35 Honeysuckle Drive, Newcastle

Fantastic response to site and context, clever use of materials and
geometry.
This should be the benchmark for future Honeysuckle works - its a
shame some of the previous buildings on the foreshore didn't respond
to context in such a thoughtful manner. Bravo SJB & Sam Crawford.
Fingers crossed the Architects are not novated and can detail the
building beautifully.

Based on the development plans provided by the NSW Department of Planning
and Environment, it has been identified that Ausgrid has no existing
assets within the proposed development site, and at this time there
are no proposed Ausgrid construction works planned on or adjacent to
this site.

To whom it may concern

I am writing to object to the development in relation to the
mis-calculation of gross floor area and the 81% variation in the LEP
Height limit.

The definition of gross floor area includes car parking that is
greater than that required by the Council standards. The EIS proposes
over 55 car parks in addition to the DCP requirements. This equates to
an additional 800sqm of unaccounted for GFA.

If the additional GFA were to be counted, the EIS would not comply
with the LEP standard for FSR.

Further to the above the proposed 81% variation to the height standard
should not be supported due to the environmental impacts created. This
includes overlooking, overshadowing, noise, and a poor urban design
outcome that totally disregards long held design standards for Lee
Wharf.

In addition, the 81% height variation makes an absolute mockery of the
newcastle planning system. No where else in Newcastle has the Council
supported such an extensive variation. The height propsoed 81%
variation in height is unreasonable and unwarranted.

This is not 'Doma wharf', its Lee Wharf and it is a public asset that
is being sold off without any honest concern for surrounding residents
or the public domain that the development controls have long
protected. Approval of a development that so openly flaunts the LEP
controls for FSR and Height should be reported to ICAC.

I object to the proposed building heights. Clause 4.3 (2) of the LEP 2012
states "The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the
maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map."
While Clause 7.5 (6) allows for an increase in allowable height for
buildings exhibiting design excellence, the clause only allows for
heights of not more than 10% greater than the height allowed under
4.3(2).
The proponent is seeking to construct buildings which are essentially
double the height allowable under the LEP 2012 (27.9 metres in a 14 m
height zone), which greatly exceeds the maximum 10% allowance. This is
considered both excessive and unreasonable, and is clearly not
permissible under the LEP.

Submission to include option in the inclusions for charging of electric
car in the assigned car space.

See attachment

See attached

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

see letter

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attached.