86-100 Mount Street Redevelopment

26th August 2009

The Minister for Planning
Department of Planning NSW
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Dear Minister

Re: Project Application MP 08_0241 for 86-96 and 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
(Lot 1 in DP702144 and Lot 1 in DP 624581)

My name is Sang Hun, LEE and I am a resident of North Sydney,
Unit 3101/ 77-81 Berry Street, North Sydney NSW 2060
Contact No: 0430 175 539
Email: [email protected]

I strongly ?object? the proposed project at 86-96 and 100 Mount Street, North Sydney

Please consider the impact if this project is approved. This building is too tall and oversized. As a resident I am happy to see an improved and community friendly development in North Sydney. I would be comfortable to accept a reduced proposal that addresses our concerns.

These are the concerns and issues:

1) Height and Size Issue: This building will make the tallest and biggest (in terms of floor space) building in North Sydney. This location is not suitable for biggest building in North Sydney. Compare the proposed building with the current tallest building in North Sydney which is ?Optus Plaza? & ?Northpoint Tower?, Optus and Northpoint has much bigger land area compared with proposed project. Proposed building is surrounded by the one of the smallest streets in the North Sydney?s CBD which are Little Spring Street and Mount Street which will also create a Traffic Issue as well as the overshadowing of open space zones (including Mount St Plaza).

2) Shadowing: The proposed building will cast a shadow over the Mount Street Plaza which will destroy one of the few North Sydney community assets in the North Sydney CBD area. This will further deprive the area of the existing limited direct sun that is used by locals and commuters on a daily basis and used by North Sydney Council throughout the year to promote community activities and involvement.

3) Traffic Issues: This Development will significantly add to the traffic pressure and chaos well over existing levels. The current local network of streets (i.e. Little Spring, spring, and Dennison Streets) cannot cope with traffic flow in morning and afternoon peaks resulting in traffic gridlock that impacts on all vehicle users of all surrounding the commercial buildings. The proposal does not address how this will be resolved.

4) Parking Issues: At the moment North Sydney lacks street parking areas. Project this size will cause more stress and ciaos to the street and parking spaces.

Recommendation:
I would like to see a project which are more reasonable and community friendly. This project is way too big. Thanks for hearing my concerns. I would be happy to see a reduced proposal. Thank You



Name: Sang Hun Lee

Address:
Unit3101/77-81 Berry Street, North Sydney NSW 2060


IP Address: 74.062.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au - 211.27.252.74

Submission for Job: #2956 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_job&id=2956

Site: #1853 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_site&id=1853

Please see attached letter.


Name: David Walker
Organisation: Strand Estates Pty Ltd

Address:
144-148 Pacific Highway
North Sydney, NSW 2060


IP Address: 042.011.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au - 203.134.154.42

Submission for Job: #2956 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_job&id=2956

Site: #1853 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_site&id=1853

For attention
Michael Woodland - Director Urban Assessments

The BTPMGT Unit Trust, owners of Level 1, 121 Walker Street, North Sydney, objects to the development on the following grounds.

1. The height of the building is inappropriate for the area and will dominate the skyline and locale.
2. The height of the building will introduce major shadowing impacts to many properties in the area.

3. Walker Street / Mount Street and Spring Streets are currently incapable of handling traffic in the area due to road size limitations, the volume of traffic, and infrastructure and access limitations. Any further development in that critical access area, which already comprises three one way streets will bring the area to its knees. Noting that when traffic flows of an evening to the bridge congest, it can take up to 45 minutes to exit the area. Further, the intersections and immediate vicinit is the hob of the lower North Sydney CBD.

4. Street closures, and access to heavy vehicles during construction will severley impact the area.

5. Dust and noise pollution in this already heavily developed area will be unacceptable to the existing residents and commuters.

6. A property of this size will likely overwhelm the already limited parking in the area. Five floors of parking is insufficient. Noting it is already nearly impossible for taxis to (legally)set down or pick up passengers in the area.

