Residential development with In-fill affordable housing - East Walker Street, North Sydney

Please see the objection attached.

I am lodging my submissions here and will send the Value Impact report separately

Further to my SE-73300488 submission on 12 July 2024, I wish to add two things, one of which is of a very different nature but I believe to be of utmost importance in this project being rejected.
But first to an added matter that I didn't include in my 12 July submission. There are two parts to it.
A. Narrow access road (lane) to get to Hampden Street called East Walker Street or Lower Walker Street.
B. The extreme difficulty for First Responders gaining access to extinguish a fire in this complex if it goes ahead.
A. East Walker Street is too narrow to accommodate two-way traffic. Cars trying to exit Hampden Street cannot if there is a vehicle on its way down East Walker Street and must wait for it to pass before proceeding out. That situation would be compounded more than ten times over with there being in excess of 200 vehicles in this new building. The mayhem would be apparent on Day One with cars stuck trying to exit while other cars are trying to enter the underground parking.
In short it makes the situation untenable. It's an impossible situation. It must not be approved.
B. If that weren't troublesome enough, consider a much larger vehicle, a Fire Truck trying to gain access to extinguish a fire on the XX floor. It would be an impossibility to have two Fire Trucks attending the fire and impossible for one to pass another on East Walker Street.
This project MUST be rejected outright.

The other matter of a different nature.
What has been exposed is the link between the CMFEU and CBUS.
The expression 'if you lie down with dogs you'll get up with fleas' has much relevance here. Implied is that CBUS is unscrupulous which should be enough for them involved in this project for it to be rejected.
K Regards,
John Seymour.

Following the failed Cbus Land and Environment case, I was unpleasantly surprised when I learned that Cbus resubmitted proposal to the Department of Planning - a 30L proposal as a 'Affordable Housing', a State Significant Development (SSD).
I would like to voice my objection, as a resident, and a member of local community in North Sydney.
This development would put a significant strain on infrastructure, water and electricity supply, sewage system, roads, waste management, etc.
The public services will be overcrowded in this already overused area.
Increased population density will put a huge strain on parking spaces, traffic, and will reduce access to public amenities, parks, etc. Overall quality of life for us, current residents will be negatively impacted, so I am hoping this objection will be considered as a valid statement which is aligned with the opinion of the majority of local community.
Thank you.

My objections are as follows: Infrastructure Strain, Traffic Congestion, Overcrowded Public Services, Noise Pollution, Parking congetion, overall our quality of life will bebadly affected. There are already enough high rise developments in North Sydney. We do not another one. No more high rise for North Sydney

Introduction

This proposal is the fourth time that this development has been attempted in five years. This time under the guise of affordable housing, the proposal attempts to impose a 30 storey highrise tower in the centre of a valley floor of lowrise housing. The proposed concept has already been dismissed in a detailed private report to North Sydney Council by a Planning Consultant, by the NSLPP which listed more than a dozen reasons for refusal, and in turn by North Sydney Council itself. There has also been a failed attempt by the applicant to further the case in the Land and Environment Court, then withdrawn by the applicant. The proposal is completely out of character with the neighbourhood and imposes itself on more than 1000 dwellings in Walker, Hampden, McLaren, Miller and Berry Streets with loss of light and sun, loss of residential amenity, major view loss for thousands of residents who recently purchased into the area for the views and is not in the public interest. It involves a major and significant increase over surrounding building heights with no attempt at height transition whatsoever.

With the convenient excuse of affordable housing, which we all know will not be the case given its location, the development will not provide affordable rent nor will it be affordable for majority of Australians. With the likely market prices it will most likely be purchased by overseas investors, who reside overseas, and will most likely not even be rented out or lived in. It is a very deceitful and ingenuos development and clearly planned to maximise profits for the developer, whilst destroying real estate values of many ordinary Australians who currently live or have bought in the area only a few years ago.

Below are the detailed reasons why this development can not proceed. These have been extensively researched by many experts and professionals who also live in the area. I agree with all their objections and submit them once again.

