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

To whom it may concern,

The Stanton Precinct objects to the East Walker Residential Development Proposal SSD-67175465.

The very slight amendments proposed by CBUS and Galileo does not address any of the concerns of the Stanton Precinct. The Stanton Precinct represents about 400 residents.

I am the Chair of the Stanton Precinct (North Sydney Council). The Precinct is bounded by Berry Street, Ridge Street, Warringah Freeway, and the Pacific Highway. We are a very compact area that has already done a lot of the heavy lifting to increase the number of dwellings required to reduce the housing shortage.

I have collected comments from Stanton residents, please refer to the text below.

The North Sydney CBD and nearby residential area is already densely populated so there is no capacity for increase.

Local conditions are not suited to the East Walker Street DA proposal.

This is exacerbated by 7 major schools within the area with a new school Reddam, 45 McLaren Street (1500 new students) to open in 2025.

There is already a shortage of public open space.

Character and amenity impacts would be detrimental.

Inadequate traffic analysis in an area already in regular traffic congestion.

Traffic issue remains a major concern, made worse by the enlargement of the East Walker Project to 239 new apartments.

The Berry St intersection – critical to the function of the new harbour tunnel – is the only point of ingress and egress to the project and the maths of at times gridlock traffic flow remains the same.

The traffic submission made last time was theoretical nonsense and proven so by our empirical calculations that we submitted previously.


The East Walker Street, North Sydney Scoping Report is a massive development on an unsuitable site. The traffic flow during peak periods is already at gridlock. The approved developments discussed above will increase apartment numbers (and car spaces) and create a large spike in student numbers that will only exacerbate our gridlock problem.

We have already seen first responders having difficulty responding to smoke alarms during the peak traffic periods for Century Plaza (Corner of Berry Street and Walker Street.

This big apartment project will also impede a functioning tunnel entrance for the Western Harbour Tunnel off Walker Street and Berry Street.

The proposed NSW Government Housing Policy should not be a one size fits all policy. This would not be practical or sensible and will impact the amenity and mental health of residents.

This point needs to be stressed. Not all sites are suitable, especially the East Walker proposal by CBUS and Galileo.

The idea that affordable housing can be built on this site is tenuous. This is a prime site, and dwellings will cost much more here than other cheaper sites in the LGA, like Cammeray and Crows Nest for example. The developer is using the so-called “affordable housing” as a Trojan Horse to gain acceptance for an inappropriate development on this site. It is much worse than the previous 3 inappropriate developments for this site that were all rejected by the majority of residents and unanimously rejected North Sydney Councillors at North Sydney Council Meetings.

The Stanton Precinct asks the NSW Government, Department of Housing, and Infrastructure to reject SSD -67175465, 173-179 Walker Street and 11-17 Hampden Street, North Sydney CBUS, and Galileo Group. The residents of our community want to maintain our quality of life and not be adversely impacted by a poor DA decision that will take away our amenity and result in a steep increase in mental health issues. We have worked hard for the privilege of living here. Please do not destroy what we have for the benefit are developers who focus on their profit at the expense of the residents who live near the East Walker Development Application.

Regards,

John Prentice
Chair, Stanton Precinct, North Sydney Council.

To whom it may concern,

I note the amended proposal. The amendments do not address any of my concerns. The proposal is now even taller than before. The reduction in parking spots does not solve the traffic flow issue. The legacy of this Project will be gridlock and a severe loss of amenity for existing residents, future residents and the adjacent school communities.

I still strongly object to the proposed residential development with affordable housing, East Walker Street, North Sydney. Application No.SSD-67175465.
Local conditions are not suited to this development proposal.

There is already limited public open space.

The loss of character and the amenity impacts would be detrimental to the area.

Inadequate traffic analysis from CBUS and Galileo in an area that already has peak hour and rainy-day traffic gridlock.

I live in a very compact residential area, across the road from the proposed East Walker development. This small area has already done the heavy lifting to increase the number of dwellings required to reduce the housing shortage in NSW.

