Shop top housing with infill affordable housing, Oxford and Nelson Street, Bondi Junction

I am opposed to this revision of the original approval for a number of reasons concerning reduced community amenity, degradation of local character and safety.
The application for an increase of more than 50% of the original approved height is excessive.
The scale of the revised proposal is not in keeping with the character of the local area, and if approved will create a behemoth of a building that is out of place next to Centennial Park. The increase in apartments will have a commensurate increase in local traffic, in an already overcrowded area that has issues with congestion, cyclist and pedestrian safety.
I also find it very difficult to understand the compatibility of 'affordable housing' in a building whose penthouse apartments are for sale for more than $10 million each: the application lacks credibility in that regard.

The proposed 56.6m is, I believe, a 277% increase on the original 15m limit, with the current 36m being 140% increase. This is poor planning - we need development planning that is appropriate for surrounding residents.

Council needs to ensure the developer is mandated to tell apartment units that they will not be able to receive residential street parking permits as the area is already at capacity.

OUR CONCERNS:
With ground floor retail + 10 storey residential towers, the already-approved development will be much taller than, and out of character with, surrounding low rise shops and residences - including the Mill Hill heritage conservation area, Woollahra heritage conservation area, the heritage listed Nelson Hotel (and many other heritage listed homes) and Centennial Park (listed on the national heritage register as having "outstanding significance").

AMENITY and HERITAGE
The proposed additional storeys (3 on the western tower and 6 on the eastern tower) will result in buildings that have huge bulk and scale that is completely out of character for this part of Bondi Junction and contrary to the objectives of the Waverley Local Environmental Plan (WLEP).

Under the WLEP, height limits are designed to: ensure building heights preserve the environmental amenity of neighbouring properties and public spaces; establish a transition in scale between [the Bondi Junction town centre] and adjoining zones to protect local amenity; maintain satisfactory solar access to existing buildings and public areas; and establish building heights that are consistent with the desired future character of the locality.

This proposal does not meet these objectives. If approved, it will result in towers that dominate the streetscape, cast shadows, destroy the amenity of sunny west Oxford St, and be "highly visible" [developer's own words] from Centennial Park. This is not the desired locality, current or future, that residents want. Approval would also create a terrible precedent that other developers will seek to follow, compounding the adverse effects of this proposal.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) seeks to downplay the proposal's impact on local amenity and heritage. It says that the maximum height of the eastern tower will be 54m but in fact the maximum height will be 56.6 (source: Appendix F to the EIS). The EIS includes images that do not show the extent of the impact (eg figures 27 and 28 which don't show the top of the taller tower).

The architectural drawings (Appendix B to the EIS) include the diagrams below. They show how out of character with surrounding low rise buildings this proposal will be, especially with an additional 3/6 storeys. We can't stop the developer from building to ten storeys, but we can ask the Department of Planning to say no to the additional floors, esp the 6 floors on the eastern tower.

CENTENNIAL PARK
Also below is an image of the impact on Federation Valley in Centennial Park (from Appendix M to the EIS). The developer's own consultant said the proposal will be "highly visible" from here and "the impact of change of the proposed development from this viewpoint is considered to be moderate-high". (Appendix M, p25)

The proposed increase in height is completely at odds with Centennial Park's Conservation Management Plan which says:

"Centennial Parklands needs an appropriate physical and visual curtilage including its skyline. It is important that new structures and landscape elements erected in the vicinity of the Centennial Parklands do not negatively impact on the historic precinct, nearby heritage streetscapes/ areas, the setting of Centennial Parklands and views to and from Centennial Parklands."

If this proposal is allowed then a terrible precedent will have been set. Already the same developer has expressed interest in redeveloping the bus depot site and other developers will no doubt want to build similar towers around the Park, maximising views and profits while eroding heritage values and amenity, and further congesting overloaded streets and infrastructure.

The height limits for all other land around Centennial Park are in the range of 9.5-11 metres. The twin towers site used to have a height limit of 15m but the developer got that changed to 36m. Now they are seeking to go to 56.6m. This is excessive and unacceptable - and the site being on a ridge makes the impact even greater.