Major Traffic Issues

The adjacent road network is already under extreme pressure with constant traffic congestion and constant queuing at the major Walker/Berry intersection which is only 50 metres away. The traffic report does not come close to adequately analysing the impact of the extra vehicles generated nor does it acknowledge that Berry and Miller Streets are the only exit routes for the precinct.

- the site is on a one -way lane leading to a dead-end (see attached)
- access to the site is extremely difficult northbound, and there is no access southbound. Residents need to make a u-turn in traffic southbound to enter the lane, or attempt to cross queued intersection traffic northbound
- there is no scope for a turning circle at the dead-end due to a heritage protected median garden strip
- the Walker Street/Berry Streets intersection is effectively Highway 1 with constant high traffic pressure
- construction vehicle access would be impossible
- at peak hours and school times there is existing gridlock
- Two major schools are within 100m
- ingress and egress from the precinct is already difficult
- garbage trucks currently have to reverse down the one way lane

In addition, future traffic pressure has not been taken into account:
- the new Aqualand development at 168 Walker with 386 apartments is ignored
- 45 McLaren Street future development will add over 100 new apartments
- the Western Harbour Tunnel impacts and on-ramp and their effects on the intersection
- The new Reddam School in McLaren Street commencing in January 2025
- 57 storey building at 110 Walker Street

Proper and detailed traffic analysis reports are needed including access and intersection modelling and performance.

View Analysis

There is a major view corridor to the west of the site resulting in major view loss to hundreds of apartments including Belvedere, The Heritage, McLaren Apartments, The Harvard, North, Vantage, and The Miller. In some cases, this view loss is total. View analysis does not adequately respond to, or understates this view loss. The proposal fails all four steps of the Tenacity principles (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140) which can be distilled as “Not properly assess moderate to severe standing view loss from front living areas by a non-complying development”. In particular, step four emphasises that where view loss arises as a result of non-compliance even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable.

First Responder Access
See attached photo showing the impossibility of access. This critical issue of extremely difficult first responder access or egress in any kind of emergency is a major health and safety and places a heavy burden on those involved in any approval.

Solar Access

The proposal inflicts excessive overshadowing to surrounding dwellings, particularly the 9 storey apartment building at 88 Berry Street, and also Century Plaza. It blocks eastern and northern sun to other dwellings in Walker Street.

Heritage

The proposal is across the road from a row of Victorian Terraces to the north and ruins their neighbourhood. Important heritage buildings to the west, and a heritage protected sandstone wall.

Supporting Documents

Reports do not address previous submissions and objections, and do not fully or properly take into account new developments in this area which are yet to come on stream. Proper reports are required.

Past Planning Panel Approval

Despite the above substantial issues, the Sydney North Planning Panel under then Minister Stokes and chairman Peter Debnam, approved a 29 storey building. In doing so, the Panel dismissed 145 detailed objections from surrounding residents, other developers, and North Sydney Council. The Panel did not adequately pose the objections to the developer, and its decision was cursory and highly undemocratic. The planning process has failed residents.

https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/ppr/lep-decision/173-179-walker-street-and-11-17-hampden-street

Regardless, it is critical to note that the previous SNPP approval was highly specific and required the following:

- A slender built form – this proposal is not slender
- 12m building separations – this proposal does not provide 12m separation
- A reduction in length along Walker Street – this length has actually increased from previously
- Avoidance of overshadowing to the south – overshadowing is increased in this new proposal
- An 8 storey maximum for the secondary building – this has now increased to 12 storeys

These are critical points to consider in assessing this new proposal since they transgress the SNPP approval and the Department of Planning’s own report. In addition, the Department’s Urban Design team also raised serious concerns (attached) including floor plate sizes, solar access modelling, building bulk, design not appropriate to the important view corridor, and they were not satisfied with the detail for the proposed level of change to the final LEP. It is evident that the Department of Planning did not support the proposal with conviction.

