I support further growth in Gosford, and this is an excellent balanced submission.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would however like to see the number of storeys and units significantly increased as well as units set aside for essential workers.

Submission on SSD-83538214: Mixed use with affordable housing, 43-45 Beane Street and 2 Keevers Lane, Gosford

I am the owner of Unit 21, 24-26 Watt Street, Gosford. My building adjoins the subject site to the south, at a separation of approximately 30 metres. I make this submission as the owner of a directly affected property.

I do not oppose additional housing in Gosford's city centre, including affordable housing. My concern is that the impact of this proposal on my building is likely to be significant, and that I have seen nothing to indicate it has been assessed.

1.⁠ ⁠Overshadowing

My building sits almost directly south of the proposed 26-storey tower. In this orientation, the tower's shadow will fall across the building for a substantial part of the day through the cooler months.

On my own estimate, using a tower height of approximately 85 metres and Gosford's latitude:

•⁠ ⁠At the winter solstice, the midday shadow extends roughly 130 metres to the south. My building is approximately 23 metres south of the site and would be entirely within it.
•⁠ ⁠At the equinoxes, the midday shadow extends roughly 55 metres and would still cover my building.
•⁠ ⁠Because my building lies slightly to the east of the site, winter afternoon shadows would compound this loss.

I am not a consultant, and I put these figures forward as an indication of scale rather than as a finding. That is precisely my point. This analysis should have been provided by the applicant, tested against my building, and made readily accessible to affected owners during the exhibition period.

I have not been in a position to locate and review shadow diagrams for this proposal within the exhibition period, and I am therefore unable to say whether solar access to my property has been modelled at all. I ask that the Department satisfy itself on that question. If solar access to 24-26 Watt Street has not been specifically assessed, I ask that the applicant be required to provide shadow analysis modelling the habitable rooms and private open space of my building at the winter solstice and the equinoxes, and that this analysis be made publicly available before the application is determined.

As an owner, I would add that a permanent loss of winter sunlight affects both the amenity of the dwelling and its value, and it is not a matter that can be remedied after consent is granted.

2.⁠ ⁠Construction impacts

The proposal involves three levels of basement excavation on a sloping site within approximately 30 metres of occupied residential dwellings. I ask that the Department give close attention to vibration and rock excavation methods and their effect on adjoining structures, construction noise and hours of work, dust management, and heavy vehicle routes and their interaction with Watt Street.

I request that any consent include enforceable conditions covering these matters, together with pre-construction dilapidation surveys of adjoining residential buildings and a nominated contact for owners and residents during construction.

3.⁠ ⁠Community consultation

[Only include if accurate:] I have not been contacted by the applicant or its consultants at any point regarding this proposal. If the Environmental Impact Statement asserts that consultation was undertaken with surrounding landowners, I ask that the Department verify what was actually done, as no approach was made to me.

4.⁠ ⁠What I am asking for

I ask that the application not be determined until solar access to 24-26 Watt Street has been properly modelled and made publicly available, and that if material overshadowing is confirmed, the built form be amended to reduce that impact. If consent is granted, I ask that conditions address the construction impacts set out above.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Prateek Obireddy
Owner, Unit 21, 24-26 Watt Street, Gosford NSW 2250

Hi Ryan,

I'm reaching out this afternoon as I have just been notified of the exhibition at Beane St in Gosford and am one of the affected individuals if this were to move forward.

First of all, I have tried now no less than a dozen times on multiple devices to follow the due procedure in being able to "have my say about the development".

It seems no matter what I do I cannot "have my say" as account issues or password issues or device or internet issues keep popping up out of nowhere.
This by itself is a bit of a red flag as everything else seems to work fine.
Anyway the letter says any questions to contact you're self.

As I am constantly denied my allowable say I have no choice but to put it forward to yourself to put forward.

