Five Ways Mod 2 - Hotel Modification

dssdsd

I object to the inclusion of a hotel in this development.
The proposal does not provide meaningful additional car parking, when the existing development does not already have enough parking for all its residents.
• There is no long stay commercial parking nearby for hotel guests.
• The Woolworths car park is needed for short stay shoppers. It cannot become clogged by medium to long stay parking from hotel guests.
o The demand for parking at Woolworths will only increase as density increases in St Leonards – Crows Nest, as people will still drive to the supermarket to do their major shop.
• Woolworths contributed to parking for its own commercial needs. Similarly, the hotel should provide parking for its commercial needs rather than making its commercial and residential neighbours bear the impact of the additional parking.
• The lack of parking will also adversely impact neighbouring residential streets on weekends.
The proposal also will impact the night-time economy in Crows Nest. The Crows Nest Hotel is open through to 3am to 6am each day. Having a hotel open directly opposite a major night time venue will only lead to noise complaints from the new hotel. The Crows Nest Hotel was there first.
As well, the redevelopment eliminates the promised space for the community, with nothing offered in its place. This further adds to the net harm of this proposal.
Instead the two levels should become additional car parking for residents and visitors. This would reduce the impact on surrounding businesses and households.
Alternatively, the height of the development could be lowered by two storeys.
If a hotel is approved, then it should require:
• notice on the hotel booking site that
• notice for all residents and tenants as part of sales and leasing that no parking, apart from what is on title, is available on site or in surrounding streets.
• a pedestrian fence along the curb on Falcon Street to stop taxis and hire cars dropping off there, in order to preserve traffic flow at what is already an ‘F’ intersection.
• a passenger drop off section (lay-by) should be included in Alexander Street, so as not to impede traffic
• automatic doors should be included on the ground floor entrances to reduce exhaust fumes from idling traffic waiting at the traffic lights from all three surrounding roads flowing into the public areas.
o This would also stop the link between the Pacific Highway and Alexander Street ultimately becoming a noise tunnel, funnelling highway noise into Hayberry Lane per the redevelopment vision for the other side of Alexander Street.
Other
A requirement for this development must be to require plane trees to be replanted and maintained on all three sides of the development.
All the existing forty year old plane trees along the footpaths on this block area have been cut down for construction.
They must be replaced and nurtured to grow into mature trees.

In brief, this proposed amendment to the development proposal contravenes the underpinning motivation of the Transport Oriented Developments. Namely, the provision of more homes, specifically affordable homes and the corresponding infrastructure needed to support and cater to those new residents. This development amendment requests approval for no additional affordable homes, yet will build 24 more likely unaffordable ones - and asks for the the support of a 100 room hotel. Thus, demonstrating scope for more accomodation, but not for those seeking to buy a home, or attempting to further alleviate the housing crisis in any measurable way. Instead this change would place further pressure on existing community infrastructure, and come at the expense of the retail spaces which would at least partially offset the infrastructure burden of the new residents the development is promising.

Ultimately, this area of Sydney is not a tourist centre, it offers little to travellers that they would not be better served accessing elsewhere. To create additional short term accomodation considering the acute shortage of affordable, quality homes for those seeking to reside here permanently is a direct contravention of the evident 'community need' - which is, as I believe, one of the guiding principles of the Major Projects process. Developments of this scale, made in response to the governments call for more housing surrounding new infrastructure are an understandable thing. Allowing for them to capitalise on an opportunity funded and endorsed by the taxpayer and offer increasingly little in return is not. This development initiative is looking to address one of the defining challenges of a generation, for the sake of that generation - the needs of the community must override the desire for maximum capital return.

