Meriton/Thomas St Carpark

craneThe Chatswood West Ward Progress Association wishes to object to the proposed Modification 9 for the redevelopment of the Thomas Street Car Park in Chatswood. Already it is hard enough for disabled people seeking medical treatment to gain entry to edical premises at 12 Thomas Street via the disabled ramp coming from Fleet Lane, but now Meriton want to make it harder.

Willoughby Council, with due recognition of the disabled, guaranteed a Right of Way via a proper road and pedestrian pathway through the development site “before, during and after” construction.

The developers appear to have side stepped this condition for development, making it very difficult for the disabled to access. Now, I hear the developers wish to convert the Right of Way and access for the disabled into a zone shared with heavy service vehicles accessing the loading dock in the building! What next? Such changes will place all pedestrians, including the aged frail, the wheelchair bound, people with children in pushers, those dependent on walking aids, and people with visual impairment and others with significant handicaps in jeopardy.We are getting tired of “Meriton creep”. Boundaries and time limits are set and Meriton push them out.

Please stand up to them. They will be gone in couple of years with their pockets bulging, but we will still be here! Modification 9 is a denial of justice to residents and medical professionals and others offering services.

Yours sincerely,

R.L.Lawrence, Vice President


2 thoughts on “Meriton/Thomas St Carpark

  1. Posted by the Editor on behalf of writer:

    Re: Meriton Twin Tower Project site inspection 9.30AM Friday called by the Land and Environment Court of NSW. I support the opposition by the PAC .

    1. Meriton proposes a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Willoughby City Council. I am opposed to VPA’s especially when the LEP is set at 15 levels. MP09_0066 MOD6 Thomas Street Car Park ambit claim from Meriton Property Services PL : Approved 29 level residential tower from 29 storeys to 47 storeys and increase the number of units by 122 from 233 to 355. This is just totally inappropriate. I stood for Council at the 2004 elections and took great interest in this site. I envisaged 25 storeys. I was ahead of my time but to pay $50M for the residential/commercial site must be the end of the approval process. Meriton must be denied.
    2. Meriton ‘s Serviced Apartments tower of 29 storeys [Building 1] should be the maximum height allowed. Instead of 37 storeys of commercial space both towers would serve the region much better if they were both commercial and limited to 29 storeys.
    3. Footings: What capability do the footings allow? Are they legal?
    4. Our schools are already stretched so a twin tower commercial development would work best.
    5. Albert Avenue is a minor road forced to be a major artery for the Regional Shopping Centre. This site is extremely close to both the Pacific highway and Chatswood Station. Proper consideration must be given to the access needs of adjoining properties. Meriton like other developers have been known to break promises and commitments. Access into and out of the towers will generate more traffic in a gridlock area. Fleet lane access to be a shared lane for pedestrians and deliveries seems dangerous. Safety precautions demand separaration.
    6. Iglu Property Management are very unimpressed at the current situation. Meriton plans are unsympathetic especially in the area of above ground car parking.Their building built to LEP limits and Meriton twice the limit next door thanks to controversial Section Part 3A legacy.
    7. Adverse consequences for the properties in Albert Avenue opposite this site: Wind tunnel, loss of sunlight, traffic noise and pollution with loss of property value.

  2. Today’s NSW Government Noticeboard lists the Thomas Street project under Transitional Part 3A Applications: “Modifications to reduce the total number of apartments, and number of adaptable units, and amend the mix of units, car parking allocation, and Section 94 Contributions .” This is stated to be Mod 11

    There has not been public notification of changes since Mod 6. Noting the colossal changes up to Mod 6, and the numerous major issues still in contention at that time, there may be substantial changes to the design that have not been reviewed by previous objectors to the project, at Mod 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

    Does Council yet have a crystallised final set of drawings for the project? Are the final drawings available for public inspection? Has Council satisfied itself that problems with the public car park entrances, access to adjoining properties, and disabled access have been resolved?

    Does Council approve of the changes in function: AMEND the mix of units, car parking allocation and Section 94 Contributions? Do these changes detract from,or facilitate, Councils long term strategy for Chatswood CBD?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s