Telstra Exchange Site, St Leonards

I am an owner of a unit at 10 Atchison Street. As an owner of a property at this address, I pay rates to the Council. I am doing this submission because I have serious concerns about this development. This development is directly across the street from 10 Atchison Street and I have the following specific concerns:

1) I am gravely concerned about the traffic congestion at Christie Street, Chandos Street and Pacific Highway. It is already heavily congested without a 40 plus storey building. The proposed development will add a significant number of residential car park spaces and loading docks. If this development application is approved, it will add more to the already heavily congested Christie and Chandos Streets and Pacific Highway and will result in frequent vehicle collisions.

2) There will be significant (and constant) noise pollution due to heavy traffic and afterhours garbage collection including for commercial and retail floors.

3) There will be loss of view for apartments that face the CBD. Many of our apartments enjoy the water view. The bulk and the height of the building will tower over all the smaller apartments and buildings on Atchison Street. This will impact negatively the value of the units of our building, in particular the units facing Pacific Highway.

4) There are numerous residential developments in the area, including 88 Christie Street, 500 Pacific Highway, 1 Marshall Avenue and 23-35 Atchison Street.

5) There will be constant congestion and noise pollution affecting the health of the residents of Atchison Street and surrounding streets. Even though the address is Pacific Hwy, it will have the biggest impact on the residents of Atchison Street, Christie Street and Nicholson Street.

I strongly urge the Council to refuse the development application for the Telstra Exchange Build to Rent project.

Kind regards,

Mahya Salarnia

My submission is attached. Thank you

Thank you for notifying Sydney Water of SSD-35631707. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact [email protected].

See attached submission on behalf of the Planning department of Lane Cove Council.

Sincere regards

Chris Shortt
Senior Planner

This Submission seeks to inform objections and provide recommendations to the parties of interest including the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (NSW DPHI) in relation to the SSD Application that has been lodged by Home Apartments (the Applicant) with the NSW DPHI.

This submission is in regards to both the SSD application and the proposed state-led rezoning

I am objecting to the proposed State Significant Development Application St Leonards Telstra Exchange Build to Rent for the following reasons: There will be heaver traffic flow causing major disruptions to local residents living within the St Leonards area and extra noise from ongoing developments approved by state government and councils. Also, there are not enough green spaces provided between the new developments and due to the height of the proposed building (43 stories) this will mean loss of sunlight. The lack of parking provided for the new development will also create extreme issues for couriers and delivery drivers as there are already 4 other developments in the St Leonards area.

I do not oppose high rise housing projects near transport hubs. There is an urgent need for affordable rental accommodation.
My objection is about traffic issues, removal of large old tree and public spaces.
CONGESTION AT CHRISTIE/HIGHWAY INTERSECTION
It is ridiculous to think that even 48 parking spaces will NOT cause traffic issues with the entry to the car stacker just a few metres down Christie Street. The intersection with Pacific Highway is already very busy and congestion occurs at peak times - just when some if not many of those 48 vehicle owners will be wanting to use the car stacker and Christie Street to enter or leave the building. Christie Street has already become very busy becaquse of JQZ/88 Christie St.
PUBLIC SPACE
Public spaces are rare in this area and what is being provided looks to be very small. I know this is a tight site and needs upgrading, and that efforts have been made to have street level appeal and dimensions but there is scope for some quiet spaces beside the AMA building where there is already some vegetation and is away from the Highway. However, I also see that this is where access to the parking is planned.
Why does the large tree have to go? Rarely do replacement street trees achieve the same proportions.
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IN OXLEY, LITHGOW AND NICHOLSON STREETS
Construction traffic will creep into Oxley Street and Nicholson Street just as it did for the construction of 88 Christie. We had 5 or 6 cement trucks waiting with engines running outside our apartment for many days. What controls will there be on construction traffic waiting in side streets such as Lithgow Street and Oxley Street?
OXEY STREET IS THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THE AREA.
Additional traffic will be created by the very needs of people living and working in this building - deliveries, visitors, BICYCLES, taxis, UBER, ambulances ... ALL traffic associated with this building will have to travel via Nicholson Street to Oxley Street to EXIT the area - unless Christie Street can be made 2-way
STEEPNESS OF CORNER
Pedestrians already find it a tight squeeze getting around the corner or coming off the pedestrian crossing. The angle and steepness of the footpath is already dangerous. Given that EVERYONE expects the Metro will generate much more foot traffic there is a need for much more room for public safety at this corner.