Concern about height was recognised by Waverley Council when it made a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the twin towers site in 2020 with input from residents. It stated that no further height and floor space ratio (FSR) increases should be allowed for this site. While not legally enforceable (because DCPs are at the bottom of the hierarchy of planning instruments), this clause reflects the view that more height increases should NOT be allowed on this site. The Department of Planning should respect this intent and preserve the current LEP height limit.

Our forebears showed huge foresight when they established Centennial Park. Let's preserve its beauty for future generations to enjoy.

TRAFFIC
Westgate has used traffic data from April 2021 (when many were working from home due to covid and traffic was well down on normal levels) and applied an annual 1.5% increase to estimate current traffic levels. Based on that extrapolated data, they argue the traffic impact will be acceptable. However, even this data says the intersection of Oxford St and Nelson St is at capacity. (Appendix U, p8)

To comply with the Department of Planning's requirements, the developer must provide CURRENT traffic data and examine the performance of nearby intersections. Only two intersections have been examined (Nelson St and York Rd). While all vehicles leaving the site must travel east along Grafton St, there is no analysis of impacts on the Leswell St/Oxford St intersection, or the Grafton St/Newland St intersection. Nor is there any discussion re the operation of the Ruthven St and Mill Hill Rd intersections. The Dept needs to do comprehensive, up to date analysis of traffic impacts.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
But what about affordable housing? Shouldn't the developer be allowed to build higher in return for including affordable housing? Increasing affordable housing is important but should be done in accordance with the rules.

Here are some points to consider:

(1) The Housing SEPP (State Environmental Planning Policy) gives a "bonus" height allowance of up to 30% in return for affordable housing inclusion. This is NOT AUTOMATIC. The SEPP says: "Development consent must not be granted to development under this division unless the consent authority has considered whether the design of the residential development [including the “bonus” floors] is compatible with—
(a) the desirable elements of the character of the local area, or
(b) for precincts undergoing transition—the desired future character of the precinct."

In other words, the consent authority has to consider whether this is an appropriate site for allowing normal height controls to be exceeded. We don't think it is appropriate. This is a highly constrained site and local roads and other infrastructure are already at capacity. While the developer is proposing a 21% increase in the number of apartments, it is also proposing a disproportionate 64% increase in the number of car spaces [but still only 1 carshare space and 15% less bike spaces], which will worsen traffic.

The site is also surrounded by heritage areas and overlooks the place where the Commonwealth was proclaimed in 1901. Hundreds of residents opposed the original DA so 36m towers were clearly not considered "desirable elements", at least by residents. 56 metre towers are even more problematic.

(2) A 30% increase under the Housing SEPP (IF agreed by the dept of planning) would increase the height from 36m to 46.8m. This is enough to allow an additional three storeys (as proposed for the western tower) but, because the development is not allowed to overshadow too much of Centennial Park, the additional floors proposed for the western tower are set back from the western edge of that tower. To make up for this, Westgate is seeking a height increase of 57% on the eastern tower (nearly double the 30% contemplated in the Housing SEPP).

Again, approval for this is NOT AUTOMATIC. To get approval, Westgate must demonstrate that—
(a) compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, and
(b) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.
In deciding whether to agree to the exceedance, the consent authority must also consider the public interest.

The EIS, Appendix F, argues that the added height will improve the look of the proposal and will not result in negative visual impacts - but this is contradicted by the visual assessment report (Appendix M) which says the visual impact on Federation Valley will be "moderate-high". Appendix F does not mention this impact, instead saying "visual impact [on Centennial Park] is perceivably minimal". This misrepresents the impact and ignores the consultant's assessment that the additional storeys will make the proposal "highly visible" from Federation Valley (whereas the 10 storey towers would be far less visible).

Appendix F also says that the WLEP transition objective (i.e. that building heights should transition from the town centre to protect amenity) is not applicable. We disagree. The principle that building heights should transition from the town centre towards Centennial Park remains important, as evidenced by the DCP clause saying no more height increases should be allowed on this site. (Appendix F refers to the DCP but does not mention this clause.) The Department of Planning should not ignore this objective.

