Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing

My objection to this project is two fold;
1. the ongoing removal of historical housing and architecture to the area in favour of non discript large housing/commercial projects and deleting the culture & personality of the neighbourhood.
2. Looking at the number of units included in this development, and being aware of currently in build (Pienza, Holt Ave) or in proposal (Coles Neutral Bay, Woolworths Cremorne) the volume of traffic utilising Gerard Street, Winnie Street, Waters Rd, Parraween St and surrounding areas in going to be unacceptable. Already today, at peak times the delays in moving through these areas is significant and often backed up. Adding this volume of units and the added vehicles is going to make these sububarn streets impossible to move freely and more dangerous for pedestrians, especially the elderly which this project caters for.
Parking is already at a premium in the area, increasing the volume of cars parked on the side of roads increases the danger and risk within the area, especially for the smaller children in the child care facilities and school children the area.
I would urge the council review this proposal in conjunction with all other proposals currently on the table and thibk about the personality of the area and what type of council you want, a concrete jungle, over traffiicked, over populated, stretched infrastructyre and resources or a suburb that has a history and provides a pleasant place to live.

CURRENTLY: The only vehicular access to Parraween & Paling Sts is from Winnie and MacPherson Sts. Winnie St provides the only access from the North to the South side of Military Rd and frequently traffic is gridlocked in it between the traffic lights at both ends on Gerard St and Military Rd preventing any access or exit from Parraween St. In this area there are 582 Apartments, 29 houses, 12 Cafes/ restaurants ,6 Dentists, 6 Haidressers, 3 Bottle shops, an Irish Pub,4 Cosmetic clinics, 5 large retail shops ,a very large Child Day Care and approx 30 small offices and shops plus the ever popular Orpheum Theatre so it is a very active and vibrant centre mainly based aound the Plaza.

HERITAGE: I support the 12 cottages Gateway approval for listing as Heritage Items as they are integral to the history of Cremorne and do not agree with the proposal that 3 of them can be demolished and rebuilt for adaptive use will maintain their character.
TRAFFIC; The claim "... the proposal reduces the traffic generation of the site" is a nonsense. In addition to the residents in these 4 & 8 storey buildings there will be extra traffic generated by visitors, staff, Drs and ambulances, deliveries such as food, medications, laundry , rubbish removal etc etc. Why then are they proposing underground parking for 134 cars if no extra traffic?
Parraween St has a lot of traffic. In addition to the occupants of the 582 Apartments and 29 houses it is used : As a drop-off (mainly school children) to walk through the arcade to the traffic lights on Military Rd to access buses both East and West. As a "rat run" to cross Military Rd, 1 + garbage trucks every day, not-in-service buses, Tradesman picking up paint from Inspirations Paint,patrons of a very large Gym, dropping off/picking up children from the very large Child Care Facility which has 20 underground car spaces
and people just coming for Coffee plus the Orpheum Theatre.
SIZE, BULK & HEIGHT: 8 storey building height at 28.66 m far exceeds the current zoning height of 12 m. The local Community and the Council envisage this area as the "heart" of Cremorne . The Council propose to upgrade both the Plaza and Langley Place which provide 9 restaurant/coffee shops which are well patronised and also redevelop the Parraween St carpark for affordable housing, early childcare centre, green space with underground parking for 161 cars.
TREES:Development in the North Sydney LGA has already reduced greenspace from mid 30%s to mid 20%s for the LGA.
The recent Frewway upgrades alone resulted in the destruction of in excess of 600 mature trees. The present low rise properties allows the visibility of a large number of mature trees which will be eliminated and a lot of smaller trees destroyed.
DEMOLITION & CONSTRUCTION TIME: The proposed demolition , excavation and construction time of 16 months is greatly underestimated. A single 4 storey appartment building of say 16-20 apartments with underground parking generally take longer than that.
CONCLUSION: An oversized development for this area. Currently these 23 houses and 15 apartments potentially house approx 80-100 + people who would further add to the current housing shortage if this development proceeds.
Pathways are currently constructing other Aged Care Facilities in the North Sydney area so is this a greater need than normal housing?

