Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NAREMBURN
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) at 33–37 Herbert Street, St Leonards.
I support the need for additional housing in Sydney and recognise that higher-density development has an important role to play in well-located areas. However, development must be appropriately located, consistent with adopted planning frameworks, and designed to balance housing delivery with the protection of local amenity and infrastructure capacity. In its current form, this proposal fails to achieve that balance.
#1. Inconsistent with the Strategic Planning Framework for the Area
The proposal seeks approval for a 39-storey twin-tower development on a site that is outside the core high-rise area envisaged under the recently adopted Crows Nest Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) planning framework.
The Crows Nest TOD Precinct Design Guide establishes a clear principle that the highest-density development should be concentrated around the St Leonards and Crows Nest centres and transition down in height, bulk and scale toward surrounding residential neighbourhoods. The proposal site sits beyond the primary high-rise spine along the Pacific Highway and is separated from the intended high-rise precinct.
Approving a 39-storey tower in this location would undermine the carefully planned height transition strategy that formed part of extensive community consultation and planning work. It would create an isolated high-rise development that is inconsistent with the intended urban structure for the precinct.
#2. Excessive Height and Visual Impact
The proposed development would significantly exceed the scale of surrounding buildings and become the tallest building in the immediate vicinity.
The visual impact of a 39-storey tower in this location would be substantial. Rather than reinforcing the established skyline around the St Leonards commercial centre, the proposal would extend high-rise development further north into a lower-scale residential area. This would alter important local views and create an intrusive visual presence that is out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposal represents a significant expansion of the high-rise residential core rather than an orderly transition from it. Such an outcome would set an undesirable precedent for future proposals seeking similar departures from the adopted planning framework.
#3. Overshadowing and Loss of Residential Amenity
The proposal would generate significant overshadowing impacts on surrounding residential properties.
Access to sunlight is a fundamental component of residential amenity. The shadow diagrams referenced in the exhibition material indicate a substantial loss of solar access to neighbouring properties. Increased overshadowing will affect outdoor spaces, gardens and living areas, reducing the quality of life for existing residents.
Given the scale of the proposed towers and their location adjacent to established residential areas, the overshadowing impacts appear disproportionate and inconsistent with good urban design outcomes.
#4. Privacy and Overlooking Impacts
The proposed building height and proximity to surrounding residential properties will create significant overlooking and privacy concerns.
A development of this scale will introduce direct views into nearby homes and private open spaces from numerous levels across the towers. This will diminish privacy for existing residents and fundamentally change the residential character of the surrounding area.
The scale of these impacts is difficult to reconcile with the objective of ensuring that new development contributes positively to local amenity.
#5. Traffic, Parking and Infrastructure Impacts
The proposal includes approximately 413 additional dwellings while providing only 322 residential parking spaces.
This shortfall is likely to increase demand for on-street parking in surrounding residential streets. Herbert Street, Ella Street, Reserve Road and nearby local roads already experience congestion and parking pressures. Introducing hundreds of additional dwellings without sufficient parking provision is likely to exacerbate these existing issues.
More broadly, the proposal would introduce a substantial increase in population without clear evidence that supporting local infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate growth of this scale. Local schools are already experiencing enrolment pressures, and the addition of hundreds of new dwellings is likely to place further demand on both primary and secondary education facilities.
Similarly, the surrounding road network is already heavily utilised, particularly during peak periods. Additional residents will place greater pressure on roads, intersections, pedestrian infrastructure, public transport access points and local community facilities.
While increased housing supply is important, it should be coordinated with the timely provision of supporting infrastructure. Development of this scale should not proceed without demonstrating that local schools, transport networks and community infrastructure can adequately support the resulting population growth.
#6. Unacceptable Planning Precedent
Approval of this development would establish a precedent for similarly scaled developments outside the intended high-rise zone.
One of the key purposes of strategic planning is to provide certainty regarding where growth should occur and what form that growth should take. If a development of this magnitude is approved outside the designated TOD high-rise core, it will become increasingly difficult to resist similar proposals elsewhere, undermining confidence in the planning framework and the extensive consultation that informed it.
The cumulative effect of such precedents could fundamentally alter the character of surrounding residential neighbourhoods in a manner never contemplated by the adopted precinct planning.
#7. Circumvention of Local Planning Controls
I am concerned that the use of the SSD pathway in this instance effectively bypasses local planning controls and previously expressed planning outcomes.
According to publicly available information, less intensive development proposals for the site were previously rejected. The SSD process should not be used to override carefully considered local planning controls without a compelling strategic justification.