Thanks you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,

Brian O'Neil





Name: Brian O'Neil
Organisation: BTPMGT Unit Trust

Address:
PO Box 3557 Wamberal NSW 2260


IP Address: ppp591a.dsl.pacific.net.au - 125.255.25.26

Submission for Job: #2956 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_job&id=2956

Site: #1853 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_site&id=1853

please see attached on behalf of SP74602 Beau Monde - 77-81 Berry St North Sydney


Name: Brett Brown
Organisation: Ingham Planning

Address:
19/303 Pacific Hwy Lindfield 2070


IP Address: brendo2.lnk.telstra.net - 165.228.161.120

Submission for Job: #2956 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_job&id=2956

Site: #1853 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_site&id=1853

We object to the proposed development. Our reasons and explanations are on the attached letter


Name: Ian Nicol
Organisation: Nil , private

Address:
6 Chester Place
Narraweena
NSW 2099


IP Address: - 116.212.193.250

Submission for Job: #2956 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_job&id=2956

Site: #1853 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_site&id=1853

Please review attached objection letter.


Name: Manpreet Kaur

Address:
2902 / 77 - 81 Berry Street
North Sydney NSW 2060


IP Address: - 203.215.153.185

Submission for Job: #2956 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_job&id=2956

Site: #1853 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_site&id=1853

The Minister, Department of Planning NSW /
The Director, Urban Assessments,
Department of Planning NSW
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Online submission.

Dear Minister/Sir/Madam

Submissions re: Project Application MP 08_0241 for 86-96 and 100 Mount Street, North Sydney (Lot 1 in DP702144 and Lot 1 in DP 624581)

1. We are the residents and owners of a unit on Level 24 of the Beau Monde Apartments (?Beau Monde?), located at 77 Berry Street, North Sydney.
2. The Beau Monde Apartments are part of the Berry Square complex covering the whole of 77-81 Berry Street, which comprises 241 residential apartments, 8 office levels, basement parking levels for commercial, retail and residential use, and just over 2 retail levels (retail shops and food outlets) known as North Sydney Shopping World, covering a large area between Berry Street and Spring Street.
3. We understand that the Proponent has applied to the Department of Planning NSW to erect a 39-storey commercial/retail office building at 86-96 and 100 Mount Street (hereafter referred to as the ?Site?), with 5-level basement parking; and ancillary redevelopment of surrounding streets owned by Council (together, ?the Proponent's Application?), and that this has been designated a Major Project by the NSW Minister for Planning.
4. We also note the references in the Application to the proposed major project application at 88 Walker Street and 77-81 Berry Street (MP08_0238), and the fact that the Application is intended to operate in conjunction with this other major project proposal (although MP08_0238 has not yet been determined).
5. We oppose the proposed development of the Proponent's Application, and ask that the Minister refuse the Application in its current form, for the reasons outlined in our submissions below. Our submissions on the Application are made in the context of draft Local Environmental Plan 2001 Amendment No. 28 (?DLEP?/?DLEP 28?), as we understand that that the Department may consider both current and proposed LEPs and development control plans.


Height, Scale & Intensity of Development and Overshadowing:

6. The planning controls for building heights under the current North Sydney LEP 2001 (?NSLEP 2001?) and North Sydney Development Control Plan 2002 North Sydney Centre Character Statement (hereafter ?Character Statement?) requires a ?transition of building heights generally from 100 Miller Street (Northpoint) and 79-81 Berry Street (being the location of the tallest buildings) stepping down towards the boundaries of the North Sydney Centre?: Clause 28D(1)(a).
7. However, DLEP Clause 28D(5) proposes new maximum building heights standards which exponentially increases the permitted building heights. The effect of DLEP 28 would be substantially less height restriction controls and floor space ratio (?FSR?) controls than currently provided. The proposed maximum heights do not include additional lift overruns and equipment, poles, communications towers, antennae, etc.
8. North Sydney Council (?Council?) has published 2 reports on its website in relation to DLEP 28, being the Rice Daubney North Sydney Capacity Study 2008 (mentioned above, hereafter ?Rice Daubney study?), and the LandMark White Commercial Feasibility Study 2008 (?LandMark White study?), but while they are meant to justify and underpin commercial space supply targets for North Sydney, these do not adequately explain the basis of calculations or forecasts used for such a drastic change to planning control standards.
9. The Character Statement and NSLEP 2001 Clause 28D(1)(e) promotes a scale and massing that provides for pedestrian comfort, in terms of weather protection, solar access and visual dominance, and requires natural light to public places and streets.
10. A tall, bulky 39-storey building overlooking the main mall, Mount Street Plaza, Tower Square, and situated on the major intersection of Walker/Mount Streets creates a wall-like effect, cutting off openness to the sky and skylines, and the visual dominance of the Site will dwarf and oppress surrounding public areas and pedestrian areas, for example, (a) pedestrians travelling on the narrow one-way Spring Street laneway will be overshadowed by the 39-storey building above (and will be incommoded by the parking station and loading dock servicing the Site, which is accessed via Spring Street); (b) the proposed Denison Street public domain area will be overshadowed by the 39-storey Site building (not to mention the 37-storey office building development proposed on the other side of the laneway, as well as the 33-storey hotel proposed on the same laneway, hemming in pedestrian and shared zone areas). These will all have significant adverse impact on workers' and residents' amenity, and will have a significant negative aesthetic impact on skyline views of and from within the North Sydney CBD.
11. The height and scale of the Site conflicts with NSLEP 2001 Clause 28D(4)(b), which permits some overshadowing controls ?only if...any increase in overshadowing will not reduce the amenity of any land?. It also conflicts with the DLEP, which emphasises prohibition on overshadowing of public areas and special areas.
12. The DLEP proposed maximum building heights shown on map Sheet 1 of NSLEP 2001 DLEP 28 are inconsistent with a ?transitional stepping down? from the 2 tallest points down to the North Sydney Centre boundaries, and it would not be appropriate to apply DLEP 28 to the Proponent's Application.
13. The height of the proposed Site does not comply with either the maximum heights in the DLEP 28, or with the ?transitional stepping down? from the 2 tallest points, in any event.

14. The proposed scale and intensity of use of the Site, would therefore not be conducive to traffic improvement or pedestrian amenity, and are excessive in relation to the surrounding office buildings and the narrowness of the surrounding streets, many of them one-way and/or one-lane. Also, main access points for the Site (Mount Street for pedestrians and Spring Street for all vehicles/trucks) are inappropriately located in these side streets/laneways, with no frontage access to the main street.

15. Given the lengthy ongoing considerations on the DLEP with no imminent date or certainty of gazettal without modification, we believe that it would be inappropriate for DLEP Amd 28 to be given any determinative weight, or to be directly applied to support Proponent's Application in its current form.

D. Traffic Impact & Road Network Capacity:

16. The Application conflicts with the Character Statement, which aims to manage parking and traffic in a way that maintains pedestrian safety and the quality of the public realm and minimises traffic and parking generation.
17. This also impacts on noise and air quality issues.
18. By way of background, the roads surrounding the Site are mostly one-way or one-lane, or both (such as Berry Street, Little Spring Street, Spring Street, Denison Street, and also Mount Street). Many of these streets are also shared pedestrian zones.
19. The sole entry/exit to the Beau Monde residential and commercial car park is located two-thirds of the way up Denison Street (which is one-way and one-lane), and is accessed by either:

(a) (from Berry Street) driving into Little Spring Street, Spring Street, and into Denison Street; or
(b) (from Walker Street), via Spring Street, which is one-way and one-lane, into Denison Street.

20. From personal experience, even arterial roads such as Miller Street and Walker Street (as classed in the DLEP) are effectively one-lane only during weekdays, due to bus stops, metered parking, loading zones and taxi ranks taking up the other lane during business and peak hours.
21. During peak hours, traffic tends to bottleneck at traffic lights and intersections, and at entry points from laneways into the main roads, such as:

(a) the Mount Street/Walker Street intersection;
(b) the Denison Street/Berry Street junction; and
(c) the Miller Street/Berry Street intersection.