I strongly oppose the proposal put to the State Government Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for this development on the following grounds –
• It blatantly exceeds the planning limits and zoning for the site, in particular, 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.

Height Bulk and Size
The site proposed for the development is one of the largest single developments (by area) ever in Cremorne. Its proximity to the Cremorne Town Centre magnifies the need for any development of the site to be empathetic to community needs. North Sydney Council is more than aware of this fact and has been actively promoting Parraween Street as the “heart” of the community. In support of this vision, the Council is actively planning upgrades in the near future to Cremorne Plaza and Langley Place, and a redevelopment of the Parraween Street carpark to provide affordable housing, an early childcare centre, green space parkland with underground public parking for 161 cars.

With this as a background, I believe that the four buildings proposed by this development are incompatible with this vision.

All options explored in the proposal are predicated on a maximum bulk for the site. The justification for the option chosen is that it secures that maximum bulk while providing some community benefits in a staggered rise and a “public” park. Such exploitation of the potential of a site may be commercially understandable, but not at the loss of the future feel and amenities of the site for the community.

In particular, the proposed 8-storey building, at 28.66 metres, is an anathema. It is overtly outside the present zoning of the site which only allows construction for up to 12 metres. While the Proposal seeks to justify this height variation by pointing to similar tall buildings in the locality, these were developed during an unfortunate era of lax planning controls. The 2020s are different and the community’s expectations far more demanding and sophisticated. One only needs to look at how development proposals for Neutral Bay Town Centre (Woolworths, Coles site etc) has allowed such precedents to explode with development of ever taller and taller towers.

I am not against the development of this site per se but rather encourage empathetic development premised on the preservation of the heritage cottages, along with residential housing that conforms with the existing controls of the Local Environmental Plan with variations as permitted by law under SEPP (Housing) 2021.

Heritage
The 12 Parraween Street cottages are subject to IHOs which, when formalised, will secure the permanent protection of these cottages for the streetscape. The community has also sought state heritage listing for the adjacent Hayden Orpheum Picture Palace. Both the community and the Council have acted concertedly to achieve these goals with the vision of Parraween Street becoming the “heart” of the community as discussed above.

The IHOs have been based on sound expert heritage advice which was accepted by the Land and Environment Court. After much deliberation, the LEC dismissed the developer’s appeal to overturn the IHOs. The 12 cottages have now received Gateway approval from the Department of Planning for processing of their listing, and are currently on public exhibition in advance of their imminent heritage listing on North Sydney Council’s LEP 2013. https://yoursay.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/pp-3-23-parraween-st

While the proposal provides for the dismantling and reconstruction of just (3) of the heritage-identified cottages for adaptive reuse, I believe this to be a stratagem to appease the community. The heritage significance of these three properties will have been fundamentally changed. In the case of the other 9 cottages currently protected by the IHOs, heritage will be permanently lost. Demolition cannot occur if they are heritage listed.

Traffic
The proposal claims –
“The proposed development does not warrant a cumulative traffic impact assessment (CTIA) as the proposal reduces the traffic generation of the site”