the project seriously underestimates the impact on transit, traffic, pedestrian access, and safety on 2 lane roadways, Falcon Street, Alexander Street, Burlington Street, Willoughby Road. Turning from the Pacific Highway(N&S) onto Alexander Street there is a serious blockage starting where Alexander St. Crosses Falcon St.
1.There is no managed right turn for vehicles to access Falcon St for transit to the M1/Cahill freeway. This will be further disrupted by new ingress/egress from and to Alexander St. by residents, commercial and service vehicles of 5Ways.
2. Crossing Falcon to the roadway leading to BurlingtonSt there is a bus stop, taxi rank and egress from Woolworths customer parking. It is a blockage and safety hazard.
2. There is a traffic circle at Alexander and Burlington . Turning left to access the entrance to Woolworth's customer parking a vehicle immediately encounters a continuously in use zebra pedestrian crossing. This blocks vehicles in all directions with serious clustering at the traffic circle.
3. Continuing past the Woolworth's entrance there is a zebra crossing for traffic turning left on to Willoughby Rd to reach Falcon St and a cross traffic and pedestrian impediment for a right turn.
4. The disruption of construction in this confines area will be extreme.
5. Adding 100 hotel rooms to the random arrivals/departures mix will only compound the problem.
6. The DA for a MacDonalds on Willoughby/Burlington will be a major mistake in terms of traffic, access, and amenities for the Crows Nest Village.
7. There needs to be additional planning and a coordinated effort between Local Government and Roads & Maritime Services to provide a long term solution to the flow in this area. There are significant new constructions on Falcon Street approaching the Alexander St. intersection and more density in the adjacent area in general.
A broader, comprehensive view of this reasonably confined geography shoud preceed any further commitment which will prevent necessary changes.

Chandigarh 7082639629 Sector 51 Call Girls Call Girls Near Me Chandigarh

Thank you for the opportunity to make comments on this critical project affecting Kurnell. Having read the proposal, I am concerned about the possibility of increased stormwater drainage to the Marton wetlands and Quibray Bay, this has already had unforeseen consequences with significant negative effect on at least one adjoining property.

Any increase in stormwater drainage to this area will exacerbate these negative effects.

Submission Regarding Modification Application: Five Ways Mod 2 Hotel Modification
Project Reference: SSD-10405-Mod-2 (as per the NSW Planning Portal)
Date: 17 July 2025

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification for the Five Ways development in Crows Nest, which seeks to increase the number of apartments to 212 and convert several levels from commercial/retail use to a 100-room hotel.

Key Concerns:

1. Overdevelopment and Infrastructure Strain
Increasing the number of apartments from the originally approved number to 212 represents substantial overdevelopment. Crows Nest already experiences pressure on local infrastructure, including transport, roads, schools, and health services. Importantly, the existing water pressure in the area is already relatively low. A further increase in residential units and hotel rooms will exacerbate this problem, impacting both new and existing residents.

2. Change of Use to Hotel Accommodation
The conversion of commercial and retail floors to a hotel alters the development’s original intent. Instead of providing long-term retail, business, and community services, it introduces short-term accommodation, increasing noise, service vehicle movements, traffic congestion, and reducing community amenity.

3. Affordable Housing Provision and Planning Incentives
The modification indicates that 48 out of 212 apartments will be designated as affordable housing. I question whether this percentage still satisfies the threshold required for the favourable height and floor space uplift originally granted. It is essential that planning benefits offered to the developer are matched by clear and measurable community benefit, and that this is transparently verified.

4. Impact on Local Character and Amenity
The original approval aimed to strike a balance between residential, retail, and commercial use that would serve the broader community. Reducing commercial space in favour of a hotel undermines this balance and risks changing the character of the area from a community-focused precinct to one dominated by transient accommodation.

5. Traffic, Parking, and Servicing Implications
A 100-room hotel would significantly increase traffic from guests, taxis, ride-shares, deliveries, and services. The local street network is already constrained. Without a comprehensive traffic impact assessment that considers these changes, proceeding with this modification would be premature.

6. Community Consultation
Modifications of this scale and nature warrant thorough community consultation. I am concerned that residents have not been properly engaged or consulted regarding these substantial changes, especially in light of their long-term impact on the community.

Conclusion:
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the proposed modification be refused or amended significantly to better align with the original planning intent and to protect the local community’s interests.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,
Name Withheld

As a resident I object to the inclusion of the hotel at this site. There will be considerable disruption to local traffic in any event without adding to the disruption by guests and services trying to get access to the site. Ingress and egress from Pacific Highway, Alexander St or Falcon St is going to be very difficult. Crows Nest is a residential area not a suitable site for an hotel.

I am writing as a concerned resident of Crows Nest to formally object to the proposed modifications outlined in application SSD-66826207-Mod-2.