This is a rare opportunity to add significant benefits to the community when replacing the old / obsolete Telstra Exchange.
Can we ensure the community is at the centre of the design, this is a health and safety professional hub of Sydney, NSW and Australia. Certainly a rare opportunity to completely change the purpose, use and outcomes of a site for the benefits of the whole community.

1. The building is too tall.
2. There are too many new dwellings for the St Leonards area - this will lead to overcrowding and decreased liveability.

My wife and I are long-term residents of St Leonards and are very concerned about the proposed Telstra Exchange Site development for the following reasons:
1) the local area is already heavily populated and lacking sufficient green spaces and recreational areas; the Telstra site development covers the entire site with virtually no separation from neighbouring buildings and no provision for public spaces
2) of major concern is the impact on already heavily congested traffic - the proposed car stacker will no doubt cause more congestion particularly during peak times, as cars will be queuing for entry; we understand that the 2013 traffic study does not include the additional 3870 residents of four recently completed high-rise buildings using the vehicular access from Nicholson Street, with only Oxley Street available for access out of the area
3) has the impact of this development on already overloaded infrastructure been investigated? there are already instances of overflowing drains on the Pacific Highway in heavy rain, and some high-rise buildings (eg Landmark) have already experienced flooding in their carpark
4) the provision of only 48 car spaces for 282 dwellings will inevitably lead to significant pressure on already limited availability of on-street parking in St Leonards
Please ensure that the above comments are included in the consideration of this development application

The provision of 48 car spaces for 282 dwellings is inadequate. The project as proposed will result in an increase in the number of cars street parking in the surrounding area. There should be at least 1 car space for every unit. There are 10 key worker housing units and to fulfill their roles they can be expected to require a car space leaving 38 spaces. There are 84 services apartments which are little different from a hotel in function and many travellers have either their own vehicle or a rented vehicle. If only 1/2 have a vehicle there are no remaining car spaces. The 48 spaces are only adequate for the key workers and serviced apartments. The remaining 188 dwelling will have no car parking spaces. While the residents may make good use of public transport, they may also own a car for their weekends. A car park for every unit will ensure that their parked cars are parked on site and not in the surrounding area. Allowing a limited number of parking spaces is a boon for the developers at the expense of the local resident's amenity.

Refer to attachment.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see attached submission for the Rezoning Proposal at the Telstra Exchange Site on behalf of Lane Cove Council.
Sincere regards
Chris Shortt
Senior Planner Lane Cove Council

Whilst I support the development of this site generally I have the following objections:

(1) The developer has completely ignored the maximum height restrictions for the site contained in the St Leonards/Crows Nest 2036 Plan. The proposed tower height should be reduced to that level, below the height of the Landmark less than 20 metres away.

(2) The development adds nothing to social or community infrastructure in the immediate area, yet brings a meaningful increase in population. This impact is amplified by the proposed development at 46 Nicholson St which also brings a meaningful number of new residents into the area without making any contribution at all to local amenity. The large number of existing residents occupying recent developments such as Landmark, St Leonards Square and 88 Christie, who purchased their properties based on a planned level of density now face the impact of a much higher population than the 2036 Plan ever contemplated.

(3) The combined impact of the sites mentioned above and other planned largely residential developments along and adjacent to the Pacific Hwy in St Leonards and Crows Nest (eg 617-621 Pacific Hwy and further south closer to the proposed metro station) risks cooking the goose in terms of liveability in this area. Increased density is good, however my concern is that the DPIE and State Gov will use this area for maximum density as a convenience ie “what difference does another or a taller tower make in St Leonards”. This is what existing residents feel, that we are losing amenity each time another 250-300 unit resi development is approved here. Adjacent tall towers, few spaces… taking light, views and privacy away from current St Leonards residents.

(4) Clearly another construction site will add to the high noise, dust and inconvenience which is typical of life in St Leonards. I note the proposed site will only be metres away from many people’s homes in adjacent towers, so I expect the amenity of local residents to be considered by planning authorities as construction approaches. I invite you to live next to a construction site of this scale to understand the impact on your quality of life.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns regarding the Telstra Exchange, St Leonards Development.

I have four issues objecting to this development:
1) Cumulative Impact Of Telstra Exchange, St Leonards
The Telstra Exchange proposal cannot be assessed using an isolationist approach it is fact that the development application is one of many proposals in and surrounding the Atchison Street area. Only a cumulative view incorporating all proposed developments in and around Atchison Street can be considered. To fail to take this approach overlooks the real impact that the existing St Leonards and Crows Nest infrastructure will face if the Telstra Exchange project proceeds.

