Mod 3 -Design Changes

Dear Sir,
I object to the modification request where is placing on Thomas Street Car Park for mixed use development. This comes by several reasons.
Reasons:
1) These two buildings will higher than my living level and close to my apartment which cause the lack of privacy.
2) When the buildings are construction, there will be having environment problems, such as air pollution, noise pollution, which are the potential threats to health problems.
3) As Thomas Street is a narrow street, when the buildings are present there, as state as reason 1, they will be blocking us from natural sunlight.
4) The design of buildings windows are using mirror-reflection material that will cause light pollution and damage to residents eyes.
5) Around this area, the traffic in now days is busy enough, if there are 300 more units' residents moving in, then that will leads into the problem of traffic even worse.
Therefore, as the reasons I stated above, I object to the changes have been made to the modification request and hope that there will be a further change to this plan.

Regards,
Ping Sun Yip

Dear Sir,
I object to the modification request where is placing on Thomas Street Car Park for mixed use development. This comes by several reasons.
Reasons:
1) These two buildings will higher than my living level and close to my apartment which cause the lack of privacy.
2) When the buildings are construction, there will be having environment problems, such as air pollution, noise pollution, which are the potential threats to health problems.
3) As Thomas Street is a narrow street, when the buildings are present there, as state as reason 1, they will be blocking us from natural sunlight.
4) The design of buildings windows are using mirror-reflection material that will cause light pollution and damage to residents eyes.
5) Around this area, the traffic in now days is busy enough, if there are 300 more units' residents moving in, then that will leads into the problem of traffic even worse.
Therefore, as the reasons I stated above, I object to the changes have been made to the modification request and hope that there will be a further change to this plan.

In regards
Ming Wah Leung

I strongly oppose the Mixed Use Development application MP09_0066 on the grounds of its excessive height. The proposed 26 and 21 storey developments directly opposite our 9 storey residential building at 88 Albert Avenue, shall completely dwarf our unit block and leave our building in shadow for all but a few hours in the morning. This will result in an immediate devaluing of our property, and also completely change what has always been a warm, sunny property to a cold, much darkened property, leading to higher energy usage required for lighting and heating.

If the proposed Development were limited to 9 storeys in height, we would still enjoy some afternoon sun, which will be denied us should the Development proceed, even though we would still be subject to some overshadowing.

There is no other Development along Albert Avenue to the west of the train line, or on the southern side of Thomas Street which is greater than 9 storeys and the proposed Development shall look completely out of character with the buildings immediately surrounding it.

The only other building in Albert Avenue which is greater than 9 storeys is 67 Albert Avenue which is built opposite Chatswood Park and Orchard Street, and this does not adversely effect any residential premises.

Accordingly, I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the approval of the proposed Development at its present height.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I would like to express my serious concerns about the effect that the development of MP 09_0066 will have on the residents and owners of 88 Albert Avenue, Chatswood.

Firstly, short notice was given to owners/residents of 88 Albert Avenue Chatswood, concerning the development MP 09_0066. I received this notification on Tuesday 18 September 2012 and the letter was dated 17 September 2012.

To my surprise and great disappointment, the original Development Application had already been given approval by the NSW State government in 2010 without providing the residents and owners in 88 Albert Avenue any opportunities to submit our objections!

The residents and owners had received no letter advising them of the proposed development but were only notified when the initial DA was lodged!

This a serious breach of our civil rights and I strongly question the legality of this action.

This development will severly affect our property in many ways.

Since our 9 story block of 36 units was built during the 1970s, there has not been any development built on the northern side of Albert Avenue that affected our building, as as MP 09_0066 will.

This development will dwarf our building by approximately three times its height and we will therefore be residing in shadow for all but several hours in the morning. Currently, we enjoy a light filled, warm and sunny aspect, however the development will change this to a bleak, cold and dark building. As a result, all of the 36 units, particularly the 18 units that face north-east will be devalued.

According to Ms Sara Roach, in line with the original consent, the developer is expected to undertake a Dilapidation Report of "adjoining properties". This is a very general term and I therefore propose that 88-92 Albert Avenue and 94-100 Albert Avenue be specifically included as adjoining properties to ensure that the developer conducts a Dilapidation Report of these properties. Currently, the applicant believes that a Dilapidation Report of 88-92 Albert Avenue, is not required.

I would also like to express serious concern at the Applicant's
apparent attempt to alter the wording of the existing Condition C15. I would like to submit that the existing Condition C15 remain as is and not be substituted by the Applicant's proposed substitution.

This substitution by the Applicant appears to minimize the Applicant's responsibility to ensure that the adjoining properties are not adversely affected by the deep excavations of the Applicant's work and that any damage caused by the Applicant's work to the properties, be made good by the applicant.

I request that the wording of Condition C15, which "requires detailing of structural adequacy of adjoining properties to withstand excavation and ensure that no damage will occur during works", be retained.

As an owner, I look forward to your reponse.

Dear Department,
RE: Response to Section 96 for Development at the Thomas Street Car Park

We strongly reject the Section 96 application for the development of Thomas Street Car Park Mixed-Use Development (MP09_0066 MOD3) and would urge the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure to do the same based on safety; the legality of this Section 96; and various other reasons.

