Mixed use development including in-fill affordable housing - Five Ways, Crows Nest

Objecting to the proposed increase in density 16-23 storeys, height shadowing ,bulk & scale, traffic congestion, noise disruption and parkig on local streets from construction vehicles, lack of open space

This is my personal submission, not on behalf of Wollstonecraft Precinct nor for another person.
Please see uploaded document

I object to this application and strongly oppose the significant increase in height proposed by the developer. This is not a site where the uplift in height enabled by the Affordable Housing Bonus should be allowed. Three and a half years ago the Dept of Planning gave a commitment to the community to "lock in the height" of the building at 16 storeys.
The privacy of residents in this area (Holterman Estate) will be severely impacted with residents of the proposed development able to directly look into private properties. The height of the building will overshadow these residential properties resulting in reduced sunlight and daylight. Noise and lighting from such a tall building will have a significant deleterious effect on existing residents' health.
There is already a scarcity of green space in the area with existing population. This problem will be exacerbated with such a development. As will existing parking scarcity in local streets.
Traffic levels are already enormous in the adjoining streets, particularly with through traffic to the CBD and plentitude of schools, reaching dangerous levels at times. Even with some of the residents from 190 apartments utilising the Metro, the increase in traffic congestion is not to be ignored.
The proposed development is inappropriate and not worthy of the Affordable Housing Bonus. It is simply opportunistic.

I OBJECT to this proposal.

The project proposal ought to be refused because the 2036 Plan has already provided significant uplift and the proposal submitted has no further strategic merit.

I OBJECT to the proposal to amend the already approved floor space ratio and height of the Site.

• The site has already been the subject of significant uplift in height and floor space as a result of the government-led 2036 Plan gazetted on 29 August 2020.

• In 2020, the department of planning asked for and received from the government architect, advice on the most appropriate development including height for the site. The height recommended was 16 storeys.

I OBJECT to the LACK of AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN IN PERPETUTITY.

I object to the affordable housing apartments being able to be sold off without having to remain as affordable housing. This is NOT solving the medium to long-term housing problems.

The affordable housing calculation ought only be applied to the residential component of the building. Otherwise, it is a WIN/WIN FOR DEVELOPERS.

I OBJECT to the lack of contribution to PUBLIC AMENITY.
Every claim that the applicant has made in the proposal about public amenity within the through walkways in the three-level podium is not exclusive to the height of this new proposal. It would be the same for a 16 storeys proposal.

This is a one-way win – for the developer.

I OBJECT to the inevitable increase in traffic congestion that will impact on Crows Nest.

The proposal will add to the congestion in Alexander and Burlington Streets. Sydney Metro’s most recent study shows that traffic on Alexander Street at those lights is a fail or near fail at both AM and PM peak periods. Inevitably, backed up traffic will affect traffic flow on the Pacific Highway too.

I OBJECT to the lack of contribution to Open Space in Crows Nest.

No contribution is offered from the applicant or from government to address the critical shortage of open space in Crows Nest or to provide other amenity.

I OBJECT to the lack of additional public benefit.

Every claim that the applicant has made in the proposal about public amenity within the through walkways in the three-level podium is not exclusive to the height of this new proposal. It would be the same for a 16 storeys proposal.

I OBJECT to the EIS

This document provides no comment on the Traffic Impact Report, Shadow Diagrams, Overshadowing, Bulk and Scale of the building or Wind Effects, all of which would impact negatively on the surrounding area.

I OBJECT to the lack of consideration of cumulative effects on infrastructure.
The Water Board has already said it is at capacity in this area.

I OBJECT to the quantity of parking in this proposal.

The Traffic Impact report nominates a car-parking rate for non-residential area based on one space per 60 sqm (53 spaces). The applicant goes further and nominates 308 spaces. The North Sydney Council DCP is for one space per 400sqm (24 spaces over 3 levels). The amount of parking and number of basement levels is excessive.

I fully SUPPORT the WOLLSTONECRAFT PRECINCT SUBMISSIONS written by John Hancox.