I understand that Westgate, the developer of the twin towers at the western end of Oxford Street, proposes to add 3 and 6 extra floors to the two towers located opposite the Park, in return for including 17 affordable housing units on the lower floors (for a period of 15 years).

If this addition is approved, the towers will be "highly visible" (developer's own words!) from Federation Valley. The towers will destroy the amenity and heritage values of this beautiful place and create a terrible precedent that this developer, and others, will seek to follow on other sites around the Park.

While affordable housing is important, it must be done in accordance with the law, and the Housing SEPP says that consent cannot be granted unless the proposal is compatible with the local area. Affordable housing for only 15 years is also a joke - it needs to preserved as such for the life of the building or it is meaningless.

This proposal is not compatible or appropriate on a site that is atop a ridge and overlooks a place of outstanding national significance. It is also contrary to the Park's Conservation Management Plan and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which protects national heritage.

It is just a cynical proposal to get around planning laws to make more money with no concern to the local community, the parks national significance, and no genuine commitment to providing affordable housing on a long term basis.

When you enter the park it is a sanctuary from the hustle and bustle of the city and urban landscape, it transports you to a different place - serene and green - to have a massive residential tower tower over the park shatters that.

I object to the proposed height of the development - it should not go ahead unless it can comply with existing planning requirements and national heritage requirements.

I object to the project as I believe it diminishes and disregards the heritage and cultural value of centennial park. Centennial Park is an unmatched oasis in Sydney, providing residents and visitors (like myself) a release from the day-to-day anxieties of urban living, and has served this purpose for almost 150 years. (This is without considering the immense value us has provide for many thousands of years prior). I believe this proposed development takes away from and undermines this value and sets a precedent for further development around and potentially in the park. The proposed residential blocks are an eyesore and would be a reminder of human development while one experiences the park - precisely the opposite of the park’s purpose.

