significantly increased. Existing residents’ interests are thus further undermined, which poses questions to the social sustainability and wellbeing that were part of the municipal vision.
•
Traffic Report
This report also demonstrates its understanding of the planning scheme in a way that supports the proposed development. Its discussion on the provision of loading zones reflects the consultants’ bias towards developer’s interests. Since the statutory framework does not impose any strict requirements, potential issues on loading zones have not been discussed comprehensively. The report simply rationalises the proposed limited loading zones through utilising the on-street parking, without sufficient regard to the practicality of this solution, which contradicts with its own recognition of the limited on-street parking in this section of Sydney Road. Questions on access for delivery services are thereby raised, which have also been neglected in this report without further examination. As a result of the proposal, the only alternative for these delivery service vans to park is on Wilson street, where service vans might compete with residents and visitors for the civic centre, education facilities and community service in the vicinity, causing great inconveniences. There is also a chance for vans to park in the newly introduced street which the southern boundary of the site faces. However, this street is proposed to prioritise access for cyclists and pedestrians to the residential lobby. Parking and unloading goods here may thus disrupt or block their movement, considering the number of retail premises on the same side. This restrictions on loading thus places intangible requirements on the type of retail goods and commercial premises suitable for the new development. At the same time, potential high rents due to possible gentrification effects brought by both the proposed and the approved higher density development also need to be considered and accommodated by future business owners. The lack of access to loading and delivery services may therefore reduce their utility while undermining the attractiveness and economic potentials of these premises (Campbell et al, 2018). Arguments for the proposed reduction in parking requirements have also been heavily reliant on the proximity to alternative transport modes. While the reduction in cycling facilities can be justified as the amount is not significant, arguments for reducing car parking provisions remain weakly supported. Suggested by increase in car usage being the largest, compared to other modes of transport (Profile Id, 2016), the broader trend of high car usage and ownership still indicates the need for sufficient parking. Research (Vicente & Reis, 2016) has also found that car preference is not solely dependent on accessibility to public transport, but rather the complex nature of user utility that can be attributed to various other reasons including workplaces, time cost, etc (Ortuzar & Willumsen, 2011). It is thus unlikely to reduce car usage simply through reducing provision of car park, which is assumed in the report. Additionally, the presumption that customers to the proposed retail premises would be mostly localised undermines the potential of Sydney Road activity centre to become a region-wide activity core and its attraction to people from other parts of the metropolitan. Instead of enhancing its future development prospects, it implies that the 17
