ikea project update, page-3

Whitebeachlover,here you go-surprised SB or SI didnt oblige!
February 2009
VALAD Property Group
Level 9, 1 Chifley Square
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Attention: Mr Denis Ghersinich - Project Manager
Dear Mr. Ghersinich,
RE: Ikea Tempe Landscaping Design Proposals
Response to Marrickville Council Comments on the Part 3a Major Project Submission
We write this letter to provide a response to Councils comments relating to the landscape
aspects of the proposed Ikea development at Tempe, as described in the letter dated 9
October 2008 from Ken Hawke, Council’s Director of Development and Environment Services.
We note that we have provided a Landscape Design Report as part of the lodged application,
and discussed in that document many of the design issues raised. We will therefore try to
briefly expand upon the design report to highlight how we can accommodate Council’s
suggestions and concerns. We will also note where we feel the design concerns expressed
are in our opinion unfounded, or at least on balance the best design solution has been sought.
We provide response to issues raised in Item 5.3 of Council’s letter relating to:
- Prince Highway Street Trees and Landscaping Character;
- Carpark scale and diversity of tree species
- Insufficient Outdoor Landscaped Usable Spaces
- Changing proposed site Fig tree relocation to be group of new native canopy trees;
- Future Public Domain and Landscaping Strategy for precinct.
With regard to Street Trees along the Highway, our report highlights the substantial limitations
on street trees given the flight path height contours that restrict the height of trees. We note
that we are keen to add more trees to satisfy with Council’s suggestion. The plans have been
adjusted to include 16 indigenous canopy trees along the street, and will select the species at
the detailed design stage.
However, we also note that we feel there are additional considerations relating to the specific
number and locations we have suggested, and welcome a further opportunity to discuss our
reasoning with Council. This includes protection of the panoramic views at this location;
sightlines to the heritage building; and creating an appropriate civic response that relates to
the large scale and specific international iconic identity of the development.
Council’s concerns as to the character of the understorey planting and the gabion walls is
noted and we have suggestions to respond to their comments. Their concern as to the ‘
modern ‘ and structural style of landscape blade wall elements was considered to be visually
harsh. We suggest that providing climbing plants will ‘ green ‘ these elements, and in this way
we believe we can substantially soften the presence of these elements, whilst retaining our
general design intent.
With regard to the carpark landscaping, we feel that we can largely address Council’s
concerns in terms of providing more modulation and variation to the character of trees, with
different species to create precincts. The number and extent of trees planted across the area,
is significant, with 95 trees indicated on the submitted plans. We disagree with some of
Council’s comments with regard to tree planting detailing over the required capping of the
waste fill below the area.
Page 2 – Tempe Landscaping Design Proposals: Site Image Landscape Architects Ikea
Response to Marrickville Council Comments on the Part 3a Major Project Submission
The project engineer Consultants have considered the potential to include porous pavements
near to trees, and excluded this from consideration. Council was also keen for us to consider
clumping of trees into groups, particularly near the main pedestrian entry. The premise was to
increase the amenity for parked cars through providing shade. Again, the detailing of a
massed soil zone with larger tall canopy trees is inconsistent with engineering advice we have
received.
In response to Council’s request for additional planting near the main pedestrian entry to the
building, we note we have included approximately 12 additional trees in the broad planters just
adjacent and above the ‘capped‘ carpark area. We believe this will go a long way to satisfying
Council’s request for additional trees in this area
In response to Council’s request for more useable outdoor landscaped areas, we note this
was specifically raised when we met with Council’s Landscape Architects as being preference
for a seating zone close to the roadside. We highlighted the inconsistency of this with CPTED
principles, given it’s remote location from other active areas of the site. The discouragement
of roadside gatherings was seen by us as being important. We do not agree specifically with
that proposal. More generally, we believe that the various outdoor seating areas and breakout
spaces around the site are suitable and considered in terms of responding to actual
functionality and amenity of users of the site. These areas include adjacent the Ateco and
Main Buildings, as well as to the entry undercroft and pickup / drop-off areas, and the bus
waiting area.
