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

1. Scale of Development - it will literally overwhelm every other nearby building due to its horrendous monolithic construction – see attached picture.
2. Loss of Vista and Views - there will be unacceptable view loss and shadowing to hundreds of apartments, including The Belvedere, The Heritage, McLaren Apartments, The Harvard, Vantage Residences, and The Miller.
3. Economic Loss - property values will be negatively and unfairly impacted from this grossly oversized development – particularly the neighbouring Heritage Terraces, which will be totally compromised.
4. Affordable Housing - this positioning of the proposal is misleading as a start. Furthermore, it adds little or no value to the amenity of North Sydney – it is a ‘high end’ real estate build.
5. Severe 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.
6. 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’.

I am submitting my objections as below:

This project proposal marks the fourth attempt in five years to develop a 30-story high-rise on low-rise land. Despite prior rejections by the North Sydney Council, a Planning Consultant, the NSLPP, and even the Land and Environment Court, the developer is pushing forward. The plan is widely seen as incompatible with the neighbourhood, affecting over 1,000 residences on nearby streets. Expected issues include reduced sunlight, compromised residential appeal, significant view losses, and negative impacts on the community.

Traffic Concerns

Traffic congestion is a major issue near the site. The development lies on a one-way lane that leads to a dead end, and the adjacent streets are already under strain. There are serious concerns about access for emergency and construction vehicles. Additionally, future traffic demand from new developments and infrastructure projects has not been fully addressed.
View, Solar Access, and Heritage Impact

The proposed high-rise will block prominent views for surrounding residences, violating the Tenacity principles on view loss. Significant overshadowing will also affect nearby buildings, especially those on Walker Street. The development is also across from Victorian terraces, which could be detrimentally impacted.

Lack of Adequate Documentation

The current reports lack in-depth analysis and do not account for future area developments. The previously issued North Planning Panel approval set specific conditions, like a maximum 8-story secondary building, which this proposal disregards.
In-Fill Affordable Housing SEPP Misuse

The proposal exploits affordable housing provisions to justify additional luxury apartments, which contradicts the intent of these regulations.

My earlier submission still stands as written on the same subject and project.
The additional objections I would like to add is the sham of offering as a sweetener, affordable living to Government in order to appeal to the pockets the coffers of the State and heartless heart strings, in order t slip this through at the expense of 2060 residents.
Not to mention the so called streamlining modifications, by moving the building a useless amount to enable the claim of modification as an atempt to satisfy the protests. All my earlier statements on record stand, and the other statements made cannot be said better by me. Therefore I fully support these reiterations of mine and my fellow residents and objectors. If for any reason you reject this objection please advise.
regards,
Ivor and Akemi Endicott-Davies

Dear Sir/Madam

I want to express my objection to the proposed development application: Residential with Affordable Housing - East Walker St, North Sydney (SSD-671754465) with high-density residential development in the already crowded North Sydney local government area, based on several key concerns:

1. Infrastructure Strain: The increased population density will place considerable pressure on existing infrastructure, including roads, public transport, water supply, sewage systems, and waste management. This strain could lead to overuse, inefficiencies, and potential breakdowns of essential services.


2. Traffic Congestion: More residents will inevitably lead to increased traffic, longer commute times, more pollution, and further pressure on the public transport system, all of which will make the area less livable.


3. Overcrowded Public Services: Local schools, hospitals, and other public services are already stretched to their limits. Adding more residents will only exacerbate this overcrowding, leading to longer wait times and reduced quality of care and education.


4. Noise Pollution: With more people comes more noise, which will disrupt the peace and quiet of the area, especially during construction and as the development becomes fully occupied.


5. Parking Shortages: Increased population density will worsen parking problems, making it harder for both residents and visitors to find parking, and likely leading to illegal parking and further disruptions.


6. Quality of Life: The overall quality of life for current residents will be negatively impacted due to increased noise, traffic, overcrowded services, and a reduction in available public amenities and green spaces.