I strongly dispute this claim for the following reasons –
• The proposed 134 cars to be garaged on the site will increase the residential vehicular use of Parraween Street by 119 cars as well as up to 56 bicycles and 9 motor bikes. This will add up to 20% more residential cars using an already very busy, short, unclassified suburban street.
• The services the developer proposes to provide to its residents will require further daily heavy vehicle truck and delivery services adding to the traffic.
• Parraween Street has become a “rat run” for Mosman, Cremorne, and Neutral Bay residents to cross Military Road from North to South and visa versa. This is exacerbated during peak hours as both Winnie and MacPherson Streets (which bookend Parraween Street) become clogged constricting ingress and egress from Parraween Street for lengthy periods. This development is likely to add to this problem. TfNSW and Council have unsuccessfully been trying to remedy this situation for years.
• The cancellation of the Northern Beaches Tunnel project announced by NSW Government on 8 September 2023 will only further complicate the issue of traffic congestion on Gerard Street and Military Road and their impacts on Parraween Street.
• The claims in the proposal that the development will lead to a reduction in vehicle trips from the site in both the morning (9 less trips) and evening (5 less trips) is laughable. A recent poll of one unit block directly opposite the site, with half the number of Units and with a large seniors residential component, found that those residents exceeded the stated vehicular trips in the proposal (ie 16 and 19 trips in AM and PM peak period as set out in 7.6.2 of the EIS) by multiples of those numbers.
• The proposal fails to raise or address the issue of extra traffic from visitors, service providers (eg menulogue deliveries, health services).
• The proposal to have only one drive to ingress and exit the site for 134 cars plus delivery trucks and service vehicles will create a bottleneck, continuing noise and safety issues for Parraween Street and its residents. Its proximity to the popular Cremorne Plaza will also impact that plaza’s amenity.

Before any final decision on this proposal, I strongly commend a full CTIA be undertaken.

Parking
The proposal significantly understates/misrepresents the parking issues that such a development will cause.
• It suggests it will allow additional kerbside parking with the filling in of existing driveways to many cottages. This contention fails to take into account that –
o Parraween is designed as a two lane thoroughfare.
o Council/TfNSW has instituted 90 degree parking opposite the site to allow for maximum parking for commercial and public vehicles.
o As a result, it is not feasible for full kerbside parking on the site side due to safety concerns – as evidenced by the fact that the existing kerbside parking on Parraween Street in front of the site is limited to motor bikes.
• The public parking on Parraween Street is hugely influenced by patronage of the Hayden Orpheum Picture Palace. During peak show times it is extremely difficult to find a parking spot, not only on Parraween Street but in the wider vicinity. This development will only add to the lack of public parking.
• The proposal does not address the additional parking requirements of family and friends visiting the RCF, and the visitors and services delivered to the ILUs.

Communications, Consultation & Engagement
Once the developer had its future ownership of the site secured, it sought to raze the cottages when the Council’s independent expert’s heritage report was published, by quickly issuing a Complying Development Certificate for demolition, thus seeking to avoid any true consultation and engagement. Its agent gave notice that the cottages would be demolished on 14-days notice – tenants and existing resident-owners were quite distressed. The communications were “stark” and “brutal”.

Conclusion
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. Again, I STRONGLY oppose this development based on the current proposal.

I oppose this proposed development because of the impacts it will have on our community:

1. The proposal concept is contrary to the North Sydney Council and community vision of Parraween Street as the "heart" of Cremorne. There are many initiatives being undertaken to achieve this vision (plaza renewals, IHOs for the cottages, rezoning, street traffic management and enhanced carparks) and these will effectively be negated/negatively impacted by the proposal.

2. The proposal seeks to achieve maximum bulk (4 storeys) for the site and any of the options would be inappropriate due to its adjacency to the Cremorne Town Centre. In particular the proposal for an 8 storey ILU is contrary to existing let alone proposed future zoning. Just because poor planning allowed such inappropriate development in the past doesn't mean it should be acceptable now.

3. The local traffic flow is huge and will only get worse with the cancellation of the Northern Beaches Tunnel. The paucity of crossings of Military Rd has led to major congestion of Winnie and MacPherson St and Parraween St to become a "rat run". The additional 115+ cars, the extra visitors and service deliveries to the RMC will only exacerbate these traffic problems.

4. Likewise the proposal will add to the considerable parking problems in Parraween St.

5. The dismantling and reconstruction of the 9 cottages subject to IHOs does not maintain the heritage - at best they will be a token facade.

6. Having a single driveway entrance for 134 vehicles and the many service truck and ambulance deliveries will cause that driveway to be a major bottleneck in Parraween St and be dangerous due to its proximity to the Cremorne Plaza.

7. The projected 18-month construction program is totally unrealistic. 3-4 years is a far more realistic estimate based on recent development experience of much smaller sites.
Additionally, the projected truck scheduling will have a far greater impact on the Parraween St (closures, blocking etc). And is it appropriate to great this dysfunction (traffic, parking, noise, dust, inconvenience) adjacent to the Town Centre and its businesses for such a protracted period.

