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

I strongly object to the proposed development because of its inappropriate size, height, scale and location.
It would overshadow our building (171 Walker St) effectively blocking all direct sunlight.
It would cause traffic congestion and safety issues in the streets in the area, effectively eliminate sea views and drastically have negative impacts on the property values, lifestyles and the health of local residents.

I strongly object to the proposed development which is totally unacceptable to local residents in the area.
Because of its enormous size, height and location, it would block direct sunlight to the existing garden, swimming pool and some of the units in our building (171 Walker St).
The surrounding area is already congested as it is, this proposed development would cause severe traffic congestion and safety issues in Walker, Berry, McLaren and Ridge Streets.
Its sheer size, scale and height would effectively eliminate or at least drastically reduce iconic views and adversely impact the property values, lifestyles and the health of local residents.

My fellow residents and I have significant concerns regarding this proposal many times in past for the same, which we believe will have severe adverse effects on our quality of life and the local environment.

Our primary concerns are as follows:

Severe Blockage of View and Sunlight:
The construction of the proposed 30-storey building will severely obstruct the view and natural sunlight to our homes. We have already experienced a similar issue with the recent completion of the Aura project, which comprises three 28-storey buildings. This new development will exacerbate the situation on top of it, further diminishing our access to sunlight and natural ventilation, which are essential for our well-being.We are already surrounded by tall buildings , this building will severely impact our view , we will be in dark neither can see the sun or the moon. Our daily life will be miserably impacted by this East Walker Street.

Previous Rejection by North Sydney Council:
The developer, CBUS, had previously submitted an application (DA 197/22) to the North Sydney Council, which was rejected due to the concerns raised by local residents. It is concerning that the developer is now attempting to bypass this rejection by submitting a new application to the NSW Government under the guise of affordable housing. This approach undermines the decision made by the local council and the voices of the residents.

Increased Congestion and Traffic:
Our area is already heavily congested with numerous high-rise residential and corporate buildings. The addition of another 30-storey building, and one 10 story and another 5 story ( total 3 buildings) will significantly increase traffic in the vicinity, further straining the already limited infrastructure and negatively impacting the safety and convenience of the local community.We are lacking open space and greenery specially around this area , cutting down trees to construct building only for buildings will hamper our daily life.

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

This is a guise of affordable housing that has limited benefit to the community and is not an ideal development for the longer term goals of north sydney as a council.

Housing population needs to be managed appropriately and there is no clarity how this would align to the north Sydney council objectives.

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.

Kind Regards
Karen Purcell

It will be an overdevelopment for the limited number of residents in this area

As an owner at 503/136 Belvedere Walker Street, I object to the proposal on the following grounds:
1. 30 storey high-rise on a valley floor totally out of step with heritage and many other unit blocks.
2. The proposal understates our view, solar and amenity loss with high overshadowing particularly in the south
3. This submission causes major traffic issues including safety, gridlock and turning circle impacts. Traffic analysis has not been properly future-proofed
Furthermore, the proposal is in contradiction of the Dept of Planning's own report, SNPP approval with their specific stipulations for slender build, building separations, storey heights and reduction in Walker Street length. The new 30 storey height & stated 12 storey height in-fill using affordable housing bonuses misappropriates SEPP changes onto what is ostensibly a luxury complex.

I and other unit owners at Belvedere have serious concerns about the submission and object on the grounds of critical non-compliance with planning ordinances, amenity, safety, solar, heritage and major traffic access issues.

Karen van Druten
KK Buffer Pty Ltd
503/236 Walker St
North Sydney

The proposed project still has the problems associated with previous applications. The proposed number of units are far too high for the site. The proposal removes important trees from the site. The road to the proposed development is not sufficient to deal with the increased traffic. There is inadequate parking available. There are also potential construction issues caused by changes to the Warringah Freeway project. There are multiple grounds to reject the proposal. A public hearing on the proposal is essential.

Dear Sir/Madam

This is the fourth time I and the residents of North Sydney have had to object to a proposal for this site which is non-compliant and does not address the impact on the amenity of the thousands of residents who already call North Sydney home, or the overall character and liveability of the suburb.

It is unacceptable to approve view loss, solar loss and additional traffic network degradation from a non-compliant development. The developer cannot be handed access to existing residents' amenity by adding affordable housing to their sales pitch and then believing it is their right to increase the bulk and height of the development as a result of doing so. Affordable housing I am for, using it to your advantage over others I abhor. The Walker Street 'building 3' must not be allowed to go higher than the existing height of 88 Berry Street. The height and bulk of building 1 should be reduced to have a lower and slimmer profile, stepped back to provide breathing space for those on Hampton and Walker Streets and space between the buildings widened to maintain some semblance of view and solar access and to provide the feeling of not being enclosed by a giant concrete wall.