The North Sydney CBD and the adjacent residential areas are already densely populated. The North Sydney Mayor Zoe Baker has said that North Sydney was already one of the densest councils in the state, and it had been “meeting and exceeding the housing density targets set by the state.” Baker said if the government would push housing higher in certain areas, they needed to explain “what they are going to be doing to support greater sewage capacity, open space, new schools and more hospitals.” As well as the potential lack of sewage capacity there are also issues with the higher demand on electricity, gas, water, broadband and 5G.

There is no capacity for the huge increase in dwellings for this East Walker site without adversely affecting the flow of traffic. We have traffic problems now at peak road demand times in the morning and evening. This current situation will only get worse when the list of approved developments near the East Walker site are completed.

The previous development proposal by CBUs and Galileo for this site located the entry and exit for the building in Hampden Street. The location of the entry and exit point is now opposite the entry and exit driveway for the building I live in. In the same small area, there is the entry and exit point for the Wilson Parking Station and the 21 Storey Century Plaza Building. There are also 2 clearways here. The new entry and exit point proposed for the East Walker garage (294 car spaces) is not functional and will cause further gridlock and loss of amenity and frustration for existing residents.

The adverse impact on traffic flow remains a major concern, made worse by the enlargement of the East Walker Project to 239 apartments.

The Berry St intersection (critical to the functioning of the new Western Harbour Tunnel) is the only point of ingress and egress to the East Walker site. The traffic light phases favour the Berry Street traffic flow. During peak hours, a small number of cars that can enter Berry Street between red lights.

The traffic submission by CBUs and Galileo for the previous DA made last time was theoretical nonsense and proven to be so by the empirical calculations that local residents have submitted previously.

The traffic lights will not be able to handle the increased traffic, exacerbated by the opening of 168 Walker Street (Aura) 395 apartments , the approved development at 45 McLaren 71 apartments, the new Reddam School at 41 McLaren Street (1500 students), the new Charles Sturt University Campus (with accommodation) at 77 Berry Street, and the doubling of students at Marist College (Miller Street) to 2,000 students by 2030.

The approved developments discussed above will increase apartment numbers (and car spaces) and create a large spike in student numbers that will only make our gridlock problem worse.

The East Walker Street, North Sydney Scoping Report is a massive development on an unsuitable site. The traffic flow during peak periods is already at gridlock.

We have already seen first responders having difficulty responding to smoke alarms during the peak traffic periods for Century Plaza (Corner of Berry Street and Walker Street). Do we have to have fatalities before the decision makers take this issue seriously? I hope not! The East Walker proposal will impede a functioning tunnel entrance for the Western Harbour Tunnel off Walker Street and Berry Street.

The proposed NSW Government Housing Policy should not be a one size fits all policy. This would not be practical or sensible and will impact the amenity and mental health of residents. Some sites are suitable for the affordable housing increase in dwelling density that is proposed. This point needs to be stressed. Not all sites are suitable, especially the East Walker proposal by CBUS and Galileo.

The East Walker site is not in the Tier One or Tier Two sites, – Accelerated Precincts. The Minns Labor Government has identified eight Sydney transport hubs for accelerated rezoning for the delivery of up to 47,800 new, well located, high and mid-rise homes over the next 15 years. These locations have been identified as being capable of accommodating new homes within existing enabling infrastructure.
North Sydney is not one of the transport Hubs identified. As mentioned previously, North Sydney has already done the density heavy lifting. The development of East Walker with the current proposal is over development. The Minns Government has selected Crows Nest. Crows Nest has more suitable, appropriate sites for CBUS and Galileo to consider, the current East Walker site is inappropriate for the many reasons discussed.
It is also questionable that this site is suitable for affordable housing. If the dwellings are to be truly affordable, they need to be built in other parts of the North Sydney LGA. Not in a prime location with soaring property values.
A last point to consider is the inappropriate scale and bulk of the current East Walker proposal. The previous CBUS and Galileo proposal was for a 3-storey building on Walker Street. This is now a massive, bulky 12-storey proposal. It detracts from the Heritage value of the adjacent Victorian era and Federation era buildings. The developers are using so-called “affordable housing” plans to destroy the amenity of a beautiful Precinct.

