澳洲阻止PADSTOW清真寺的最新动态

在澳大利亚生活百科



大概一周前，清真寺的申请在本地市政府被驳回，具体内容如下。
本地居民暂时松了口气，不过宗教组织会在环境庭上诉，大家将师母已呆
Finally!! A council with a bit of common sense, that listens to what the residents have to say!
A very hard working patriot who prefers not to be named, submitted a lengthy proposal of rejection to the Bankstown Council yesterday demanding they reject the application for a mosque in Padstow. She got her wish, after a lot of determination, not just by herself but the residents of Padstow. smile emoticon
They have had a win with the Land and Environment court saying "NO" in the first instance, however it will now go to a full hearing.
WHICH IN SHORT MEANS: PADSTOW RESIDENTS 1, MOSQUE APPLICANTS 0. smile emoticon
Below is a copy of her Proposal of Rejection. The best parts are her demands aimed at the Council, the Land and Environment Court and the applicant!!
Good morning Commissioner Touro. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today at this conciliation conference. My name is XXXXX and my address is xxxxxxxxxxxxx. I am speaking today as a concerned resident, a mother and a teacher but most of all as a representative of the residents of the Padstow Community. I was the person who started the first community group Stop the Mosque at Padstow to oppose ANY development at this site that would cause to be brought into this street and the surrounding streets, extra traffic movements and/or any action that would impact on the local school and surrounding businesses.
The community group was started when the people who now own this site, the United Muslims Association did, back in August of 2014 start advertising via fliers, a website and a Facebook page, for a mosque for 5000 worshippers to be built on this site. I want to firmly state today regardless of who the owner or applicant was – any proposal that was going to cause the same concerns as this one has, would have had an action group opposed to it and the action group would have been named so in response, just as there is an an action group called Stop the Padstow Plan that is opposing the proposed multi story residential unit blocks in Padstow. I was part of a group of Padstow Residents who were responsible for organising a community meeting back in December of 2014 in which the UMA’s development, as well as any OTHER proposal like the current one at this site, was discussed.
Approximately 300 people attended that meeting and there was also approximately the same amount of people who attended but we had to turn away due to the venue not having the capacity to manage the high number of attendees. Details of that meeting have not been made fully public, however, I do have a video of that community meeting which demonstrates the concerns of the residents of Padstow about any Development Application on this site which will have an adverse affect on traffic in this and the surrounding streets. Also at that meeting, as well as before and after that meeting, myself and others including xxxxxxxxxx who is here today speaking, collected a number of signatures on a petition opposing the Development Application that we are here today discussing. That petition, I believe, resulted in over 700 accepted signatures and was submitted by xxxxxxx to Bankstown Council.
So I am here today on behalf of the Padstow Residents, to raise the concerns we have in regards to the Development Application for this site. One of our overall main concerns is Council allowing Industrial Areas to be used for other uses than what is deemed industrial. Industrial areas central to Sydney are quite rare and are most sought after. One only has to look down the street at No. 24 to see that Industry is not dead in this local area. We have Quantum Quartz who demolished old factories in order to build new modern facilities for its’ ever growing business. This shows that Industrial land should be preserved for its’ intended purpose and although this street and the current premises seem quite old and outdated, Quantum Quartz is obviously leading the way in revitalising and rejuvenating the area of its’ intended purpose. Further down the street, we have the modern facilities of the NRMA. NRMA, I can only assume chose this area due to its’ traffic access to all areas of Sydney as a result of M5 access to the East and West and Davies Road to the North and South, making it quite a central location and in essence, prime industrial real estate land. The current premises were actually advertised as such....prime industrial real estate land. Quantum Quartz also leased these premises for a short while and I am sure, that if given the opportunity, they would have loved to have purchased this prime industrial real estate area for its’ ever growing business.
Recently Mr Ghazzoui lodged an application for a “Change of use to an existing industrial development including internal fit-out works to a multi-purpose community
facility”. I am assuming, that as the United Muslim Association (“UMA”) is the owner of the land, Mr Ghazzoui has lodged the application on their behalf. Although Mr Ghazzoui may not be the owner or the person who intends to operate the premises, the use of premises and exactly by who, I believe, needs to be clarified within the Application.
My first concern is the Application itself. The words “multi-purpose” are very broad and can mean and include a number of activities. The “intention of use” has not been clearly defined in the present Application, nor have the exact properties being used for the Development been clearly defined. The Application is not TRANSPARENT ENOUGH for anyone in the community to clearly formulate an absolute opinion or objection to, as we essentially, do not know exactly what the requested permitted uses are, that we are objecting to.