Where local councils and strategic planning frameworks have established clear expectations regarding building height, scale, transition and character, these considerations should continue to carry substantial weight in the assessment process.
#Conclusion
While I support increased housing supply and recognise the importance of transit-oriented development, this proposal is in the wrong location and at the wrong scale.
The proposed 39-storey twin-tower development:
• Is inconsistent with the planned height transition principles of the Crows Nest TOD framework.
• Creates excessive visual impacts and is out of scale with the surrounding area.
• Results in significant overshadowing and privacy impacts on nearby residents.
• Exacerbates existing traffic and parking pressures.
• Places additional strain on local schools, roads and community infrastructure.
• Establishes an undesirable precedent for further high-rise expansion outside the intended precinct core.
• Undermines confidence in the strategic planning process and local planning controls.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form. At a minimum, the proposal should be substantially reduced in height and scale to better align with the adopted planning framework, surrounding context and infrastructure capacity.
Thank you for considering this submission.
I support the need for additional housing in Sydney and recognise that higher-density development has an important role to play in well-located areas. However, development must be appropriately located, consistent with adopted planning frameworks, and designed to balance housing delivery with the protection of local amenity and infrastructure capacity. In its current form, this proposal fails to achieve that balance.
#1. Inconsistent with the Strategic Planning Framework for the Area
The proposal seeks approval for a 39-storey twin-tower development on a site that is outside the core high-rise area envisaged under the recently adopted Crows Nest Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) planning framework.
The Crows Nest TOD Precinct Design Guide establishes a clear principle that the highest-density development should be concentrated around the St Leonards and Crows Nest centres and transition down in height, bulk and scale toward surrounding residential neighbourhoods. The proposal site sits beyond the primary high-rise spine along the Pacific Highway and is separated from the intended high-rise precinct.
Approving a 39-storey tower in this location would undermine the carefully planned height transition strategy that formed part of extensive community consultation and planning work. It would create an isolated high-rise development that is inconsistent with the intended urban structure for the precinct.
#2. Excessive Height and Visual Impact
The proposed development would significantly exceed the scale of surrounding buildings and become the tallest building in the immediate vicinity.
The visual impact of a 39-storey tower in this location would be substantial. Rather than reinforcing the established skyline around the St Leonards commercial centre, the proposal would extend high-rise development further north into a lower-scale residential area. This would alter important local views and create an intrusive visual presence that is out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposal represents a significant expansion of the high-rise residential core rather than an orderly transition from it. Such an outcome would set an undesirable precedent for future proposals seeking similar departures from the adopted planning framework.
#3. Overshadowing and Loss of Residential Amenity
The proposal would generate significant overshadowing impacts on surrounding residential properties.
Access to sunlight is a fundamental component of residential amenity. The shadow diagrams referenced in the exhibition material indicate a substantial loss of solar access to neighbouring properties. Increased overshadowing will affect outdoor spaces, gardens and living areas, reducing the quality of life for existing residents.
Given the scale of the proposed towers and their location adjacent to established residential areas, the overshadowing impacts appear disproportionate and inconsistent with good urban design outcomes.
#4. Privacy and Overlooking Impacts
The proposed building height and proximity to surrounding residential properties will create significant overlooking and privacy concerns.
A development of this scale will introduce direct views into nearby homes and private open spaces from numerous levels across the towers. This will diminish privacy for existing residents and fundamentally change the residential character of the surrounding area.
The scale of these impacts is difficult to reconcile with the objective of ensuring that new development contributes positively to local amenity.
#5. Traffic, Parking and Infrastructure Impacts
The proposal includes approximately 413 additional dwellings while providing only 322 residential parking spaces.
This shortfall is likely to increase demand for on-street parking in surrounding residential streets. Herbert Street, Ella Street, Reserve Road and nearby local roads already experience congestion and parking pressures. Introducing hundreds of additional dwellings without sufficient parking provision is likely to exacerbate these existing issues.
More broadly, the proposal would introduce a substantial increase in population without clear evidence that supporting local infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate growth of this scale. Local schools are already experiencing enrolment pressures, and the addition of hundreds of new dwellings is likely to place further demand on both primary and secondary education facilities.
Similarly, the surrounding road network is already heavily utilised, particularly during peak periods. Additional residents will place greater pressure on roads, intersections, pedestrian infrastructure, public transport access points and local community facilities.
While increased housing supply is important, it should be coordinated with the timely provision of supporting infrastructure. Development of this scale should not proceed without demonstrating that local schools, transport networks and community infrastructure can adequately support the resulting population growth.