Dear Madam/Sir
I write to urge you to refuse SSD-77175998 for the following reasons.
In summary, the proposal is:
• far too tall, with excessive height and bulk that casts shadows and dominates the streetscape
• completely out of character with the surrounding low rise area, destroying the elements of the area that residents love
• will have excessive impacts on heritage and amenity, especially of Centennial Park
• is on a very constrained site surrounded by congested roads
The nature of this site means that compliance with the LEP development standard is entirely reasonable and necessary, and there are many environmental planning grounds to justify rejection of this proposal, including because the site is:
• on top of a ridge
• opposite an item of outstanding national heritage significance
• surrounded by low rise heritage conservation areas
• surrounded by busy roads, with access and egress severely limited
• subject to a number of environmental planning objectives designed to protect local heritage values and amenity.
EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND BULK
The proposed podium + ten storey “twin towers”, as approved in 2022, will be excessively tall and out of character for this part of Bondi Junction. At 37.54m, the approved buildings will already tower over the surrounding low rise heritage conservation areas, blocking the sun, casting shadows and greatly reducing amenity.
Adding 3 more storeys to the western tower and 6 more storeys to the eastern tower will make this effect far worse. The proposed height of the tallest tower will be 56.6m (not 54m, as per the EIS). This is 57% more than the height limit set out in the Waverley LEP. This must not be approved in the name of providing affordable housing. The Housing SEPP includes criteria that make clear that the 30% height bonus is not automatically available and that the proposal must be compatible with the local area.
The proposal is highly incompatible with this area and must be rejected. The Housing SEPP criteria refer to “the desirable elements of the character of the local area” or, for precincts undergoing transition, the “desired future character” of the precinct. Residents do not want this proposal. We want to preserve the heritage values and amenity of this area for all to enjoy. While affordable housing is important, it is also important that affordable housing proposals comply with the law.
The only party for whom the towers are desirable is the developer. The EIS seeks to downplay the impact of the proposal on the area. For example, the only image of the view looking west crops out the top of the eastern crane/tower (pictures 22-23 on p88 of the EIS). Other images are highly selective and not representative of this area which is rich in local heritage. Please come and see our neighbourhood for yourselves before determining that the proposal is compatible with this area.
CENTENNIAL PARK
This precinct will always be adjacent to Centennial Park and the fact that the twin towers sit on top of a ridge makes them all the more visible from within the Park. According to the developer’s own consultant, the towers will be “highly visible” from Federation Valley in Centennial Park, a national heritage place of outstanding significance.
This is where the Commonwealth was proclaimed in 1901 and at present: “from this viewpoint, there are limited views towards other built form structures” (developer’s own words: Appendix M, p25). In other words, you cannot see other buildings. The visual impact of the additional floors is described in Appendix M as being “moderate to high” but the EIS fails to mention this. This is very concerning. We understand that the ten storey towers have already been approved but urge you to reject the additional six storeys which will be highly visible and create a terrible precedent.
CENT PK MANAGEMENT PLAN: NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON VIEWS FROM PARK
It is clear from the name of the development (“Centennial Collection”) and the marketing material that views of and proximity to Centennial Park are a key drawcard. If approved, this proposal and the dangerous precedent it sets will privatise views for the wealthy few and socialise the loss of amenity and heritage values for everyone else. This is contrary to the Plan’s conservation management plan which states:
Centennial Parklands needs an appropriate physical and visual curtilage including its skyline. It is important that new structures and landscape elements erected in the vicinity of the Centennial Parklands do not negatively impact on the historic precinct, nearby heritage streetscapes/areas, the setting of Centennial Parklands and views to and from Centennial Parklands.
The Plan states that planners are "to ensure the protection of an appropriate physical and visual curtilage to Centennial Parklands. These instruments are to provide a consistent approach by the adjoining local government areas with respect to building heights, density and planning policies."
Height limits of 9.5m to 11m apply to all other land around the Park. (These are set out in the LEPS of the City of Sydney, Randwick, Woollahra and Waverley – with the exception of the twin towers site). The original height limit for this site was 15m but this was changed, at the request of the current developer, to 36m. The developer now wants to build to 56.6m. This is excessive and must not be allowed.
Your predecessors showed enormous foresight when they reserved this Park for the enjoyment of all. Protecting green spaces, especially ones with such outstanding heritage significance, will become increasingly important as our population grows. Please protect Centennial Park by rejecting this excessive and greedy proposal.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT (CTH)
The SEARS included the following:
"Any development likely to have a significant impact on matters of National Environmental Significance will require approval under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This approval is in addition to approvals required under NSW legislation. It is your responsibility to contact the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to determine if you need approval under the EPBC Act." (https://www.dcceew.gov.au/ or 6274 1111)
The only reference to the EPBC Act in the EIS relates to biodiversity. The EIS states at p115: " no Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) are likely to be affected by the development." We disagree.
The Matters of National Environmental Significance - Significant impact guidelines state on page 21 that: "An action is likely to have a significant impact on historic heritage values of a National Heritage place if there is a real chance or possibility that the action will: … involve the construction of buildings or other structures within, adjacent to, or within important sight lines of, a National Heritage place which are inconsistent with relevant values".
Approving the current proposal would have significant adverse impacts on the heritage values of the Park, which is a national heritage place, and as such must be referred to the Commonwealth Minister under the EPBC Act. It is clear from the EIS that this has not occurred.
LEP HEIGHT TRANSITION OBJECTIVE IS APPLICABLE
Appendix F to the EIS is the “Clause 4.6 Variation Request” which argues for a 57% increase in building height, as opposed to the 30% contemplated by the Housing SEPP. The request considers the objectives underpinning the LEP's height standard (set out in clause 4.3 of the WLEP) and asserts that the transition objective in clause 4.3(1)(b) is not applicable. (That objective is "to accommodate taller buildings on land in Zone E2 Commercial Centre and establish a transition in scale between adjoining zones to protect local amenity".)
We consider that this objective remains highly applicable and relevant, and that this proposal runs counter to that objective and should not be approved, particularly when the impact on Centennial Park and surrounding heritage areas is considered. In terms of planning considerations, the site is atop a ridge (a feature which is emphasised in the marketing materials) which makes it all the more important that the current building height control remains unchanged to avoid adverse impacts on amenity and heritage.
The black and white aerial image on the developer's website (https://thecentennialcollection.com.au/locale/) clearly shows the transition in building heights from the Bondi Junction town centre and the fact that all buildings on Centennial Park's perimeter are low rise. A 37.54m building on this site, atop a ridge, will stand out terribly and create a dangerous precedent. A 56.6m building must not be allowed.
We note that the DCP also includes the following built form objective, paragraph (d): "To ensure development does not adversely impact on the significance of the neighbouring heritage buildings, landscape and conservation areas." Approving this proposal will create adverse impacts in breach of this objective.
WAVERLEY DCP PROVISION RE. NO MORE HEIGHT INCREASES
Approving any increase in height on this site would also be contrary to the site-specific Waverley Development Control Plan which was developed for the site with input from residents. Paragraph (f) of the DCP states: "No additional height or floorspace ratio above the LEP controls will be considered for these sites".
The proponent has included several references to the DCP In the EIS but there is no mention of this clause. This clause reflects the high level of concern about the impact of allowing further heights increases on this site, which is directly opposite Centennial Park and surrounded by heritage conservation areas to the north and south. While the site previously had a height limit of 15m, the control is now