Whilst the Application we are discussing says one thing, the owner of the property is in fact advertising and fundraising for, something entirely different to what this Development Application clearly states. Insofar as I and others have been able to elicit from the Application, it is not as specific as to what the current owner of the premises (which is UMA) is advertising and fundraising for to be built or modified to. According to other available public information in relation to these premises, the building the owner actually intends to “build” on the premises includes a prayer hall and UMA has even gone so far as to state it is a mosque and community centre. We need to know, in fact, the residents have a right to know exactly what the Application is for. If the Applicant intends for this to be a mosque as well as a community centre and if Council has knowledge or a suspicion that it is, then both have a responsibility and duty of care to the Padstow Community to advise that. Further, is it a question of this being Stage 1 of a bigger development? My evidence of this concern is supported by the UMA website www.uma.org.au which as at the 16 June 2015, clearly stated that the intention is to build a “New Mosque & Community Centre for 5000 worshippers”. And even as late as last night, the website still referred to this Padstow Development as being for a mosque and community centre. I have here screen shots from their website which shows yesterday’s date and time.
A mosque is a place of public worship, and if this Development Application does in fact include a mosque, then it should be considered under the new Bankstown Council DCP amendments moved at the Council Ordinary Meeting held on the 24 February of this year. If the Applicant is attempting to circumvent these Regulations by using the words “multi use community facility”, the Application should immediately be rejected without further consultations and if the Applicant or the owner intends to change or use the premises as a place of worship or build a Mosque, they need to resubmit a Development Application that clearly calls it that or includes those facts. Because I and many residents of the Padstow Community believe, that should this DA be approved as a "multi-use community centre" and such development includes a purpose built mosque or a prayer hall which is by definition, a place of worship, a very dangerous precedent is being set, in allowing the definition of a mosque/prayer hall to now be referred to as a "community centre". This precedent may then be incorrectly applied to other places of worship in other municipalities across Australia.
The Padstow residents have genuine concerns that this Development is not stipulating exactly what it actually intends to be as on page 5 of the Acoustic Report it is stated that “a Potential Acoustic Issue is the Azan (Islamic Call to Prayer) and the Imam performing a recital.” If this is not to be a formal place of worship, why is an Imam required to be in attendance? The Azan would also not meet Objective (d) on page 12 of the Bankstown Council DCP Part B8. Noise from the Azan would adversely] impact the surrounding businesses, residences, and in particular, Padstow North Public School. As a school teacher, I can quite confidently say that such interruptions to a class impact immensely on lessons and the valuable learning time of students.
So, whilst on the one hand the Acoustic Report refers to “Islamic Call to Prayer”, Page 8 of the Statement of Environmental Effects states the opposite when it says, “no formal place of worship is proposed”. IF NO PLACE OF WORSHIP WAS PROPOSED ONE WOULD EXPECT THAT THE STATEMENT SHOULD SAY – “NO PLACE OF WORSHIP WILL TAKE PLACE ON THE SITE” and one would expect that the Azan is not required. The opposite of formal is INFORMAL not “NO or nothing”. Further, throughout the Application there is reference to “prayer” and “prayer rooms”. There is direct reference to a “proposed prayer area” of some 322.18m2. This is in contradiction to the aforementioned statement and also seems to be a very large area for the maximum of 40 people that the UMA estimate will be attending the site, as stated in one part of the Traffic Impact Assessment, Appendix B of the Weekly Usage Schedule. I also was confused as one part of the proposed “internal fit-out” refers to one room as a storage room however, in another part of the Application, it seems that this same room is intended to be a female prayer room. I am not sure nor can I absolutely say if there is a prayer room or not, as the Application itself is not clear and it is very concerning that such a poorly prepared Application was submitted. It would be very disrespectful to the Community and not to mention, would set a bad precedent if such a poorly prepared Application was approved by way of further confidential discussions between the Council, Applicant and the Land and Environment Court. We cannot have Applicants submitting poorly prepared incomplete documentation and expecting Council to “deem refusal” them in the hope of going to “conciliation” and negotiating for a different development and the hope of a positive outcome.
Respect is reciprocal and respect needs to be shown to our Council, its’ Regulations and all citizens and ratepayers and the Applicant and/or owner of the premises really needs to submit an Application that has the clear intentions and purpose of the facility set out accordingly.
In Appendix B of the Traffic Report Assessment, Weekly Usage Schedule, it is stated that there will be pre-kindy tutoring classes from the hours of 8.30am to 3.00pm. So essentially, a Daycare/learing facility/school. So what we are seeing, is a Development Application for a community centre for multi-purpose use BUT the question is, is each “use” of that centre being assessed according to the necessary Council Regulations they need to be assessed by? For example, it is my understanding that every child care facility or other educational facility must have its’ own Development Application so it can be assessed on its' own merits. Why is there no DA for the one referred to in this Application? The issue of no DA for a child care centre/pre-school/school being submitted must be taken seriously.
Beyond what is intended to be conducted at the Premises, there are further contradictions throughout the DA as to the hours of operation. On page 3 of the Statement of Environmental Affects, it is stated that the hours of operation are from 6am till 8pm. In Appendix B – Weekly Usage Schedule of the Traffic Impact Assessment it states that the facility will be open from 4am until 10pm. This contradiction occurs again in Appendix E of the traffic report, and also again on Page 3 & 4 of the acoustic report. So which times exactly are being proposed by the Applicant. The times of usage as stipulated, I believe will not meet Objective (d) on page 12 of the Bankstown Council DCP Part B8. These hours will impact the local businesses located on the street, as well as the residences that are located within close proximity to the Premises.