7. Public Opinion: Many members of the local community are opposed to this development. It is crucial that the concerns and wishes of residents be considered and addressed, as public opposition to the project is strong and well-founded.

Kind regards

I am writing to lodge my continuing objection to this project. The updated submission failed to address any of the concerns expressed by residents and the development remains out of character for the area, the height dwarfing all the surrounding buildings and cutting out all sunlight to my unit. This project is clearly trying to use the affordable housing provisions to bulldoze through a development that is not warranted and has objections from hundreds of residents and Council. It will lead to reduction in sunlight for many residents in the area, drive more traffic to an area already over saturated and will remove one of the few green areas that still exist.

On Monday 4 November I received notification from the Department that a response to previous submissions had been received and that the Department had commenced its assessment. On Friday 8 November I received notification from the Department that the proposal had been re-exhibited. Given that the re-exhibition involves only very minor changes this makes no sense. I am sure that there are legal requirements that require the Department to follow proper procedural requirements. On this occasion it appears the Cbus is playing the Department and winning.

The changes are so minor that they do not deserve re-exhibition, let alone further comment from me.

I strongly object to this proposal and request that my previous submission is reconsidered in full.

This proposal is arrogant and litigious in that it is the fifth iteration of this development attempt in five years and does not merit re-exhibition by the Department due to the incredibly minor amendments made.

Still 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 solar access, loss of residential amenity, major view loss and other issues, 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.

MAJOR SITE ACCESS AND TRAFFIC ISSUES

The adjacent road network is already incapable of supporting existing traffic. The major Walker/Berry intersection is only 50 metres away. The traffic report fails to analyse the impact of the extra vehicles generated, queueing, double yellow lines, and does not acknowledge the Berry and Miller Street intersection not the limited exit routes for the precinct. This is because it is not possible to address these items when the only access is a SINGLE LANE.

- 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 from the following developments:
- the new Aqualand development at 168 Walker with 386 apartments is ignored
- 14 storey residential at 45 McLaren Street
- The new Reddam School in McLaren Street commencing in January 2025
- 57 storey building at 110 Walker Street
- 42 storey building over Victoria Cross Station
- 48 storey building at 100 Walker Street
- 26 storey building at 71 Walker Street
- a planning proposal for a 44 storey building at 157 Walker Street
- the Western Harbour Tunnel impacts and on-ramp and their effects on the intersection

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

MAJOR VIEW LOSS

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 the case of Vantage, this view loss is total and Main Harbour Views are lost to residents of this very new building. 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 severe 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 are also ignored.

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.


It must be noted by the Department that a previous SNPP approval was highly specific and requires 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 has previously 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 increase 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.

SEARS

The Planning Secretary’s SEARS document contains many highly specific requirements which require proper and serious responses , not box-ticking. These requirements are policy and must be upheld and fully and properly measured against the proponent’s responses.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development, as a resident living directly behind the project site. This development poses numerous personal and community-wide concerns that directly impact my home and neighborhood.

1. Overwhelming Scale of Development:
This building's massive, monolithic design will dominate our surroundings, reducing the sense of balance and community in the area. As someone who looks out daily on the landscape, it’s disheartening to think of it being overshadowed by such an imposing structure. This proposal would significantly alter the character of our neighborhood and our connection to it.

2. Loss of Vista and Views:
This building would cast significant shadows over not only my apartment but also hundreds of others, including The Belvedere, The Heritage, McLaren Apartments, The Harvard, Vantage Residences, and The Miller. The view loss and shadowing will be considerable, stripping away the openness, natural light, and views that are central to my quality of life here.

3. Economic Impact on Property Values:
The drastic change in our area’s landscape and livability will unfairly impact our property values. As an owner directly adjacent to this project, I am gravely concerned that my home’s value will suffer. For many of us, our homes are our most significant investments, and this project risks devaluing them in a way that feels entirely unjust.