When the previous DA arrived at Council, the developer chose deemed refusal and lodged a case with the Land and Environment Court, later withdrawn by the applicant.

There is unanimous very strong local consensus that the proposal is unacceptable and inappropriate. The proposal cannot be justified on planning principles, policy or process and is fatally flawed on very many separate grounds and runs contrary to the public interest.

In-fill Affordable Housing SEPP

This proposal attempts to use the in-fill affordable housing changes to increase its luxury building to 30 storeys and to increases the previous 8 storey approval to 12 storeys. But the SEPP which allows for bonuses in building height only applies to the building with the affordable housing. This proposal attempts to transfer this bonus to the luxury apartments which is disingenuous and cynical. A merit assessment of the above impacts will expose this ploy and isolate the affordable housing building. Finally, the Planning Dept document “Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements” which contains many highly specific requirements has not been adequately measured against by the proponent and needs to be upheld.

This development can not be allowed to progress. It is ridiculously large and wide in an already heavily built up area with inadequate traffic flows, especially for first responders! The area is surrounded by schools (4 big schools, kindergarten to Year 12, 5 minutes walk away) with young children crossing roads, catching public transport or beinG picked up by parents in their cars! (More Traffic!!)

My objections are as follows: Infrastructure Strain, Traffic Congestion, Overcrowded Public Services, Noise Pollution, Parking congetion, overall our quality of life will bebadly affected. There are already enough high rise developments in North Sydney. We do not another one.

To whom it may concern,

I want to express my objection and how I feel about the this project.

They are following their failed Land and Environment Court case, Cbus has cynically resubmitted a 30 story proposal to the Dept of Planning under the guise of ‘affordable housing’, and as a State Significant Development (SSD) which bypasses Council.

What it is going to impact:
Infrastructure Strain: Increased population density can place a significant strain on existing infrastructure, including roads, public transportation, water supply, sewage systems, and waste management services, leading to potential breakdowns or overuse.
Traffic Congestion: the developments will result in increased traffic congestion, longer commute times, higher levels of pollution, and greater stress on public transportation systems.
Overcrowded Public Services: Schools, hospitals, and other public services
Noise Pollution: Increased noise levels
Parking Shortages: Increased population density can exacerbate parking issues, making it difficult for residents and visitors to find adequate parking spaces and leading to illegal parking and associated problems.
Quality of Life: Overall quality of life for current residents may be negatively impacted by the increased noise, traffic, and reduced availability of public amenities and green spaces.
Public Opinion: If a significant portion of the local community is opposed to the development, this can be a compelling reason to reconsider or modify the plans to better align with residents' wishes and concerns.a high-density residential development in an already crowded North Sydney local government area can be based on several key reasons:
Infrastructure Strain: Increased population density can place a significant strain on existing infrastructure, including roads, public transportation, water supply, sewage systems, and waste management services, leading to potential breakdowns or overuse.
Traffic Congestion: the developments will result in increased traffic congestion, longer commute times, higher levels of pollution, and greater stress on public transportation systems.
Overcrowded Public Services: Schools, hospitals, and other public services
Noise Pollution: Increased noise levels
Parking Shortages: Increased population density can exacerbate parking issues, making it difficult for residents and visitors to find adequate parking spaces and leading to illegal parking and associated problems.
Quality of Life: Overall quality of life for current residents may be negatively impacted by the increased noise, traffic, and reduced availability of public amenities and green spaces.
Public Opinion: If a significant portion of the local community is opposed to the development, this can be a compelling reason to reconsider or modify the plans to better align with residents' wishes and concerns.

Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Mariia Osadcha

See attachements

Objecting to a high-density residential development in an already crowded North Sydney local government area can be based on several key reasons:
1. Infrastructure Strain: Increased population density can place a significant strain on existing infrastructure, including roads, public transportation, water supply, sewage systems, and waste management services, leading to potential breakdowns or overuse.
2. Traffic Congestion: the developments will result in increased traffic congestion, longer commute times, higher levels of pollution, and greater stress on public transportation systems.
3. Overcrowded Public Services: Schools, hospitals, and other public services
4. Noise Pollution: Increased noise levels
5. Parking Shortages: Increased population density can exacerbate parking issues, making it difficult for residents and visitors to find adequate parking spaces and leading to illegal parking and associated problems.
6. Quality of Life: Overall quality of life for current residents may be negatively impacted by the increased noise, traffic, and reduced availability of public amenities and green spaces.
7. Public Opinion: If a significant portion of the local community is opposed to the development, this can be a compelling reason to reconsider or modify the plans to better align with residents' wishes and concerns.

I object to this proposal.
This proposal is out of character with our row of terraces in Hampden Street. It will completely change our neighbourhood heritage area and has too much impact on the low rise local residences in Hampden Street.

Severe loss of amenity will result by being in close proximity to a development which exceeds reasonable height and scale. An increase over surrounding building heights is proposed with no attempt at height transition toward the terraces to the north. Resultant light and acoustic impacts to the north terraces require greater mitigation. Reduction of overlooking into front rooms and on to balconies, and over the roof into backyards of the terraces is needed. Set back to the north is inadequate.

Major loss of parking within the local road for residences of Hampden Street. The 7 terraces have between them 21 street parking spots. The loss of so many street parks in Hampden and lower Walker street is totally unacceptable.

Major Traffic Impact. Access to Walker street lower to service the development site is difficult from the south and not possible from the north. Mitigating traffic hazard should be done by limiting the size of the development. Entrance and exit to the developments on-site parking at the southern end of lower Walker Street is excellent and must be retained. Minimising traffic down the street toward Hampden Street is imperative for congestion safety and amenity.
The back of house garbage access area in lower Hampen street is understandable and has been OK for a limited number of people. With a huge development and larger trucks required in the street, the consequent loss of parking is problematic. Minimising parking loss is required.
The 3 point turn area at the head of Hampden Street must be retained and improved with a priority give way to the high side of Hampden Street to maintain safety for reversing traffic on the high side. Sight lines around the corner of Hampden and Walker Streets may be adequate for safety on the corner, but would be further improved with a greater northern set back

Construction window. Unacceptable and very major impact for residents of Hampden Street. Vehicle access and parking during construction is not and possibly cannot be mitigated sufficiently. Impact of construction noise on the Hampden Street terraces is not and possibly cannot be mitigated sufficiently. Dust impact for the terraces is not and possibly cannot be mitigated sufficiently. Vibration impact is possibly problematic.

The proposal for a 30-storey high-rise tower in a low-rise residential valley has been rejected multiple times by North Sydney Council, the NSLPP, and the Land and Environment Court. It disrupts the neighborhood, affecting over 1000 dwellings with loss of solar access, residential amenity, and views, without providing height transition.
The proposal is fundamentally flawed on various grounds, lacking justification and running contrary to the public interest.
Major Traffic Issues:
The current road network around the site is heavily congested, with the Walker/Berry intersection under constant pressure. The proposal fails to address the impact of additional vehicles and acknowledges that Berry and Miller Streets are the only exit routes. Key traffic issues include:

1- The site is accessible only via a one-way lane leading to a dead-end.
2- Access difficulties northbound and no southbound access.
3- Lack of turning circle due to heritage-protected median garden strip.
4- High traffic pressure at the Walker/Berry intersection.
5- Impossibility of construction vehicle access.
6- Existing gridlock during peak hours and school times.
7- Proximity to two major schools.
8- Difficult ingress and egress for the precinct.
9- Garbage trucks reversing down the one-way lane.
10 - Access for first responders in emergencies is difficult, posing significant health and safety risks.
In-fill Affordable Housing SEPP:
The proposal misuses the in-fill affordable housing changes to justify the 30-storey high-rise and 12-storey secondary building. The SEPP's height bonuses apply only to the affordable housing building, and the proposal's attempt to transfer this bonus to luxury apartments is disingenuous. The Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements need to be upheld.
View and Solar Access :
1- The proposal causes major view loss to hundreds of apartments and fails to meet view loss assessment standards.
2- It causes excessive overshadowing, particularly affecting nearby buildings.
Past Approvals :
Reports fail to address previous objections and new developments.
The Sydney North Planning Panel's previous approval required specific conditions that the current proposal fails to meet