22. This traffic in turn backs up from the main roads such as Berry Street, into Denison Street, and back into Spring Street and Little Spring Street (and back to Berry Street). Traffic can be brought to a standstill at peak hour (particularly in Denison Street) when all the lanes of one-way Berry Street are crowded with cars coming from the North, West and South, making it difficult for cars to gain access to Little Spring Street, and for cars to exit from Denison Street into Berry Street itself.
23. There is another 'bottleneck' just beyond the Mount Street/Walker Street traffic light intersection, where cars and taxis stop abruptly just around the Spring Street entry, due to the flow of pedestrian traffic on Walker Street and drop-off of patrons to several nearby licensed venues such as Albert?s, Hotel Metropolis/Metropolis Nightclub, and Firehouse Hotel (which are currently located on the proposed Site area, and would presumably be reinstated or replaced with similar venues). This will not be improved by placing a further 5-level basement parking station on the one-way Spring Street, near the intersection.
24. The Application states that it intends to widen the footpath along this section of Walker Street for the purpose of outdoor dining venues, while stating that this is already a ?very busy pedestrian intersection?. This will increase pedestrian/vehicle conflict points at the narrow vehicle entry point to Spring Street, and make vehicular access to 100 Mount Street car park difficult. Also, any increased stoppage or parking associated with increased pedestrian use or dining area (such as taxi collection and drop-offs on Walker Street around the Spring Street junction) will increase backlogs to the Mount/Walker Street traffic lights/intersection.
25. The metered street parking available in this area is limited and already fully in use during weekdays and most weekends (including loading zones). On weekdays, there are already large trucks and vans servicing supplies to Shopping World, and to local retail shops such as ALDI.
26. Congestion within the small North Sydney CBD area is not helped by vehicles also exiting from car parking stations onto Denison Street and Little Spring Street (including MLC car park, Tower Square parking, Wilson Parking, Berry Square Parking and Premier Parking, to name a few, and not including all the private commercial parking), all attempting to access an already crowded Berry Street.
27. The main pedestrian entrance to the Site is stated to be off Mount Street, which is a short one-lane one-way street leading down to a major intersection, as mentioned above. The main vehicular entrance to the Site (including loading dock) is stated to be off Spring Street, which is likewise a short one-lane one-way street.
28. The Application shows cars exiting from 100 Mount Street onto the one-way, one-lane Spring Street, very close to the Little Spring Street junction, where traffic will conflict with cars entering from Walker Street into Spring Street, and also cars entering from Little Spring Street (which will become 2-way under Application MP08_0238 - remembering that Spring Street will also have to bear inflows of traffic from 77-81 Berry Street and 88 Walker Street commercial/office parking stations, and commercial/industrial trucks also servicing these buildings). This will generate considerably more traffic congestion in this laneway. There will likewise be increased pedestrian/vehicle conflict points in this shared zone. The Application does not adequately address how this congestion and conflicts will be resolved.
29. The Application MP08_0238 also proposes a large 6-level parking station servicing both 88 Walker Street and 77-81 Berry Street from Little Spring Street, and states that heavy vehicles and service trucks will be using Little Spring Street and Denison Street. This will duplicate the pedestrian, vehicle and heavy vehicle traffic generated by the proposed Site, and will place significant and unreasonable overload on these narrow laneways.

30. Under this Application and Application MP08_0238, vehicular movements centre on the southern end of Little Spring Street and on Spring Street, adjacent to the proposed public domain. The Proponent's plans to increase traffic travel through these rear laneways and increase entry points onto Spring Street, will not be improved by the expansion of public domain areas in Denison and Mount Streets or partial closure of Denison Street (under Application MP08_0238), and will increase the traffic bottleneck for vehicles trying to exit or enter the area, and will increase potentially dangerous pedestrian/vehicle conflict points.

31. By contrast, the analysis of traffic volumes and flow in the area in the Application seem to be heavily based around the number of cars using public parking stations, which inadequately addresses the private parking and through-traffic which also passes through these laneways, and inadequately addresses problems with the Denison Street / Berry Street intersection, which is already at full capacity.


32. There is also a real concern that the increase in traffic congestion and impact on the surrounding narrow laneways will present problems of emergency egress and access to buildings fronting those streets.

33. The Proponent's Application has not shown that it will significantly ameliorate the impact of the additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the Site upon already existing traffic problems. On the contrary, the Application relies upon the addition of 5 added car park levels and the surrounding laneways to facilitate access to its Site, but not to improve traffic congestion.

34. All of the above indicates that the scale and height of the proposed Site are indeed excessive for their location and are, on the Proponent's own plans, insufficient to cope with the projected traffic generated by its development (and its construction).