See uploaded file

I object to the proposed development as it is not suitable for the selected site.
The building is above the agreed height and the excuse of including ‘affordable housing’ does not validate the additional floors.
A building of any size will increase traffic congestion , particularly in peak hours, to an area which already experiences delays and unacceptable flow 18 hours a day. The theory of most people travelling by public transport is a dream promoted by you and the developer no doubt.
Overshadowing of the area is another negative against this development but overall the fawning to the developer and political interests shows the lack of gumption by the Planning Dept.
Since Covid the habits of workers have changed and less people are going to work in offices in the city so the ‘requirement’ of workers to be 15 minutes from their workplace (e.g. the city of Sydney) no longer applies. Show me another city in the world where this is in effect. Maybe that is Hong Kong but do we have to emulate that city?
NSW is a huge state and you in Planning should spend our tax dollars on developing regional centres with industries, housing and utilities and not the soft option you are doing, just because it satisfies current politics.
Save Crows Nest and do not permit this Five Ways development as proposed.

I think the Traffic Analysis for this project is significantly flawed. I am attaching a more detailed analysis.

See submission attached

I oppose this project on the following grounds:
Extra height increase Department has already given commitment restrict height
Increased traffic congestion. Decreased parking availability
Heritage area destruction
Overshadowing

Please see attached submission.

I oppose this project on the basis of the following:
Height causes significant overshadowing and aesthetic pollution. There has already been an increase from previous commitment
Increased congestion of traffic and decreased parking availability
Destruction of heritage value, quietness of area and views

See attached submission

See uploaded file

See attached

The application for this site to increase its height from 16 to 23 storeys MUST BE REJECTED.

39 Hayberry Street
Crows Nest
New South Wales 2065

Phone (02) 9908 1183




Date: 03/06/2024


SSD-66826207

Submission by Shaun Wolstenholme

I strongly object to this application.

The application for the site has already seen a significant uplift in height and floor space to 16 storeys. Now the submission is for a 22 storey tower.

This is totally unsuitable for the surrounding area.

There will be a significant loss of daylight to Hayberry Street and other surrounding properties.

Parking on local streets, that is already strained due to the construction project on Falcon Street, will be further disrupted by tradesmen during the construction period and subsequent resident vehicles.

No additional open space will be added to accommodate the additional units and commercial units.

Yours sincerely

Shaun Wolstenholme

The submission I am submitting is on behalf of a local community member who refuses to register even though she has an email address but wishes to make a submission. Her name, address and email are on the submission. I trust this is acceptable.

I object to the proposed increase in height for this development. The direct impacts on the residents living close to this site are severe in terms of overshadowing, loss of solar access, loss of privacy, light pollution from apartments towering above them and noise pollution from high rise apartments with outdoor balconies as well as an increase in congested traffic conditions on Alexander St and increased pressure on limited residential parking in the Holtermann estate area. These are detailed further in my submission.

As a lifelong resident of the local area (Cremorne + Mosman specifically) who is now being forced to consider move elsewhere due to price + excessive local demand, I wholeheartedly support this project.

Crows nest is the perfect location for more housing. It is soon open a new, state-of-the-art Metro station which will have people into the CBD in under 10 minutes, it is near a number of key arterial roads and motorways and has lots of commercial real-estate and restaurants. If we can't build new housing here, we can't build it anywhere.

This project would see 191 new units built, importantly with a 15% affordable housing component. That's 191 fewer single's, couples and families priced out of the local area. That is 191 singles, couples and families who are no longer forming part of the queues that go on for streets, at rental inspections every Saturday morning on the Lower North Shore.

It will not be possible for any housing targets to be met, if desperately needed and sensibly located and designed projects like this one do not go ahead. Please, approve this project and lets get on with building it (and others like it) quickly so we can begin to amend the abhorrent housing crisis this area and city presently faces.

Many thanks
Aiden Brennan
1 Everview Avenue Mosman
0481 357 944
[email protected]

The submission has been uploaded. It was prepared as three documents (a submission with attachment A and attachment B), but since you do not now allow more than one document to be uploaded, the three documents have been blended into one PDF document.
This is not a user-friendly process.