1. Safety of nearby residents and pedestrians

A perimeter security fence has been erected at these sites which have forced many people who used to walk through the walkway between 12 Thomas St and this new development site, to now walk along Thomas Lane. Thomas Lane carries a high volume of vehicle traffic and is a narrow lane with very narrow footpaths (as little as about 50cm on one side) that only extends half way along Thomas Lane and also requires pedestrians to cross a number of driveways. There is barely enough room for two cars travelling in opposite directions to pass one another. Pedestrians, particularly students from Chatswood High School and Chatswood Primary School now use the laneway to get to the station and they are forced to walk in the middle of the road alongside two way traffic. There are so many students who use the laneway that they actually occupy the width of the road and vehicles actually need to slow down with extra caution and drive right behind the students. With pedestrians using this lane and having to walk along the road where the footpath runs out, there is a good chance that some kind of accident will occur.
Since the perimeter security fence has been erected, the pedestrian crossing in Thomas Street (ie. not Thomas Lane which was mentioned in the paragraph above) has been moved further down Thomas Street towards Chatswood Train Station. This has widened the previous portion of Thomas Street where the pedestrian crossing used to exist. Earlier this week, whilst walking along the footpath with my 2 year old son and crossing the driveway entrance to my building, the driver of a car who was travelling fairly quickly down Thomas Street, partially drove into the driveway entrance of my building narrowly missing both of us, and proceeded to do a fast U-turn. In my opinion, this safety incident would not have occurred had the pedestrian crossing not been moved further down Thomas Street.

2. Violation of Height Restrictions

Section 4.3 of the "Draft Willoughby Local Environment Plan 2012" 1 combined with the "Height of Building Map - Sheet 4" 2 shows that the proposed Residential Tower is classified as AA1 and, therefore, should not exceed 60m in height. The Section 96 application shows that the Residential Tower will have a total of 31 levels (excluding underground levels for parking, etc). Assuming each level is at least 2.5m to 3m in height, this would mean the proposed development would be at least 77.5m to 93m in height which clearly exceeds the "Draft Willoughby LEP 2012".
Section 4.3 of the "Draft Willoughby LEP 2012" combined with the "Height of Building Map - Sheet 4" also shows that the proposed Commercial Serviced Apartment Tower is classified as U and, therefore, should not exceed 34m in height. The Section 96 application shows that the Commercial Serviced Apartment Tower will have a total of 28 levels (excluding underground levels for parking, etc). Assuming each level is at least 2.5m to 3m in height, this would mean that the proposed development would be at least 70m to 84m in height which is more than double the maximum height allowed in the "Draft Willoughby LEP 2012".

3. Violation of Floor Space Ratio

Section 4.4 of the "Draft Willoughby LEP 2012" combined with the "Floor Space Ratio Map - Sheet 4" 3 shows that both the proposed Residential Tower and Commercial Serviced Apartment Tower is classified as AA and, therefore, should not have a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) greater than 6:1. The Section 96 application shows that the proposed FSR will be 10.61:1 which clearly exceeds the maximum FSR allowed in the "Draft Willoughby LEP 2012".

4. Inappropriate use of Legislation

The "NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - Section 96" 4 allows for minor changes to a development application or changes where the development is substantially the same development. However, the changes proposed in the Section 96 application are neither minor changes nor substantially the same development. The Residential Tower was previously approved for a three storey podium and a 26 storey residential tower above. The Section 96 application shows that the proposed Residential Tower will be increased to 31 levels. The Commercial Serviced Apartment Tower was previously approved for a three storey podium and an 18 storey commercial tower above. The Section 96 application shows that the proposed Commercial Serviced Apartment Tower will be increased to 28 levels. These are clearly not minor changes and are not substantially the same development.

5. Overlooking and Loss of Privacy

We strongly oppose the proposal to alter Building 2 from Commercial to Service Apartment as the change in use will have negative effect on our privacy. My apartment is facing directly to Building 1 and is already subject to overlooking and loss of privacy as a result. The use of Building 2 as commercial offices means that the building would only be occupied during business hours between Mondays to Fridays. On the weekends when we are home to enjoy our home life, there will be no-one looking into our apartment from the commercial building. Furthermore, office workers are there to work, rarely do they take the time to look out of the windows. By changing the use to Service Apartment, we will be subject to an even greater degree of loss of privacy and overlooking as Building 2 will be occupied as if it was a residential building with people staying and looking into our apartment constantly.

6. Noise and pollution

The proposal to increase the building height will prolong the construction period which will increase the timeframe that we need to endure for noise and pollution. The drilling that Meriton undertook a month ago on the site as well as the drilling associated with removing the foot path on Thomas Street already created unbearable noise pollution. We have young kids who need to take day nap and the noise was extremely disturbing. This could have negative health implications for them if they are constantly awaken by the noise. It is bad enough that we have to endure the noise and pollution generated by the original construction, any extension to construction is simply turning our apartment into a prison.
The proposed change of Building 2 from Commercial to Service Apartment contributes to the noise and pollution. As mentioned previously, office workers will only access the building during business hours between Mondays and Fridays. Under service apartment, the foot and motor vehicle traffic will be non-stop even leading into late hours of the night. Our quality of living will be significantly affected by the proposal.

We are extremely disappointed that the original development application was approved in the first place as the sheet bulk and mass of the buildings simply violets local planning guidelines. There are so many high and medium-rise residential developments in Chatswood there simply is not a shortage of supply. The price point of these new developments exceeds even the medium house price in Sydney. Hence it is laughable that Meriton is using "affordable housing" as a reason for its proposed amendment. It is simply inappropriate and unethical to sacrifice the safety and wellbeing of nearby residents and school children so that the project is commercially viable for Meriton.

We sincerely urge the Department to consider all the points raised above and reject the modification application.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Hwang and Jean Li

Refer attached letter

Refer attached letter

please see attached

see email submission 22/10/2012