#6. Unacceptable Planning Precedent
Approval of this development would establish a precedent for similarly scaled developments outside the intended high-rise zone.
One of the key purposes of strategic planning is to provide certainty regarding where growth should occur and what form that growth should take. If a development of this magnitude is approved outside the designated TOD high-rise core, it will become increasingly difficult to resist similar proposals elsewhere, undermining confidence in the planning framework and the extensive consultation that informed it.
The cumulative effect of such precedents could fundamentally alter the character of surrounding residential neighbourhoods in a manner never contemplated by the adopted precinct planning.
#7. Circumvention of Local Planning Controls
I am concerned that the use of the SSD pathway in this instance effectively bypasses local planning controls and previously expressed planning outcomes.
According to publicly available information, less intensive development proposals for the site were previously rejected. The SSD process should not be used to override carefully considered local planning controls without a compelling strategic justification.
Where local councils and strategic planning frameworks have established clear expectations regarding building height, scale, transition and character, these considerations should continue to carry substantial weight in the assessment process.
#Conclusion
While I support increased housing supply and recognise the importance of transit-oriented development, this proposal is in the wrong location and at the wrong scale.
The proposed 39-storey twin-tower development:
• Is inconsistent with the planned height transition principles of the Crows Nest TOD framework.
• Creates excessive visual impacts and is out of scale with the surrounding area.
• Results in significant overshadowing and privacy impacts on nearby residents.
• Exacerbates existing traffic and parking pressures.
• Places additional strain on local schools, roads and community infrastructure.
• Establishes an undesirable precedent for further high-rise expansion outside the intended precinct core.
• Undermines confidence in the strategic planning process and local planning controls.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form. At a minimum, the proposal should be substantially reduced in height and scale to better align with the adopted planning framework, surrounding context and infrastructure capacity.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Courtney Parnell
Object
Courtney Parnell
Object
Naremburn
,
New South Wales
Message
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am the owner and resident of an apartment within Block D of 15A Herbert Street, Naremburn, which sits opposite the proposed development at 33–37 Herbert Street, St Leonards, across the rail corridor.
I object to the proposal in its current form and request that the Department require substantial design modifications before granting approval.
1. Significant Loss of Sunlight and Residential Amenity
My primary concern is the substantial loss of natural light that the proposed development will cause to apartments within Block C and D of 15A Herbert Street.
The existing apartments have benefited from access to sunlight and daylight since their construction in the 1990s. Based on the height, scale and positioning of the proposed towers, it appears that a significant proportion, if not all, of this natural light will be blocked once the development is completed.
Access to sunlight is a fundamental component of residential amenity. Reduced daylight impacts residents’ wellbeing, enjoyment of their homes, energy consumption and overall quality of life. The proposal appears to place an unreasonable burden on existing residents in order to maximise development yield on the site.
I request that the Department carefully review the overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties and require a design outcome that better protects access to sunlight for existing residents.
2. Alternative Design Solutions Are Available
I do not oppose redevelopment of the site in principle. However, I believe there are reasonable alternative design solutions that would significantly reduce impacts on neighbouring residents.
These include:
* Relocating the tallest tower elements further north along Herbert Street to increase separation from existing residential buildings at 15A Herbert Street, particularly noting there is no housing past 15A Herbert St.
* Introducing greater spacing between tower elements to allow sunlight penetration and maintain visual corridors.
* Reducing tower bulk and massing where it directly interfaces with neighbouring residential premises.
The current design appears to prioritise development intensity over the protection of existing residential amenity. A revised design should seek a more balanced outcome.
3. Excessive Bulk and Scale
The proposal’s scale and massing will have a significant impact on surrounding residential properties.
The cumulative effect of the tower height, building bulk and proximity to neighbouring apartments will create an overbearing built form that is inconsistent with maintaining reasonable levels of amenity for existing residents.
The Department should require a design that better balances increased housing supply with the legitimate expectations of existing residents who have occupied neighbouring properties for decades.
4. Extended Construction Impacts
The documentation indicates a construction period exceeding four years.
This represents an exceptionally long period of disruption for surrounding residents. Residents will be subjected to:
* Construction noise and vibration;
* Dust and air quality impacts;
* Traffic and access disruptions;
* Reduced enjoyment of their homes and surrounding public spaces; and
* Ongoing disturbance over an extended period.
I am particularly concerned that construction activities are proposed not only during weekdays but also on Saturdays between 8:00am and 3:00pm.
