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

1. Will create more major traffic problem from the current traffic situation
2. Lost the heritage building which is very valuable for next generation
3. Obstruct the view of current building/apartment

The proposed development is excessive in height and bulk relative to the surrounding area. The immediate roads are already heavily congested. The proposal uses affordable housing in an to attempt to add justification to its case but exceeds bulk, height and size beyond its SNPP approval so thereby attempts to bypass planning laws. This is greed and does nothing to add to the amenity of the area. First responder access is poor at the very least and the proposal will block sunlight as well as views of around 1000 dwellings of immediate neighbours. The proposal has undergone several iterations as well as submissions and each time seeks to subvert the local councils and state planning laws.

I object to the Residential Development with affordable housing- East Walker Street, North Sydney proposal – submissions number SUB 74161976.

The current proposal attempts to leverage affordable housing provisions to exceed bulk, height and scale even beyond its previous SNPP approval by imposing a 28 storey high rise tower plus a 12 storey building in a valley floor of low rise housing. The proposal is completely out of character with the neighbourhood with major traffic impact, loss of solar access, loss of residential amenity and major view loss. It involves a major and significant increase over surrounding building heights with no attempt at height transition whatsoever.

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

I also request that if Planning Committee approves the DA then the changes to the DA and conditions of approval outlined below be included in the Development Approval.
I wish to raise the following changes to the DA or conditions of approval
1. The set back of the tower building.
2. Preservation of trees on development site
3. The loss of television reception
4. Dilapidation Report
5. Alternative vehicle access to proposed development
6. Amending exiting parking restrictions
7. Destruction of Heritage Neighbourhood
8. Construction dirt and dust

1. Set back of the tower building
The current building at the corner of Hampden and Walker is less than 40m from my verandah in Hampden Street. We submit that
• The tower is in the wrong location and should be located at the southern end of the development site and
• If its location cannot be moved greater set back from Hampden Street should be a condition of approval so that a green wall can be grown
Having a 28 storey tower less 40m than front your front entrance has a huge impact on our emotional well being. All privacy will be lost. We will need to have our curtains closed all the time as tower residents will have an unrestricted view into our bedroom due to the loss of jacarandas on the development site. This will have a large impact on our mental and emotional state as we will no longer being able to enjoy natural light.

We bought a private terrace almost 10 years ago in a quiet neighbourhood. This has been impacted over the years by recent and proposed developments whilst council maintains the illusion that I live in a peaceful heritage neighbourhood.

2. Preservation of trees
The current landscape plan indicate the mature jacarandas on the corner of Walker and Hampden Street as having a medium retention value. In addition to the privacy they offer particularly 2 and 4 Hampden Street from the existing buildings and from the street they are true North Sydney icons that regular attract photographers and visitors each November. Their retention will help soften the new development from street level and from the neighbours. We object to their removal.

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment says “Trees 12, 29, 32 and 35 are given medium retention values and have major or total incursions to their TPZ’s that requires their removal to support the proposed development”. There is no consideration of the impact of removing these jacarandas on the neighbourhood.

We request that no approval is given to remove or substantially prune the exiting jacaranda in the Hampden Street median strip garden.

3. The loss of television reception
Hampden street residents free to air TV reception is currently from the Kings Cross transmitter as 168 Walker Street successfully blocks reception from the Artarmon transmitter.
We request that the Planning Committee makes one of the development conditions that the developer ensures that neighbours TV reception is not impacted by strength or quality by the development. Residents of Hampden Street should not be out of pocket to ensure they can access free to air TV.

4. Dilapidation Report
We note that the Developer will provide adjoining residents with a Dilapidation Report. I note that I requested this in a submission on the 168 Walker Street Development. Council determined that this report was not necessary.
The large excavation for that site has caused a large number of cracks throughout my terrace which are my responsibility due to Council’s negligence in not requiring the developer to do dilapidation reports on my home.
We need certainty from NSC and the State Government that I am compensated for any damage resulting from the proposed development.

5. Loss of parking stops
The removal of all parking (11 spots) in lower Walker Street and a number in Hampden Street has an enormous impact on the quality of life and amenity (as well as a loss of value) for all Hampden Street terrace residents who are dependent on access to street parking.

