Mod 6 -Further Design Changes

Dear Sir,

I strongly oppose the applicant's proposed modifications to the two towers. The approved height of the buildings is already much too tall for the immediately surrounding buildings. Buildings on this block were, less than 10 years ago, restricted to eight stories in height and were in keeping with the bell curve of the City layout. The change in height approval has meant that residential buildings on the southern side of Albert Avenue have been severely detrimentally affected and will now be in shadow for all but a few hours in the morning. Any further increase in height will only exacerbate this loss of sunlight and, according to the shadow diagrams, extend it quite substantially to further surrounding properties. Please reject the application to increase the height of the buildings.

I strongly oppose the applicant's proposal to relocate the public area parking from below ground to podium level. If the proposal were to be approved increased exhaust fumes would substantially affect pedestrian traffic and existing residents.

I strongly oppose the applicant's continual requests to change what has been approved. They just push and push and push and try for more and more concessions. Why haven't they considered all this in the first instance when they made their original application. They are just greedy and should be told enough is enough.

1) Chatswood area has not enough public car park already, not enough visitors car park for my apartment at Albert Avenue and public car park for the train station at Chatswood.

2) Too many apartments at Chatswood, too many people have moved to Chatswood, terrible traffic during office hours and weekends

3) I have an investment property at Albert Avenue, it will decrease my rent respectively.

4) It will block my apartment view as my balcony is just opposite the current public car park where they want to build the new apartment and change to high rise building apartment

I totally object to it.

As owners of unit nearby my partner and I object to the change of use wanted for the Thomas St car park west tower.
We know this will have a bad effect on our building and block the sun even more.
We consider that more office space in the area is better for the future, as originally proposed. There is plenty of existing and in-progress residential property.
Approval was given for office space and the developer agreed to this. Why do they want to change? To make more money - no other reason.
It makes a mockery of the planning process if they can make changes after everything is agreed. It would establish a very bad precedent.
Their proposal to make a payment to Willoughby City is little better than bribe (although apparently legal).

We like to live in Chatswood. Chatswood is not the same like other suburb, it has both Residential and Commercial, and we should try to keep and maintain the same ratio.

With the new Metro and ERA coming up for Residential Apartments, it is more important that we need the balance and retain a new commercial block planned.

Chatswood residents [also the new Metro & ERA residents] need jobs and how nice if we can "walk" to work and leave the car at home !

Service Apartment will not provide the same employment opportunities for the Chatswood Residents like the Commercial Office Building. Service Apartment is mainly catered for tourist and business [working in North Shore or North Ryde], it will not bring jobs to Chatswood but it will bring more cars and more commuters on our train, buses and roads.

Dear Sir / Madam,

The proposed alterations by Meriton to the approved development for the Thomas St car park West Tower is of significant concern to me and fellow nearby residents. As such, I wish to lodge an objection on the following grounds:

1. The existing plans caused great apprehension when approved under the controversial Part 3A scheme as my building will be significantly impacted by the shadow which will be cast by the Towers. To increase the West Tower's height as proposed under these amendments will further burden already impacted residents.

2. From my perspective, there is already an oversupply of residential development, with the Metro Towers and the Student Accommodation on adjacent sites under construction and other developments nearby. I fear that to further increase this density, future overcrowding and accompanying `social' impacts may adversely affect the area.

3. There is a lack of commercial office space in Chatswood. Given the close proximity to the Sydney CBD, commercial developments should be prioritised over already over-saturated residential developments.

I urge you to refuse the proposed alterations. The existing approvals have already created community unease and to further burden surrounding residents and infrastructure is unjust and unreasonable.

Yours sincerely,

Jaci Armstrong

I am very concerned about the change of use proposed for the Thomas St car park West Tower, and would like to lodge an objection. I was already shocked when the approval for the Towers was granted under the now axed Part 3A scheme (destroying the SREP5 FSR standard). The huge impact and loss of sun and light will already be unbearable for our building. To increase the height even further, even if only a few meters is completely untenable. Furthermore, in that part of Chatswood, there is already an oversupply of residential development, with the Metro Towers and the Student Accommodation on adjacent sites as well as Railway St.
Lowering the ceiling heights will add to this oversupply and this level of density may contribute to social problems in the future. Also, there is not the infrastructure in place to cope with the additional population and traffic this change will incur. Conversely, there does not appear to have been any significant office tower projects since the nearby Citadel and Zenith Tower complexes over 25 years ago. There is a need for this in Chatswood as it's CBD evolves, to meet the growing business needs for the greater Sydney area, and to appropriately balance the community in Chatswood. Furthermore, since the axing of the Part 3A Assessment System, can any amendment of a prior approval be considered without a full and new proposal under current guidelines (SREP5 or equivalent)?