1) Continuous modifications undermine community trust
The pattern of ongoing modifications to this development raises serious concerns about the integrity of the planning process. This is already the second modification to the original State Significant Development, suggesting a troubling trend of post approval changes that fundamentally alter the development's character.
As ratepayers and residents who contribute to local infrastructure and services through our council rates and taxes, we deserve certainty that approved developments will be delivered as promised. The question must be asked: will these modifications simply continue throughout the duration of construction? What assurance do we have that further modifications won't follow, each one reducing community benefits whilst increasing commercial returns?
This practice undermines community confidence in the planning system and sets a dangerous precedent. The exhibition and consultation process becomes meaningless if developers can simply amend their applications after community input has closed.

2) Removal of community-focused retail spaces
The deletion of commercial floor space on Level 2 and retail floor space on Level 1 and mezzanine represents a significant departure from the original vision that generated substantial community support. This modification removes the community serving elements that made the original proposal acceptable to residents.
The Five Ways area has historically been somewhat derelict, with limited retail and community facilities. The initial proposal promised to transform this area into a vibrant community hub with new shops, services, and facilities that would serve local residents. There was genuine excitement within the community about having accessible retail spaces, cafes, and services within walking distance.
Deicorp has already begun advertising community amenities including a library and various retail offerings. Marketing materials and public statements have built community expectations around these facilities. Will these promised community amenities simply disappear? If so, this represents misleading conduct towards the community who supported the development based on these commitments.
The removal of these retail spaces fundamentally changes the development from a mixed use community asset to what appears to be predominantly a commercial hotel and residential tower. This was not what the community agreed to support.

3) Traffic congestion concerns
The traffic situation on Alexander Street is already atrocious, with residents experiencing daily congestion during peak hours that creates safety hazards for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike. The street regularly experiences gridlock, with vehicles banking up and using residential streets as alternative routes to avoid the congestion.
The proposed modifications will significantly worsen these existing problems. The increase in residential apartments from 188 to 212 will generate additional vehicle movements, despite the modest increase in parking spaces from 220 to 230. This parking shortfall will inevitably result in overflow parking in surrounding residential streets, creating further inconvenience for existing residents.
The addition of a 100 room hotel will compound these issues substantially. Hotels generate significant traffic from guests, staff, deliveries, and services throughout the day and evening. Unlike residential traffic which follows predictable patterns, hotel traffic operates continuously, creating constant pressure on an already overwhelmed road network.
The two way vehicular access from Alexander Street represents a fundamental design flaw given the existing traffic conditions. The street simply cannot accommodate the additional burden this development will place on local infrastructure.

4) Inappropriate hotel development
The inclusion of a 100 room hotel is fundamentally inappropriate for this location and represents a complete departure from the community focused development originally approved. There is no demonstrated demand for hotel accommodation in this specific area of Crows Nest, particularly given the proximity to North Sydney's existing hotel and commercial accommodation options.
Crows Nest has maintained its appeal as a residential neighbourhood with a strong community village atmosphere. The introduction of a commercial hotel operation will fundamentally alter this character, bringing transient populations, increased noise, and commercial operations that are incompatible with the surrounding residential area.
Hotels generate significant negative impacts including noise from guests and operations, increased antisocial behaviour, disruption to residential amenity, and pressure on local infrastructure and services. These impacts will be borne by existing residents who receive no benefit from the hotel operation.
The hotel component appears to be driven entirely by commercial interests seeking to maximise returns rather than any genuine community need or benefit. This represents a privatisation of community space and infrastructure for corporate profit.

5) Breach of community faith
As residents, we feel genuinely let down and misled by this process. The community engagement and consultation process led us to believe we were supporting a development that would enhance our neighbourhood through improved retail offerings, community facilities, and thoughtful mixed use development.
We supported the original development in good faith based on its community benefits and retail offerings. The systematic removal of these elements whilst increasing the commercial components suggests that community interests are being sacrificed for corporate profit. This represents a fundamental breach of trust between the developer, the planning system, and the community.
The pattern of behaviour suggests a deliberate strategy: secure approval with community friendly proposals, then systematically modify them after approval to maximise commercial returns whilst minimising community benefits. This approach makes a mockery of the consultation process.
Residents have invested time, energy, and hope in supporting what we believed was a beneficial development for our community. To have these commitments systematically stripped away through post approval modifications is both disappointing and unacceptable.