P17 of Transport and Accessibility Impact Assessment Table 5 – Hampden Street Hampden Street Road Classification Local Road Alignment East / West Number of Lanes 1 lane (splits into two) Carriageway Type Un-divided Carriageway Width 6.4 metres Speed Limit 50 kph School Zone No Parking Controls Combination of 2P, No Parking and Motorcycle Parking Only restrictions Site Frontage Yes

6. Existing parking restrictions
The current parking restrictions on Walker Street are 2 hours from 8.30am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday. With the removal of up 11 parking spots we request that NSC council amend the existing parking on Walker Street between Hampden Street and Mclaren Street to 1 hour from 8.30 to 10 pm Monday to Sunday. The same restriction should apply in Hampden Street.
A condition of approval should be access to visitor parking in the new development to Hampden Street residents and guests.

7. Destruction of Heritage Neighbourhood
The current proposal destroys the amenity, privacy and ambiance of the Hampden neighbourhood. A 28 storey tower and 12 storey block will dominate the street scape and the views from our balconies. Currently when I walk out the front do see trees, shortly in will be concrete and glass in all directions.

The much quoted ‘heritage stone wall’ is now sprayed concrete, another illusion that the area has heritage significance. All that is left is 7 old terraces which according to NSC records have no historical significance. They are just old as were the apartments at 173 to 177 Walker Street.

We request that the heritage listing of the terraces be reviewed as part of the approval process.

8. Construction dirt and dust

The development site is South of the Hampden terraces. The demolition and excavation will cause a large amount of dirt and dust to fall on our homes and our cars.
I request that NSC as a condition of approval that the Developer
• Engages contractors to clean the exterior of all terraces including walls, windows and roofs at the end of the excavation stage and at the conclusion of development
• Provides car washing vouchers to Hampden Street terrace residents on a quarterly basis until completion


The residents of the Hampden terrace will have no parking, no TV reception, no ambiance, no treescape from our verandas and front entrances and a diminished quality of life. The value of our properties are diminished by all the surrounding development.

Our preference is that there is no development. However if the development is approved then appropriate changes to the DA and conditions of approval (as outlined above) are in place to reduce the impact to ourselves and our neighbours in Hampden Street.

I have, along with my husband Maurice, made a previous submission to object to the development proposed for the area on the east side of Walker St.
This is my second objection
We live directly opposite the sight of the proposed development and have resided there for over ten years. Since the height limit was scratched I have accepted that there will be a new residential development but I had hopeful expectations that a developer with a conscious would be more sensitive to this tiny narrow part of Walker St and design appropriately for the block
- hopefully a design of some architectural significance and one that may enhance the beauty that was once North Sydney
- hopefully a tower that is not too wide or too tall and cumbersome to still allow corridors of sunlight to prevail on the street below
- hopefully a residence that allows for first responders to have easy access in and out
- hopefully a construction that has thought about how the pedestrian and car traffic will remain safe in an already seriously compromised street
- hopefully a design that is set back from the road to allow for trees to flourish
I could go on, but I do not see this happening in the present plans for the monstrously high and bulky tower of 30 floors proposed
BUT THEN
to add a wide bulky brutalist block of 12 floors to the southern end of this tower is ludicrous
This brutalist block will indeed block any outlook we ever had - completely and utterly - We will lose any privacy we enjoyed from our kitchen/lounge/dining areas and have already lost privacy to the north and west with previous developments. Not only will the view and privacy loss be severe but on a personal level we are bound to lose over 10-15% of the value of our home as assessed by real estate agents in the area.
North Sydney has been described recently in the Daily Telegraph and I quote: "North Sydney is the most expensive suburb in the city to work and raise a child, new analysis reveals" - this project in this position will not provide a comfortable solution for single persons or families - it will be a dismal place to live and it will be expensive
I accept that the council would like a sympathetic development on this block since the low rise apartment blocks were abandoned - but this is not a satisfactory solution - A low-rise of 4-6 storeys sympathetic to the heritage buildings to the north and west of the block and with beauteous gardens and limited allowance for further traffic would be a much more sensible outcome.
I do plead to whomsoever is making these mammoth decisions to consider the dire consequences of this development
- this over-sized brutal development should not proceed

yours sincerely
Wendy Gett OAM
(Attached are photos from the apartment living room one floor above ours)

The proposed development is outrageous in its size and the damage it will do to the existing area that already contains too many high-rise buildings. This development sits in an area where traffic is already a major problem and the road round and to the development is too narrow to allow any reasonable traffic flow that a development like this would create. The buildings would completely overshadow our pool and gardens as they will be to our north. The buildings will block out sun and views for far to many people living already in the area. I object strong to the size and coverage of the development. There is no allowance for open space which is sorely missing in this area.