35. Regarding the Proponent?s reliance upon DLEP 28 and the public transport system, it is important to note that the North Sydney train station was recently upgraded but not expanded, so there was no significant improvement to infrastructure capacity or traffic problems. The CBD Rail Link mentioned in the Application is still a matter of speculation at this stage, and should not be given determinative weight for the purposes of this Application.

36. We believe the Application has not clearly demonstrated a traffic and transport outcome which is consistent with public transport capacity and transport grids in the area, or is likely in the long-term to support local and regional infrastructure targets and traffic policies. The proposed Site will not only be disproportionately a large building which has limited accessibility to its front entrances, but will also result in more vehicular and pedestrian traffic, exacerbating already existing traffic congestion and compromising the efficiency of transport corridors.

37. Given the traffic concerns above, we believe there is a need for a comprehensive and considered study of sustainable traffic infrastructure (both short and long-term) before determining whether the Proponent's developments should proceed.

Feasibility & Commercial Capacity/Supply:

38. The Character Statement provides that there should be: ?active use outside standard business hours?. This has been an ongoing problem in North Sydney CBD.
However, the retail component only appears to be two sparse retail levels at street level, and appears to comprise mostly food court outlets.

39. The Application does not give details of whether any high-profile retail brands or franchises will tenant these areas, or provide for any other leisure/entertainment facilities. Therefore it is most likely that outside normal business hours and on weekends, North Sydney CBD will continue to be sparsely populated; even more so if most of the Site?s retail food outlets, cafes and dining places are closed on weekends. The current Application does not state how it will significantly expand or improve retail business conditions around Mount Street to address this problem. Any increases in retailing components would still entail corresponding increases in DCP requirements for parking spaces, increased traffic volume and associated environmental problems.

40. Without the proper traffic access controls and retail incentives available outside normal business hours, there will be minimal benefit to North Sydney CBD. The Application inadequately addresses these issues and seeks to rely unconditionally upon DLEP 28 as a fait accompli.

41. As at August 2009, there are several commercial office spaces for lease in all of the main streets around the Site, including Walker Street, Berry Street, Mount Street; also Pacific Highway, Arthur Street and Alfred Street.

42. The LandMark White study analysis of the site commissioned by North Sydney Council, on which Council's Amendment 28 is based, concludes that commercial redevelopment of this Site would not be viable, applying the DLEP standards.

43. We believe the Application does not contain adequate traffic and retail planning measures to counteract the problems mentioned above, and demonstrates insufficient net community benefit.

44. A short-term build-up of commercial offices with possible high vacancy and tenant turnover, inadequately balanced with supporting retail and traffic capacity, will negatively impact the asset value of redevelopment in North Sydney CBD and the North Sydney real property market generally, and may also dampen public and private investor confidence.

45. We understand that there are metropolitan and subregional strategy considerations behind the DLEP, however, we believe further independent studies are required to consider the potential oversupply of commercial/office space and the likely effects of such an oversupply upon the viability of North Sydney's economy and infrastructures (including the direct or indirect cost to the public and private sectors), to realistically achieve maximise the long-term sustainable growth of the North Sydney CBD as an urban and community centre.

46. We do not believe the Application or the DLEP 28 adequately addresses these prospects, and that, even apart from the Application?s non-compliance with DLEP heights and FSR provisions, the Application is not consistent with current DCP controls.

47. We do not feel that a reasonable justification has been shown (or alternatives explored) for the significant departures from the standards under the current LEPs, which would allow commercial development standards and policies to unreasonably prevail over residential protections. We believe it would therefore be inappropriate to give determining weight to DLEP 28, or for this Application to be determined solely by reference to commercial zoning standards.

Lack of consultation, information and transparency by Proponent:

48. There has been no attempt by the Proponent to contact or inform us or residents in Beau Monde Apartments regarding any aspect of the Application. Nor are we aware that any attempt has been made to contact the strata Owners Corporation or Executive Committee. Therefore, we feel that there has been no consultation whatsoever attempted by the Proponent on this Major Project.