The issue of traffic is one the most important aspects of this Development Application that affects anyone who lives and/or travels in this area. It is one of personal concern to me and one I sincerely wish all take very seriously. It is easy to just view traffic as a “21st century first world problem” however, it is one that can impact on us with very severe consequences and it is one that The Land and Environment Court as well as Council can be proactive and attempt to prevent. I have been in the situation where I objected to a development involving the UWS many years ago. One of the residents’ main concerns then was the impact of traffic. Our concerns were ignored and subsequently, UWS was granted Development Approval, Not to long after building works had been completed, an ambulance experienced severe traffic congestion in responding to an emergency call. That emergency call was for me. My child, who was only a baby at the time, was choking and I needed assistance. I do remember calling for the ambulance over and over whilst a neighbour assisted me and I remember hearing the ambulance in the distance and panicking and becoming more anxious as I knew it was caught up in the new traffic congestion as a result of the completed UWS Development. Luckily for myself and my child, what was stuck in her throat was dislodged before the ambulance arrived. But what if it didn’t? Is Council and/or the Land and Environment Court prepared to take the risk knowing that Davies Road is the main arterial road heading south towards the Sutherland Shire and North towards Bankstown and knowing that this road already experiences heavy traffic particularly between the hours of 6.00am to 10.00am in the morning and from 2.00am to 7.00pm at night? The only other road out is Watson Road to the west which leads to already congested roads. Increasing the traffic by a build up of any extra vehicles turning right into
Watson Road, particularly in the already busy peak hour period. To do so would also be in direct
contradiction of Bankstown City Council DCP 2015 – Part B8 Section 1 Objective (f) – Page 4.
Enterprise Avenue itself is already a very busy street due to the existing
businesses. With only one entry and exit point to the street, a cul-de-sac
cannot effectively distribute the traffic that already exists and this development will create more traffic that evidently it cannot tolerate. I would also like to point out that across the road to the right is a gym facility that is used by many schools. Buses transporting children to those premises need to have clear and direct access to the kerbside of those premises to allow the safe drop off and collection of school children. With extra traffic and visitors to the area who do not have knowledge of those premises requiring school bus access will undoubtedly create a safety risk to children. To overcome this, a designated bus zone would need to be installed to ensure the school buses will continue to have direct safe access to the kerbside of those premises. However, this designated zone will push traffic further down the street and this traffic will then impose a danger to the school children from the neighbouring school.
Page 8 of the Traffic Assessment Report regarding the intersection of Watson Rd & Enterprise Ave, states, “it is considered noteworthy to mention that the traffic islands provided across each leg of
this intersection will also provide some level of refuge for pedestrians crossing the street”. This is not acceptable. Those traffic islands were not intended to be used by pedestrians, and in particular children. They are not purpose built safety zones for pedestrians to seek refuge. This intersection is hazardous, and pedestrians should not be encouraged to cross here. However, from my experience as a school teacher, I do know that children will attempt to cross roads anywhere and it is a real concern of mine that further traffic will create a higher risk hazard to students of Padstow North Public School, particularly on a Friday afternoon when it is noted, from the Development Application, the expected peak usage period of the proposed premises.
As stated on Page 20 of the Traffic Impact Assessment, this development will cause an extra 85 vehicles to traverse Enterprise Avenue during the period of 4pm to 6pm. Enterprise Avenue & Watson Road will not cope with these extra vehicles, and in particular the roundabout at the intersection of these two streets. These figures are based on a schedule of usage provided by the Applicant. But that schedule of usage is significantly less than the amount of peopleestimated to attend the site, as per the owner of the premises’ own website.
On Page 1 of the Traffic Impact Assessment it is noted that a portion of the car parking for the development site would require a licence agreement between 15 & 19 Enterprise Ave. This Licence Agreement was not submitted as part of the DA and therefore, the Padstow residents have not been given the opportunity to assess it and make a judgement. This is not acceptable and further justification as to why this Development Application needs to be rejected forthwith. If both properties are owned by the UMA as stated in Page 1 of the Traffic Impact Assessment, why then at the time of Application, were the Title deeds in two different Names? As at the 1st of June 2015, after this DA was lodged, the property at 19 Enterprise Ave was still showing as being owned by Famiglia Pty Ltd, yet number 15 Enterprise Ave is owned by UMA Incorporated. Whilst this may be explained by a delay in processing by the Land Titles Office, it does not change the fact that one property is reliant on the other property for the usage of this DA. It does not take into consideration that at any time in the future, the Applicant can sell off one property, therefore forcing more traffic to park in an already heavily occupied street and surrounding streets. There is no more room for
any cars.