I respectfully request that this modification application be refused in its current form. The cumulative impact of these modifications fundamentally alters the character and community benefit of the approved development, transforming it from a community asset into a primarily commercial venture that will burden existing residents with negative impacts whilst providing few benefits.
The community deserves developments that enhance rather than compromise our neighbourhood's character and liveability. The original approved development should be constructed as promised, without further modifications that diminish its community value.
Should the Department be minded to approve any modifications, I request that:

- All promised community facilities and retail spaces be retained and delivered as originally proposed
- The hotel component be removed entirely as inappropriate for this location
- Comprehensive traffic impact assessments be conducted with appropriate mitigation measures implemented
- A binding commitment be made that no further modifications will be accepted without full community re-consultation
- Financial guarantees be provided to ensure community facilities are delivered as promised

The planning system must serve the community, not just commercial interests. I urge the Department to reject these modifications and require the developer to deliver the community-focused development that was originally approved and supported.

I object to the height increase, and the increase in parking spots. Increasing the number of apartments and including the hotel should not include more parking spaces. Crows Nest has a Metro, train station, and bus services, and we should not be encouraging more cars to this already congested Alexander Street. During peak hour cars are backed up on Pacific Hwy to enter Alexander Street. With an increase in car spaces from 220 to 230 spaces this just encourages more cars. We should be encouraging residents to use public transport due to the location. No car is needed. A GoGet Car bay would be a better use for residents requiring occasional car use. I would suggest a decrease in car spaces from 220 to 150, as the commercial and retail spaces are being removed. Not every unit requires a car space. Furthermore, I don't agree to increasing the height. This building will already block sunlight to our building, and increase winds like what is happening in St Leonards. The 48 affordable housing apartments are not increased with the increase from 188 to 212. If 24 more units are built, then the affordable housing apartments must also increase.

We are the owners of an apartment within close proximity of this development site and have the following concerns and questions relative to the proposed Section 4.55(2) application to modify the approved development.

1. Does the proposal to delete commercial/retail floor space and replace with a 100 room capacity hotel meet the State Government’s Transport Oriented Development (T.O.D) Planning Controls (given that the T.O.D controls are aimed at Housing and not Hotel development)? In the event that the proposal is not compliant with applicable Planning controls it should be rejected

2. Given that the amendment proposes an increase of only 10 car-spaces for a proposed 100 room hotel and an additional 24 apartments will this meet the minimum parking requirement for this proposed significant change in use.If it does not meet the minimum parking requirements the proposal should be rejected

3.Given the current significant traffic congestion experienced in Alexander Street when attempting to turn right into Falcon Street (ie Traffic light controlled intersection) what measures are proposed to address increased vehicle movements attributable to a 100 room hotel and additional 24 apartments assuming that two way vehicle access to the development will only be available from Alexander Street?

In the event that the amended proposal is not fully compliant with the requisite Planning controls relative to issues raised above I formally object to the S4.55-2 amendment submitted for consideration

As the local resident in the area, we would like to have more retail space in the area. Please increase the increase the retail component.

I object to the modification. Removing the retail and commercial spaces will significantly decrease the community value of the development. We need more shops, cafes and other retail and commercial venues in this area to support the rapidly growing community. This not only provides value to the community but offers employment opportunities in the locality. We don't need even more units crammed into this one area. Especially concerning is the number of affordable units is not proportionally increasing in this modification. Additionally, I object to a 100 room hotel which I see no need for locally given the proximity of North Sydney and the proposed over station development at Crows Nest which also has a hotel planned. The increased traffic and noise that a hotel and additional units would bring to this already very heavily congested area would have a significant negative impact on local residents.

Please see attached submission.

1) 92.69 metre vinyl backlit illuminated sign - why does this need to be installed? Why is it so large? Will the light shine into surrounding windows of houses/apartments. Which direction will it face? It is not at all in line with the natural heritage and street scape of Crows Nest and the surrounding areas and sounds very tacky
2) Increase in car parking from 220 to 230 space. I don't understand why there are 220 car spaces? Isn't the Crows Nest metro and close proximity to shops, cafes, transport the main reason for this development being within the Crows Nest Metro precinct? Where are all the cars going to go - how will they funnel in/out of Alexander St? Has there been any traffic studies of Alexander Street to see the current congestion? And I don't mean a 4 year old study during COVID times or during school holidays (which is what has been presented previously). A proper and current assessment during 'normal' peak time when school traffic is present
3) Why is there a need for 100 room capacity hotel? Who are we trying to attract to the local area? Less than desirable people who need a place to stay after a night out drinking? This is disappointing to see proposed and I'm worried it will significantly and negatively impact the surrounding area from a noise perspective with live music/bands, drinking etc