I object to this 42 storey proposal.

This is now much larger than before, and is trying to use affordable housing as an excuse to build a 30 storey luxury tower.

A 30 storey building would ruin the existing low rise neighbourhood and impact traffic, sun and amenity of existing residents.

The traffic concern is very important. I already can’t leave or return to my apartment without encountering gridlock at peak hour or school times which a most of the day! With the new school at Reddam House this will only get worse.

There are also lots of developments very nearby coming on stream which which council can tell you about, which have not been taken into account in the traffic report, not to mention the Western Harbour Tunnel.

I have also been told by my neighbour that they will lose most of their view which she paid good money for. The amenity of the area will be lost forever if this is allowed to go ahead..

1. The developer has made numerous attempts for the proposal and has been rejected by relevant authorities in the past few years, now under the disguise of in-fill affordable housing, but nevertheless failed to address all aspects of planning requirements.
2. Contrary to the objectives of DCP, the requested height provides no transition of building heights from the existing development and the heritage area.
3. Contrary to the objectives of DCP, it will significantly reduce reasonable level of residential amenity of the surrounding area including natural and cultural heritage of the area.
4. Contrary to the provisions of DCP in relation to residential flat building development and the Area Character Statement for the Hampden Neighbourhood.
5. It will result in excessive overshadowing of neighbouring parks and properties and significantly reduce the hours of direct sunlight on all east-facing apartments in our building.
6. Loss of views, pleasant outlook and aspect from our building especially iconic harbour and district views to all east facing apartments in our building.
7. The proposal will have significant adverse impact on the already chaotic traffic on Walker Street by adding minimum 240 cars, in addition to the 300 cars from SAP development on the corner of McLaren, and a proposed school in the Harry Seidler building at 45 McLaren.
8. Walker street, north of Berry Street including West Street is a “car park” from 7am till about 9am and remains heavy during the day. This will lead to further safety and vehicle fume risks and environmental risks.
9. Finally, the bonus height would only allow 10 storeys from 8 storeys approval, not 12 storeys or 30 storeys.

Please attached submission

As a local resident of the area, I am writing to voice strong objections to the proposed development plan for the sight at East Walker Street, North Sydney, 2060.

The plan is completely preposterous and shows a complete disregard for the impact on the surrounding community. This is the fourth round in the last five years to try and impose such a proposal on the community, this time under the banner of affordable housing. These previous proposals have already been dismissed in a detailed private report to North Sydney Council by a Planning Consultant, by the NSLPP which outlined more than a dozen reasons for refusal, and later refused 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.

The proposal is completely out of character with the neighbourhood and would impact more than 1000 dwellings in Walker, Hampden, McLaren, Miller and Berry Streets with loss of solar access, loss of residential amenity and shall contribute to the existing traffic, parking and other logistical issues experienced in the area. This proposal is not in the public interest and should be rejected as it has been on previous occasions. The attached submission expands on the key areas in which the community shall be detrimentally impacted by the proposed development.

I object to this proposal which at 42 storeys is now much larger than all previous proposals for this site. The proposal is arrogant and litigious in that it is the fourth iteration of this development attempt since 2016. The proposed concept has previously 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 under deemed refusal, later withdrawn by them.

This time around it attempts to leverage affordable housing provisions to exceed bulk, height and scale even beyond its previous SNPP approval by imposing a 30 storey highrise tower plus a 12 storey building in what is a valley floor of lowrise housing. The proposal is completely out of character with the neighbourhood and impacts more than 1000 dwellings in Walker, Hampden, McLaren, Miller and Berry Streets with major traffic impacts, major loss of solar access, loss of residential amenity and major view loss. It involves a significant increase over surrounding building heights with no attempt at height transition whatsoever.