The addition of 17 apartments and 15 x 3 bedroom units as well as 54 more car spaces is going to create more congestion at the York Rd Oxford St intersection, which is already choked in peak hour.
There are additional Stargate properties on Oxford St between York Rd and Newland St which will grid lock the area when they are occupied.
People who live near major transport hubs still like to have vehicles for their leisure time.

I object to the height increase.
1. Too high, casting a shadow over an even greater area than the original submission
2. Local traffic is a disaster since the introduction of bike lane in Oxford St and this development will further ad to traffic congestion.
3. Street parking is now at a premium and with 15 extra apartments the situation will become impossible
4. Four (4) heritage listed terraces were demolished to make room for this development and now the developer wants more, using "affordable housing" as a ploy. When will the greed stop?
5. If approved, this will create a precedent for other developments which will ruin the amenity and character of West Bondi Junction

The main reasons for my objection are traffic congestion and visual impact. The area is already congested and subject to traffic confusion and serious risks to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. The visual impact of the towers will be hideous, very much out of character with the local area, so unfair to nearby residents and another bad precedent for the state. The justification of more affordable housing is ludicrous as even with a discount those units will still be very pricy; the sole motivation of the developer is yet higher profit margin.

I object strongly to the proposed extra floors the developer is applying for.

I believe that the developer is using the "affordable housing" rules inappropriately to say the least.

I believe that they have always planned on building the two buildings to the new heights they are seeking approval for. This is an attempt to flout the Waverley Local Environment Plan by seeking to build to a height of 55m which is 57% higher than the 36m permitted. This is nearly double the affordable housing rules that allow for a 30% height "bonus".

The proposed height increase will result in casting additional shadow footprints, dominating the streetscape, reducing privacy and eroding the heritage values of West Bondi Junction.

The increase in traffic will add to the already significant traffic problems in the adjoining streets and intersections. The addition of a potential 108 plus vehicle movements will result in unacceptable congestion throughout day and nighttime. Traffic in Grafton, Nelson, Oxford and Leswell streets is already problematic.

Have the developers already started building the additional car spaces before approval has been granted?
Have the developers commenced building / designing the proposed shops?
If the developers truly motivated to have affordable housing in the approved development, they would have already included it in the development plans initially submitted to council.

What number of units are going to be set aside as "affordable housing"?
What will be the cost of the proposed "affordable housing" units? It is my understanding that there is no such thing as "affordable housing" in the eastern suburbs now. The average cost of a new build 2-bedroom apartment in the eastern suburbs is in excess of $1.65M. In Bondi Junction it is likely to be much higher than $1.65M.

This application is farcical to say the least. It makes a mockery of the rules already in place. At best it is a poorly disguised con job being tried on by the developers.

If approval is granted it will set a terrible precedent and make the existing planning rules irrelevant.

I consider the proposal to be excessive in every aspect, and it should be refused.