As you are already aware. “The NSW Government is developing a pattern book of endorsed building designs that can be used to guide the creation of new housing. The collection of designs will be for low-rise housing and mid-rise apartment buildings of up to 6 storeys. The pattern book will be a useful resource for developers, architects, planners, council, and the community. The book will give designs and guidelines for more high-quality, sustainable housing that suits the local area.” It would be appropriate for CBUS and Galileo to consider the pattern book in initiative, significantly reduce the bulk and scale of this proposal and actually collaborate with the local Community and North Sydney Council to build something appropriate for the East Walker site.

I ask the NSW Government, Department of planning to not approve this DA in its current form. The residents of our community seek to maintain our quality of life and not be adversely impacted by a poor planning decision that will lead to a drastic loss of amenity and a steep rise in mental health issues. The North Sydney area near the Victoria Cross Metro Station is at saturation point now!

Regards,


John Prentice

We have an apartment in "Aura" at 168 Walker Street North Sydney. Our objection to the development at 173-179 Walker Street stems from the severe impact it will have on our view and the increased volume of traffic the development will generate on Walker Street.

We currently have a view of Kurraba Point, Kirribilli, Fort Denison, Garden Island, Darling Point, Bondi Junction and harbour foreshore to Vaucluse. The development will obliterate from our view the iconic landmarks of Fort Denison, and Garden Island as well as the architecturally significant buildings of Bondi Junction, and Darling Point. The view from our living area and bedroom will be substantially impacted in a very negative way. As Aura is a recently completed building, only 40% occupied, there has not been prior opportunity for residents to assess the impact of the development from the perspective of actually living in their premises and to convey any objections.

As for vehicle traffic, the situation is already quite congested in Walker Street. The number of vehicles that will come with the development at 173-179 Walker Street will be at least 218 (this does not include vehicles belonging to residents in apartments without on site parking, nor motorcycles, nor does it include delivery /service vehicles ). This (increased) number of vehicles will all need to access the (narrow) divided road junction on Walker Street approaching Berry Street. This has the potential to make traffic congestion substantially worse.

The development should be scaled back to minimise the impact on existing residents.

I object to the project

Scale of Development - it will literally overwhelm every other nearby building due to its horrendous monolithic construction and insulting as it represents minor changes to previous submission. It has not taken into account the issues raised before, including but not limited to:
1) Loss of Vista and Views - there will be unacceptable view loss and shadowing to hundreds of apartments, including our building. - see attached.
2) Economic Loss - my property value will be negatively and unfairly impacted from this grossly oversized development.
3) Affordable Housing - this positioning of the proposal adds little or no value to the amenity of North Sydney – it is a ‘high end’ real estate build.
4) Traffic Congestion - current traffic challenges will be significantly amplified; the area cannot sustain what is already in place let alone add to its demise with the proposed development.
5) Lack of Public Interest - it is an ill-considered greedy, flawed commercial attempt to steal current residents of their hard-earned amenity and lifestyle, under the cynical guise of ‘affordable housing’.

Hi, I'm the owner of this place.
My family and I have just moved in Sydny this August and are looking forward to goo the future time. We have faith in the development of North Sydney Council and trust in the NSW government, and we love the water view here, which is very relaxing when I see it from my home. So we decided to use all our family savings to purchase here.
We were shocked and disappointed to learn about the development of this proposed building. I strongly objected to this development, which completely blocked my precious view and that of the neighbors of the whole building. The loss of our building will have an irreversible impact on our lives and property values. It has also had an impact on my family's harmony now, and I am experiencing bad anxiety and tension on a daily basis.
This building is too tall and too wide, please make sure to re-examine and re-consider the design of the development of this building to minimize the impact on the quality of life and living of the original residents around it.

See attachment

See attached file.

The new exhibition changes are very minor and my previous submission objecting to this proposal stands in full.