The addition of hotel facilities is neither necessary nor practical. Additional retail is also an unnecessary amenity.
The space for 100 rooms is impractical as Crows Nest is not a business hub and is definitely not a tourist destination. The space would be better allocated to affordable units which is the point of the whole TOD program.
The total disregard for the impact on traffic management is remarkable. The short distance from the Pacific Highway to Falcon Street is already a bottle neck with there being no point of control between R&MS and local council. Ingress/egress on Alexander street for residents, their vehicles, the commercial services for a hotel and the guest transport requirements will seriously affect access from the Pacific Highway, access to Falcon Street, interfere with the Bus right turn from Falcon to Alexander, disrupt the taxi stand and vehicle egress from Woolworth's parking, cause a backup on the traffic circle at Alexander and Burlington St ,raise the risks at the Zebra Crossing and Woolworths parking ingress on Burlington.
Finally, the focus on transport serves to highlight inadequacy of the infrastructure growth needed for services to meet the needs of the TOD plan in terms of utilities: gas, electric, water, sewage. Retrofitting into built environment will be disruptive and exceedingly costly.

I write as a resident, landowner and community member to object to the proposed Modification 2 (Mod-2) of the Five Ways development (SSD-66826207).

My concerns are that the amendment significantly alters approved land uses and intensities, removes key community, retail and commercial elements promised in the original approval, creates unacceptable traffic, parking, noise and infrastructure impacts not previously assessed, and undermines community confidence through serial modification creep.

I request that this modification be refused, or substantially revised, to remain consistent with the original planning intent and approval conditions.

1. Background

The original SSD-66826207 approval permitted a mixed-use scheme with residential, commercial, retail and community components. It included commitments to retail floor space, community facilities, commercial use proportions, traffic and parking capacity. Mod-1 dealt only with basement layout and construction hours and did not change approved land uses.

Mod-2 seeks to delete commercial floorspace on Level 2 and retail on Level 1 and mezzanine levels, introduce a 100-room hotel in these areas, increase apartments from 188 to 212, add only 10 parking spaces from 220 to 230 while intensifying use, and remove or reduce retail and community spaces. These changes represent a significant departure from the approved scheme.

Mod-2 is Outside the Legal Scope of Modification

2.1 Legal / Planning Principle: Modifications Cannot Create a Materially Different Development

Under s 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), a modification may only be approved if the resulting development is "substantially the same development" as originally consented. The NSW Land and Environment Court has consistently applied a two-stage test. First, whether the modified development, as a matter of fact and degree, remains substantially the same as the original. Second, only if the first test is satisfied may planning merits then be assessed.

Key authorities include Vacik Pty Ltd v Penrith City Council [1992] NSWLEC 8, which established that modifications must not produce a materially or substantially different development; Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 280, which clarified that the "substantially the same" test is the essential first hurdle before merits are considered; and Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313, which confirmed that both qualitative and quantitative changes, such as shifts in use, scale or intensity, can cause a proposal to fail the test.

Application to Mod-2: The proposal replaces approved commercial and retail floorspace with a 100-room hotel, representing a different land use category. It increases residential apartments from 188 to 212, representing a clear intensification of scale and population. It removes or reduces community and retail facilities that were central to the original consent and community benefit rationale. These changes are fundamental shifts in land use, intensity, and planning outcomes and are not minor adjustments. On established legal authority, Mod-2 fails the "substantially the same" test and should therefore not be approved as a s4.55 modification. A new development application and full public re-assessment are the legally appropriate pathways.

2.2 Departure from Original Planning Balance

The approved land-use mix, including active retail and community space, was a core element of the original "planning bargain." Removing these uses undermines community expectations and the basis on which consent was granted. Promised retail and community facilities shaped public submissions and expectations. The changes shift project value toward private commercial return in the form of the hotel at the expense of community benefit.

Specific Grounds of Objection

3.1 Traffic and Access

A 100-room hotel introduces significant additional vehicle, taxi, rideshare and service movements not assessed originally. Local streets, including Alexander Street, Falcon Street and the Pacific Highway, are already congested. Two-way access on Alexander Street is unsuitable for increased intensity. No robust updated traffic modelling is evident.