I object to the proposed change in height of the Thomas St carpark because I'm concerned about the effect of having all the extra traffic using Thomas street.
The shadow cast by a building this size will also leave the Chatswood Croquet club in the dark which also seems unfair.

I further object to the change on the principle of the matter. If approved this will set a precedent of allowing developers to begin work and then nearly double the size of their building because they can.
I understand that the application may be considered but if this is passed then we will have 1 of 2 undesireable situations. i.e. Either anyone can change their development mid-way regardless of local opposition OR only the big developers can change their plans mid-way regardless of the local opposition.
For the sake of universal application of the law, I would expect the development to be bound by the original approved height.

Dear Sir / Madam,



We are very concerned about the change of use proposed for the Thomas St carpark west tower, and would like to lodge an objection. We were already in shock when the approval for the towers was granted under the now axed Part3A scheme (destroying the SREP 5 FSR standard). The massing impact and loss of solar access will already be unbearable for our building. To increase the height even further, even if only a few meters, is unthinkable. Further in this part of Chatswood there is already an oversupply of residential development, with the Metro Towers and the Student Accommodation on adjacent sites and other developments nearby. Lowering the ceiling heights will add to this oversupply and this level of density may contribute to social problems in the future. Conversely there is a shortage of commercial office space in Chatswood, there does not appear to have been any significant office tower projects since the nearby Citadel and Zenith Tower complexes over 25 years ago. There is a need for this in Chatswood as its CBD evolves, to meet the growing business needs for the greater Sydney area and to appropriately balance the community in Chatswood.

Further, since the axing of the par 3A Assessment System, can any amendment of a prior approval be considered; without a full and new proposal under current guidelines (SREP 5 or equivalent)?

The increased height of the prosped buildings will adversely affect the amount of natural light for the Bentleigh building even further on Katherine street, especially when the new metro buildings (on top of the railway station),the Coffey/ Vodafone building, The Leighton buildings are already blocking three directions. This will unnecessarily increase energy consumption for the households to compensate for the reduction of natural light.

In the submissions that have already been made, the legal objections to this proposal, and the negative impact on neighboring residents have been clear expressed. I wish to add my strong support to these objections.

In addition to the building itself blocking sunlight to existing homes, the large influx of residents can only add to the strain of living and functioning in an over developed Chatswood. While the developers make a profit then leave the area, residents who have called Chatswood home for many years will be left to deal with the consequences of devalued property and demoralised living conditions. Given the fact that it is such a major project, I cannot help but feel that I have been ambushed by the short notice given to neighboring residents to review the plans.

Department of Planning NSW
Attention: Mr Cadogan
Re: M09_0066 Mod 6 Submission

I am submitting an objection to the above modification of M09_0066 on the following grounds:

1. Disability access to 12 Thomas Street

This matter is continually being overlooked in this development. In the department's report to Mod 3 in relation to disabled access to 12 Thomas St, it states "...reliance upon the subject site the adjoining property for access to 12 Thomas Street is unsustainable and cannot justifiably be maintained..." However, the fact cannot be neglected that this has been the case for many years.

Justification is in the fact that the building at 12 Thomas St was approved by Willoughby Council with a disability ramp that can only be accessed from Fleet Lane. Willoughby Council saw the need to provide a railed off walkway between 12 Thomas St and the carpark which is now the development site. Meriton are currently providing a protected walkway between 12 Thomas St and the temporary ROW so that people can safely access the disability ramp to 12 Thomas St. If it can be seen that a protected walkway is needed, then why is it not being addressed and provided as part of the development.