Loss of solar access and view corridor and amenities:

49. Our unit faces south-east, and as height goes, we are approximately on a level with the roof signage of the AAMI building (at 99 Walker Street), on the 24th floor.
50. From the southern aspect of our unit, we currently enjoy views of such local, cultural and national icons such as the Harbour Bridge, Luna Park, Centrepoint Tower and the city skyline, and not least, the associated cultural activities, such as New Years Eve fireworks on the Harbour Bridge and Darling Harbour, and other periodic events around those areas, such as the historic visit of the Queen Victoria and QE2 Cunard ocean liners in Sydney Harbour in February 2008.
51. This view was obviously one of the key selling points of the unit when we purchased it, and was a significant factor in the price we paid (this is also apparent in price trends for units in Beau Monde with views, as opposed to units with no Harbour Bridge views).

52. The position (and views) of the unit is also clearly a factor in the additional strata levies payable: for example, the south-east facing units on each floor (having the above view) have a greater unit entitlement than other units on their floor (including units with exactly the same area space and facilities, but without the view), and consequently greater levies. These levies are ongoing costs which we will continue to bear even if those views are lost as a result of the Proponent's development.

53. These lend weight to the real financial loss we will suffer if current views are extinguished, which also include loss of property value (view is a prime feature of residential property, even more than in commercial property), loss of equity in our property and ability to mortgage the property, and loss of investment value and rental value of the property (including devaluation associated with loss of privacy).

54. The North Sydney Site Analysis DCP (s5) states that factors to be considered are: location, height and use of neighbouring buildings and the surrounds; adjoining private open spaces; location of facing windows; views and solar access enjoyed by neighbouring properties. The proponent should ?design the development to minimise negative impacts on the amenity of any adjoining development?: 5.1.a.iv.

55. The Site will completely extinguish our iconic views of the Harbour Bridge, Luna Park, the city skyline and icons.

56. The Proponent's Application acknowledges the ?planning principles? in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd v Warringah Council, that water views and iconic views are valued more highly than those without, that whole views are more valuable than obscured views. Applying Tenacity, we submit that on this issue, the Application is not reasonable, as there is no view sharing or modification proposed (or consulted) by the Applicant, and complete loss of view cannot on any view be considered reasonable.

57. Notwithstanding this, the Application is based upon the maximum heights standards under the DLEP 28 which has not been finalised, and refers to building ?envelopes? which are not a DLEP standard, and gives the strange and generalised justification that there would be view loss in any event under future possible developments under DLEP 28, which we believe is not an appropriate response for this Application.

58. Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd v Warringah Council also states that a development that complies with all planning controls would objectively be considered more ?reasonable? than one which breaches those controls. Even a moderate impact could be considered unreasonable if flowing from a breach. We have already mentioned above that the Proponent's Application Site would breach current LEP planning controls, as well as the proposed DLEP standards, on which the Proponent seeks to rely. We have also outlined above the reasons why the DLEP should not be given determinative weight in assessment of this Application, and is not compliant with current DCP requirements.

59. Given the concerns raised above with regard to the flaws in DLEP Amd 28 (and the Proponent's non-compliance with those standards, which is acknowledged in the Application), we submit it is inappropriate for the DLEP 28 to be used to justify the Proponent's Application on its currently proposed height and scale, which results in an unreasonable and comprehensive deprivation of the views from our unit.

Construction impact:

60. In view of RailCorp's proposed CBD Rail Link raised in the Proponent's report, the EA insufficiently addresses the geotechnical stability of the area surrounding the Site and the proposed underground station cavern/tunnel, given the 5 basement levels proposed for the Site, as well as other underground basement levels in the vicinity (for example, the proposed 6-level basement parking stations for Application MP08_0238, all of which will generate traffic in and around Mount Street, Walker Street, Spring Street and the laneways adjoining these streets).

61. If DLEP 28 is implemented in its current form (which we object to), it would be expected that heavy commercial/office oriented development will take place in a small portion of the North Sydney CBD, all heavily concentrated on the areas around 100 Mount Street, and the proposed CBD Rail Link. It is also reasonable to expect that all of these commercial developments would also seek excavation for valuable parking and service access in North Sydney. This raises issues about the stability, soundness and long-term sustainability of such developments and the likely impacts on public projects such as the Rail Link should be properly explored and measured by reference to consistent planning policies and controls, and not just applied 'piecemeal' for each development proposal.