Major Traffic Impact

The adjacent local road network is already constricted and congested with constant queuing at the major Walker/Berry intersection only 50 metres away. The traffic report does not respond to this impact:

- the site is on a one-way lane which leads to a dead-end (photo attached)
- access to the site is extremely difficult northbound, and impossible 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 is effectively Highway 1 with constant high traffic pressure
- construction vehicle access would be impossible
- there is existing gridlock at peak hours and school times
- two major schools are within 100m
- ingress and egress from the precinct is already difficult with only two exits
- 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
- a new 14 storey residential approval across the road at 45 McLaren Street
- the new Reddam School in McLaren Street commencing in January 2025
- a new approved 57 storey building at 110 Walker Street
- a new 42 storey building under construction over Victoria Cross Station
- a 48 storey proposal at 100 Walker Street
- a 26 storey proposal at 71 Walker Street
- a planning proposal for a 44 storey building at 157 Walker Street
- Western Harbour Tunnel and on-ramp impacts and their effects on the intersection

Proper detailed traffic analyses, access and intersection modelling and performance, and impacts on existing residences is required.

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. Separate submissions will address this. View analysis does not adequately respond to, or understates, view loss. The proposal fails all four steps of the Tenacity principles (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140). 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 (photo attached)

The impossibility of access for this proposal is a critical issue. Extremely difficult first responder access or egress in any kind of emergency is a major health and safety issue 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 including Belvedere and The Heritage.

Heritage

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

Supporting Documents

Reports do not address previous submissions and objections, do not fully or properly take into account new developments in this area, and make false claims of “community engagement”. 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 28 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 to this point has failed residents. The past approval can viewed at:

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 separations
- A reduction in length along Walker Street – this proposal actually increases this length 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.

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 a 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 requirements are highly specific. These requirements are policy and must be upheld and fully and properly measured against the proponent’s responses. This application treats them as a box-ticking exercise.

Finally, the Department of Planning must note the unanimous very strong local consensus that the proposal is unacceptable, inappropriate, and not in the public interest. The proposal cannot be justified on planning principles, policy or process and is fatally flawed on very many separate grounds.

The proposal, now in its fourth iteration in five years and presented as affordable housing, seeks to build a 30-storey high-rise in a low-rise housing area. 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.

The applicant also unsuccessfully attempted to advance the case in the Land and Environment Court before withdrawing it. The proposal is out of character with the neighborhood, affecting over 1,000 dwellings on multiple streets by causing loss of solar access, residential amenity, and views. It is not in the public interest, significantly exceeds surrounding building heights, and lacks any height transition.

Street Congestion

The adjacent road network is already heavily congested, with constant traffic and queuing at the nearby Berry/Walker street intersection, just 50 meters away. The traffic report inadequately analyses the impact of additional vehicles and fails to recognize that Berry and Miller Streets are the only exit routes for the area.

- the site is on a one -way lane leading to a dead-end
- 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 waylane
 
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.

Solar Access

The proposal causes excessive overshadowing to surrounding dwellings, particularly affecting the 9-storey apartment building at 88 Berry Street and Century Plaza. It also blocks eastern and northern sunlight to other dwellings on Walker Street.
 

First Responder Access
First Responders impossible to 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.

View analysis

The proposal significantly impacts the major view corridor to the west, causing substantial view loss for hundreds of apartments, including Belvedere, The Heritage, McLaren Apartments, The Harvard, North, Vantage, and The Miller, with some experiencing total view loss. The view analysis inadequately addresses or understates this impact. 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.

Supporting Documents

The supporting documents fail to address previous submissions and objections and do not fully consider new developments in the area that are forthcoming. Proper and comprehensive reports are needed.

Heritage

The proposal is located across the road from a row of Victorian Terraces to the north, disrupting their neighborhood. It also impacts important heritage buildings to the west and a heritage-protected sandstone wall.

Past Planning Panel Approval

Despite significant issues, the Sydney North Planning Panel, under Minister Stokes and chairman Peter Debnam, approved a 29-storey building, dismissing 145 detailed objections from residents, other developers, and North Sydney Council. The Panel did not adequately present these objections to the developer, and its decision was cursory and undemocratic, highlighting a failure in the planning process for 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 required:

- A slender built form, which this proposal does not meet.
- 12m building separations, which this proposal does not provide.
- A reduction in length along Walker Street, whereas the length has increased.
- Avoidance of overshadowing to the south, but overshadowing is increased.
- An 8-storey maximum for the secondary building, now increased to 12 storeys.

These points are crucial in assessing the new proposal, as it violates the SNPP approval and the Department of Planning’s report. Additionally, the Department's Urban Design team raised serious concerns about floor plate sizes, solar access modeling, building bulk, and the design's impact on the view corridor. They were not satisfied with the detail for the proposed changes to the LEP, indicating a lack of support from the Department of Planning for the proposal.