I oppose this proposed development because of the impacts it will have on our community -
1. The proposal concept is contrary to the North Sydney Council and community vision of Parraween Street as the "heart" of Cremorne. There are many initiatives being undertaken to achieve this vision (plaza renewals, IHOs for the cottages, rezoning, street traffic management and enhanced carparks) and these will effectively be negated/negatively impacted by the proposal.
2. The proposal seeks to achieve maximum bulk (4 storeys) for the site and any of the options would be inappropriate due to its adjacency to the Cremorne Town Centre. In particular the proposal for an 8 storey ILU is contrary to existing let alone proposed future zoning. Just because poor planning allowed such inappropriate development in the past doesn't mean it should be acceptable now.
3. The local traffic flow is huge and will only get worse with the cancellation of the Northern Beaches Tunnel. The paucity of crossings of Military Rd has led to major congestion of Winnie and MacPherson Sts and Parraween St to become a "rat run". The additional 115+ cars, the extra visitors and servvice deleiveries to the RMC will only exacerbate these traffic problems.
4. Likewise the proposal will add to the considerable parking problems in Parraween St.
5. The dismantling and reconstruction of the 9 cottages subject to IHOs does not maintain the heritage - at best they will be a token facade.
6. Having a single driveway entrance for 134 vehicles and the many service truck and ambulance deliveries will cause that driveway to be a major bottleneck in Parraween St and be dangerous due to its proximity to the Cremorne Plaza.
7. The projected 18 month construction program is totally unrealistic. 3-4 years is a far more realistic estimate based on recent development experience of much smaller sites. Additionally the projected truck scheduling will have a far greater impact on the Parraween St (closures, blockings etc). And is it appropriate to create this dysfunction (traffic, parking, noise, dust, inconvenience) adjacent to the Town Centre and its businesses for such a protracted period.

Thanking you

Lesley Frost

It is far too large & not in the local communities interests

Re: Submission (SUB-61923959). I strongly object to the Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing Development Application proceeding as planned for the following reasons:

Parraween Street is designated a High Pedestrian Activity Area because pedestrians can access a large number of services located on the street, or in the near vicinity, including childcare, schools, medical and allied health services, gym, restaurants, cafes, shops, pubs and cinema. Pedestrian safety is at risk given the predicted significant increase in traffic volume.

It would significantly disrupt our lives and uproot the street's community and homely nature.

I am in complete support of this project

RE: Submission (SUB-61923959)

I strongly object to the Pathways submission as a local resident who regularly walks to Cremorne for access to medical, shopping and leisure facilities. I have always appreciated the landscape of the old houses in Parraween Street as a link to Cremornes village's past. I have always assumed the cottages were protected by a heritage order.

The submission is totally out of scale for the area as it is proposed, as it comprises 2 * 4 story buildings facing Parraween Street and a 6-8 story building facing Gerard Street.

As any older pedestrian I am concerned at the massive increase in traffic during the construction process. Where I cross Parraween Street there is no crossing. As I often have coffee on Parraween Street at Don Adans, this business and other traders will be impacted by noise, congestion and loss of parking. Having had a duplex conversion in my street I know how many trades people will be looking for and occupying parking spaces. One of the reasons I walk is that it is difficult to obtain parking, especially in the Council carpark.

If the submission was approved, congestion, noise, parking and pedestrian safety would be major concerns. Even with the 134 proposed on-site spaces, residents, especially those in the care facility will have visitors, staff will be arriving at different times and the various service deliveries can only lead to an increase in congestion and traffic. The risk to pedestrians, especially the elderly, will increase proportionally.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and lodge my objection to the proposal.