4. Lack of Genuine Affordable Housing:
This project is being marketed under the guise of "affordable housing," but in reality, it offers little to the local community in terms of affordability or accessibility. Instead, it appears to cater to a high-end market, adding no real value to North Sydney’s amenity or diversity and failing to meet the area’s actual housing needs.

5. Increased Traffic Congestion:
As someone who navigates these streets daily, I am already familiar with the traffic challenges in this area. This development would bring even more vehicles and congestion to an already overstressed infrastructure. The resulting traffic would not only make my own commute more difficult but would degrade the accessibility and livability of the entire neighborhood.

6. Threat to Community and Lifestyle:
This development feels like a commercial move that overlooks the needs and well-being of existing residents. It compromises the peace, amenity, and sense of community that we have worked hard to cultivate. The proposal disregards the lifestyle we value here, all under a superficial justification of creating "affordable housing."

In summary, this project would fundamentally disrupt my home, my quality of life, and the community that I cherish. I urge decision-makers to consider the perspectives of the people who already call this area home and to seek alternative approaches that respect North Sydney's identity and sustainable growth.

Thank you for your attention to this matter

1. The scale of development will overshadow and overwhelm every other nearby building due to its height and construction surrounds. The development needs to be reduced by half at best and become low rise rather than high rise.
2. There construction will result in loss views and vista to already constructed buildings. There will be unacceptable view loss and shadowing to hundreds of apartments, including The Belvedere, The Heritage, McLaren Apartments, The Harvard, Vantage Residences, and The Miller. It is not only the view that will be lost but also natural sunlight. Impacting on energy efficiency of all other buildings requiring to run air conditioning and high amounts of electricity to heat and cool all year round.
3. The construction of this building will result in economic loss. Property values will be negatively and unfairly impacted from this grossly oversized development. Particularly the neighboring Heritage Terraces, which will be totally compromised.
4. 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 meaning that you cannot possibly rent out the apartments or houses affordability.
5. The construction will impact highly on 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.
6. At no time has there been any public interest in building this development . It is an ill-considered flawed commercial attempt to steal current residents of their hard-earned amenity and lifestyle. No person living in the area wants a multi story high towered business or apartment residence. There are presently plenty already there .

Objections must be taken into serious consideration. Slightly altering one or two things is not going assist. The height simply needs to be scaled right back to give everyone a fair chance.

- 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.

This is to strongly object to this development on the following grounds:

1) As a new owner and resident of the Aura building at 168 Walker Street (only since July 2024), I have not had the benefit of making submissions throughout the entire development application process for this project.

2) The size of the proposed building is clearly out of character with this part of North Sydney. While my new building (Aura at 168 Walker Street), could be considered similarly large, it is clear that Aura replaced a long-standing similar building, whereas the proposed development replaces 2-story buildings with a 30-storey building.

3) It is completely unreasonable that the proposed building, being the last and largest development in the immediate area, destroys the views, amenity and subsequently the property value for every existing owner in buildings to the west of it. Only one entity (the developer) will benefit; which is at the clear expense of thousands of existing owners/residents.

4) In conjunction with the new Reddam School and the development on 41 McLaren Street, increased and excessive traffic volumes on the narrowest part of Walker Street will be guaranteed to cause gridlock in the local area (road closures and single lane alternating traffic during construction, and sheer volume thereafter).

I could agree to a development on this site if it was significantly lower than currently proposed and in keeping with the contour of the land and surrounding properties rather than dominate in such a prominent location. As the land falls away going east, it is only reasonable that the buildings match the fall rather than increase in height against the contour. It is incomprehensible that such a development could be approved, or even contemplated, when it blatantly negatively impacts so many local residents.

Please consider the above in making a sensible, fair and reasonable determination for this development.

I am more than pleased to discuss this matter with anyone at DPHI.

Yours truly
Karl Eric Holmberg

Unsurmountable congestion problem on Walker Street, as evident with the current situation during peak hour.
The new school on Walker street will come into operation in Jan 2025, which definitely will add volume to peak hour traffic.
The CBus proposal will break the camel's back.
One should be clear that Walker street is a main feeder to the Harbor Bridge,
The local residents cannot afford to have it being further compromised.

