Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing

I own an apartment on the western side of the small apartment block at 92-96 Parraween Street. My ground floor apartment will be significantly impacted by the Pathways development. This planned multi storey property will cast a huge shadow over the courtyard of my property, one which currently enjoys lovely sunlight. The negative impact on the current vista on looking out from the apartment and courtyard will be immense.
I strongly object to this project because:
1) this development will significantly negatively impact on the level of light into the apartment I own and completely spoil the current vista to trees experienced from the apartment and courtyard. The privacy currently enjoyed in the apartment and courtyard will be compromised. This will have a negative impact on the value of my property. I note that the visual impact analysis from the developers does not even consider the impact on the apartment block in which I own.
2) the development seems excessive in height and scale all along Parraween Street and with the construction of a 28.66 metre block on Gerard Street, which has a maximum building height of just 12 metres;
3) the development will result in the permanent loss of heritage homes along Parraween Street and spoil the feel of the area;
4) the development will significantly increase traffic on an already busy suburban road;
5) the development will significantly disrupt the lives and livelihood of residents and businesses as the ‘real’ timeline for completion is more likely 2-4 years, not 16 months; and
6) Pathways has a poor track record for site safety and resident safety/care, or lack there of, as was the case at their now closed Ashley House facility in Roseville.

Please see attached submission outlining objection reasons.

Please see attached submission

There are many issues with this project including but not limited to - the height they are planning on building the property facing Gerard Street is well in excess of the North Sydney Council limits for the zone type; parking and traffic is already a nightmare on Parraween Street due to all of the new developments - the traffic will be considerably worse (and dangerous for the young children in the area - there are two child care centres) both during the build and after development is complete. Potentially heritiage listed properties will be demolished - the whole feel of Cremorne and the reason we live here will be compromised.

My name is Peter Rochlin. I am a very experienced civil and traffic engineer. After attending the precinct meeting last Wednesday at St Peters chuch I was very concerned at the risk posed by the proposed Seniors Living development in Parraween Street.
My concern is based on the fact that the Cremorne Orphuem is a major entertainment centre consisting of multiple cinemas the largest of which seats 700 people.
The majority of cinema patrons commute to the theatre by car, as evidenced by the lack of parking nearby when the theatre is in full operation. Often, as 95% of the theatre parking is in Parrawen Street, the pedestrian traffic through the theatre's Parraween street exits can be several hundred over a very short period. The majority of this situation aoccurs after daylight hours.
The combination of this traffic generated by homebound plus the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will lead to a very unsafe environment for pedestrian. This can be seen by elswhere outside cinemas where pedewstrian black spots are common.
Therefore, in the interest of safety, particulary as children are often involvered, I would strongly recommend that Government does not approve this project. I beliewve the precinct will be noting the Government personnel involved in the approval or otherwise of this project in the event that any negligence case should arise in the future.

I strongly oppose this proposal that has been submitted to DPE for the following reasons:
1. Zoning and compliance - exceeds the height restrictions and the LEP does not support seniors housing in R4 zoning. The height, bulk and scale of this proposed development will be a massive overdevelopment of the area.
2. Traffic and parking - Parraween St is already very congested so adding another +100 car park entrance and the additional traffic that a massive development (plus construction workers) will bring will be unmanageable. This street also would not be able to handle the heavy vehicles that will be required to service the site. There is already a shortage of parking on Paraween and the surrounding streets, the introduction of such a big site, that will have residents, visitors, staff, etc is ridiculous.
The uplift in traffic will also be a serious hazard to pedestrians and the public in general.

Overall, the size of this development and the amount of additional traffic and parking requirements is not permissible or appropriate for the area. It will deteriorate the current amenity instead of adding value. The additional traffic will cause the area to become unsafe for the current residents, their children, pets and will have a negative effect on the small local businesses.

I strongly object to this development.

I object to the project in its current form, on the grounds of the following:
1. The bulk and scale of the 8 storey building is not in keeping with the local area, nor does it seem sensible to build an assisted living home to this height.
2. The demolition of the heritage houses along Parraween street will be a loss to the area, especially considering their proximity to the heritage listed Orpheum opposite.
3. The proposed single access point on Parraween street is not well thought through and will likely result in heavy traffic on this street, during and after construction. This is also the only point of access for ambulances, which also does not seem sensible in an assisted living complex.
4. The loss of mature trees is not acceptable and should not be allowed at the expense of development.
5. The environmental considerations in the design seem to be minimal if non-existent. We are in a climate emergency, please stop allowing projects with minimal environmental focus to proceed.
I am not opposed to any development on this site, especially an assisted living facility. I understand that greater density is needed to prevent urban sprawl and allow people to age in place. However, the site constraints need to be considered and a smaller development proposed.