In Mod 6, there remains no clear footpath along the proposed ROW between Thomas St and Fleet Lane. The ROW is completely covered so it will be very dark, unsafe and intimidating. People will not know where to go to find the disability ramp. The situation for disabled access to 12 Thomas Street has been significantly worsened by Willoughby Council selling the walkway as part of the devleopment site, and by the developer ignoring the fact that since 12 Thomas was approved by Council and constructed in 1983, the land and Fleet Lane has been used to access the ramp. Clearly this was the intention as this was how the buildng was approved by Council.

The situation has been made untenable because of the development of the site, therefore the onus should be on the developer to ensure people who need to can safely access the 12 Thomas St disability ramp, as per the standard of the situation before the development began.

2. Noise - Above ground parking + pool and gym

We strongly object to 3 floors of parking now proposed above ground. The Australian Institute of Tibetan Healing Practices films and makes DVDs, as well as running meditation and yoga classes. The filming is done every week, and the classes are held every week. Noise from the above ground parking will make it impossible to film, and to run these classes, all of which are a vital part of our organisation.

In relation to this, we also ask that the pool and gym that faces 12 Thomas St. either be re-located or some measure implemented to the external glass wall along the pool and gym to reduce the noise impact to 12 Thomas.

3. Setback and Height -Building 1

There is a proposed increase in the height of Building 1 by 15 storeys. This equates to a significant increase in the number of apartments in the building. The proposed bulk and scale of the building will be overbearing and impinge significantly on 12 Thomas St. The bulk and scale will also have an adverse impact on the Thomas St. streetscape as Building 1 is not consistent with the Thomas St. building line.

There is also a decrease in setback between Building 1 and 12 Thomas St. (This was also raised as an objection to Mod 3 however it was misread as an objection to the setback between Building 1 and the western boundary of the development site). This decrease in setback to No. 12 Thomas St also significantly increases the mass and scale of the building to 12 Thomas St and will significantly affect the visual amenity and working amenity of 12 Thomas.

In addition, the development does not comply with Council's standard for FSR.

4. Increase in the number of apartments - Building 1

There is a significant increase proposed to the number of apartments in Building 1 - a total of 353 apartments. This will lead to a significant increase in traffic congestion in the area and a lack of on-street parking. On-street parking will be required by people with disabilities as there has been no access provided for them from the public carpark out to Fleet Lane to access the buildings between 2 and 12 Thomas St; even thought the public carpark is a requirement of the development to replace the open public carpark that was originally on the site.

5. Privacy screens

On the eastern elevation of Building 1 (the side facing 12 Thomas), there don't appear to be any privacy screens to the apartments at the northern end (near Thomas Street), however there are privacy screens to other apartments on this elevation. Is it reasonable for privacy screens to be provided to these apartments as well.

6. Work hours

If the proponent is requesting any change in work hours we strongly object to any changes in work hours as we film and run meditation classes and yoga classes which all require quiet.

7. Outdoor open space

Modification 6 adversely changes the public domain of the development. What is now indicated to be open space is covered by the concrete floor of Level 1 and above. It does not provide the amenity of an outdoor space that is not overhung with a concrete slab.

Furthermore, the changes to the public domain detract from the visual impact of the development viewed from surrounding streets.

In conclusion, we object to the proposed modifications as set out above.

regards
Leanne Perdriau
Australian Institute of Tibetan Healing Practices

Dear Sir / Madam,

We are very concerned about the change of use proposed for the Thomas St carpark west tower. We had previously submitted an objection letter when the proposal was first put forward, and were in shock when the approval for the towers in their proposed form was granted. This was done under the now axed Part3A scheme, which destroyed the SREP 5 FSR standard in place. The massing impact and loss of solar access will already be unbearable for our building under the original proposal with the front on built form as it stands. To increase the height even further, even if only a few meters, is unthinkable. Further in this part of Chatswood there is already an oversupply of residential development; the East tower as part of this proposal, the Student Accommodation on the adjacent site, the huge Metro Towers just a few metres away at the Interchange, and other developments on Railway Ave and nearby. Lowering the ceiling heights will further add to the oversupply in this area and also this high level of density (more severe than most other developments) may contribute to social problems in the future.