There was a lot of concern from the local community about the original development proposal, however this project has been approved to go ahead, and there was a sense that it would be a relatively limited impact on the surrounding street scape.
The new proposed amendments however are beyond reasonable, proposed lkate in the process, and will have not just an immediate impact on the shops and local community but will set a terrible precednet in terms of the potential development of the area.
The proposal adds massive height to the two towers - between 40-60M- which is a massive shift.
My view is that the proposed changes are excessive, unecessary, and will negatively impact on both the local area in the short and longer terms, and should be stopped

The proposed additional development will impact adversely those who live south of the building with extra shadows. It will also be an excessive development in an area that currently partially suffers from overdevelopment and shadowing across much of Oxford st west of Bondi Junction mall. The cumulative impacts are not being considered.

In the documentation it appears to me that the developer has "engaged with community" (EIS 7.4. COMMUNITY VIEWS) but this is at a superficial level and no resident appears to support the scale of this construction.

The shadow diagrams are inadequate as they do not show the increase in shadowing that will happen in the months surrounding winter solstice.

The developer is seeking to add an additional 9 levels and car spaces to a site that has already laid the foundations. It appears the developer has knowledge or presumes that the extra storeys they seek will be approved. This presumption injurs the community trust in the state government and local environmental planning.

TRANSPORT IMPACT STATEMENT:
Table 4.3 shows intersection performance results with additional development traffic for 2035 AM and PM peak hours
^ this table is blank.
Transport users will be negatively impacted by the building overshadowing the bus stop on Oxford st. If it is the council's wish that residents ease traffic by using public transport then this transport needs to be pleasing to use.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I wish to submit my feedback on the proposed development at 194-214 Oxford Street & 2 Nelson St, Bondi Junction NSW 2022. Application Number SSD-77175998. I am a resident of Grafton Street, Bondi Junction on the block between Nelson Street and Leswell St. I will be directly impacted by this development. I call upon you to reject this new proposal noting the already approved development of DA-400/2021 and DA-360/2023

I object to the height and scale of this development. The proposal puts the premises of Building A at 13 stories and Building B at 17 stories. This is not in keeping with the character of the block or the entry to Bondi Junction, the gateway as it is known. The development will be visually obtrusive from all angles and will cast shadows over my property and surrounding heritage areas. I request you reject the plans. The already approved plans are already going to create issues with height and scale and to further increase upon this will exacerbate the already generous approved development application. The development significantly exceeds current height maximums in Waverley Councils LEP.

The Visual Aspect Assessment is inadequate. It fails to assess the impact on Grafton Street, Bondi Junction in particular the residences between Leswell St and Nelson St. This will be a huge impact to our properties but the assessment does not offer that perspective. The full impact here needs to be assessed to accurately demonstrate the impact it will have.

Traffic. The area is already under immense pressure from this and other development. Oxford Street is frequently gridlocked. Grafton Street already carries extra traffic from drivers avoiding Oxford Street and is frequently gridlocked in this location particularly during Morning and Afternoon peak times and school pickup / drop off times. To add the pressure of vehicles entering and exiting Osmund Lane onto Nelson Street will exacerbate the situation. Vehicles wishing to exit and head towards the city will frequently be unable to turn right onto Nelson St as that is frequently banked up at the traffic lights. This is going to cause frustrations and cause disruption. Vehicles are frequently banked up along Leswell Street with drivers attempting to turn right onto Oxford Street which causes traffic to bank up and block Grafton Street. The only way out will be for drivers to make almost a 1km detour East down Grafton Street, left down Newland Street and left onto Edgecliff Road. No one will want to do this extension and subsequently will create issues for traffic at Nelson Street and Grafton Street.

Parking. I note 81 residential parking spaces have been allocated (reference Traffic Impact Assessment Section 3.3). This is to service 85 Apartments comprising approximately 150 bedrooms across 2,3 and 4 bedroom apartments. While the report states this is in guidelines, this will put parking pressure on surrounding residential streets and it is imperative that Waverley Councils restriction preventing on street parking permits for this development is upheld. It is noted that public transport options are available however that is not the typical behaviour of residents in the area who often have 1-2 cars per household.

Precedence. If this development is approved, it sets a new height precedence for the North Western edge of Bondi Junction. This will leave neighbouring terrace housing particularly along Grafton Street in a hole surrounded by high rises. Heritage will be lost as will amenity. The only way out is for the entire strip along Grafton St and Oxford street to match the precedence set and that will take away the heritage and character of West Bondi Junction.

