New South Wales
Attention Director, Key Sites Assessments
Re: Over Station Development
Based on Community Feedback on page 12 for the proposed development
there are lots of best practice concept statements but vague
supporting detail. Two specific issues are:
-Traffic congestion and parking are important to consider
- More green space, community services and facilities are wanted
Traffic studies confirming no significant impact are not believable.
Since the movement to increase housing density along the Pacific
Highway began several years ago, the traffic and parking in Crows Nest
has become increasingly problematic. Council and the RMS have done
little to foster improvement. History shows that despite public
transportation (busses and 4 close in train stations), people buy and
use cars. Local parking is a constant problem for residents and
It is disingenuous (and possibly insulting) to say that above station
structures, i.e. 350 new homes, 200 hotel rooms, an 8 story commercial
commercial building, and street level retail will be sufficiently
served by 150 parking spaces and it is worse to claim there will be no
adverse impacts on the road network (Page 22). Simple math, if
applied, discredits this assumption.
Consider, the above over station occupants plus already proposed and
approved and under construction high rise buildings plus current St
Leonards buildings recently opened plus street retail plus current
metering restrictions plus through highway traffic to Falcon Street
and North Sydney plus "significant" (large, to be defined) structures,
and evaluate the legitimacy of the "studies".
Presumably there is a formula for green space relative to population
density. It is woefully inadequate in its current configuration and
appears to be more so as families are stacked vertically. The effects
on children being raised in units without ample outdoor facilities is
a disservice. There is more focus on retail services than open space
recreational facilities. It begs the bigger picture question of what
this is all meant to achieve and what are considered "quality of life"
values. Developer monies are seriously insufficient to realise the
benefits touted in the glossy brochures.
It is worth considering thecurrent disastrous development issues in
NSW (trains, light rail, roads, museum, sporting venues), Council
should try to lead in quality, effectiveness and cost in its
development actions. We voters are at best skeptical, but mostly angry
about the integrity of development. Problems can't be laid on
developers alone; they can't develop what is not abetted, or a more
kindly expression, made available by government.