The proposed building is way too large and too high. The area is over populated and the schools and community services are struggling already.
The new neighbouring mixed use building on Walker St 'Aura' has just been completed and the new residents are just now moving in so have not had an oportunity to make a submission about this building proposal. The building will block all harbour views and solar access to surrounding residents.

The building is far too high, blocking views from 168 Walker Street. It is out of context with the other high rise buildings on Walker Street. The proposed building should be scaled back on height and bulk to be more in keeping with Walker Street.

I reference: Residential development with affordable housing - East Walker Street, North Sydney (SSD-67175465).
This new submission by Cbus Property R3 Pty Ltd, Galileo Group and Platform Property Services makes the most minor changes to the proposal and in no way addresses the very valid concerns previously put forward in my objection (SE-73410547, 16 July 2024).
Therefore, I continue to strongly object on the grounds that I stated in my previous submission:
1. it is a gross overdevelopment of the site and will increase traffic to an intolerable and unsustainable level, 2. that "affordable housing" is totally inappropriate in an increasingly unaffordable suburb,
Margaret Rajaratnam.

The proposed project is substaintialy taller than all the building in the area, including the adjacent Century Tower, the apartment blocks on the other side of the Walker Street, apartment blocks on Miller Street.

Habour View: As the site has the frontage to the habour view, it should be much lower than all the other buildings on the west side of the Walker Street. This will allow the sunlight and habour view to be shared among North Sydney residents.

Traffic: Just on Walker Street/McLaren Street, there are 2 schools Wenona & Redham House (1200 & 1340), the peak hour traffic. There are also 5 other high rise apartments. Walker Street is the main route connected to the city and M2, to North Shore, Northern Beaches, to Mosman. It doesnt have the capacity to accomondate more cars from the new housing proposal and it's services cars (deliveries, maintainence).

North Sydney Council objected to the proposal and expressed it's inability to support the development on various level.

The development needs to be scaled down, particularly in height.

The proposed new Building is far too high for this Upper Walker Street Area . This street is a leafy largely residential area and this building would be more suitable where one would expect to find in downtown North Sydney. I understand the development seeks to cut down a number of significant trees which again I object to. I am a new resident to Aura as are most of us. We have only recently been able to move in and so the Aura property is still only 40% occupied. As the new residents arrive they will do so after the submission close off date. As such they will have no capacity to lodge objections similar to mine. Much of the purchase value of the residents of Aura centers around the views of significant landmarks like the Opera house and the top of the Harbor bridge. These will all be blocked by this significant 30 storey structure and thus have an adverse affect on what Aura residents bought into. Such developments will make the area less attractive to would be investors and residences. Respectfully request you consider the size and the heights suggested for the new development. While the Aura residences will still have light , those properties directly West (many of of them residential) will be completely blocked from natural sunlight for large portions of the day.

This project gonna destroy the view of my apartment

Being a new resident at 168 Walker Street in the Aura Building. This new development will impact our building significantly. It is far too high and bulky in appearance and will take away the more open and warm residential feel of upper Walker Street.
Is there any way this proposed building could be made somewhat lesser in height as it will spoil what is now a reasonable looking part of Upper Walker landscape.
If this goes ahead as proposed it will detract new investment from residents hoping to buy in the area and enjoy a lesser built up community.
This Street is not the business area of downtown Nth Sydney. It is residential and needs to be better preserved and protected for this reason….. Paul Pervan

I am a resident living on Walker Street close to the proposed project. The 30-storey building, despite the amended design, is still too big and too high for the neighbourhood. It will continue to block sunlight and views for nearby houses and apartments and the large increase of cars will continue to worsen traffic for the area. The removal of one basement level is insufficient to solve the problem. Suggest that the design of the building should be further revised to cater for community need and minimise impact to the neighbourhood.