21 Honeysuckle Drive Mixed Use Development

I refer to the proposed changes in the RtS for the above development, specifically the increase in the maximum building height by 3.38m to 27.28m.

The proposed increase in height is not compliant with The Newcastle Local Environmental Plan (NLEP) 2012 and exceeds the 24m control by 3.28m or 14%. This is considered to be a significant increase beyond what the NLEP allows and I hereby declare my objection to this amendment. Being an absolute waterfront site, it is imperative that height limits in the NLEP are adhered to as the visual impact of a development of this size is significant to neighbouring properties, as well as the general public and tourists who visit the area. The height control in the NLEP for this site has been set so that all residents in the city can enjoy views to the Hunter River and exceeding this limit is detrimental to all other residents in the local area.

As an owner of a unit at 10 Worth Place, Newcastle NSW, I purchased the property on the basis that any future development at 50 Honeysuckle Drive would be fully compliant with the NLEP. Whilst I knew that the water views I currently enjoy would be reduced by development on the site, the proposed height increase above and beyond the NLEP is excessive and unnecessary. Had I known that the height limits in the NLEP would be exceeded, I would not have purchased my current unit as the additional 3.28m of height directly impacts my views to the Hunter River and will have a detrimental impact on the value of my property. Should the developer wish to provide rooftop terraces/gardens in the proposed development, the overall height of the development should be reduced to ensure that it remains compliant with the 24m control in the NLEP. The subject site is located in a very high wind area on the waterfront which renders any rooftop terrace/garden unusable for most of the year, as is the case with the Level 3 terrace at 10 Worth Place.

In relation to the community consultation session for this development which was held on 16/06/2017 and only attended by two local residents. As a resident in an adjacent building, I was never notified that a consultation session was being held, nor have I ever previously been notified of this development until the letter dated 04/12/2017 advising of the developer's response to submissions and proposed changes. I believe that the lack of attendance at the consultation session, as well as the lack of online submissions to this development, would suggest that very few local residents were actually notified of this development and is not indicative of their support of the development.

I recently purchased level 8 Worth Place presuming I would be able to overlooked the proposed development but now increasing the height would block my view and devalue my property. I believe the increase of 3.38m is just greed and should not be approved

I write in regards to the proposed increased in maximum building height by an additional 3.38m to 27.28m in SDD 8019.

I am strongly opposed to this increase.

It is my understanding that building heights on that part of Honeysuckle Drive are restricted to 24m in height. This was confirmed on Thursday 21 Dec at 11am through a phone call by myself to Newcastle City Council.

We purchased our apartment in 10 Worth Place on the understanding that any build constructed opposite us (which will be 50 Honeysuckle Drive) could only be 24m in height.

An additional 3.38m added to 50 Honeysuckle Drive will compromise our view and therefore the value of our property. It will also compromise our privacy. It is exceptionally disappointing to be fearful now that our quality of life and investment in our home could be impacted by a development, particularly after we did our research on building heights prior to purchasing. We purchased our home as a long term residence to take us into retirement. We will be unfairly impacted by an increase in height of 50 Honeysuckle Drive beyond 24m.

My understanding is that the car park site(50 Honeysuckle Drive) is restricted to 24 metres. Changing this would set the precedent for future projects to change their submission after they have secured a DA approval. A lot of construction is happening in the city and these sort of changes impact current residents in different ways therefore I am against any height limit increase for this site

I request that the height of the building be no more than 6 stories. I am not in agreement of a roof-top floor being communal area as noise will impact on my unit which is located across the road. Also due to height of building it will impact on views, create shade and will affect breezes on my unit. I would suggest keeping the development to 6 floors, create significant view corridors through each tower and in between 19 Honeysuckle Drive and keep as much green space on the waterfront side as possible.

The sections provided indicating the address to the foreshore park and the balcony details are supported.

We would have preferred to see a shared zone at the space between buildings B and C, as per our recommendation, however the landscape treatment proposed is acceptable.

The request for areas to dry clothes does not appear to have been addressed. The intention of our note was that these be located on balconies but out of public view - via screening or other design mechanism.

The recommendation in regards to the gym does not appear to have been incorporated into the feedback.

We would support the proposed addition of roof top communal open space. Detail on the material treatment of roof top plant, planters, balustrading and other elements is required to ensure they are in keeping with the architectural design and materiality of the proposal generally. These elements are highly visible to neighbouring buildings as the view analysis indicates.

We have no further comments.

As a resident of the building opposite this proposed building (also a Doma group building) I relied on the maximum building height allowed on the proposed site when I bought my apartment and the sales agents also quoted that Maximum height allowed (24mtrs) when trying to dismiss my concerns regarding the extent to which my views would be blocked.
What is the point of having maximum building heights for areas and then allowing submissions by developers to increase them?
It's farcical!
Doma group sell you an apartment with views and happily give commitments based on council rules regarding future views and then after selling it to you, try to change the game plan. Shame on you Doma group.

see attached

Hi Emily,

Please find attached OEH's comments on the RTS document, including the approval of an exemption from the application of the FBA.

Regards
Steven

Steven Cox
Senior Team Leader Planning
Hunter Central Coast Branch
Regional Operations Division
Office of Environment & Heritage
Level 4/26 Honeysuckle Drive Newcastle NSW 2300
Locked Bag 1002 Dangar NSW 2309
T 02 4927 3140

Hi Emily,

Please find attached OEH's comments on the RTS document, including the approval of an exemption from the application of the FBA.

Regards
Steven

Steven Cox
Senior Team Leader Planning
Hunter Central Coast Branch
Regional Operations Division
Office of Environment & Heritage
Level 4/26 Honeysuckle Drive Newcastle NSW 2300
Locked Bag 1002 Dangar NSW 2309
T 02 4927 3140

see attached

the plans do not appear to include a Glazing schedule.

under the BASIX Thermal Comfort protocol (which calls up the NatHERS technical notes), the NatHERS modelling needs to use numeric window dimensions.

I expect the applicant does have a window schedule (which is provided by the architect and states glass and frame type - including performance glass if reuquired to meet BASIX TC performance standards), but either have not included it or have provided to the Dept, which has chosen to not place on line as part of exhibited material.

This is a common scenario but creates a compliance issue later when the plans are approved with no glass specs. issue then is that the builder may not dive into individual NatHERs certifcates for each apartment and the certifier is also unlikely to drill to this level of detail in the docs accompanying the plans.

The proponent needs to provide a glazing schedule, informed by the NatHERS assessors rating work, and the natHERS assessor should stamp THAT VERSION of the plans so that the building is delivered as per BASIX legislation and regs. I look forward to seeing plans uploaded that include a glazing schedule.

See Table 3 and refn to NatHERS Technical Notes on page 10 of the BASIX TC protocol attached

see attached document

See attached