I am writing basically to save myself from moving and my home been demolished either fully or partially. It may not be what the Skermanic developers want but as I still live in my home with my family (I have not fully completed the sale with Skermanic) and have a family history here since my Grandparents moved into this house in the 1920's, I still feel compelled to object, regardless of the outcomes. So my submission is more heartfelt than repeating details about the development size, complications and inconvenience. My life is based around living here with all its facilities and my children go to local schools. We have been based here over 4 generations and it is disturbing for me to have to think or know that I may have to relocate in the near future. Obviously, if the project is approved, it will be a sad day for us. I understand that some of these homes do not meet heritage conditions or that they may not be important enough for a large aged care project. I just request that careful thought and consideration is given to the project and community concerns, including myself.

I strongly object to this project because it will:
a) the structure will further increase the shadow over all western facing apartment in 92 Parraween St, making it even darker and
colder
b) result in the permanent loss of 12 heritage significant cottages;
c) be excessive in height bulk and scale with the construction of a 28.66 metre block on Gerard Street which has a maximum
building height of just 12 metres; how can this be allowed?
d) significantly increase in traffic and traffic congestion on an already very busy suburban road, which has 2 child minding facilities
which would create more danger
e) pose a real threat to pedestrian safety
f) significantly disrupt the lives and livelihood of residents and businesses as the ‘real’ timeline for completion is more likely 2-4
years not 16 months.

I strongly object to the project for any one or more of the following reasons:

1. The permanent loss of the 12 heritage significant federation houses. These houses have received Dept. of Planning gateway approval to process an amendment to the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan for listing on the local heritage register. They are currently on public exhibition as part of the Gateway process.
2. Excessive height bulk and scale of the 28.66 metre high Independent Living Unit block on Gerard Street. This will completely dwarf the cottages on Parraween Street which are inherently important to the centre of Cremorne’s village character. Gerard Street has a LEP maximum height for residential building of 12 metres. However seniors housing is not permitted in R4 zones. In R3 zones where the maximum height is 8 metres and seniors housing is permitted, the SEPP (Housing) 2021 permits the height to increase to 9.6 metres for seniors housing.
In addition the bulk and scale of this building is a massive overdevelopment that is not sympathetic to the content of the federation houses on Parraween Street.
3. Major problem with increase in traffic. The addition of 134 cars to an already very busy street will create traffic chaos as Parraween Street, bearing in mind that the approved redevelopment of the Council carpark on Parraween St will add another 100 cars to the street’s traffic. This car park and the parking on Parraween Street is invariably full the primary parking spaces for the Orpheum Theatre and diners visiting local cafes and restaurants
4. Pedestrian safety is at increased risk. Parraween Street is a 40k/hour high pedestrian activity area and is frequented by children, parents and older citizens. The proposed through laneway between Parraween and Gerard Streets on the Pathways site has no crossing at either exit. There is a high probability that pedestrians will try to cross these busy roads at those exit points.
5. The timeline of 16 months or so for demolition, excavation and construction is a farce. A project of this size, with expected delays in trade people availability, materials shortages and cost increases will likely see this project take between 2-4 years to complete. That will put an enormous burden on both residents and businesses, some of which will are still finding recovering from the business losses due to Covid.

I strongly oppose the proposal put to the State Government Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for the above development on the following grounds –
• It blatantly exceeds the planning limits and zoning for the site as well as, I understand, the regulations for height of such seniors accommodation.
• The height, bulk and scale of the proposed development – especially the 8-storey building proposed for Gerard Street – is a maximum exploitation of the site and is a massive over development of a key site adjacent to the Cremorne Town Centre.
• The loss of heritage resulting from the dismantling and partial reconstruction of some (not all) of the heritage cottages that North Sydney Council, in conjunction with the community, are seeking to permanently protect.
• The absence of a cumulative traffic impact assessment which, I believe, would demonstrate the inability of Parraween Street (in conjunction with MacPherson and Winnie Streets) to cope with the increased traffic flow this development would bring.
• The deleterious impact of a single drive access for 134 cars (both ingress and egress) to Parraween Street.
• The negative impact of staff parking and visitors parking for both the Independent Living Units (ILUs) and RTCs.
• The inaccurate claim that the development would increase kerb parking in Parraween Street.
• The destruction/obscuring of so many mature trees that are so visible to pedestrians and adjacent residents, and which are so important to the character of the streetscape.
• The highly dubious demolition, excavation and construction timelines set out in the proposal suggesting a 16-month build time.
• The history of poor communications, insincere consultation and avoidance of due engagement with stakeholders by the developer and its agents, and the probability that these aspects will NOT be improved during the development.

I object to the above proposal on the following grounds:

- Blatant destruction of heritage (twelve cottages to be demolished)
- Bulk and scale (an unreasonable portion of Parraween Street will be dedicated to this proposal)
- Height (an eight storey building is unconscionable)
- Traffic concerns (Parraween Street already faces traffic chaos at certain times of the day, this will just make the problem a thousand times worse).

The proposed location for this structure is utterly unsuitable, it not only poses risks to the elderly, it inflates it. North Sydney Council has refused these plans multiple times, and I agree with them. The community agrees with them.

Thank you.

