This DA is for another large block of units on the site of the current 7/11 garage in Epping.
This proposal is for another large block of units on a key site within Epping - the corner of Carlingford Rd and Beecroft Road. The site is currently a 7/11 garage and sits right at two sets of traffic lights.
The Trust has the following issues with the proposal:
There is no properly thought through traffic survey in this Application, merely a statement that substituting a building containing a medical clinic for a service station will cause a reduction in traffic. This is despite the fact that the streets adjoining this DA site, and in particular the Carlingford Rd/ Beecroft Rd and Carlingford Rd/Rawson St intersections are subject to gridlock and unacceptable delays in peak hours prior to construction, as confirmed by the 2017 Epping Traffic report.
We also object to the fact that the consideration of traffic effects from this proposed development, such as it was, were considered in isolation from other nearby developments likely to occur, and in particular the already flagged Landcom Development of three residential tower blocks on the site immediately to the north.
We believe it is essential that a professionally conducted traffic survey be completed before this Application is further considered.
Anybody who has any doubt about the unpleasant wind effects that tower blocks can cause should walk around the Langston Development, where downdrafts and venturi effects can be very unpleasant, even on a relatively still day.
The Statement of Environmental Effects (SOEE) states that the DA is accompanied by a Desktop Wind Study. This study is not included in the documents made public, and we believe it should be. We seriously question its adequacy.
The SOEE further states that Council may impose a Condition of Consent requiring proper wind tunnel testing and analysis after DA Approval.
This is unacceptable, and that it is imperative that wind tunnel testing and fluid dynamic analysis be carried out before DA Approval. Such testing and analysis should include neighbouring developments, including that on the Landcom site and on the southern side of Carlingford Rd.
Overall, we find this an inadequate application with too many unresolved issues and urge it be rejected.