As a new owner at Aura, I'm disappointed to learn about the new development next door to us. The plan for such a high rise is not in the interest to any neighbouring property owner. I strongly object to this plan.
Thank you for hearing our concerns in this matter.
Kind Regards,
Walter Keller.

I object to the project as it is to tall, blocking my view to Sydney Harbour, which I paid a lot of money for. I had trouble making a submission online and had to do it via email, which was troublesome (not sure how many people gave up!). I am happy for it to be medium rise and not hinder my view of Sydney Harbour.
Thank you

As a nearby resident I wish to object to this proposal.
I feel that the sheer height at 30 storeys of the main building [B1] is completely unsuitable for this particular location. There is a line of heritage houses to the north of the site and in quite close proximity with Hampden St being a relatively narrow street. To the west and south are apartment buildings of considerably lower height . At 30 storeys Building B1 will tower over all these surrounding structures and also being at the bottom of the gully its position will feel completely out of context with the surrounding land form and buildings. Regardless of what materials and design the outer surface of the building is given its sheer height, mass and location on the site will be a terrible eyesore for the local community every day into the future. It will be so dominant and so out of place in the immediate local landscape.
Equally important is the amount of shadow created and loss of light and sunlight for the people living in the surrounding streets and area as well as all the people passing along these streets whether on foot or in cars. Light and sunlight have an uplifting effect on people's emotions and well being and placing such an extraordinary tall building at the bottom of a gully [ an area by its nature given to more shadow] as opposed to say up the side or on top of a hill or raised area, is in my opinion a poor decision to make. In this respect alone it will have such a detrimental effect on all the people living in the vicinity.
Then there are the issues of the hundreds of newly arrived residents and their vehicles accessing the building from what seems to me to be relatively narrow streets [ Hampden and that section of Walker St ] . I'm no traffic management expert but it seems to me like a recipe for traffic congestion and hassles for the people negotiating those streets in their cars etc as well as the service vehicles such as garbage trucks , emergency vehicles and general delivery vehicles needing access. And not to mention the parking problems for the people with houses on the other side of Hampden St.
And lastly but not least , Building B1 , again because of its height and mass, may well create new and exacerbate existing wind channels that rush up the hill from the harbour on many days . The wind can already be very strong and brings sand and dust from surrounding building works and the Warringah Expressway but if it gets funnelled around the sides of the proposed tall building [and with nothing in front to block or diffuse it as the wind very often comes up from the south east over the expressway], then it will be even stronger and more erratic and unpleasant.

I am strongly objecting to this development. It is much to big and much too high. Going from small buildings with lower profiles to a 30 story building will make a huge unfortunate impact on the North Sydney local area.
The positioning of this building will create a massive wall dominating the area, which will destroy views and subsequently, property value for 1000's of residents in the local area not to mention, cause excessive traffic issues. The traffic from Mclaren Street and walker street is already an issue with the Reddam school development and it will only get worse and cause major gridlock getting onto the harbour bridge if this unreasonable development goes ahead.
I can't imagine who, in the local area could allow this type of development. Any new developments should be significantly lower and follow the fall of the land to ensure everyone retains their views and property value. It is the only fair solution.
This proposal only benefits the developer and nobody else. It is not an attractive development for our beautiful lower North Shore and it will negatively impact many local residents and the skyscrape of the Lower North Shore.
Please consider the impact this type of development could make on this area.
I am happy to discuss this further if necessary.
Yours Sincerely,
Ingrid E Ambrose

Are you kidding me or is it a joke. Affordable housing in North Sydney? The traffic will be chaotic and a nightmare. The proposed building is simply too big and too high.

The size of the project continues to be too large for the parcel of land. Even with reduced parking spots the road access to the site is not adequate and will cause safety concerns.
Given the nature of the proposal it is essential to hold a public hearing into the updated proposal.

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a resident of The Vantage, 229 Miller Street, North Sydney, I write to voice my strong opposition to the proposed residential development at East Walker Street. This project would directly impact my daily life and the well-being of our community. I urge the Department to consider the following objections.

