of trees

The trees on the site are integral to the site. Some trees are over 200 years old. It is
part of the Regents Park heritage. They form a safe bird haven to support the
species movement from the habitat on the golf course. Losing the trees on the site to
allow the proposed development would be an environmental disaster.
2

Residents would not be allowed to knock down the trees if we redeveloped, so why
should this developer be allowed to? The trees should be retained on the site.
Process
Committee to represent the community and to negotiate with the developer on behalf of the
community
 A committee should be formed from the community to represent the community’s
views to the developer.
 Most people in attendance at the evening session do not want to form a committee to
negotiate with the developer on behalf of residents.
 Barbara Perry (former MP): The committee needs to be supported by staff report,
when the proposal is on exhibition. Request that the staff report be approved by
Council as a matter of course.
o Concern was expressed that the full Council will not accept report.
o Should the residents write to Council to say they must accept the report?
Potential conflict of interest and concerns about transparency
 Some residents raised concerns about potential conflict of interest for councillors and
for JRPP, as
o Some councillors left the Council meeting when the proposal was tabled
o They don’t know who owns the site. Did the developer buy properties from
Housing NSW?
o Do councillors have links to JRPP or to development?
o Councillors are on the JRPP. If there is a conflict, what is the avenue for
complaint?
o Why can’t Council have a pro-development and an anti-development
councillor on the JRPP panel?
o Does JRPP have a there a dispute resolution process?
 The JRPP panel should conduct a site visit to better understand the situation. The
site is appropriate for R3 Medium Density Residential and not R4 High Density
Residential development.
 The residents ask if there could be another panel for JRPP.
 The residents are concerned that the JRPP made recommendations regarding
amendments to the planning proposal behind closed doors.
 A recent JRPP meeting was closed to the public. The JRPP meeting to consider this
proposal should be open to the public.
Relevant Planning Authority


Barbara Perry (Former MP): Expressed disappointment that Council did not keep the
application at local level. It is horrifying that the JRPP said that the application will be
approved subject to conditions.
Residents are concerned that the resolution not to accept the role of determining
authority means that the opportunity for community consultation will be lost.
General process issues
 Most of the residents agree that the land should remain as R2 Low Density
Residential. The wishes of the community are being ignored.
 We don’t want this proposal to keep coming back.
 This planning proposal does not return a benefit to the community as a whole.
3









Is there anything in the strategic plan for high density in this isolated position?
It is rezoning by stealth.
What is the motive of this planning proposal?
The developer should not have the choice to develop a high rise which will have so
many adverse impacts.
The residents should not have to move out of Regents Park just because a developer
wants to develop high rise units and make money.
Barbara Perry (Former MP): Oppose island development and this ad hoc planning.
Mayor of Auburn needs to be a strong advocate in State Government.
A story about the proximity of units in the local paper was squashed.
Request Council put a submission based on the views at these meetings to JRPP.
Precedent


The proposal will set a precedent for similar island developments – an island of high
density in the middle of an area of single dwelling character.
The proposal should not be considered as it sets a precedent for other developments
that are not consistent with the zoning.
Lack and/or strain on current infrastructure and services


The railway services passing through Regents Park have been reduced by the State
Rail Authority and there are also disrupted train services at Regents Park.
Regents Park School won’t cope with the additional numbers.
Proposed public recreation area







The planning proposal states that there will be a RE1 Public Recreation provided as
part of the development. The park would be good, but who will take ownership of the
park and maintain it in the future? The parks within Regents Park and the community
hall are not maintained well.
Providing a park is only an incentive to Council to allow high rise on that location.
As high density is contentious, they have no choice but to include a park.
The proposed park falls on the southern side of the unit, it won’t get any winter sun.
No one will use the park in winter months of the year.
The park is tiny.
The proposed park is will be a car park, not a public recreation park.
The applicant’s report is inaccurate. The proposed park is smaller than other parks in
the area.
4
2. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON THE FEEDBACK FORMS
In general
At the public meetings Council provided attendees with feedback forms which asked for
simple questions about the proposal. 65 feedback forms were returned to council. The
comments generally reflected the same issues as those outlined above. Of the 65
respondents, only 2 stated that they support the proposal in its current form. 95.4% stated
that they do not support the proposal (See Figure 1).
1
2
Do you support the proposal
in its current form?
62
Number of responses
Figure 1. Analysis of feedback forms
The three most frequently raised issues were traffic, height, density and housing type in
relation to the context, and residential amenity. This was followed by concerns about the
process.
Most respondents did not like anything about the proposal, however, four residents liked the
renewal of the old buildings and four liked the inclusion of the public park.
Additional issues raised
In addition to the concerns put forward at the public meetings, the following issues were also
raised in the feedback forms:








The site is too far from the railway station for high density
The proposal:
o is too high
o will reduce available parking
o will increase land rates
o will create more problems than benefits
Concern about provision of electricity, pollution, crime and theft
Concern about water, sewer and drainage infrastructure of the development
Decisions on planning should not be made in retrospect of acquiring land holdings
When does ‘no’ mean ‘no’?
The constant changes are designed to wear down residents
Developers should not dictate the zoning.
5
Changes sought
The most common change sought by the respondents was to retain the R2 Low Density
Residential zoning (36 respondents) while two respondents suggested that the RPA listen to
the voice of residents.
Eleven respondents stated that they would accept villas and townhouses or aged care,
although two stated that the Regents Park Railway Overbridge should be built first.
Other changes recommended by one to four respondents each were:
 Improve traffic conditions first
 Reduce the height (mostly to 2 storey)
 Increase facilities such as child care, schools, community facilities first
 Rezone the whole area including surrounding streets
 Reduce the number of dwellings
 Provide for a 10m minimum ‘no building zone’ north of southern boundary of the site.
3. OVERALL
Overall, the residents at the public meetings do not support the planning proposal, even with
the amendments sought by the JRPP. The main issues relate to:
 Impacts on traffic in an already congested traffic environment and with no concurrent
improvements proposed as part of the development
 The height, density and housing type proposed as an island within this low density
residential environment, and
 Impacts on the amenity of existing residents, including solar access, privacy, noise,
increased anti-social behaviour and tree removal.
Concerns were also raised about transparency, potential conflicts and a process that allows
repeated attempts to overrides the wishes of the community and to allow development that is
inconsistent with the current zoning.
It is requested that this submission be considered by the Department of Planning and
Environment and the relevant planning authority for the planning proposal, if one is engaged.
6