Five Ways Mod 2 - Hotel Modification

The proposed amendment to reinstate the large vinyl static sign and replace much of the originally approved retail space with a hotel is deeply problematic and should not go ahead in its current form.

The rationale for reinstating the vinyl static sign is tenuous at best. Calling the sign “iconic” does not stack up when weighed against community sentiment. In reality, this massive sign has never been loved or valued by the local community. It may have been a fixture since the 1990s, but simply being old or prominent does not equate to being worthy or deserving of reinstatement. Claiming the sign is important only serves the commercial interests bound by contractual agreements, not the best interests of residents or the broader streetscape. The suggestion that a large commercial billboard should return to a key junction at Crows Nest, simply because it has always been there, overlooks modern expectations for local character, civic pride, and quality public environments.

There is no actual evidence in the submitted documents to demonstrate that locals have any particular attachment to the sign. In fact, the public consultation process for this aspect was never properly run, so it cannot credibly be claimed as an element the people want. Decisions affecting the visible face of such an important intersection should come out of meaningful community engagement, not absentee silence, and certainly not on the back of legacy advertising leases.

Even more concerning is the move away from a vision of this site as a genuine community space. The original masterplan proposed a mixed-use format with robust retail offerings, designed to foster street life, encourage interaction and support a thriving neighbourhood economy. To now substantially reduce the accessible retail and public domain in favour of a private hotel is a fundamental shift from what was originally promised.

A vibrant ground floor with open, accessible retail is crucial for neighbourhoods like Crows Nest. Activating the street with a range of shops, services, and public amenities allows all members of the community to use and enjoy the space, not just paid guests. By substituting retail and communal space for a largely private, non-local hotel, the proposal undermines the original intent for inclusivity, variety, and genuine community life.

This change doesn’t just diminish opportunities for local businesses, but also weakens the neighbourhood’s social fabric, making it less welcoming for residents and everyday visitors. The proposed amendments risk turning what could have been a bustling civic precinct into a site oriented just towards visitors passing through, rather than the local people who call Crows Nest home.

In conclusion, the argument for bringing back the vinyl static sign relies on overstated claims about its supposed “iconic” status while sidestepping the actual feelings of the community, and ignores the real opportunity to create a modern, people-oriented public place. The reduction in retail and community space for hotel use is fundamentally at odds with what was intended and should be rethought to keep faith with the original vision and public good.

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.