I again call upon you to please reject the development application amendment.

Thank you,
Kind Regards

Dear Planning Officers,
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development of shop-top housing infill at Oxford and Nelson Street, Bondi Junction. While I acknowledge the need for increased housing supply, particularly affordable housing, this proposal will create traffic and public transport mess that needs to be avoided. It doesn’t improve housing affordability and we shouldn’t allow developers to re-open these complex and costly negotiations to improve their profits at the expense of the citizens of NSW.
Please see my full objection attached.
Kind regards,
Simon Carson

Hi
Further to my submission yesterday. I suggest the affordable housing team address the issue of vacant housing used as airbnb in the area and consider policy and regulatory change. When I seek accommodation on airbnb for Bondi Junction, there are more than 1000 options listed. Surely this is a more expedient and socially acceptable way to quickly solve the housing problem?
Regards

I understand that 10 stories have already been approved but PLEASE do not approve the additional proposed stories. They will have a devastating impact on the local community. This giant tower will look ridiculous in the surrounding low-rise area. It will also destroy the tranquility of centennial park by ruining the picturesque natural skyline.

The proposed height is 57% higher than the 36m permitted under the local LEP and almost double the affordable housing rule
The will be a blocking of sunlight, casting shadows
Additional trafiic will be created in an already challenging area, with 15 additonal units and 54 car spaces
It will be an eye saw to locals and visitors
Terrible precednet for the rest of the precinct and change our village into a high rise monstrosity
As a 40 year resident of the area I a staunchly opposed to this already over bearing and ugly development.
Please consider the locals quality of life

Please see attached letter.

The developers have for the last decade ignored community objections to the construction of such a huge and unaesthetic structure which will worsen traffic congestion, road safety, amenity of access in west Bondi Junction as well as destroy the natural environment of Centennial Park. They have sought to reject every attempt by the community and local council to construct a more sympathetic building and so plan to create an unsightly streetscape that contravenes the height restrictions of buildings currently in Oxford Street and the heritage value of surrounding areas.

We absolutely object to the project. The site is right at the gate way of Waverley and Woollahra areas, under the umbrella of heritage conservation areas.

The suggested increase in height will be over protruding. We as residents have to comply with strict restrictions on how we can renovate/extend our homes, and this is no way be inline with our area's historical upkeep. None of the new high-rise along this stretch of Oxford Street are of the heights being proposed. This will create a precedent to other developers to take advantage and leverage on the usage of "affordable homes". Nor is it fair to the families who have purchased in the area. We are right next to the beautiful Centennial Parkland, the extension will affect the surrounding of the park, even simply with light population. The parkland has many habitats, the location of the building is in the flight pathway for many birds and bats. it is extremely rare within such close proximity to the city, we have this large green space and unobstructed skyline.

It is obvious that all along from the start, the developer has plans to build extra levels, by gaining initial approval to build and further seek approval, in the aim that our objections will not be able to out weigh their so called "social benefit". In fact, it will deeply affect the residents in the area, with the increase of traffic, parking issues and posing pedestrians safety, which currently is already a concern. It will also over shadow many residential homes in its surrounding. It will crowd the sky line that Waverley and Woollahra share and to up keep. School catchment may potentially will be affected.

I do not understand how after they have started building the foundation (and now on their second level above ground), they can then apply to build extra levels. They would have at the beginning planned to do so, factoring in and in preparation for the increase in their structural development. Also at the price of this building, how does this classify as "affordable homes"? It is absolutely unfair to the residents in the surrounding areas, who has been paying the price to live in the area, who wishes to enjoy the characteristic of our beautiful area with Centennial parkland and nearby beaches, and not be living within concrete jungles.

As much as there is a need to rejuvenate the area, the exploitation by this project and its developer is clear. It will be an absolute disappointment and distrust, if this extension of project is given the go ahead. If this is approved, it means residents have little say and inability to care/protect the area that we call home.

I truly hope NSW Government will make the right decision to protect the area and the residents.

This project is overbearing and will impact the amenity of everyone in the neighbourhood. It looks like something out of Hong Kong. Bring the size down!