Conversely there is a major shortage of business and commercial office space in Chatswood. There has not been any significant office tower projects since the nearby Citadel and Zenith Tower complexes over 23 years ago, in 1991 and 1990 respectively. There is a great need for office space in Chatswood as its CBD evolves, to meet the growing business needs for the greater Sydney area and to appropriately balance the community in Chatswood. The location of this project on the former Albert Avenue carpark just 40M from the Pacific Highway and less than 50M from the Citadel Tower complex is perfectly suited to this area. Many companies are trying to move into Chatswood which is now attracting Global companies such as Huawei Technologies, one of the worlds largest technology companies who now have their Australian Head Office located in the Citadel Towers. With such a need for office space and with Chatswood now positioned to attract the biggest names globally and locally, more business infrastructure is required. There is a great need to strike a balance from the mass of residential infrastructure to provide a compliment for the business community that has been left vastly depleted.

Finally, since the axing of the part 3A Assessment System, can any amendment of a prior approval be considered without a full and new proposal under the current planning guidelines SREP 5 or equivalent?

Your Faithfully,
Michael Loveday
8-14 Ellis St Chatswood
NSW 2067

Dear Mr Cadogan,

We are very concerned about the change of use proposed for the Thomas St carpark west tower. We had previously submitted an objection letter when the proposal was first put forward, and were in shock when the approval for the towers in their proposed form was granted. This was done under the now axed Part3A scheme, which destroyed the SREP 5 FSR standard in place. The massing impact and loss of solar access will already be unbearable for our building under the original proposal with the front on built form as it stands. To increase the height even further, even if only a few meters, is unthinkable. Further in this part of Chatswood there is already an oversupply of residential development; the East tower as part of this proposal, the Student Accommodation on the adjacent site, the huge Metro Towers just a few metres away at the Interchange, and other developments on Railway Ave and nearby. Lowering the ceiling heights will further add to the oversupply in this area and also this high level of density (more severe than most other developments) may contribute to social problems in the future.

Conversely there is a major shortage of business and commercial office space in Chatswood. There has not been any significant office tower projects since the nearby Citadel and Zenith Tower complexes over 23 years ago, in 1991 and 1990 respectively. There is a great need for office space in Chatswood as its CBD evolves, to meet the growing business needs for the greater Sydney area and to appropriately balance the community in Chatswood. The location of this project on the former Albert Avenue carpark just 40M from the Pacific Highway and less than 50M from the Citadel Tower complex is perfectly suited to this area. Many companies are trying to move into Chatswood which is now attracting Global companies such as Huawei Technologies, one of the worlds largest technology companies who now have their Australian Head Office located in the Citadel Towers. With such a need for office space and with Chatswood now positioned to attract the biggest names globally and locally, more business infrastructure is required. There is a great need to strike a balance from the mass of residential infrastructure to provide a compliment for the business community that has been left vastly depleted.

Finally, since the axing of the part 3A Assessment System, can any amendment of a prior approval be considered without a full and new proposal under the current planning guidelines SREP 5 or equivalent?

Your Faithfully,
Alexandra Loveday
8-14 Ellis St Chatswood
NSW 2067

NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure
23-33 Bridge Street
Sydney NSW


1 March 2013

Attention: Alan Cadagan

RE: Submission to MP09_0066 MOD 6 Thomas Street Carpark, Chatswood


Dear Mr. Cadagan

Please consider this letter of objection to the above modification application.


Disabled access and change to ROW:

It is of great concern to me that pedestrian and disabled access via the ROW to the disability ramp of 12 Thomas Street is not addressed in the plans. This raises concerns of safety and ease of access to 12 Thomas Street. For example: a protected/designated walk path, lighting and maintenance of the ROW to ensure no debris is obstructing the path.

I own and run Chatswood Pilates Studio. The services I provide are Remedial Pilates, general Pilates Training and Remedial Massage Therapy. My clients included those with injuries, disabilities and the elderly all of whom require safe and ease of access to the building via the disabled ramp. This ramp is located at the rear of the building on Fleet Lane. Before the sale of the Thomas Street car park there had always been a cordoned off walk path with a rail on either side that was located in the carpark right of was bordering 12 Thomas Street building western boundary.

Due to the nature of my business I am open after hours; early in the mornings as well as after dark in the evening. Access to the building needs to be safe from traffic and social dangers; it needs to be well light and to be easily accessible to people of all abilities and disabilities. . I cannot see how these requirements are being met in the current building plans of the development of the Thomas Street Carpark Meriton development.