I firmly believe this development is not in the best interest of the neighbourhood and the community in general.
Adding in a development of this size in this location is only going to cause chaos in the general area.
The infrastructure in the general locality is already at a strain and causing visible and noticeable disturbances to inhabitants of the area.
Too add to this a development of this size does not fit in with the general topography or aesthetics of the area.
The rise would be far too large and cast a shadow on the block and surrounding blocks.
This is speaking politically and politely it would block out the already limited fresh air and sunlight to neighbouring units and apartments.
It would also block out views of all the residents in the area and the newly built state or university buildings.
I firmly believe it would negatively affect the peaceful enjoyment of the environment and community as a whole.

The project seems far too ambitious and only seems to benefit the developers/ower/s and not anyone else under the guise they are helping the community by providing "affordable living".
Firstly I doubt it is even affordable to the general people as the perception of affordable from the high rungs of society that developers lurk around in is often a far cry from that is actually affordable people.

Second point is if this development is to help the people and community with affordable houses as they say, why only 20 of them? From 130? Also they are not fooling anyone by referring to them as housings, homes and houses.
They are not and it is a sales tactic. Realistically they are extremely small units that very very humble if not spartan but supposedly they believe everyone will think otherwise as "it is new".
It seems to only be a ploy to raise the price per square metre of construction and profit in pocket for developers and associated sales personnel while having everyone think it is the norm.
It will infact not help people as they say but only make things more expensive in the locality.

Perhaps if they got control of their ambitions on profit and margin and size and scope to flex around town and how many Ferrari's they be able to squeeze the people for and come up with something that would actually reasonably fit in than perhaps i would have a different opinion.
But 26 floors is not it mate. Its an obvious money grab and a clown move.
They need to find another space for that project.

Maybe a 3-5 level commercial or residential space with no housing commission represented would be a better fit. Or a beatified space even.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way in the area and I'm certain the rich and influential are doing all they can to force people to see it differently.

Please come to you senses as an approving authority.
Many people have paid good money and quite recently Too I might add for nice uninterrupted views. A quiet, peaceful and enjoyable space all of which will change if this goes ahead and to further that it is not the lifestyle that was sold / promised to them if this is to go forward.

Please re-consider and deny the greedy and manipulative corporations.

This would be the closest thing to helping the community as they would say (not humongous social housing towers).

Ps. There isn't even really any real demand or need for this other than the developers sales hype.
Many other developments in the area are struggling to sell both at completion and as a first in buy off the plan model.( These are way better and in better locations also)
To further this they a high turnover rate as they realise they have been sold a lie and cannot to squat about it.

If they want to do as they say/sell than they should go build good sizeable homes on pieces of actual land in a space that can hold them than sell them at a good or affordable price. Not an inflated developers dream rate.
Maybe if they are so good and kind hearted as they put forward they could even give them out for free to the homeless and needy.

Kindest of Regards

I have concerns about this development, in its current form.

Height:
I recognise that Gosford is marked as an area of high-growth, and I broadly support this. However I feel that this developer is being disingenuous in their portrayal of the project's immediate surroundings. In order to justify a 26-story tower, they're claiming that this height is standard for upcoming developments in the area. This is false. Recent and upcoming developments in the northern end of Gosford trend towards the 10-15 floors range. The proponent falsely equates the developments 500-1000m away in the southern portion of Gosford as setting a precedent that justifies their project. In reality, they are trying to set their own precedent with a building that is over twice the height of all other nearby current and proposed buildings. I ask that the height be reconsidered to better fit in with the northern portion of Gosford.

Aesthetics:
The proponent claims they are trying to stand out by bucking the design trends of Gosford. As a neighbouring property owner, I assert that they are proposing an ugly, tacky design, necessary to compensate for the selected block being too small to properly fit a building of this size. The protruding balconies are not clever, they don't look good, and the attempt to justify them by referring to a different region's cultural heritage is nonsensical. I ask that the design be reconsidered, so the facade better fits in with the architecture of Gosford.