2) Light Pollution
Since the introduction of the JQZ development at 88 Christie St, St Leonards there has been an increase in the amount of artificial light at night flooding into Atchison Street. The addition of Telstra Exchange will add further artificial light into this situation.
Personally, I have already been negatively impacted by the current conditions. Despite having installed heavy duty curtains into my bedroom the amount of artificial light illuminating my home has significantly increased since 88 Christie Street was constructed.
I see no assessment within the proposal measuring the impact on existing Atchison Street residents of artificial light that will emanate from the proposed Telstra Exchange development. It seems there will be no attempt to mitigate \ negate impact.
Surely this cannot be acceptable. Existing residents must have rights regarding light pollution. The existing situation is already manifestly unfair with residents without any power to enforce the switching off of lights by commercial tenants at night. (See attached images an example of the situation night after night.)


3) Traffic Congestion
As mentioned in point 1, the basis point of measurement of the impact of Telstra Exchange cannot be made in isolation. The additional traffic flow generated from the development must be considered cumulatively with all other proposed developments.
Of particular concern are the intersections at:
• Chandos Street and Christie Street
• Christie Street and Pacific Highway
The current traffic management infrastructure in place limits access to the Telstra Exchange:
a) Traffic travelling from Chatswood towards St Leonards
Requires a left turn at Christie Street from Pacific Highway and then a loop right around the roundabout at Chandos and Christie Street to then be able to cross Pacific Highway to reach the Telstra Exchange.

b) If traffic is travelling from the city towards St Leonards.
Requires a right turn right at Albany Street and then turn left at Oxley, left again at Oxley and Chandos Street intersection. Then a run along Chandos to the Chandos and Christie Street intersection, finally turning left into Atchison Street.
At the busiest times of the day the Chandos and Christie Street intersection will encounter even greater strain. Even with the current situation this intersection is bottle-necked with resulting long traffic delays and frustrated motorists honking their car horns.
Since the completion of 88 Christie Street there has been a noticeable increase in traffic flow through this area with residents travelling from Chatswood unable to turn right into Christie Street to access their homes. They must navigate the path as outlined in (a) above.
At the very least a current traffic assessment needs to be undertaken to measure current traffic and delay flows – not the historical basis pre-88 Christie Street.
Realistically a traffic assessment should be undertaken cumulatively considering all development applications in the vicinity – including the Landmark Quarter. This is because the Landmark Quarter will further introduce significant traffic strain onto the Christie and Chandos Street intersection as residents will be forced into scenario (a) when travelling from Chatswood direction along Pacific Highway.
Additionally, the traffic flow report has failed to consider the volume of traffic that will be drawn into the area relating to associated visitors such as (but not limited to):
• Visiting family and friends
• Businesses supplying goods and services to residents of Telstra Exchange such as meal delivery (Ubereats etc), tradespeople attending the building, package delivery services and ride share services (taxis and uber etc)
• Delivery of goods and packages to the proposed retail and commercial businesses within
Residents do not live in isolation – they are connected to their community. Connection means additional traffic flow as per the above, which is absent from the provided assessment.

4) Street Parking
The cumulative impact parking for the proposed the Telstra Exchange development cannot be made in isolation. Traffic Congestion must consider the cumulation of all of the proposed developments in the pipeline.
Assessment must be made based upon the situation post the opening of JQZ at 88 Christie St and Landmark at 500 Pacific Highway included as well as 621 Pacific Highway.
That a shortage of street parking already exists in the surrounding area is undeniable.
The historical action by Council to meter parking in the vicinity is at its core an acceptance that current demand for street parking exceeds availability for the existing residents and businesses. Principally, metered parking is a tool to ration demand versus insufficient availability.
With this fact established that there is insufficient parking supply to meet current demand, then it is not sensible to exacerbate the situation by further increasing parking demand.
The proposal to construct more residences in the Telstra Exchange site plus will be a significant uplift in the pressure for parking spaces in Atchison Street and surrounds.
This pressure will come from:
• Residents in Telstra Exchange who own a car but will not have a parking spot within the building.
• Family and friends of residents when they come to visit.
• Businesses supplying goods and services to residents such as meal delivery (Ubereats etc), tradespeople attending the building, package delivery services and ride share services (taxis and uber etc)
• Delivery of goods and packages to the proposed retail and commercial businesses

When marrying this with the restricted traffic flow in and around Atchison Street, Christie Street and Chandos Street, it questions the sense and viability of adding even more residential apartments plus retail and commercial within this small area.