1. Scale of Development
The proposed structure’s enormous, monolithic scale would severely disrupt the character of our neighborhood. Its height and bulk overshadow neighboring buildings and erode the area’s unique aesthetic appeal. For those of us living at 229 Miller Street, this development would introduce a visually oppressive element to our environment, clashing with the existing architectural balance and creating an unwelcome atmosphere.

2. Loss of Vista and Views
The proposed development would lead to significant view loss and shadowing, affecting the amenity of many nearby residences, including mine. The building’s bulk would obstruct sunlight and vistas, diminishing the open, light-filled ambiance we currently enjoy at 229 Miller Street. These visual impacts would detract significantly from the quality of life for residents, many of whom rely on the area’s natural light and scenic views as an essential aspect of their homes.

3. Economic Impact on Property Values
The oversized nature of this development threatens property values in the surrounding area, including 229 Miller Street. The proposed building’s out-of-character design risks undermining the distinctive appeal of our neighborhood, devaluing properties that were purchased based on North Sydney’s established charm and liveability. This project would unfairly penalize long-standing residents by decreasing the value of their hard-earned investments.

4. Affordable Housing Claims
Although the development purports to provide affordable housing, it appears more aligned with high-end real estate objectives than genuine community needs. As a long-term resident, I find it hard to believe this project will address affordable housing issues meaningfully. Rather, it seems poised to cater to premium buyers, offering little benefit to the North Sydney community and failing to support residents’ broader welfare.

5. Exacerbated Traffic Congestion
Traffic congestion is already a significant concern for the residents near Walker Street, and the addition of this oversized development will exacerbate these issues further. Walker Street is one of only two main roads linking North Sydney to the Harbour Bridge, making it an essential thoroughfare for both local and commuter traffic. With the current volume already straining its capacity, the addition of this proposed development will place an unsustainable burden on the street's traffic flow. Compounding this issue, existing residential buildings and the newly built school on McLaren Street are already intensifying congestion in the area. Introducing such a large-scale development on Walker Street will significantly worsen traffic conditions, leading to increased delays, safety risks for pedestrians and drivers, and a diminished quality of life for residents in the surrounding areas. The infrastructure simply cannot support the additional demand this development would impose.

6. Noise Pollution and Disruption
As a resident who has endured continuous developments surrounding 229 Miller Street since at least 2020, I am particularly sensitive to the increase in noise pollution this new project will inevitably bring. Constant construction noise has been an ongoing issue, and the addition of another large-scale project will prolong and intensify this disruption. Residents deserve relief from the ceaseless noise, which impacts daily life, work-from-home arrangements, and overall mental well-being. This development would perpetuate and amplify the noise burden our community has already borne for years.

Having endured nearly 4 consecutive years of relentless construction noise surrounding 229 Miller Street, the prospect of further disruption from yet another large-scale project is deeply concerning. This constant noise has affected my daily life, work, and overall well-being, leaving me with little respite. If this proposed development proceeds and extends the noise and disturbance I have already suffered, I will seriously consider moving away from North Sydney altogether. The ongoing noise pollution has reached an unsustainable level, and the continuation of this environment would compromise my ability to enjoy my home and neighborhood.

7. Lack of Public Interest
This proposal prioritizes commercial interests over community welfare, and it does not genuinely serve the public interest. Cloaked as an affordable housing project, it appears to be primarily aimed at maximizing profit at the expense of the surrounding community’s amenity and lifestyle. As a resident, I am dismayed by the thought of yet another project that disregards local residents’ needs and sacrifices our neighborhood’s character and quality of life for financial gain.

Conclusion
In light of the adverse impacts outlined above—on scale, views, property values, traffic, noise, and public interest—this proposal represents a serious threat to the North Sydney community. I respectfully urge the Department to reject this project in favor of developments that align with our community’s needs and character, supporting rather than compromising the lifestyle we cherish.

Thank you for considering these concerns.