View Loss and Solar Access

In the climate analysis provided on page 10 of the Rothelowman report it states for the NEW development 'Living spaces will be curated to balance solar access and view gains, prioritising a high level of internal amenity through daylight and ventilating'. The irony is that is exactly what the proposed development takes away from the existing residents on Walker, Berry, Hampton, Miller and McLaren Streets.

I live at 150 Walker Street (The Heritage). The view analysis is included in the report and shows my views which are listed as 'iconic and high value elements' will be totally blocked. Not a single part of Sydney Harbour will be able to be seen. 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. In this point alone the current proposal cannot proceed any further.

The living spaces in The Heritage building and many others surrounding face East. This is the main source of sunlight and ventilation for all daytime activities. Take sunlight and ventilation away and replace the outlook with what is effectively a solid mass and the 'high level of internal amenity' the developer is suggesting is a good reason to approve their proposal is taken away from myself and many others. Taking from existing residents and handing to a developer for their profit is not acceptable.

Sunlight, ventilation and views/outlook are key to the mental health and well being of all residents of NSW, North Sydney residents included. This development does nothing to address the health and well being of those directly impacted so I request the NSW Government steps in to stop the proposal as it stands and works to ensure the health and well being of all are considered, not just those who the developer will be marketing to.

Traffic Analysis

The traffic analysis reported is from November 2022, coming up to two years out of date. While the calculations look at vehicles based on the car spaces allocated there is no calculation for all the periphery traffic generated from a large residential development such as:

Taxis/Ubers being called to collect residents to take then to and from work/school/university or other daily activities
Friends/family who drive by to collect residents to drop them to work/school/university or other daily activities
Healthcare workers/childcare workers who look after residents in their homes getting to and from their place of work
Grocery delivery vans
Fast food delivery vans and bikes
Garbage collection vehicles
Removalist vans for departing and arriving residents (a common occurrence in areas of high-rise residential buildings)
Amazon and other parcel delivery services
Gardeners, cleaners and other external suppliers

Add to this:
All of the above from additional residential developments recently completed and under consideration
Additional traffic from surrounding suburbs dropping off and picking up from the new metro station
Parents and carers dropping off and picking up school children from the new school on McLaren street

You cannot assume residents of apartments that do not have a car space do not own a car. Residents without a car space already fight for limited street parking in North Sydney. The additional cars which will inevitably be parked on the streets also need to be factored into the total picture.

The traffic data provided is the bare minimum impact only. Add in all the additional vehicle traffic and then on garbage day when the garbage truck is undertaking a three point turn to access the development, factor in the need for first responder vehicles to reach residents in need. The complete picture is bigger than the analysis presents and needs to be taken into consideration.

The traffic report presented admitted network degradation, but blames it on a cumulative effect and suggests while the development will exacerbate the problem it's not all their fault. Another way of looking at it is to stop additional network degradation and traffic mayhem by only allowing a smaller, more appropriate and compliant development on the site.

While I cannot envisage how a non-compliant development which affects so many can be approved, I ask when reviewing all the submissions please but yourself in the living rooms of the thousands of residents who already call North Sydney home. Please also remember that while the developer has teams of people and deep pockets for consultants to write reports and push their sales pitch the rest of us are having to again read multiple documents and make sense of reports outside our day jobs. We rely on our council and our government to hold developers to be complaint and ensure our suburbs remain liveable, accessible and safe for all.

Kind regards
Alison

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development . This project is inappropriate for the low-rise character of the neighbourhood and would have a detrimental impact on residents.
My key concerns include:
- Traffic congestion: The increased traffic generated by the development would exacerbate existing congestion at the Walker/Berry intersection and surrounding streets.
- Loss of amenity: The highrise would block sunlight and significantly reduce the views for hundreds of residents in nearby buildings.
- Negative impact on heritage: The development would be detrimental to the surrounding Victorian terraces and heritage-listed sandstone wall.
I urge the committee to consider the impact on the existing community and reject this proposal once again.

I lodge this objection as Strata Manager of SP93339 at 221 Miller Street North Sydney, on behalf of the Strata Committee.
This proposal for a combined 42 storeys is directly east of this strata and has the following impacts on the owners:
- Local roads are already congested and will be made worse by this proposal. There are concerns regarding access in and out of the area for our owners, and even emergency vehicle access at peak times.
- There are already many developments in the CBD and surrounding areas which will only make this worse.
- Views of many of our eastern facing owners are impacted
- Residential amenity will be negatively affected.
- Currently, the area has a heritage and village atmosphere which will be ruined.
Finally, this proposal is much larger than previous proposals which have been dismissed in the past. We trust the Department of Planning will look carefully at the history of this project and carefully note the many past objections of our owners.

