I object to the proposal for the following reasons:
1. There is already significant shortfall of retail and open space within the local community with a shortfall in the order of 5 full line supermarkets. Other residential developments are adding to demand for retail (e.g. supermarkets and convenience based retail) and open space but not providing any additional retail or open space. Existing open space within the immediate surrounding area is of low quality and already in shortfall given current residential population (there is only one park in a 300 radius from the site -- Wooroona Reserve). The nearby project at 161 Princes Highway Arncliffe does not provide sufficient retail floorspace to alleviate retail shortfall in the local area.
The proposal will add to demand for retail and open space but is not providing an additional retail or open space, as such it will further worsen these shortfalls. Reports accompanying the proposal do not consider impacts to the local community as a result of exacerbating these shortfalls. There needs to be a retail impact assessment and open space impact assessment to understand how much worse these shortfalls will become.
2. Unable to assess shadow impacts to common recreation areas for 118 Princes Highway Arncliffe. In particular barbeque areas and common ground floor area which are used through the day particularly in the mornings. Shadow diagrams need to be clearly presented and labelled to understand impacts to this adjoining property.
3. Reports don't consider the the cumulative traffic impacts of other projects along Duncan St and Charles St. Vehicle traffic is already impacted by road closures and one-way traffic (e.g. trucks and work vehicles double parking, traffic being redirected or road being temporary one-way during slab concrete pouring) by these construction sites. Additional construction on these local roads would further exacerbate the impact to vehicle movement during construction hours.
4. Reports accompanying the proposal don't consider traffic impacts at intersection at Wickham St and Charles St. It is already difficult trying to get in and out of Charles St during peak hour. Additional traffic generated by the proposal would extend wait times and increase congestion. This intersection either needs to be upgraded with traffic lights to better manage traffic flows, otherwise the proposal will significantly impact vehicle flow for existing residents using this intersection.
5. Proposal will add additional demand for peak hour train services at Arncliffe station which is already over capacity during peak hours -- i.e. some people are unable to board train during peak hour due to overcrowding. This is worsened when peak hour services are impacted (train cancelled or delayed). The T4 Illawarra line has been unable to meet a performance target of 92% during peak services for the last three years.
6. Further worsen local traffic and demand for on street parking. There is limited to no on street parking and the proposal will add additional demand for street parking. As a result the below quote from the traffic and parking assessment is incorrect (as would be evident if a site visit were conducted as part of the background work):
"Small service vehicles (service personnel etc) will be able to use the visitor spaces
while any occasional large service/delivery vehicles will be reliant on the available onstreet parking as is normal for small residential apartment buildings of this nature."
Unless the above factors can be considered the proposal will have a negative impact on existing residents and visitors to the local area.
