270 Pacific Hwy Crows Nest BTR

Whilst I completely support the demolition of existing commercial building and construction of a 16 storey mixed use building comprising a 3 storey non-residential podium, and 13 storeys of building to rent (BTR) residential units with basement parking. It will mean that more people will use the Sydney Metro and the Royal North Shore Hospital retains more staff.

I would prefer if it had at lease 30 more storeys instead of the current number.

The application as submitted is:
1. premature,
2. contains significant internal inconsistencies, and
3. fails to comply with key procedural and environmental assessment requirements.

The supporting documentation is compromised by contradictory information and underdeveloped justifications for significant departures from established planning standards.

For these reasons, the proposal is not in the public interest and should be refused in its current form.

We are strongly opposed to the proposed development of 13 storeys at 270 Pacific Highway, Crows Nest.
1) Lack of Amenity
It will significantly impact the overshadowing of residents located immediately behind on Sinclair Street (51-77). We will lose all amenity of sunlight - we rely on this to dry our washing and for families to spend quality time outside in their backyards in the sunshine (the majority are residents with preschool and school aged children). There are a number of properties that have solar panels on their roof and the additional proposed height will inhibit this.
2) Traffic Congestion
Two levels of carparking will cause significant traffic congestion to an already heavily populated area - how will Bruce St cope with this additional demand? During peak times you are already unable to drive into the right hand lane on Pacific Highway (that turns into Alexander St) and congestion is heavy around Rocklands Rd and the Mater Hospital with frequent stopping for drop off/pick up.

Questions:
- How will the developer ensure the integrity is guaranteed so the foundations of the properties on Sinclair Street are not disturbed (they are circa 1906 and largely sandstone foundation) given the proposed development is so close to properties located at 51-77 Sinclair St? I would like to please see a detailed plan of this
- What action is being undertaken so the air is not polluted? The demolition and construction will result in dust, particles and other matter in the air which are a health hazard and with the demolition being so close, this matter will most likely end up landing in our properties. Is the developer taking ownership for clean up? There are people in our street with immune compromised health, asthma and young children/babies
- How will the developer ensure access to properties 51 - 77 Sinclair St who all utilise the rear laneway 24/7? There are a number of young families with prams who require this access - the front of the properties are approximately 15 steps so pram access is not feasible. I also have elderly relatives (my grandparents and parents in their 70's with limited mobility) who regularly visit and access via the rear laneway. Blocking and/or restricting access at any time is absolutely not an option as residents need to get to/from work, school, daycare drop off/pick up, before/after school sporting commitments etc. The driveway is frequently used by all resident. How will the traffic be managed to ensure access for residents at all times?
- What is the detail of the 'augmentation of existing rear service lane'? Will residents of 51-77 Sinclair St have access 24/7? It is not feasible to park on the street as North Sydney Council parking permits are not issued to residents as we don't qualify. Each property has a double garage/carport with the majority of households having 2 vehicles each

I am writing in support of this project. Sydney needs more housing, and this spot is well suited.
The Pacific Highway is badly in need of renewal, and this is a perfect spot for high density residential. Its proximity to a Metro station and the CBD itself makes it perfect. We need more housing of all types, especially this type.

I object.

This remains a terrible proposal for the local community and visitors to the area.
The sole benefactors in the medium term will be the developer, with the rest of the community, having suffered years of noise and disruption during construction, will have a lifetime of increased congestion, slower traffic, extended journey times and loss of light.
At best the developer should have only been allowed 6 floors, as per the legal planning restrictions and current zoning.
Just because the current politicians in power (none of whom live in the area or will be affected by this development and its consequences) wish to be seen to be "doing something" about the "housing crisis" is not a good reason to allow such gross overdevelopment.
The proposal if too much, too high and cannot be accommodated by current infrastructure. It should be rejected out of hand and a much smaller scale proposal of just 6 floors accepted.