Mod 5 - Five Ways - Design Modifications

I object to the proposed increase in height for this development.

The Developer has received multiple, significant height uplifts since its initial application for development. From historically a low rise commercial building to 10 storeys (under the North Sydney LEP). Then to 16 storeys (under the St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Strategic Plan). Then to 22 storeys under State Significant Development including Affordable Housing. Another height uplift under Modification 2 of the Approved Development. Now, yet another request for height uplift. It is unacceptable that the developer continues to come back to the Department of Planning for further height uplifts.

The Development Plan approved by the Minister in December 2023 allowed for a Building Height of 58.2m with an additional 2m overrun for lift and rooftop plant bringing the approved height to 60.5m. This should be an absolute red line that the developer should not be allowed to cross.
Since that approval, which was strongly objected to by the community, the Developer has requested further increases in building height, with the latest request (Modification 5) for another 1.32m in height. This effectively adds another storey to this development when combined with prior “minor” increases.
This development breaches the arguments put to the Crows Nest community that Transport Oriented Development would be centred around the Crows Nest metro station and stepped down into residential areas and that development would provide community benefits. Through multiple modification applications this developer has undermined the community consultation process and flouted ministerial directions with a substantially modified proposal that has removed virtually all community benefit. To give a single example, communal open space has effectively been removed with the purported public space on the roof now only for residents, not the wider community.

Please listen to the voice of the community with respect to this development and take into consideration the cumulative impact of changes to this development including multiple height increases.

There has been no revised assessment of the impact of the overshadowing of this building on the surrounding residential area, including the historic low rise Holtermann estate / Hayberry Precinct located within the area overshadowed by this development. At a minimum, revised shadow diagrams for this building should be provided for assessment.

From a personal perspective, my property will be directly overshadowed by this building with access to sunlight restricted during winter hours. The proposed increase in height will add further to this overshadowing. I would highlight that that the original shadow diagrams provided by Turner Architects in 2023 did not accurately represent the impact of overshadowing of my property. They were drawn incorrectly to show overshadowing of the public street area when in fact the overshadowing was on my land. The proposed height increase will add to the overshadowing of my property and residential properties in the larger Holtermann estate community including the North Sydney Girls School open play area during winter. I would respectfully request that new shadow diagrams are obtained for the purposes of accurately assessing the impact of this development on the surrounding community, particularly the Holtermann estate area.

Please do not allow another increase in height for this building. It is already too high and overdeveloped.

The proposed development is fundamentally inconsistent with the established character and scale of the surrounding area. Assertions within the application and accompanying consultant reports that the proposal is “commensurate” with nearby development are misleading. Attempting to justify a 39‑storey tower by referencing building heights along the Pacific Highway (within the TOD Corridor) is inappropriate, given the subject site’s location on the edge of a low‑density residential street (Ella Street) and among existing multi‑residential buildings that do not exceed 14 storeys. The site sits approximately 570 metres from the Pacific Highway, and neither the prevailing land use nor the existing built form supports a structure of this magnitude. Not one of the developments listed on pages 27–28 of the Environmental Impact & Rezoning Statement is situated as far from the highway as the subject property, and therefore none can reasonably be considered comparable.

The Visual Impact Assessment further illustrates the incompatibility of the proposal. The rendered images depict a building that is overwhelmingly dominant in scale, overshadowing Naremburn Park and casting extensive shadows across neighbouring homes and public open space throughout the year. The Assessment’s reliance on hypothetical “future proposed developments” to argue contextual consistency is speculative and does not reflect the current or approved built environment.

The application also attempts to justify its scale by emphasising its contribution to affordable housing, yet the commitment of only 11% (46 dwellings) is inadequate—particularly in an area heavily populated by nurses and frontline hospital staff who are most in need of such housing. Should a revised, more contextually appropriate development form be considered, the planning authority should require a substantially higher proportion of affordable dwellings. Additionally, the proposed 15‑year availability period falls below industry norms. In a high‑demand locality where essential workers are increasingly priced out, any approval should mandate significantly longer affordability terms and a more meaningful allocation than the 11% currently offered.

Traffic impacts have also been understated. The intersection of Ella and Herbert Streets already experiences significant congestion during weekday peak periods. Construction‑related road closures and increased traffic volumes associated with a completed development accommodating up to 377 additional vehicles will exacerbate existing bottlenecks and further strain local transport infrastructure.

In summary, the proposal is excessive in height and scale, incompatible with its context, inadequately justified, and likely to impose substantial visual, social, and transport impacts. A significantly reduced and more contextually sensitive development form is essential to ensure appropriate planning outcomes for the community.

I support the project

Appendix 1 - Amended Architectural Plans - Page 48 (Image 2) and Page 49 (Image 1) Does not recognise that 2 David Street is a residential property. All of the balconies situated on Emmett Lane will be impacted by the shadow. It is recognized that the private houses and backyards on the same lane will be impacted but not the balconies of 2 David Street. I want the plans to be updated to reflect that private residential balconies of 2 David Street will be impacted by overshadowing of this project.