Traffic Management Plan

The Traffic Management Plan approved with the development does not address pedestrian disabled access to 12 Thomas Street, though it was required to address pedestrian access.



Work hours:
I object to any increase in work hours due to the intrusive noise related to construction. The noise permeates the building and on some days shakes the foundation. I have also experienced an increase of unwanted dust and dirt in my studio as a result of the ongoing construction. This directly affect my livelihood.

Many of my clients come to Pilates or to get a remedial massage because they are in some sort of pain. The added stress of construction noise could mean that I lose business because of the noise as well as the dust and dirt. There is also the imposition of traffic delays during the site work hours caused by construction and tradesmen's vehicles going in and out of the site. My clients have said they are intimidated to drive their cars in the vicinity of the big truck for fear of collision. In one case a client wanted to bring her elderly mother in for treatment but chose to take her else where because she said her mother would find the construction and volume and size of trucks too stressful.

On a separate point there is also the issue of workmen's personal vehicles taking up public parking spaces during work hours which makes it very difficult for my clients and staff to find parking in the vicinity.

I strongly object to any increase in work hours.


Height increase& additional units to supplement affordable housing.

I object to the proposed height increase, as it will adversely affect amenity. Lack of sunlight and the overbearing stature the building is objectionable. I currently have a large outlook to the west and enjoy the sunsets. With the new tower I will lose this view and will be imposed on by this overbearing tower.

There is also the issue of an increased in the local resident population which will then in turn increase the car traffic to this already congested area increasing the concern for safety of pedestrians including the elderly, disabled and children.

Lowering of the height of the cantilevered floors over the ROW and the increase in size of the Residential tower that will mean a decrease in distance of the Residential Tower to 12 Thomas Street.
Objection to Building 1 - Setback to 12 Thomas St.


I strongly object to the proposed modification to lower the height of the cantilevered floors of the Meriton Residental Tower over the ROW - as it is the Meriton Building will dwarf 12 Thomas Street and will adversely affect natural sunlight , my view . The building will be a monstrosity with a claustrophobic presence. It is my understanding that the cantilever over the ROW has been approved to start at approximately the height of level 4 or 5 of 12 Thomas Street which will allow for some respite (distance) from the residential tower if Modification 6 is approved all amenity will be lost to this already overbearing structure. Although I have yet to see a plan that shows the exact height comparison of tower 1 next to 12 Thomas St.
As I mentioned before I currently have a full open view of the west, full sunlight and sunsets.
I also question if this proposed setback is within legal regulation standards and how allowing this proposal would adversely affect the value and future development of 12, 8 and 6 Thomas Street blocks.

I object to the proposed lowering of the cantilever floors over the ROW which will essentially make the ROW a dark unlit tunnel posing danger to pedestrians and the disabled. Being a medical building we have many sick people requiring access so I also have concerns over traffic fumes and ventilation in the ROW and any access fumes that will be trapped between the buildings affecting the quality of air for not only people walking through the ROW but also in my studio which is located on the 4th floor of 12 Thomas St western side.


Public car park spaces

Although there will be public car park spaces in the Residential Tower it is not clear that the designated disabled spaces will have ease of access to Thomas Street. There are no details that I can find as to how a disabled, injured or elderly person access Thomas Street safely and efficiently. Also, now that there are 2 exits onto Thomas Street this increases the risk and danger of traffic to pedestrians.

Outdoor spaces:
I object to the modifications in design to cover the "outdoor" landscaped space. All the "common" spaces will be enclosed and landscaped but this does not meet the standards of a public outdoor fresh air space as was initially proposed.

Building 2 - change from commercial use to serviced apartments

I object to changing building 2 from commercial use to serviced apartments. There is not enough commercial space in the Chatswood, and most of this space is aging and lacking in disability access and/or after hours access. There is not much to draw business to Chatswood and take advantage of the public transpsort hub and provide job opportunities for the escalating number of people that will be living in all of the apartment buildings in Chatswood.


Yours sincerely,

Sheila Draper
Suite 2, Level 4
12 Thomas Street Chatswood NSW