See attachment

I have major reservations about this project as currently presented. If developed as proposed it would fundamentally alter the heart of Cremorne to the detriment of numerous stakeholders including residents, visitors, businesses and retailers. The following represents a summary of my concerns.
The proposed height of buildings to be erected materially exceed that allowable under height restrictions of current zoning (R4). At the proposed height, it raises potential evacuation challenges for invalidated residents or others who will be less mobile, especially as lifts will probably not be available in an emergency.
Heritage attributes are too readily dismissed and I have little faith that the plans to rebuild/reassemble some of the subject cottages will be successful. From my viewpoint, we are substituting a 2020's vision of 1800's cottages when it would be more appropriate to maintain the original buildings. Moreover, the streets-cape will be materially altered with 4-storey buildings overshadowing the cottages retained on Parraween Street. In addition, I understand that about 60 per cent of the mature trees that currently stand on the site will be removed with plans to primarily replace them with shrubs.
The proposed project is very large and bulky and will dominate the area. A long construction period can be expected with major traffic and parking issues resulting. Parraween Street is already difficult to use at peak times with access to Winnie Street particularly difficult in peak hours. At times, finding a parking space can be extremely difficult. Once complete, the expected increase in traffic will be problematic. This will especially be the case with the entire project area reliant on a single vehicular entry point on Parraween Street. I am uneasy that this will not be conducive to ready access to the site by ambulances in the event of medical emergencies. Increased traffic along what is a high pedestrian-used street will be exacerbated by the North Sydney Council's plans to develop the existing car park across from the Orpheum. Pedestrian safety will also potentially be at risk by plans to employ a 'public' thoroughfare between Parraween and Gerard Streets within the project which may encourage some people to illegally and unsafely cross both streets without the benefit of pedestrian crossings.

There are many residents already living in the area, so if it gets demolished, then several families will be forced to find new homes, and students may have to move schools entirely to another state. The search for another house around Cremorne or Mosman could be really difficult as rent is expensive, therefore, people will have no choice but to move far away to an unfamiliar neighbourhood.

Although I am not against providing proper care for the elderly, I believe that there is already enough senior housing around this area, and find it unnecessary to build more. It is as important to respect those who live in the area as much as our seniors. Moreover, the location might not be the most ideal for the housing as it is near Military Road, which is pretty loud and busy.
The construction itself will also be loud and inconvenient for the people who live nearby as well.

To conclude, I know a family who lives in the area where their house will get demolished if the build goes on, and it will be extremely hard for them to find a new house near their origin home as they are a family of five. Please take my comment into consideration and rethink whether or not the build for another senior housing is worth causing distress to some of the residents who already live there.

Many people will be affected by this project in a negative point of view.

I strongly object to this project for the reason that many lives will be affected negatively for this to happen. Firstly most houses on Parraween street are heritage cottages that have centuries of history within them which is said to be in the "heart" of the community which definately shouldn't be destroyed. Secondly the mass amounts of greenery that is in this area is vital to the streetscape and with the removal of said trees the cremorne area wouldn't be nearly the same. Finally the estimated time of construction is around 3-4 years and three years is a long time to create major dysfunction within such a sensitive commercial and residential locality.

I strongly oppose the proposal put to the State Government Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for the above development on the following grounds –
• It blatantly exceeds the planning limits and zoning for the site as well as, I understand, the regulations for height of such seniors accommodation.
• The height, bulk and scale of the proposed development – especially the 8-storey building proposed for Gerard Street – is a maximum exploitation of the site and is a massive over development of a key site adjacent to the Cremorne Town Centre.
• The loss of heritage resulting from the dismantling and partial reconstruction of some (not all) of the heritage cottages that North Sydney Council, in conjunction with the community, are seeking to permanently protect.
• The absence of a cumulative traffic impact assessment which, I believe, would demonstrate the inability of Parraween Street (in conjunction with MacPherson and Winnie Streets) to cope with the increased traffic flow this development would bring.
• The deleterious impact of a single drive access for 134 cars (both ingress and egress) to Parraween Street.
• The negative impact of staff parking and visitors parking for both the ILUs and RTCs.
• The inaccurate claim that the development would increase kerb parking in Parraween Street.
• The destruction/obscuring of so many mature trees that are so visible to pedestrians and adjacent residents, and which are so important to the character of the streetscape.
• The highly dubious demolition, excavation and construction timelines set out in the proposal suggesting a 16-month build time.
• The history of poor communications, insincere consultation and avoidance of due engagement with stakeholders by the developer and its agents, and the probability that these aspects will NOT be improved during the development.
I submit that this Pathways proposal is both flawed and not in the best interests of the community, lacking both site specific and strategic merit.

I object to the project because one building is planned to be a height that is out of scale for the area and considerably exceeds the height allowed in the North Sydney LEP and because it will increase traffic flow in Parraween Street.
Building 4 is planned to be 28.66m tall in an area that allows for a 12 m height. It would be out of scale for the area. Since 134 car spaces are planned on site, and there will be visitors coming to see residents, there will be more traffic in a street that is already congested with parking for the Orpheum Theatre. An attempt has been made to retain some cottages in Parraween Street, but they will be much overshadowed by the larger buildings behind them, altering and perhaps destroying the heritage character of the centre of Cremorne.

Please see attached submission.