The developer previously chose deemed refusal and lodged a case with the Land and Environment Court, which was later withdrawn. There is unanimous local consensus that the proposal is unacceptable and inappropriate. It cannot be justified on planning principles, policy, or process, and is fundamentally flawed on many grounds, running contrary to the public interest.

In-fill Affordable Housing SEPP

The proposal seeks to exploit the In-fill Affordable Housing SEPP to increase its luxury building to 30 storeys and raise the previous 8-storey approval to 12 storeys. However, the SEPP’s height bonuses are meant only for affordable housing, not for luxury apartments. This attempt to apply the bonus to luxury units is considered disingenuous. A merit assessment will reveal this strategy and separate the affordable housing component. Additionally, the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements, which include specific criteria, have not been properly addressed by the proponent and must be enforced.

Please find attached details of objections to the proposed development from D Andrews and J Andrews

I strongly object to this proposal on the grounds that this is the the fourth iteration of this development attempt since 2016, the proposed concept has previously been dismissed in a detailed private report to North Sydney Council by a Planning Consultant, it has been rejected by the NSLPP which listed more than a dozen reasons for refusal, and in turn rejected by North Sydney Council itself. There was also a failed attempt by the applicant to further the case in the Land and Environment Court, later withdrawn by them. This time around it attempts to leverage affordable housing provisions to exceed bulk, height and scale even beyond its previous SNPP approval by imposing a 30 storey highrise tower plus a 12 storey building in a valley floor of lowrise housing. The proposal is completely out of character with the neighbourhood and impacts more than 1000 dwellings in Walker, Hampden, McLaren, Miller and Berry Streets with major traffic impact, loss of solar access, loss of residential amenity and major view loss. It involves a major and significant increase over surrounding building heights with no attempt at height transition whatsoever. The proposal will have major traffic impacts in an area which is already congested and constricted particularly with the queueing for the Walker/Berry street intersection and therefore also has major safety implications for our building in terms of fire or ambulance access. There are two major schools within 100 m and therefore there would be significant safety implications for the students. As a former parent of a Wenona Student I have first hand experience of how difficult the traffic access on Walker Street is and this proposal would make it even worse. There are also other developments happening in what is a very congested area such as Aqualand at 168 Walker Street, 45 Maclaren Street, 110 Walker Street, Victoria Cross Station, 100 Walker Street, 71 Walker Street, 157 Walker Street, not to mention the Western Harbour Tunnel access. 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). 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 (mentioned before) - The impossibility of access for this proposal is a critical issue. Extremely difficult first responder access or egress in any kind of emergency is a major health and safety issue 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 including Belvedere and The Heritage.

Heritage - The proposal is across the road from a row of Victorian Terraces to the north and heritage buildings across the road to the west and ruins their neighbourhood.

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, inappropriate, and not in the public interest. The proposal cannot be justified on planning principles, policy or process and is fatally flawed on very many separate grounds.

This proposal attempts to use the in-fill affordable housing changes to increase its luxury building to 30 storeys and to increase a 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.

The amenity of living in this part of North Sydney will be substantially degraded by this project which will impact people wanting to live in the area. This proposal is not appropriate and I object strongly.

The street is too narrow , there will be severe traffic congestion, specially for the school. And the residents on walker street will be in total darkness and no air circulation.
The living conditions will drop drastically as there is already a new development Aura . No one will have a decent quality of life

See attached

The proposal has been submitted four times in the past five years. This latest attempt, disguised as affordable housing, has been rejected by a planning consultant, the NSLPP, and North Sydney Council. The proposal is out of character with the neighbourhood, impacting over 1000 dwellings with loss of natural light (e.g. the proposal inflicts excessive overshadowing to surrounding dwellings, particularly the 9 storey apartment building at 88 Berry Street, and also Century Plaza, and blocks eastern and northern sun to other dwellings in Walker Street.), access, and views. It is not in the public interest and lacks any attempt at height transition. More importantly, increased difficulty for first responder access or egress in any kind during emergencies is a major health and safety consideration that must take precedence.