I support the proposal. If anything I think the developer should be allowed to build higher if the developer so desires.

I object to it because:

St Leonards needs more public open space not more high density development. We will create an urban jungle unless we reserve public place and places for family to enjoy the outdoors without driving. This land should be rezoned to be a public park.

Access to views of the district, the sky and the harbour from apartments on the southern side of Forum building will be most adversely affected, especially all those in vertical alignment under units in the south east corner of the Forum. When the effect of other past and current approvals are taken into account there will be a severe effect on amenity. Any development other than a public park should be limited to the existing height.

I object to this development as I believe I goes far in excess of what was already an overdevelopment of the site under the 2036 plan, and it does not deliver any justification for such exceedances of the 2036 plan. I can see little “public benefit” or “exceptional value” that the Plan says should be evident to justify such exceedances.
Instead it will contribute to current serious issues in this area of overdevelopment and densification, putting too much strain on existing utilities with little new infrastructure planned to address.
For example, this area is currently zoned Commercial Centre – rezoning to Mixed use means instead of being inhabited during a normal work week, Monday to Friday, it will more likely be inhabited full time, vastly increasing the pressure on local services and infrastructure from permanent residents. Instead of people coming to St Leonards to work in the building and leaving at the end of the day, the residents will all be trying to leave the area each to travel elsewhere for work, accessing already overcrowded trains and buses. Yes, there is a new train station coming, but it is 900m away – residents will go for the much closer St Leonards Station, which is very crowded already at peak times.
Rezoning this site also means diminishing future potential for employment space in St Leonards, by turning potential office space into residential. For such a huge site, the growth in employment from this massive development is from the current 14 people up to 40 according to the applicant documents, which is virtually negligible.
The develop is planned to exceed the storey limit (43 instead of 35) and the site height controls by 76m (according to the Explanation of Intended Effect report). There is also an 8 storey street wall instead of 6 and minimal setbacks. Where is the public benefit in this? Having buildings so close together or with huge street walls at the pavement does little for the public amenity or for those in neighbouring buildings, impacting their natural light.
The development only includes 10 “affordable” housing units and that is only for 15 years. After that, the Developer can do what they like with them. Why are these not granted in perpetuity as I have seen in other developments? If you are truly trying to provide low-cost housing there should be no time limit on it. And the “public benefit” of the massive overdevelopment disappears in 15 years when the developer sells them. So we ask - who is benefiting in all this in the long term? Certainly not the public.
The applicant suggests current street parking in Christie Street could be removed to allow for their car stacker access and a loading zone, and that this would have no impact on traffic. This section of Christie Street is now the main access point for multiple developments and is already heaving congested at certain times of the day, let alone waiting for trucks to manoeuvre or cars to access a stacker. It will also heavily impact Nicholson and Oxley streets (the only way out) which simply will not cope with the additional traffic load. Once again, we see a traffic impact report using outdated vehicle modelling numbers and not taking into account other recent developments. The current residents in this area are desperately trying to get their traffic issues fixed, yet this development acts like there will be no impacts from the addition of their building – there is no commonsense in this.
Once again, we are seeing a development proposed for this area which is a gross overdevelopment for the site, and with little consideration for the cumulative effects of allowing all these developments. St Leonards is being turned into a dumping ground for high density and will suffer from such poor planning.
Every development that has been approved so far in this area has exceeded development controls and not considered the true cumulative traffic impacts. Once again, the community asks – what is the point of having development controls if the Department simply ignores them?

I am a resident of St Leonards Square. Since Landmark and Mall 88 were completed, the traffic situation along Nicholson Street/Christie Street/Oxley Street has become untenable. There is already a new high-rise apartment scheduled for the corner of Nicholson Street/Christie Street, which will add to the cars going in and out of buildings and trying to exit via Oxley street AS THIS IS THE ONLY EGRESS ROUTE. Unless the access to this proposed building is ON the highway OR Christie Street changes to 2-way (which would mean change to traffic lights), this will only get worse with this proposed development. Traffic is especially bad at peak commute times. There needs to be better infrastructure around new builds that accommodates for the existing residents BEFORE it should consider adding to this traffic mess. For this reason, I object to this proposal. Please fix the existing problems before adding new ones.