These comments relate to the Section 4.55 (1A) modifications requested for the proposal.
1) The proposed increase in building height for the lift overrun and mechanical components are elements that were readily foreseeable during the design and design development phases. The request for additional height over the approved height should be rejected as there are many reasonable alternatives to maintain the building within the approved height. These include: A) reducing the height of the residential floors by 70 mm. B) Reducing the thickness of the floor slabs by the use of higher strength concrete. C) Reducing the height of the podium floors by 440 mm per floor. D) A combination of the above.
2) No comment.
3) What is the proposed function of the amalgamated tenancies? Will this detract or add to the local retail environment which is already under considerable strain.
4) The request for an additional hotel room should be refused as it will add to the scale of the development and the congestion caused by vehicles.
5) No comment.
6) No comment.
7) If the increase in corridor width relates to the reduction in the atrium, or it adds bulk to the exterior of the building, then permission should be refused.
8) The atrium should not be reduced in size. This is clearly an attempt to add more floor area beyond that already approved.
9) The Green Travel Plan is inherent to the DA and CC process and intended to take pressure off the impact of the building on traffic in Alexander St in particular. Permission should be refused.
10) If the area of the stratum plans sum to an area greater than the existing stratum plans, then permission should be refused.

This building is in an area where the tallest building is five storeys high. It was originally proposed at 16 storeys, then 18 and is now 22 storeys, completely at odds with the scale of the surrounding development. The architecture has little merit and the ground floor retail faces onto two busy streets, Falcon St and the Pacific Hwy, which have historically been problematic for retail due to noise and fumes. The parking garage with 231 cars discharges onto a short section of Alexander St bounded by traffic lights to the Pacific Hwy and Falcon St, guaranteeing high levels of congestion to this street. The community, which has always opposed this project, have been reduced to being observers as the approval process has added height and bulk to the development. No further concessions that add to height or bulk should be allowed.

How can the community have any confidence in an approval process where the chair of the planning panel, Mr Peter Debnam, is an associate of Mr John Ajaka who is one of the Directors of the developer Deicorp? (Debnam was the leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party in 2006-2007 when Ajaka was selected as a candidate for the Upper House of the NSW Parliament) We cannot determine whether this conflict has been noted, or what measures have been put in place to manage it, as declarations of conflicts of interest by the planning panel are not public.

I object to the proposed increase in the approved building height for the Five Ways development.

The approved development is already an exceptionally large and dominant building within the local area. The proposal seeks to further increase the approved maximum building height by 1.32 metres to accommodate lift overruns and plant requirements. While this may be presented as a relatively small increase, the building is already more than substantial in scale, and I do not believe there is sufficient justification for any further increase in height.

My primary concern is that lift overruns and plant requirements are fundamental design and engineering considerations that should have been identified, designed and resolved during the original planning, design and approval process. These are not unforeseen circumstances that have arisen since approval was granted. They are standard components of a high-rise development and should have been fully incorporated into the approved building envelope from the outset.

The explanation provided raises concerns regarding the level of planning and design resolution achieved before approval was granted. If additional height is now required to accommodate essential building services, it suggests that key elements of the design were not adequately accounted for during the original assessment process and it is reasonable to question whether other design or engineering issues may also have been overlooked or underestimated...

I note that the proposed modification also includes adjustments to sewer and stormwater infrastructure. These are similarly fundamental requirements for a development of this scale and would reasonably be expected to have been thoroughly assessed and designed as part of the original application. While I do not object to necessary refinements to internal layouts, materials, servicing arrangements or other operational aspects of the development, I do not believe such matters justify increasing the approved building height.

The building is already of a scale that will have significant impacts on the surrounding area. Further increases in height, even if relatively modest in absolute terms, add to the cumulative visual bulk and scale of an already substantial development.

For these reasons, I request that the proposed increase in building height be refused and that the approved height of the development remain unchanged.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I write to object to the proposed modifications re the increased height and changes to the Green Travel Plan.

Proposed Height Increase

I write to object to the proposed increase in height.

The shadow diagrams included are insufficient as they exclude the impacts at 3pm on the heritage residential area to the south-west of the Triangle site. These diagrams need to be included.

The erection of the construction crane on the site gives an indication of the height of the new building, which indicates there will be significant overshadowing impacts on the residential area. And the main playground at North Sydney Girls High school.
An informed decision on the additional height cannot be taken without the shadow diagrams for 3pm on the winter solstice being provided and made public. And the shadow impacts on the residential area and North Sydney Girls High School being further considered.

Green Travel Plan

This responsibility should remain with the developer, as they are the instigators of the development and are profiting from the development.