I oppose the proposed development because of the impacts it will have on our community.
1. The proposal seeks to achieve maximum bulk, especially the proposal of an 8 storey , ILU is contrary to existing let alone proposed future zoning.
2. The local traffic flow is huge and will only get worse with the cancellation of the Northern beaches tunnel.
Parraween street, Winnie Street and Macpherson street is already a ‘rat run’, traffic is congested across Winnie street trying to enter Military Road which causes cars to bank up for long periods to enter & exit.
Likewise the proposal will add to the considerable parking problems in Parraween Street.
3. The dismantling of the 9 cottages subject to IHOs does not maintain the Heritage, at best they will be a token facade.
Having a single driveway entrance for 134 vehicles and the many service trucks and ambulance deliveries will cause that driveway to be a major bottleneck in Parraween Street and be dangerous due to its proximity to Cremorne Plaza. Additionally the projected truck scheduling will have a far greater impact on the Parraween Street ( closures, blockings, traffic, noise, dust and parking ) Realistically this could go on for 2-3 years.
4. The Orpheum Picture theatre is a Heritage building and it Is impossible to find a park when events are on, cars not only take up all parking in Parraween Street but other streets in the area.
5 This is the wrong location for this project and we ask that the proposal be rejected.

I would like to object to the proposal on the following grounds.

The scale of the project particularly the height is completely out of keeping with surrounding reaidences and will lead to loss of amenity for cremorne residents. The traffic impact will be massive and not suitable for a small suburban street. The developer has not indicated how this impact will be mitigated. The promised creation of a "park" in no way compensates for the over development of the site. I recognise there is a need for housing such as this but there needs to be better consideration of how new development can blend with the existing village.

I oppose this proposed development because of the impacts it will have on our community. In addition it appears that the proposed developed relies on significant over development and overreach of planning guidelines in order to achieve the hurdles of State Significance

1. The proposal concept is contrary to the North Sydney Council and community vision of Parraween Street as the "heart" of Cremorne. There are many initiatives being undertaken to achieve this vision (plaza renewals, IHOs for the cottages, rezoning, street traffic management and enhanced carparks) and these will effectively be negated/negatively impacted by the proposal.
2. The proposal seeks to achieve maximum bulk (4 storeys) for the site and any of the options would be inappropriate due to its adjacency to the Cremorne Town Centre. In particular the proposal for an 8 storey ILU is contrary to existing let alone proposed future zoning. Just because poor planning allowed such inappropriate development in the past doesn't mean it should be acceptable now.
3. The local traffic flow is huge and will only get worse with the cancellation of the Northern Beaches Tunnel. The paucity of crossings of Military Rd has led to major congestion of Winnie and MacPherson Sts and Parraween St to become a "rat run". The additional 115+ cars, the extra visitors and servvice deleiveries to the RMC will only exacerbate these traffic problems.
4. Likewise the proposal will add to the considerable parking problems in Parraween St.
5. The dismantling and reconstruction of the 9 cottages subject to IHOs does not maintain the heritage - at best they will be a token facade.
6. Having a single driveway entrance for 134 vehicles and the many service truck and ambulance deliveries will cause that driveway to be a major bottleneck in Parraween St and be dangerous due to its proximity to the Cremorne Plaza.
7. The projected 18 month construction program is totally unrealistic. 3-4 years is a far more realistic estimate based on recent development experience of much smaller sites. Additionally the projected truck scheduling will have a far greater impact on the Parraween St (closures, blockings etc). And is it appropriate to great this dysfunction (traffic, parking, noise, dust, inconvenience) adjacent to the Town Centre and its businesses for such a protracted period.
8. The bulk and scale of the development will have a detrimental effect to air flow, green emvironment and create increased heat sink for the area which is out of step with a forecast warming climate and planning associated.
Thank You
Peter Fitzgerald

Thanking you

I oppose this proposed development because of the impacts it will have on our community -

1. The proposal concept is contrary to the North Sydney Council and community vision of Parraween Street as the "heart" of Cremorne. There are many initiatives being undertaken to achieve this vision (plaza renewals, IHOs for the cottages, rezoning, street traffic management and enhanced carparks) and these will effectively be negated/negatively impacted by the proposal.