These are the reasons why I object this project:
1. Traffic: AURA North Sydney has recently added 387 units and around 200+ carpark spaces onto Walker Street and Berry Street area. The local roads are at full, if not over, capacity. Therefore additional carpark spaces close to the Berry Street and Walker Street junction should be restricted. Also during construction, there will be heavy vehicles traveling in and out from the narrow lane, my daughters walk to Wenona daily, additional traffic imposes high risk to them not just during development time but also after built.

2. Noise and Vibration: We are currently suffering from the noise and vibration from the Western Harbour Tunnel ("WHT") and Warringah Freeway Upgrade ("WFU"). We are bearing this level of nuisance as these are public works. However this Proposed Development is not public work and the scale is not small. Given the proximity of the Proposed Development, Our Building will feel every pound and hear every drill that will go on at this site.

3. Inferior Design: The newest design of the Proposed Development is to have a 10 floors building on East Walker Street (Building 3). This will comprise 76 affordable housing units. The previous design provided terrace houses and shops in this location. In the corner of East Walker Street and Hampton Street, there will be a building of 28 floors (Building 1) with around 200 units. This is the building that will cast a long shadow into the surroundings. The last building at the end of Hampton Street (Building 2) will be adjacent to Building 1. This will house all the service and maintenance amenities of the Proposed Development and might most likely be the driveway in and out. The above design, especially the affordable housing in Building 3, presents an inferior design when compared to the previous one. This will have a significant impact on the value of my building.

I lodge this objection as Chair of SP93339 at 221 Walker Street North Sydney. This proposal is directly east of our building and has the following impacts:

The combined 42 storeys in this proposal attempt to exceed bulk, height and scale by using affordable housing provisions. In doing so, with the local road network already congested, traffic will be made impossible for our owners. The traffic report needs to respond to this impact. The existing report does not address this.

The site is on a one-way lane with very difficult access near a major intersection. Access to the site is impossible, made worse by two major schools within 100m. this will cause gridlock in all of our streets.

In addition, there are many major future developments which have not been taken into account in the proposal and which the proponent refuses to acknowledge.
These will be listed elsewhere in submissions.

View impacts from our building are affected and are not fully or properly analysed in the view report.

The proposal does not acknowledge or respond to previous Planning Department reports which imposed important restrictions. These need to be investigated.

There is unanimous very strong local consensus that the proposal is unacceptable, inappropriate, and not in the public interest.

Regards
John Mariano
Chairperson
The Miller
221 Miller

The current development proposal has sparked considerable opposition and criticism for several key reasons:

Development History and Context:
This marks the fourth attempt in five years to develop the site, this time under the pretext of affordable housing. Despite previous rejections by a Planning Consultant, the North Sydney Local Planning Panel (NSLPP), and the North Sydney Council, the proposal persists. An earlier effort in the Land and Environment Court was withdrawn by the applicant.

Neighborhood Impact:
The proposal, centered on erecting a 30-storey tower in a valley floor predominantly occupied by low-rise housing, is fiercely contested. It is deemed incompatible with the surrounding low-rise character and threatens over 1000 nearby dwellings with issues like loss of solar access, diminished residential amenity, and significant view obstruction. Critics argue it lacks any attempt to transition its height with neighboring buildings.

Traffic Challenges:
Already strained, the adjacent road network faces chronic congestion, particularly at the nearby Walker/Berry intersection. The proposal fails to adequately address the increased traffic load it would bring, especially concerning given that Berry and Miller Streets are the only exit routes for the area. Complicating matters, the site’s access is hindered by a one-way lane and lacks proper infrastructure for construction vehicles. Future developments, such as the Aqualand project and new schools, are expected to compound these issues.

View and Solar Access Impacts:
Concerns extend to the substantial view loss the proposal would inflict on nearby residential properties, including Belvedere, The Heritage, and others. Solar access for neighboring buildings like the 9-storey apartment at 88 Berry Street would also be significantly compromised.

Heritage and Safety Concerns:
Adjacent heritage buildings and features, such as Victorian Terraces and a protected sandstone wall, face potential degradation. Furthermore, emergency access for first responders is seen as highly challenging under the proposal’s layout, raising significant safety concerns.

Planning Process and Community Engagement:
Despite robust objections from local residents, developers, and the North Sydney Council, a previous planning panel approved a similar 29-storey building. Critics argue that decision disregarded democratic processes and community input, highlighting flaws in the planning and approval system.

