Submission Opposing the Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Project

To whom it may concern,

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed Lake Lyell Pumped Hydro Project.

This proposal raises serious concerns for me, not only as a nearby resident but as someone with a long-standing personal connection to the Lake Lyell area.

1. Impact on Family Property and Livelihood
My parents own property on a main road that is expected to be heavily used by construction traffic, including large trucks and machinery. The increase in heavy vehicle movement will significantly affect their day-to-day living conditions—creating noise, dust, access issues, and safety concerns.

Beyond the immediate disruption, there is a real and justified concern that their property will be devalued. A home situated on what will effectively become a construction corridor is far less desirable, and this places an unfair financial burden on them through no fault of their own.

2. Loss of a Valued Regional Landmark
Lake Lyell is more than just a body of water—it is a well-known and much-loved regional landmark. For many families, including my own, it holds years of memories. Growing up, I spent a great deal of time there boating, fishing, and enjoying the outdoors. It is a place that has long provided recreation, connection, and a sense of community.

The transformation of this landscape into an industrial site represents a significant loss, not just visually but culturally and socially. Once altered, the character of Lake Lyell cannot be returned to what it once was.

In addition, there are important environmental and cultural considerations that must not be overlooked. The area provides habitat for native wildlife, including platypus populations, which are sensitive to changes in water quality, flow, and habitat disturbance. The risks posed by large-scale construction and ongoing operation could have serious consequences for these species.

Lake Lyell and its surrounds also hold significance in terms of Aboriginal heritage. The disturbance of land and waterways raises concerns about the protection of culturally important sites and the preservation of connection to Country. These values should be respected and protected, not compromised.

3. Unsuitability of the Location
Given the scale and impact of a pumped hydro development, Lake Lyell is not an appropriate location. It is already a well-used recreational area with strong community attachment and existing value in its current form.

There are alternative locations that would be far more suitable—areas with less community impact, lower recreational use, and fewer consequences for local residents and landowners. Choosing a site like Lake Lyell suggests that community value and long-term impacts have not been adequately considered.

Conclusion
The project, as proposed, places an unreasonable burden on local families, threatens the value of privately owned land, and risks the permanent loss of a treasured regional landmark.

I respectfully ask that this proposal be reconsidered, and that more appropriate locations be explored—ones that do not come at such a high cost to the community, environment, and cultural heritage.

Yours sincerely,
Jason Martin

I live a street away from this proposal, and have for the past 20 years.

There is a lack of ambition in this proposal.

This proposal is the latest in a series of developments in Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay creating larger apartments and reducing density. Other close by redevelopments which have reduced density in the past decade or so include 1 Gresham Street and 10 Wylde Street.

When other developers are proposing 60 story towers 20 km from the CBD under the major projects, it incredible that a reduction in density is being allowed a mere 2km from the CBD. If 60 stories are being allowed 20km from the CBD, why aren't 110 stories being allowed in Potts Point? (National Security given that it would be overlooking the Navy bases may be a valid reason).

This proposal to reduce density in Potts Point makes a mockery of the transport approval process and questions its credibility and social licence.

The inconsistency and lack of planning created by the transport approval process will create a lightening rod of dissatisfaction across Sydney which could be used for a political party to efficiently campaign and win votes across a wide number of seats, potentially influencing the outcome of future state elections.

It’s questionable if the proposed development is still economically viable, given the recent and widely reported large increases in building costs following the disruption to oil supplies from the Middle East.

Given the existing high density in the area, work hours should be restricted given the disturbance works will cause to a great number of residents. Works between 9am and 4pm should be permitted. Workers should be required to use public transport given the lack of parking in the suburb. Additionally, given the narrow roads and high levels of pedestrian traffic only small trucks should be allowed, semitrailers should not be permitted.

I oppose the project for several reasons.
1 The height - the new proposal would be much taller than our neighbouring buildings. This would change the beautiful look of the streetscape in Macleay Street. The buildings are up to 9 floors high or less, and are predominantly art deco and early modernist blocks of apartments.
2 Our neighbourhood would loose lots of residents. This new building proposal houses many less residents and at a much more expensive price per apartment . It would be a very much bigger building with much fewer residents and not many affordable apartments.
3 Relating to above point, our neighbourhood is fast becoming gentrified. The community needs a good mix of residents and sizes of apartments. The Chimes contains lots of studios, which makes it affordable to live in the area for many more people.
In summary, a smaller building more in keeping with the surrounding buildings with a better mix of sizes of apartments and more affordable apartments would be a lot better fit, if The Chimes must be demolished.

Please see objection attached

As a long-time resident of Potts Point, I believe the proposed development is inappropriate on three counts:
1. The proposed development is too tall, at 16 storeys, and therefore incompatible with its surroundings, especially when compared to the existing 10 story building, which is similar in height to several adjacent buildings.
2. The proposed development reduces the number of residencies from around 80 units to 44 units, despite the increased height, which is counter-productive to NSW policy to increase housing supply.
3. The allocation of 'affordable' units in the proposed development expires after just 15 years, which will reduce the diversity of the population of Potts Point, through the withdrawal of affordable housing for essential workers.
I believe the proposed development should be reconsidered and revised to address these issues.

OBJECTION SUMMARY – 45-53 MACLEAY STREET (THE CHIMES)
As a long-term resident of The Chimes, I formally object to SSD-83867719. Please refer to the attached PDF for a comprehensive technical and legal audit of the proposal. My objection is based on the following critical failures:
1. Unjustifiable Height Breach: The 11.9% (5.96m) exceedance of the maximum height limit is used to provide luxury habitable penthouse space, which fails the "public benefit" test required for a Clause 4.6 variation.
2. Heritage Misrepresentation: The Heritage Impact Statement by John Oultram Heritage & Design fails to recognise the significance of the building as a work by the prominent architect Hugo Stossel, incorrectly labelling it as "detracting."
3. Loss of Housing Diversity: The proposal results in a net loss of 36 dwellings. The developer is "cherry-picking" height bonuses from the SEPP (Housing) 2021 while ignoring the mandatory tenant protections in Part 3 of that same SEPP.
4. Social Impact: There has been a total failure to survey or account for the displacement of the 80 current studio households in a suburb with a 1.8% vacancy rate.

I request that this application be refused in its current form. I reserve the right to supplement this objection should further documentation be released.