Wind tunnels:

62. The streets and laneways around Beau Monde are already extremely windy, both at ground level and outside our windows. ?Wind tunnelling and down-draughts? in the North Sydney Centre are identified as a problem in the North Sydney Public Domain Strategy Statement, and in the Application. We are concerned that construction of a building of the height and dimension of the proposed Site may create even more wind tunnel effects or stronger winds, which would adversely affect resident and pedestrian amenity in the narrow streets around the Site, and in public areas.

Noise:

63. The additional vehicular movement and traffic congestion generated by the proposed development may adversely impact the amenity of residents, There is already noise nuisance at night from licensed venues as far away as Greenwood Hotel, which is presumably amplified and carried by the office tower facades, and which would be increased by the addition of a large square building partially fronting forming Beau Monde. These concerns are not addressed in the EA.

Closing comments:

64. We have outlined above our view that the the DLEP Amd 28 has a significant adverse impact of upon residents in our position, the magnitude of the new maximum building heights, and removal of many existing protections for residents in the North Sydney CBD area, which would unreasonably prioritise the interests of particular commercial stakeholders' interests in the DLEP.

65. We purchased our property in Beau Monde knowing there were planning controls restricting further development around our unit and also height restrictions applying in the vicinity. In our opinion, there have been insufficient independent evaluations obtained (or published) justifying the significant departure from some of these existing planning regulations.

66. Particularly in light of the extended negotiations and uncertainty surrounding the DLEP 28, the fact that it has been pending for some time, the fact that a second public exhibition was displayed in January 2009, there is no certainty of the DLEP adopted or the timing of adoption, or with what amendments. At the last Council meeting, the DLEP was shelved and may possibly be integrated with Draft LEP 2009, for which there is as yet no exhibition date that we are aware. Therefore, we submit it is not appropriate to say that the DLEP 28 is imminent or certain, and it is not appropriate to place any great emphasis upon the application of DLEP 28 development and planning standards in determining the merits of this Application.

67. The Proponent's Application has been shown to be in breach of current planning control requirements in a number of critical areas. It is also non-compliant with the proposed standards under DLEP 28, so that if DLEP 28 were directly applied in its present form, the Application would not be allowed in any event. That being the case, the Proponent's Application should not be allowed to proceed, or only to proceed with significant modifications.
68. We believe the Application demonstrates insufficient net community benefit; and the economic and non-economic burden suffered by the residents in our position due to the Application is disproportionate to the commercial gain of the Applicant, whilst being of uncertain advantage to the community.

69. We also believe that the Application demonstrates inadequate proposed mitigation measures to offset existing problems or adverse impacts upon North Sydney (including upon Beau Monde residents).

70. Due to the complexity of local, regional and state issues involved in this Application, and the competing interests of various stakeholders (including North Sydney Council), we request that this Application be independently assessed by the Planning Assessment Commission, before determining the Proponent's Application in its current form.

71. We understand a submission on this Application will also be made by or on behalf of the Owners Corporation SP74602 and BMA residents. Please note that we also rely upon the contents of any such submissions the Department of Planning. However, this letter is submitted by us as individual owners at 77-81 Berry Street.

We appreciate your time and consideration of our concerns. Should you require any further clarification of our submissions, we can be contacted on the details below. Could you please contact us before providing any of our contact details to the Proponent.

Yours sincerely
M. Watanabe & C. Watanabe
Maki Watanabe and Chizuko Watanabe

Address: 2408/77 Berry Street, North Sydney NSW 2060.
Email: [email protected]

cc. Eddie Kabraji, The Chairman, Executive Committee, Owners Corporation SP 74602;
The Hon. Nathan Rees, Premier of NSW; and
The Hon. David Cambpell, Minister for Transport


Name: Maki Watanabe

Address:
2408/77 Berry Streetm North Sydney NSW 2060


IP Address: - 202.69.219.22

Submission for Job: #2956 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_job&id=2956

Site: #1853 86-96 & 100 Mount Street, North Sydney
https://majorprojects.onhiive.com/index.pl?action=view_site&id=1853