Documentation and Analysis Deficiencies:
Supporting reports and documentation provided by the applicant are criticized for inadequately addressing past objections and failing to fully consider upcoming developments in the area, thus casting doubt on the proposal's thoroughness and transparency.

In conclusion, the proposed development faces substantial opposition due to its perceived incompatibility with the neighborhood’s character, potential traffic gridlock, adverse impacts on views and solar access, concerns for heritage preservation, and issues surrounding emergency access and community engagement. Addressing these multifaceted concerns will be crucial for any future progress or approval of the project.
Based on the last decision which is in this link: https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/ppr/lep-decision/173-179-walker-street-and-11-17-hampden-street
The proposed development diverges significantly from the specific requirements set by the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP) in its previous approval:

Built Form and Separation: The current proposal does not adhere to the SNPP's requirement for a slender built form and fails to provide the mandated 12-meter building separations.

Building Length and Overshadowing: Contrary to previous stipulations, the length along Walker Street has increased, exacerbating overshadowing issues, particularly to the south.

Maximum Building Heights: The SNPP previously capped secondary building heights at 8 storeys, whereas the current proposal seeks to increase this limit to 12 storeys.

These discrepancies are critical in evaluating the new proposal, as they directly contravene both the SNPP approval and the Department of Planning's guidelines. The Department's Urban Design team has expressed serious reservations regarding floor plate sizes, solar access models, overall building bulk, and the appropriateness of the design within significant view corridors. Their concerns underline the insufficient detail provided in the proposed amendments to the Local Environmental Plan (LEP), indicating a lack of comprehensive support from the Department of Planning.

Legal and Community Opposition:
Previously, when faced with Council review, the developer opted for deemed refusal and pursued legal action in the Land and Environment Court, which was subsequently withdrawn. Local consensus remains overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal, citing its failure to align with planning principles, policies, or due process. Multiple grounds of objection highlight a significant misalignment with public interests.

In-fill Affordable Housing SEPP:
The proposal controversially invokes changes under the In-fill Affordable Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) to justify increasing the building's height from 8 storeys to 30 storeys. However, the SEPP's provisions for height bonuses specifically apply to buildings dedicated to affordable housing, which contrasts sharply with the luxury-oriented nature of this development. This strategy is viewed as disingenuous and cynical, aiming to exploit regulatory loopholes. A thorough merit assessment of the proposal's impacts is necessary to distinguish genuine affordable housing from other components of the project.

Environmental Assessment Requirements:
Furthermore, the proponent has failed to adequately address the stringent requirements outlined in the Planning Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements document. This omission underscores the need for a rigorous evaluation against specified benchmarks to ensure compliance and safeguard against unchecked development impacts.

In conclusion, the current proposal faces substantial challenges due to its failure to meet previous approval conditions, concerns raised by the Department of Planning's Urban Design team, legal setbacks in previous court proceedings, overwhelming community opposition, and questionable application of regulatory provisions meant for affordable housing. Addressing these concerns comprehensively is essential for any future consideration or approval of the project.

See attachements

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

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

3. 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.

4. Past Planning Panel Approval
Despite the above substantial issues, the Sydney North Planning Panel under then Minister Stokes and chairman Peter Debnam, approved a 29 storey building. In doing so, the Panel dismissed 145 detailed objections from surrounding residents, other developers, and North Sydney Council. The Panel did not adequately pose the objections to the developer, and its decision was cursory and highly undemocratic. The planning process has failed residents.
https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/ppr/lep-decision/173-179-walker-street-and-11-17-hampden-street
Regardless, it is critical to note that the previous SNPP approval was highly specific and required the following:
- A slender built form – this proposal is not slender
- 12m building separations – this proposal does not provide 12m separation
- A reduction in length along Walker Street – this length has actually increased from previously
- Avoidance of overshadowing to the south – overshadowing is increased in this new proposal
- An 8 storey maximum for the secondary building – this has now increased to 12 storeys
These are critical points to consider in assessing this new proposal since they transgress the SNPP approval and the Department of Planning’s own report. In addition, the Department’s Urban Design team also raised serious concerns (attached) including floor plate sizes, solar access modelling, building bulk, design not appropriate to the important view corridor, and they were not satisfied with the detail for the proposed level of change to the final LEP. It is evident that the Department of Planning did not support the proposal with conviction.
When the previous DA arrived at Council, the developer chose deemed refusal and lodged a case with the Land and Environment Court, later withdrawn by the applicant.
There is unanimous very strong local consensus that the proposal is unacceptable and inappropriate. The proposal cannot be justified on planning principles, policy or process and is fatally flawed on very many separate grounds and runs contrary to the public interest.