2. The proposal seeks to achieve maximum bulk (4 storeys) for the site and any of the options would be inappropriate due to its adjacency to the Cremorne Town Centre. In particular the proposal for an 8 storey ILU is contrary to existing let alone proposed future zoning. Just because poor planning allowed such inappropriate development in the past doesn't mean it should be acceptable now.

3. The local traffic flow is huge and will only get worse with the cancellation of the Northern Beaches Tunnel. The paucity of crossings of Military Rd has led to major congestion of Winnie and MacPherson Sts and Parraween St to become a "rat run". The additional 115+ cars, the extra visitors and servvice deleiveries to the RMC will only exacerbate these traffic problems.

4. Likewise the proposal will add to the considerable parking problems in Parraween St.

5. The dismantling and reconstruction of the 9 cottages subject to IHOs does not maintain the heritage - at best they will be a token facade.

6. Having a single driveway entrance for 134 vehicles and the many service truck and ambulance deliveries will cause that driveway to be a major bottleneck in Parraween St and be dangerous due to its proximity to the Cremorne Plaza.

7. The projected 18 month construction program is totally unrealistic. 3-4 years is a far more realistic estimate based on recent development experience of much smaller sites. Additionally the projected truck scheduling will have a far greater impact on the Parraween St (closures, blockaings etc). And is it appropriate to great this dysfunction (traffic, parking, noise, dust, inconvenience) adjacent to the Town Centre and its businesses for such a protracted period.

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.

This submission will now expand on each ground.

Zoning & Compliance
The proposal to DPE appears to be intended to avoid existing zoning restrictions and Council Planning Strategies. I do not know the technicalities of this and hope North Sydney Council will address this issue as part of its submission.

Height Bulk and Size
The site proposed for the development is one of the largest single developments (by area) ever in Cremorne. Its proximity to the Cremorne Town Centre magnifies the need for any development of the site to be empathetic to community needs. North Sydney Council is more than aware of this fact and has been actively promoting Parraween Street as the “heart” of the community. In support of this vision, the Council is actively planning upgrades in the near future to Cremorne Plaza and Langley Place, and a redevelopment of the Parraween Street carpark to provide affordable housing, an early childcare centre, green space parkland with underground public parking for 161 cars.

With this as a background, I believe that the four buildings proposed by this development are incompatible with this vision.

All options explored in the proposal are predicated on a maximum bulk for the site. The justification for the option chosen is that it secures that maximum bulk while providing some community benefits in a staggered rise and a “public” park. Such exploitation of the potential of a site may be commercially understandable, but not at the loss of the future feel and amenities of the site for the community.

In particular, the proposed 8-storey building, at 28.66 metres, is an anathema. It is overtly outside the present zoning of the site which only allows construction for up to 12 metres. While the Proposal seeks to justify this height variation by pointing to similar tall buildings in the locality, these were developed during an unfortunate era of lax planning controls. The 2020s are different and the community’s expectations far more demanding and sophisticated. One only needs to look at how development proposals for Neutral Bay Town Centre (Woolworths, Coles site etc) has allowed such precedents to explode with development of ever taller and taller towers.

I am not against the development of this site per se but rather encourage empathetic development premised on the preservation of the heritage cottages, along with residential housing that conforms with the existing controls of the Local Environmental Plan with variations as permitted by law under SEPP (Housing) 2021.

Heritage
The 12 Parraween Street cottages are subject to IHOs which, when formalised, will secure the permanent protection of these cottages for the streetscape. The community has also sought state heritage listing for the adjacent Hayden Orpheum Picture Palace. Both the community and the Council have acted concertedly to achieve these goals with the vision of Parraween Street becoming the “heart” of the community as discussed above.