评论
续上文
Further, it is not acceptable for Council to accept a compensation payment in lieu of lack of parking spaces. No amount of money can replace vital car parking spaces in an area that already has a school within such close proximity and a Development which itself, seems to include a learning facility that children will be attending. To accept a compensation payment should effectively put Council at risk of liability if an accident were to occur as a result of forcing more cars onto the street and surrounding streets. I ask, is Council prepared to take this risk knowing with foresight and forewarning that the possibility of an accident which may cause death will increase if Council allows this development to proceed?
There is much within the Application of the intended use of the premises after the fit-out that is open for interpretation and in some instances quite clear on what it is intended and this needs to be clarified not only to Council and the Court but to us, the residents of Padstow.
Should the further confidential discussions between Council, the Applicant and The Commissioner, that will continue beyond this conference today, conclude that the Application, the Applicant or the owner does intend to operate any “formal or informal place of worship” or a daycare/educational facility or any other activity that has not been clearly stated in this Application, then I would respectfully insist on behalf of the community, that the current Application is denied by the Land and Environment Court and Bankstown Council, and that if the Applicant intends to proceed with the uses that have been identified today, that the Applicant re-submit a new thorough and transparent Application to Bankstown Council that clearly outlines all the intended uses and that Bankstown Council, in upholding its’ duty of care to its’ citizens and ratepayers of Padstow community, again, put the new Development Application to the community for consultation. In today's world it would be remiss for any Council to approve any Application and particularly one that may include a place of worship or a learning facility in an industrial area, without appropriate investigations to determine the potential detriment it may have on a community.

评论
阻止清真寺人人有责

评论
相当讨厌他们，他们不能消停些吗。

评论
阻止绿癌扩散人人有责

评论
一定要抵抗到底，千万不要放弃

评论
怎么这么长

评论
这是哪个区啊？太长了吧

评论
parramatta这次枪杀事件已经很说明问题了，不知是否有圣母后悔接受了难民

评论
强烈要求LZ全文翻译

评论



评论
大家将师母已呆。 这个“师母已呆”好玩。

评论

强烈同意

评论
师母已呆 哈哈哈

评论
跟着师母呆吧

评论
跟着师母呆吧

评论
,坚决抵制

评论
到处惹人烦

评论
师母已呆  为嘛呢，发现什么了？  
师傅呢？ 去洗头房了？

评论
cool

评论

都在潜水中

评论

不知道现在那里的房价受不受影响

评论
现在猪过街，也是人人喊打！

评论
申请在对面建个养猪场来反制，结果council就都reject了

评论

涨的已经列入高房价危险区了

评论

酱紫啊，还想有时间去收个小房儿呢

评论

安慰一下，现在应该都是去第二市中心收房的吧？

评论
好厉害~

评论

有时间，研究研究
澳洲中文论坛热点