The proposed development includes 294 car spaces which is more than the 239 apartments that the developer has proposed to build. This would inevitably encourage incoming residents to own cars and exacerbate the already highly congested surrounding main streets, such as Miller Street. This is also completely incoherent with the state government’s plan to reduce usage of private vehicles within transport hubs such as North Sydney. As a resident, I am finding parking to be a huge problem and would be very disappointed to see this problem worsening. The vast amount of apartments being build will also further increase population within the suburb and put strain on the communal facilities available in the already highly populated suburb. Further, to build such a huge development would require lengthy construction processes that would create a large amount of noise pollution/general disturbance to the many residents that are living nearby. I have found the incessant development disturbances to have greatly reduced my ability to live in North Sydney in peace and has made living in this suburb very stressful at times.

There is already far too much traffic, construction etc in North Sydney.

I strongly object to the development as set out in the attachment.

- the building height does not provide an appropriate transition of building heights from the existing CBD

- the building will compromise the amenity of the surrounding area

- the tower will result in excessive overshadowing of adjoining dwellings

- the tower element disrespects topography of the surrounding valley

- the location is unliveable due to constant freeway noise and dust

- there are existing traffic problems in the area including peak hours and school times

- the site can only be accessed is a one-way lane leading to a dead-end (attachment 1)

- the site has no southbound access and extremely difficult/dangerous northbound access

- the heritage protected sandstone wall is a further permanent limitation

- future traffic pressure from the Aqualand development at 168 Walker Street plus Western Harbour Tunnel

- existing critical issue of difficult first responder access and/or emergency egress from Hampden Street

- access for construction vehicle access will be an impossible

- the development proposes 240 vehicles, Aqualand at 168 Walker Street proposes 300-plus vehicles, 45 McLaren Street 100-plus vehicles

- the view analysis report confirms view loss from many apartments including The Miller.

Objection

I object the 30 storey proposal to the Dept of Planning under the guise of ‘affordable housing’

Please see attached

We completely object to this proposal, which we believe will have severe adverse effects on our quality of life and the local environment.

Our primary concerns are as follows:

Blockage of View and Sunlight:
The construction of the proposed 30-storey building will severely obstruct the view and natural sunlight to our homes. We have already experienced a similar issue with the recent completion of the Aura project, which comprises three 28-storey buildings. This new development will exacerbate the situation, further diminishing our access to sunlight and natural ventilation, which are essential for our well-being.We have paid for this view , this sunlight, now making a building blocking us will hamper our life so much , negatively affecting our property prices. We will not be able to see any sun or moon only buildings completely blocking our East side.

Previous Rejection by North Sydney Council:
The developer, CBUS, had previously submitted an application (DA 197/22) to the North Sydney Council, which was rejected due to the concerns raised by local residents. It is concerning that the developer is now attempting to bypass this rejection by submitting a new application to the NSW Government under the guise of affordable housing. This approach undermines the decision made by the local council and the voices of the residents.How can they even call harbour view/water view in apartments as affordable ?They are trying their every means in every way to get this passed , not thinking of current residents at all.

Increased Congestion and Traffic:
Our area is already heavily congested with numerous high-rise residential and corporate buildings. The addition of another high rise building, and one 10 story and another 5 story ( total 3 buildings) will significantly increase traffic in the vicinity, further straining the already limited infrastructure and negatively impacting the safety and convenience of the local community.

Given these substantial concerns, we respectfully urge the NSW Government to reject this application. We believe that it is crucial to consider the well-being of the existing residents and the sustainable development of our community.