The IHOs have been based on sound expert heritage advice which was accepted by the Land and Environment Court. After much deliberation, the LEC dismissed the developer’s appeal to overturn the IHOs. The 12 cottages have now received Gateway approval from the Department of Planning for processing of their listing, and are currently on public exhibition in advance of their imminent heritage listing on North Sydney Council’s LEP 2013. https://yoursay.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/pp-3-23-parraween-st

While the proposal provides for the dismantling and reconstruction of just (3) of the heritage-identified cottages for adaptive reuse, I believe this to be a stratagem to appease the community. The heritage significance of these three properties will have been fundamentally changed. In the case of the other 9 cottages currently protected by the IHOs, heritage will be permanently lost. Demolition cannot occur if they are heritage listed.

Traffic
The proposal claims –
“The proposed development does not warrant a cumulative traffic impact assessment (CTIA) as the proposal reduces the traffic generation of the site”

I strongly dispute this claim for the following reasons –
• The proposed 134 cars to be garaged on the site will increase the residential vehicular use of Parraween Street by 119 cars as well as up to 56 bicycles and 9 motor bikes. This will add up to 20% more residential cars using an already very busy, short, unclassified suburban street.
• The services the developer proposes to provide to its residents will require further daily heavy vehicle truck and delivery services adding to the traffic.
• Parraween Street has become a “rat run” for Mosman, Cremorne, and Neutral Bay residents to cross Military Road from North to South and visa versa. This is exacerbated during peak hours as both Winnie and MacPherson Streets (which bookend Parraween Street) become clogged constricting ingress and egress from Parraween Street for lengthy periods. This development is likely to add to this problem. TfNSW and Council have unsuccessfully been trying to remedy this situation for years.
• The cancellation of the Northern Beaches Tunnel project announced by NSW Government on 8 September 2023 will only further complicate the issue of traffic congestion on Gerard Street and Military Road and their impacts on Parraween Street.
• The claims in the proposal that the development will lead to a reduction in vehicle trips from the site in both the morning (9 less trips) and evening (5 less trips) is laughable. A recent poll of one unit block directly opposite the site, with half the number of Units and with a large seniors residential component, found that those residents exceeded the stated vehicular trips in the proposal (ie 16 and 19 trips in AM and PM peak period as set out in 7.6.2 of the EIS) by multiples of those numbers.
• The proposal fails to raise or address the issue of extra traffic from visitors, service providers (eg menulogue deliveries, health services).
• The proposal to have only one drive to ingress and exit the site for 134 cars plus delivery trucks and service vehicles will create a bottleneck, continuing noise and safety issues for Parraween Street and its residents. Its proximity to the popular Cremorne Plaza will also impact that plaza’s amenity.

Before any final decision on this proposal, I strongly commend a full CTIA be undertaken.

Parking
The proposal significantly understates/misrepresents the parking issues that such a development will cause.
• It suggests it will allow additional kerbside parking with the filling in of existing driveways to many cottages. This contention fails to take into account that –
o Parraween is designed as a two lane thoroughfare.
o Council/TfNSW has instituted 90 degree parking opposite the site to allow for maximum parking for commercial and public vehicles.
o As a result, it is not feasible for full kerbside parking on the site side due to safety concerns – as evidenced by the fact that the existing kerbside parking on Parraween Street in front of the site is limited to motor bikes.
• The public parking on Parraween Street is hugely influenced by patronage of the Hayden Orpheum Picture Palace. During peak show times it is extremely difficult to find a parking spot, not only on Parraween Street but in the wider vicinity. This development will only add to the lack of public parking.
• The proposal does not address the additional parking requirements of family and friends visiting the RCF, and the visitors and services delivered to the ILUs.

Possibly this aspect could also be reviewed before any decision on the proposal.

Treescape & Through-site Park
Development in the North Sydney LGA has already reduced the greenspace from the mid 30%s to the mid 20%s for the LGA. This has a huge impact on residents and their quality of life. The present low-rise development of the site opens up visib

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 declare that I have not made a reportable political donation in the last two years.

I acknowledge and accept the DPE disclaimer and declaration.