Affordable Housing:
I support the inclusion of designated affordable housing in the development. I do not support the way that the proponent seeks to include them. It appears that the proponent is simply trying to get brownie points by including affordable housing, despite the affordable housing being largely hidden away down Keevers Lane. These brownie points are no-doubt being redeemed to make the tower taller, despite very few of the affordable housing units actually being inside the tower at all. I request the design be reconsidered, to better distribute the affordable housing, instead of just shoving it all down Keevers Lane.

Overshadowing:
The excessive height of the 26 story tower appears to cause substantial overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties during winter. This is unacceptable. The proponent justifies this by saying the loss of sunlight will only equate to 2 hours lost, but during winter, some of the affected properties don’t receive much more than 2 hours direct sunlight as is. Additionally, the proposal’s shadow-diagrams appears to falsely represent the height of some nearby properties as being substantially taller than they actually are. This results in a dishonest shadow-diagram that falsely implies residences affected by this development are already overshadowed by other buildings. I ask that the design be reconsidered, to protect the solar access of surrounding properties.

Noise:
The proponent is requesting permission to exceed what their own noise and vibration study recommends as reasonable. I strongly object to the proponent’s requested hours of construction, especially the proposed Saturday hours which far exceed industry norms. There are many neighbouring residences, and I request enforceable development conditions be applied during construction to protect our right to enjoy our homes.

Vibration:
The proponent’s noise and vibration study highlights a likelihood of damaging neighbouring properties if standard equipment is used during excavation, and suggests equipment that could help mitigate this. I request that enforceable development conditions be applied to require mitigating measures be adopted, and compensation be made available if excavation/construction damages neighbouring properties.

Dust:
There are many neighbouring residents who stand to be impacted by potentially harmful dust during excavation and construction. I request that enforceable development conditions be applied to require extensive adoption of dust-suppression measures.

Keevers Lane:
I support the proposed improvements to Keevers Lane, but I do not believe Keevers Lane is capable of supporting the vision that the proponent seeks to depict.

Objection – Brookhollow Avenue Data Centre Expansion (SSD-81928961)

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I wish to object to the proposed Brookhollow Avenue Data Centre Expansion (SSD-81928961) at 3 Brookhollow Avenue, Norwest.

I acknowledge that this is an expansion of an existing data centre, rather than a completely new facility. However, the existing use should not automatically justify further expansion, particularly given the close proximity of the site to residential apartment buildings. The impacts of the additional development on surrounding residents need to be carefully considered.

My concerns are:

* Residential amenity: A large-scale, 24/7 data centre is an industrial-type use that is not suited to being located immediately beside residential buildings.
* Noise: Cooling equipment, ventilation systems, generators and other machinery may create ongoing noise, including at night when residents should reasonably expect a quieter environment.
* Diesel generators and fuel storage: The proposal includes 77 diesel generators and bulk diesel storage, creating concerns about noise, exhaust emissions, odour, fire and safety risks so close to homes.
* Air quality: The operation and testing of diesel generators could expose nearby residents to additional diesel exhaust emissions.
* Height and visual impact: The proposed building is approximately 43 metres high, which could have a significant visual impact on surrounding apartments and residents.
* Traffic and construction: The expansion will bring additional construction activity and ongoing servicing, deliveries and maintenance.
* Cumulative impact: Residents should not have their amenity progressively reduced through the expansion of large-scale infrastructure next to residential areas simply because a facility is already there.

Data centres of this scale require substantial power, cooling, backup generation and associated infrastructure. They are fundamentally different from ordinary commercial buildings and should preferably be located well away from established and planned future residential communities.

I therefore respectfully request that the application be refused.

I strongly object to SSD-81928961 and ask that the concerns of surrounding residents be given serious consideration in the assessment of this proposal.

Please redact all my personal information.

Please see the attached submission PDF.

We currently live in Maitland place and this project will impact our quality of life. Not only during the build but after completion.
Noise, Traffic will increase, The possibility of water and electricity supply will be disrupted. There are plenty of other sites in the state and Hills area including Dural, Kenthurst etc. Please consider these options first.

We live on the 22nd floor across the street from the Data Centre. 8 Maitland Place Norwest.
We are concerned about the noise the site will generate & the pollution from the generators