Sincerely,
Siyu Zhang
U604/229 Miller Street
North Sydney, NSW 2060

I object to this proposal on the basis submitted documents are fraudulent and misleading. The architect designs do not include / allow for the approved (but not yet commenced) development at 45 McLaren St, which substantially and significantly alter / change the impacts for all neighboring impacted existing properties, including 41 McLaren St, 37-39 McLaren St, the new Aqualand development at 168 Walker St and all properties along Miller St facing East / North East. As the proposal designs stand, the overshadowing, loss of natural sunlight, loss of privacy and loss of visual amenities are more significant when viewed from other units than those used to distort these impacts. When the proposed building at 45 McLaren St is included /overlayed, ALL the visual amenities and access to natural light shown in the proposed approval documents will disappear, thus making the proposed development untenable. The failure to include the development at 45 McLaren St has obviously been done intentionally to downplay the impacts on existing buildings and will result in no less than extreme to severe loss of overshadowing, loss of natural sunlight, loss of privacy and loss of visual amenities. I request the proposed documents be rejected, and the developer requested to resubmit showing the inclusion of the development at 45 McLaren St. This will show the true end result of this development being approved which significantly changes the claims made that it will preserve some visual amenities, sunlight and privacy and show they are being eroded and removed in full. Then, and only then, can this development be assessed in its entirety and the impact on existing buildings and local neighborhoods, not to mention those who recently purchased expensive units in the area which will see them lose significant views and money on their properties value.

The updates to the plans will have a negative impact on residents. Firstly the increase in building height will impact sunlight and airflow for existing residents. Secondly with the increase in residents will be negatively impacted by the decrease in car parking (-76) and motorcycles (-8) thereby exascerbating the current parking and traffic problems.

Fundamental to the residents on hand is the ability to live in a safe environment without excessive traffic and parking issues. This development impacts both of those requirements. As a consistent taxpayer and resident within the area, the inclusion of additional residents and traffic, we will have negative impact on all.

Finally, whilst affordable housing is required, the inclusion of this will potentially impact crime and safety for existing residents. The inclusion of affordable housing will reduce overall prices for primary assets for all residents. Why should existing residents who have paid multi millions for developments and upkeep for the area be negatively impacted?

As such I strongly object to this development and hope that it is stopped.

The site is manifestly unsuitable for the development on all planning grounds

I am objecting to the 'resubmission' of this CBUS property proposal. The new exhibition changes are very minor and therefore the previous submission on this proposal and concerns I have on its impact to my local community where my family lives and our property we reside stands in full. I have therefore inserted my original objection submission again.



This proposal is in its fourth iteration of this development attempt in five years. This time pivoting to focus on the new in-fill affordable housing changes, the proposal attempts to impose a 30 storey luxury 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 and withdrawn attempt by the applicant (CBUS Properties) to further the case in the Land and Environment Court. The proposal is completely out of character with the neighbourhood and impacting more than 1000 dwellings in Walker, Hampden, McLaren, Miller and Berry Streets with loss of solar access, loss of residential amenity, major view loss and other issues, and is not in the public or local community interest. It involves a major and significant increase over surrounding building heights with no attempt at height transition whatsoever.



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, from my personal daily experience, 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 with no scope for turning circle due to a heritage protected median garden strip

• 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

• The Walker Street/Berry Streets intersection has constant high traffic pressure it does not cope with now at peak period (with work commuters and two main school nearby it’s a gridlocked)

• First responder access would be impacted significantly based the proposal

• Access for construction vehicle access would be difficult if not impossible



In addition, future traffic pressure has not been taken into account:

• The new Aqualand development at 168 Walker with 386 apartments is ignored

• The 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

• The 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.



I am an owner and resident of an apartment in Vantage. I purchased this property for the open views and light the apartment provides. This project in its current design will significantly impact both these aspects that my family enjoys and values about our home. The view analysis does not adequately respond to, or understates this view loss. This loss will ultimately have a negative impact property values the project significantly effects. 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.



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 with the rezoning of this site and the excessive change to this zoning height allowance, 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 and the local community.



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.



Given the above reasons outlined for consideration, I object strongly to the project and request further clarification and redesign is needed to ensure the outlined impacts to local residents (including myself and family) and the community are reconsidered in the best interest of surrounding residences, public and shared spaces of our neighbourhood.