I understand North Sydney Council tried to stop this development proposal by the issue of an interim heritage order.
It saddens me to see North Sydney Council using heritage orders to try to stop necessary moderate increases in building densities in the North Sydney LGA
The buildings the council seeks to preserve in its heritage conservation zones are usually unremarkable low density dwellings of little architectural merit such as the dwellings it was seeking to preserve in Parraween St.
It's not like we are short of heritage conservation zones in the North Sydney LGA. Most of neighbouring Cammeray where I live is a single storey heritage conservation zone frozen in time.
Increases in building density in inner city suburbs are necessary to house Sydney's ever increasing population. without having the city sprawl further into bushland and farmland.
In neighbouring Gerard St opposite the Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing Proposal there are at least three high rise towers over 40 metres in height. These towers were built in the early 1970s and have been there for over 50 years housing many more people than the single storey houses they replaced. In the context of these neighbouring high rises the proposed heights and density of the Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing proposal is not excessive.
Please consider approving the Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing application.

I do not believe this project is in the interests of the Cremirne community. It is too large and there is too much of the local area that is being demolished to make way for large and inappropriate developments. We want to keep reyain out heritage.

I object to the massive height of the proposal. Extending from Parraween to Gerard St with buildings of four and eight storeys, the proposed development will provide excessive bulk and will be inconsistent with the village atmosphere of Parraween Street.
Cars parking onsite and emergency vehicles will all be required to enter and exit via Parraween St. which will pose an unacceptable hazard for pedestrians and further add unacceptable traffic chaos.
This proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding residents and those supporting entertainment, childcare and educational venues.

I strongly object to the proposal put to the State Government Department of Planning and Environment (DPE):
1. The development greatly exceeds the planning limits and zoning for the site.
2.The site is adjacent to Cremorne Town Centre. It is a key site in Cremorne village. This proposal has huge height, bulk and scale, which is totally unsuitable for the village site. Parraween Plaza and Langley Place will both both be hugely affected.
3.There are heritage cottages in the street. 9 of these cottages have a current Interim Heritage Order placed on them. In the proposal the cottages are not to be preserved, but instead to be dismantled completely and later put back together with a facade of these heritage buildings. The cottages should be preserved intact, not dismantled.
4. A cumulative traffic impact assessment has not been made in Parraween Street. The increased traffic flow that this development would bring to Parraween St , Winnie St and to MacPherson St has not been considered. Parraween St is narrow, and is certainly not capable of taking large volumes of traffic. Neither is it capable of accommodating heavy trucks during the construction phase.
5. The plan shows one only combined entrance and exit to a car park which is designed to hold 134 cars.
4. The development claims that there would be increased public parking on Parraween Street. That is an inaccurate statement. The street is narrow. Currently the cottage driveways take the residents' cars off Parraween Street.
5. At the time of making this submission, I can see that there are no car parking spaces available on Parraween Street. The increased volume of car parking required for this development would put further pressure on this small street. There is simply insufficient parking now. With so many extra units proposed, parking would be a huge issue in Parraween Street.
There would also be an increased negative impact of staff and visitor parking (including for the provision of services to residents of this development) in Parraween St.
6. There has to date been a history of poor communications by the developer and its agents. We believe it unlikely that avoidance of contact with stakeholders will change during the development phase.

I'm writing to object the development of senior housing with the proposed hight on the following basis.
1. Cremorne is a low density residential area and having a building exceeding 4 levels will destroy the current village appeal. Historical approval of building more than 4 levels was due to lack of foresight of the the town plan. This should not be used as precedence to approve the current proposal.
2. The traffic on Military Road and Gerard Street is already bad enough during peak time. This will exacerbate the traffic congestion. It is recommended that the council looks into the current traffic flow in and out of Parraween Street as part of the assessment.
3. The approval of 8 level building in Cremorne will create precedence for other developers driven by greed to follow suite. This will destroy the appeal and atmosphere of the suburb.
I'm not objecting senior housing to be constructed to cater for the ageing population. However this needs to be balanced with future looking town plan. In addition, I'm sure when residents wanting to downsize into retire home, they would not want to live in a a high population density suburb surrounded by 8 levels building.
I'm pleading to the council not to give in to the developers whose interest is not aligned with local residents or potential purchaser.