3.2 Parking and Overspill

An increase of only 10 additional parking spaces for more apartments and hotel use is inadequate. Hotel guests typically require longer stays, likely causing overflow parking into residential streets. Evening and weekend peak overlap between uses will exceed capacity.

3.3 Noise, Servicing and Amenity

Hotel operations, including deliveries, waste, HVAC and guest movements, produce noise and disturbance, often outside standard hours. Transient occupancy increases the risk of nuisance and late-night disruption. The loss of retail/community uses removes buffers that previously helped manage these impacts.

3.4 Infrastructure and Services

More residents and hotel load increase demand on water, sewer, drainage, waste and energy networks. Original infrastructure sizing may be exceeded. Community infrastructure such as roads, transport and open space may be further burdened without matching contributions.

3.5 Urban Design and Character

Intensification alters layout, façade and overshadowing outcomes. Loss of active retail frontages dulls the pedestrian environment. Hotel functions, such as foyer and drop-off areas, may degrade street quality. The changes risk breaching LEP and DCP height, setback and solar access controls.

3.6 Affordable Housing and Community Benefit

Apartment numbers rise but affordable housing of 48 units does not, diluting the proportion. If planning incentives or bonuses were linked to community benefits, these may no longer be met. Removing commercial and community space reduces public benefit.

3.7 Procedural Integrity and Precedent

Approving major shifts via modification sets a poor precedent. It allows developments to be substantially altered post-approval, bypassing full public scrutiny. This undermines trust in the planning system.

Requested Outcomes
If not refused outright, any approval should require:
- Retention or equivalent replacement of retail, commercial and community space.
- Removal of the hotel component.
- Recalculation of infrastructure contributions and traffic and parking mitigation.
- Acoustic and operational controls to protect amenity.
- A commitment that further major changes will require full public exhibition.
- An updated EIS to assess impacts of intensification and new use.

Conclusion

Mod-2 is not a minor variation. It is a fundamental redesign. The hotel use, extra apartments, and loss of community and retail elements create new, unassessed impacts and breach the legal threshold for modification. The proposal should be refused or substantially redrawn to maintain planning integrity, community benefit, and consistency with the original consent.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours faithfully,
Dr Hamish Bush

I support the modifications to the proposal

I strongly oppose both the reinstatement of the large vinyl static sign and the introduction of hotel accommodation in the amended proposal for the Crows Nest Five Ways development.

The proposed sign contravenes established local planning principles designed to protect the character and streetscape of the precinct. North Sydney’s Development Control Plan clearly discourages large, illuminated signage at prominent intersections like Pacific Highway and Falcon Street. The intent is to preserve the village feel of Crows Nest, supporting human scale and street-level activation rather than overwhelming it with corporate advertising. Reintroducing a vast static sign not only fails to respect these controls but worsens visual clutter and detracts from the public realm, prioritising commercial interests over community amenity with no credible justification or public benefit.

Regarding the hotel proposal, this amendment is fundamentally at odds with key Transport Oriented Development (TOD) principles that guided the original approval. Crows Nest is a prime example of TOD, prioritising dense, mixed-use development with strong pedestrian connectivity, high-quality public transport access, and vibrant street life supported by retail and commercial activations. The presence of retail at ground level is essential in TOD environments to stimulate activity, encourage walking, foster informal social interactions, and support local economic diversity.

Replacing much-needed retail and commercial floor space with a hotel undermines the very purpose of TOD. Hotels cater primarily to transient guests rather than the local community and do not contribute to daily street activation or retail viability in the same way. The loss of retail weakens the vibrancy and walkability central to TOD success and reduces amenity for residents and public transport users alike. This shift prioritises visitor accommodation over maintaining a living, accessible, community-focused precinct, weakening the integrated urban design principles that justified the development’s approval.

Moreover, the case for the hotel’s inclusion lacks firm evidence demonstrating a clear need or benefit to the local area that outweighs the loss of retail. By substituting community-serving spaces with private hotel functions, the proposal diminishes the overall public value and detracts from urban prosperity and cohesion.

Together, the proposed signage and hotel amendments represent a fundamental change to the intent of the approved development, undermining policy objectives and community expectations.

I urge the refusal of the large format sign and hotel use, in defence of genuine community benefit, adherence to TOD principles, and the long-term vitality and character of Crows Nest.