In addition, the impact to traffic in the area is completely unacceptable, resulting in a nightmarish situation for all residents and North Sydney in general. Existing traffic issues include:
1) The nearby road network is already heavily congested, particularly at the Walker/Berry intersection (50 meters away).
2) The traffic report provided is inadequate, failing to consider the impact of additional vehicles and the fact that Berry and Miller Streets are the only ways out of the area.
3) Access to the site is extremely difficult due to a one-way lane leading to a dead-end.
4) Residents face challenges entering and exiting the lane, often requiring U-turns or navigating through queued traffic.
5) The heritage-protected median garden strip prevents the creation of a turning circle at the dead-end.
6) The Walker Street/Berry Streets intersection experiences constant high traffic pressure, similar to a highway.
7) Construction vehicle access would be impossible during peak hours and school times due to existing gridlock.
8) Ingress and egress from the area is already challenging, with garbage trucks needing to reverse down the one-way lane.

Proper and detailed traffic analysis reports are needed, including access and intersection modelling and performance assessments. The current traffic analysis report fails to consider the impact of future developments:
1) The AURA development at 168 Walker Street (386 apartments).
2) The McLaren Street development (over 100 new apartments).
3) The Western Harbour Tunnel and its associated on-ramp.
4) The new Reddam School in McLaren Street (opening January 2025).
5) The 57-story building at 110 Walker Street.

The proposed development significantly impacts views from hundreds of apartments, including Belvedere, The Heritage, McLaren Apartments, The Harvard, North, Vantage, and The Miller. In some cases, this view loss is completely obstructed. The provided view analysis is inadequate and downplays the severity of this issue. The proposal violates the Tenacity principles (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140) by failing to properly assess moderate to severe view loss from front living areas. This is particularly concerning as even a moderate impact due to non-compliance can be considered unreasonable.

It must be noted that previous SNPP approval was highly specific and required the following:
1) An 8 storey maximum for the secondary building; this has increased to 12.
2) A reduction in length along Walker Street; this length has actually increased from previously.
3) 12m building separations; this proposal does not provide 12m separation.
4) A slender built form; this proposal is not slender.
5) Avoidance of overshadowing to the south; overshadowing is increased in this new proposal.

In the Department of Planning’s own report, their team raised serious concerns, 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. When the previous DA arrived at Council, the developer chose deemed refusal and lodged a case with the Land and Environment Court, which was later withdrawn.

This proposal attempts to use affordable housing changes to increase the height of its buildings. But the official allowances for bonuses in height only applies to the affordable housing building. The attempt to transfer this bonus to the luxury apartments is underhanded and deceitful. A merit assessment of the above impacts will expose this.

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.

In conclusion, the proposed development is unacceptable due to its non-compliance with previous approvals, strong public opposition, and numerous planning flaws:
1) Previous Approval Overrides: The proposed building disregards key conditions of the previous Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP) approval, including building height, separation distances, length along Walker Street, overshadowing, and secondary building size.
2) Public and Departmental Opposition: The proposal faces unanimous local opposition and significant concerns from the Department of Planning, citing issues like floor plate size, solar access, building bulk, and design impact on the view corridor.
3) Flawed Planning Process: The SNPP's previous approval disregarded numerous objections and lacked adequate scrutiny. The developer's initial attempt to bypass Council through the Land and Environment Court further highlights the problematic planning process.

I support this project as it greatly upscales the amount of housing in North Sydney within easy access to North Sydney business precinct and the future Metro Station on Miller St. The proportion of 3+ bedroom apartments in this development is also commendable.
The amount of carparking however seems excessive and could probably be best suggested have allowance for an entire car park level to be removed in an effort to encourage use of the large amount of public transport in this area and proximity to nearby amenities and services. The bike storage provision thus is greatly appreciated.
Overall I would love for this project to succeed either as designed or have the state remove or lower some DCP requirements that are excessive and unduly add expense to the project and thus raise final prices.

We, the residents of 88 Berry Street and the local community, strongly object to the proposed development at East Walker Street, North Sydney. We have consistently objected to past development proposals and hold serious concerns for the wellbeing of residents and the local community if the proposal were approved.

The recent completion of the Aura building (which has over 200 car spaces and 387 units) has already contributed to overcapacity on our roads, especially in Walker Street and Berry Street. There is increasing congestion and unavailability of public street parking in the area. The proposed development, which is likely to place parking access on Walker Street, will continue to exacerbate congestion and bottlenecking on Walker Street.

Our local community has already endured ongoing noise disturbance and nuisance from public infrastructure projects in the area, including the Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade. As residents, we are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of our property. The inconvenience to residents has been ongoing but tolerated on the basis that the conclusion of public works will result in benefit for the public as a whole, including the local community. This is not the case for the proposed development. The scale and proximity of the development, and the resulting noise, vibration and dust, will significantly impact the wellbeing of residents for a number of years.