With regard to the proposed relocation of the mature Fig tree, discussions with Council have
highlighted their view that despite the value of this as a reference to the site heritage, the cost
of the works were considered to not reflect the potential community benefit. Council believed
the open space and seating area where the Fig tree was proposed to be located could have
equal or even improved amenity through providing a group of native Canopy trees. This in part
stems from the problem of a relocated tree needing to have access restricted around the base
so as to protect roots from damage. Hence the shading benefit is somewhat restricted
compared to the shading benefit of new trees. Given the budget provision made by the
project to the Fig tree relocation, and the equal benefit that Council considered new tree
planting could provide, Council asked that consideration be given to passing along saving to a
contribution to Council. It is understood that this proposal has been accepted by the project,
and therefore new native trees (100 litre container size at installation) will be proposed in this
area in lieu of the Fig tree. We will liaise with Council to gain their further views on final design
of this area to ensure the trees provide suitable amenity for this large open space area of the
site.
With regard to providing a Landscape Strategy for the open space and streetscapes near to
the site, we note the cost of such consultancy could be provided by the developer out of their
Section 94 Contributions to the Council. This would appear to be an appropriate use of these
funds. On this basis we would be willing to assist Council with preparation of the Landscape
Strategy.
We trust the above comments, and the accompanying amended Site Image Landscape Plan
(Drawing Number 101, issue G) suitably address the suggestions and comments of Council.
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned to discuss any aspect of the above, or to
seek further clarification of information to assist assessment of the proposals.
Yours faithfully,
Ross Shepherd BLArch AAILA Registered Landscape Architect
Director – Site Image Pty Ltd (Landscape Architects)



5 February 2009 Our Ref: AS120950
Valad Property Group
Attn: Denis Ghersinich
PO Box N817
Grosvenor Place
Sydney NSW 1220
Dear Denis
Re: Contamination Audit – Major Project 07-0149 Tempe Ikea
I am a NSW EPA Accredited Contaminated Sites Auditor and have been engaged to
conduct an audit of the proposed Tempe Ikea site.
I previously prepared a Site Audit Report (SAR) and Site Audit Statement (SAS) for part of
the site, known as Areas 1A and 1B of the former Tempe Tip Landfill:
• ‘SAS GN 35-1B and ‘Site Audit Report - Validation of Remediation for Areas 1A and 1B
of Tempe Lands’, dated 31 August 2006.
I have subsequently reviewed contamination assessments for the remainder of the site,
consisting of commercial properties on the Princes Highway. I have also received and made
comments on a draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP), and received a revised draft covering the
whole proposed Tempe Ikea site as follows:
• ‘Remedial Action Plan For Valad, Tempe Commercial Development At 630 - 726 Princes
Highway And Areas 1a &1b Tempe Lands, Tempe’ draft dated 3 February 2009 by
Coffey Environments Pty Ltd.
My previous SAS for Areas 1A and 1B concluded that the site was suitable for
commercial/industrial use, subject to management in accordance with an Environmental
Management Plan (EMP). I will now review the RAP and provide an opinion on whether
measures to be undertaken in the proposed development are consistent with the EMP.
I will also conduct an audit of the RAP with relation to the current commercial properties
outside Areas 1A and 1B, with the intention of certifying that the site can be made suitable
subject to implementation of the RAP.
I believe that these two steps will satisfy the draft consent condition from Department of
Planning.
I also anticipate that it will be a condition of consent that a SAS be obtained after
implementation of the RAP, certifying that the site is suitable for the proposed use, subject to
a specific and appropriate EMP.
These proposed actions are consistent with the requirements of DECCs submission on the
Environmental Assessment for Major Project 07-149 dated 15 December 2008. During the
audit process, I will take into consideration the specific advice and concerns expressed by
DECC.
Valad Property Group
February 2009
Contamination Audit – Tempe Ikea
Page 2
AS120950 Z:\Projects\VALAD Property Group\950_Tempe audit\L_Tempe Ikea_Feb09.doc
Please call me if you wish to discuss. I would be happy to discuss the audit with DECC if
required.
Yours faithfully
ENVIRON Australia Pty Ltd
Graeme Nyland
EPA Accredited Auditor 9808