5. 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.

I am a current owner of a unit in Belvedere, 138 Walker Street. I object to the project based on the following grounds:

This proposal is both arrogant and litigious, marking the fourth attempt in five years to impose a 30-storey highrise in the heart of a low-rise valley. Masquerading as an affordable housing project, it has already been dismissed by a Planning Consultant, the North Sydney Local Planning Panel (NSLPP), and North Sydney Council. A previous appeal to the Land and Environment Court was withdrawn by the applicant. This proposal is utterly out of character with the neighborhood, affecting over 1,000 dwellings in Walker, Hampden, McLaren, Miller, and Berry Streets. It will cause significant loss of solar access, residential amenity, major view loss, and fails to serve the public interest. The proposed building height far exceeds that of surrounding structures, with no attempt at a height transition.

Major Traffic Issues

The local road network is already at its limit, with constant congestion and queues at the Walker/Berry intersection, just 50 meters away. The traffic report fails to adequately assess the impact of additional vehicles and ignores the fact 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.
- Access to the site is difficult northbound, with no southbound access. Residents must make a U-turn or cross queued traffic.
- There is no space for a turning circle at the dead end due to a heritage-protected median garden strip.
- The Walker Street/Berry Streets intersection functions like a major highway with constant high traffic pressure.
- Construction vehicle access would be impossible.
- Peak hours and school times already result in gridlock.
- Two major schools are within 100 meters.
- Ingress and egress from the precinct are already challenging.
- Garbage trucks currently have to reverse down the one-way lane.

Future traffic pressures have also been ignored, including:

- The new Aqualand development at 168 Walker with 386 apartments.
- 45 McLaren Street’s future development, adding over 100 new apartments.
- Western Harbour Tunnel impacts and on-ramp effects on the intersection.
- The new Reddam School in McLaren Street starting January 2025.
- A 57-storey building at 110 Walker Street.

Proper and detailed traffic analysis reports, including access and intersection modeling, are urgently needed.

View Obstruction

A major view corridor to the west of the site will be obstructed, causing significant view loss to hundreds of apartments including Belvedere, The Heritage, McLaren Apartments, The Harvard, North, Vantage, and The Miller. The proposal fails all four steps of the Tenacity principles, not properly assessing moderate to severe standing view loss from front living areas by a non-compliant development. Step four emphasizes that even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable when arising from non-compliance.

First Responder Access

Access for first responders in emergencies is critically impeded, posing significant health and safety risks. This issue alone should heavily influence any approval decisions.

Solar Access

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

Heritage

The proposal negatively impacts a row of Victorian terraces to the north, heritage buildings to the west, and a heritage-protected sandstone wall, degrading the historical character of the neighborhood.

Supporting Documents

Reports fail to address previous submissions and objections and do not adequately consider upcoming developments in the area. Comprehensive and accurate reports are necessary.

Past Planning Panel Approval

Despite substantial issues, the Sydney North Planning Panel (SNPP) under Minister Stokes and Chairman Peter Debnam approved a 29-storey building, dismissing 145 detailed objections. The Panel's decision was cursory and undemocratic, failing the residents.

The previous SNPP approval required:

- 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 increased.
- Avoidance of overshadowing to the south – overshadowing is increased.
- An 8-storey maximum for the secondary building – now increased to 12 storeys.

These points must be considered in assessing this new proposal, which transgresses the SNPP approval and the Department of Planning’s report. The Department's Urban Design team also raised serious concerns, which have not been adequately addressed.

### In-fill Affordable Housing SEPP

This proposal cynically uses in-fill affordable housing changes to justify a 30-storey building, increasing the previous 8-storey approval to 12 storeys. The SEPP bonuses only apply to the building with affordable housing, not luxury apartments. This manipulation must be exposed through a merit assessment of the impacts, isolating the affordable housing building. The "Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements" document must be upheld, as it has not been adequately addressed by the proponent.

This proposal is unacceptable and inappropriate. It cannot be justified on planning principles, policy, or process, and is fatally flawed on numerous grounds, contradicting the public interest.

This is a guise of affordable housing that has limited benefit to the community and is not an ideal development for the longer term goals of north sydney as a council.

Housing population needs to be managed appropriately and there is no clarity how this would align to the north Sydney council objectives

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

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.

There will also be a significant view loss to my property which will result in a financial loss.
I strongly object to this. it is even worse than last one and should not be allowed in its entirety

View Loss
There is a major view corridor to the west of the site resulting in major view loss to my unit 1702. 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.
I strongly object to this development with this height. it will result in a significant loss to my property value.