Furthermore, the developers propose to construct a 10-story building directly in front of our 6-story building, completely obstructing natural light for west-facing units. Previous designs submitted by the developer proposed terraces in this location to minimise the shadow impact on our building. This has been completely disregarded in the most recent proposal. Residents in west-facing units will suffer immensely under the proposal as sunlight to those units will be completely obstructed from 12pm onwards. We hold significant concerns for the physical health and mental wellbeing of affected residents, as well as the property value for all west-facing units in our building.

It is appalling and unacceptable that the building developers are exploiting affordable housing to gain approval for the project, disregarding the significant cost to local residents in order to maximise financial profits. The currently proposed plan is significantly inferior to past proposals, particularly to residents in the west-facing units of our building. We appreciate that these concerns have been acknowledged by the North Sydney Council and the NSW Planning Panel in rejecting past proposals and we implore you to continue to do so.

### Introduction

The proposal for a 30-story high-rise in a low-rise residential valley has been persistently contentious, marking its fourth attempt in five years. Despite being framed as an affordable housing initiative, it has been rejected by a private planning consultant's report, the North Sydney Local Planning Panel (NSLPP), and North Sydney Council. The project was also withdrawn from the Land and Environment Court. Critics argue it clashes with the neighborhood's character, affecting over 1,000 homes in Walker, Hampden, McLaren, Miller, and Berry Streets through loss of sunlight, residential amenity, significant view obstructions, and other issues. There is no height transition to mitigate the contrast with existing structures.

### Traffic Concerns

The local road network is already heavily congested, with constant traffic at the Walker/Berry intersection, just 50 meters from the site. The traffic impact assessment is deemed inadequate, failing to address the additional strain from the proposed development. Key issues include:

- The site is accessible only via a one-way lane ending in a dead-end.
- Difficult northbound entry and no southbound access, requiring hazardous U-turns.
- No room for a turning circle due to a heritage median garden strip.
- Heavy traffic at the Walker/Berry intersection.
- Impractical construction vehicle access.
- Current gridlock during peak and school hours.
- Two major schools are within 100 meters.
- Garbage trucks must reverse down the one-way lane.

Future developments, like the 386-apartment Aqualand project and other planned buildings, will exacerbate traffic issues. Comprehensive traffic studies, including intersection performance analysis, are necessary.

### View and Solar Access

The high-rise would block views for many apartments, including Belvedere, The Heritage, and others, with some losing views entirely. The proposal does not adequately address this view loss, failing to comply with Tenacity principles. Additionally, the project would cause excessive overshadowing, particularly affecting the 9-story building at 88 Berry Street and other residences on Walker Street.

Our residence at 88 Berry Street, along with our local community, stands to face significant negative consequences from the proposed development plan. This plan has been consistently rejected by our community and council over the past few years due to various reasons, and the situation has deteriorated. For instance, the recent completion of the Aura has already added nearly 400 units and over 200 car spaces, exacerbating the traffic congestion. The situation is set to worsen with the upcoming project on Mclaren Street, as the local roads are already operating at or beyond their capacity.

Currently, we endure noise and vibration from the Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade. We tolerate this disturbance because it is part of public works. However, the proposed development is not a public work, and its scale is considerable. Due to its proximity, we, the residents, will experience every vibration and hear every sound from the construction activities.  The resulting noise, dust, and vibration will significantly affect our health and well-being.

Sunlight is crucial for human health, yet the proposed development disregards this essential need. The plans reveal that from 12pm, our building will fall completely within the shadow of Tower 2 of the Proposed Development. The design places a 10-story building directly in front of our lower building, completely obstructing natural light for units facing west. This contrasts with previous designs that considered the shadow impact on our building, as they were terraces, not a towering structure. The current design meets only the minimum standards, compromising our basic needs for adequate living conditions, potentially diminishing our property's value, and adversely affecting our physical and mental health.

I vehemently oppose this project and am appalled that the developer has exploited the housing crisis and affordable housing quotas to gain approval. While profit is a known motivator for developers, it should not come at the expense of the local community's needs and wellbeing. The Council and NSW planning panel have rightfully rejected the proposal on several occasions, acknowledging our concerns. It would be inconceivable for this project, particularly with its significantly inferior design, to be approved this time.