For nearby residents, weekends are often the only opportunity to enjoy their homes without work commitments. Regular Saturday construction over a period of more than four years will significantly diminish residential amenity and quality of life.
If the project is approved, the Department should impose strict conditions to minimise construction impacts and ensure residents are adequately protected throughout the construction period.
Conclusion
While I support the need for additional housing in appropriate locations, I do not believe the current proposal achieves an appropriate balance between development outcomes and the protection of existing residential amenity.
I respectfully request that the Department:
1. Refuse the proposal in its current form; or
2. Require substantial design amendments that:
* Reduce overshadowing impacts on 15A Herbert Street;
* Improve tower separation and sunlight access;
* Reposition tower elements further north on the site;
* Reduce bulk and scale adjacent to existing residential buildings; and
* Strengthen measures to minimise construction impacts on neighbouring residents.
Thank you for considering my submission.
I am the owner and resident of an apartment within Block D of 15A Herbert Street, Naremburn, which sits opposite the proposed development at 33–37 Herbert Street, St Leonards, across the rail corridor.
I object to the proposal in its current form and request that the Department require substantial design modifications before granting approval.
1. Significant Loss of Sunlight and Residential Amenity
My primary concern is the substantial loss of natural light that the proposed development will cause to apartments within Block C and D of 15A Herbert Street.
The existing apartments have benefited from access to sunlight and daylight since their construction in the 1990s. Based on the height, scale and positioning of the proposed towers, it appears that a significant proportion, if not all, of this natural light will be blocked once the development is completed.
Access to sunlight is a fundamental component of residential amenity. Reduced daylight impacts residents’ wellbeing, enjoyment of their homes, energy consumption and overall quality of life. The proposal appears to place an unreasonable burden on existing residents in order to maximise development yield on the site.
I request that the Department carefully review the overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties and require a design outcome that better protects access to sunlight for existing residents.
2. Alternative Design Solutions Are Available
I do not oppose redevelopment of the site in principle. However, I believe there are reasonable alternative design solutions that would significantly reduce impacts on neighbouring residents.
These include:
* Relocating the tallest tower elements further north along Herbert Street to increase separation from existing residential buildings at 15A Herbert Street, particularly noting there is no housing past 15A Herbert St.
* Introducing greater spacing between tower elements to allow sunlight penetration and maintain visual corridors.
* Reducing tower bulk and massing where it directly interfaces with neighbouring residential premises.
The current design appears to prioritise development intensity over the protection of existing residential amenity. A revised design should seek a more balanced outcome.
3. Excessive Bulk and Scale
The proposal’s scale and massing will have a significant impact on surrounding residential properties.
The cumulative effect of the tower height, building bulk and proximity to neighbouring apartments will create an overbearing built form that is inconsistent with maintaining reasonable levels of amenity for existing residents.
The Department should require a design that better balances increased housing supply with the legitimate expectations of existing residents who have occupied neighbouring properties for decades.
4. Extended Construction Impacts
The documentation indicates a construction period exceeding four years.
This represents an exceptionally long period of disruption for surrounding residents. Residents will be subjected to:
* Construction noise and vibration;
* Dust and air quality impacts;
* Traffic and access disruptions;
* Reduced enjoyment of their homes and surrounding public spaces; and
* Ongoing disturbance over an extended period.
I am particularly concerned that construction activities are proposed not only during weekdays but also on Saturdays between 8:00am and 3:00pm.
For nearby residents, weekends are often the only opportunity to enjoy their homes without work commitments. Regular Saturday construction over a period of more than four years will significantly diminish residential amenity and quality of life.
If the project is approved, the Department should impose strict conditions to minimise construction impacts and ensure residents are adequately protected throughout the construction period.
Conclusion
While I support the need for additional housing in appropriate locations, I do not believe the current proposal achieves an appropriate balance between development outcomes and the protection of existing residential amenity.
I respectfully request that the Department:
1. Refuse the proposal in its current form; or
2. Require substantial design amendments that:
* Reduce overshadowing impacts on 15A Herbert Street;
* Improve tower separation and sunlight access;
* Reposition tower elements further north on the site;
* Reduce bulk and scale adjacent to existing residential buildings; and
* Strengthen measures to minimise construction impacts on neighbouring residents.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
St Leonards
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Mr Keiran Thomas,
I am sorry I have re-submit this as I have to re-arrange the order of importance underneath, my apologies.
I have been a resident in Herbert Tower A, 19-23 Herbert Street over 20 years. The location of Herbert Tower A is right next to 33-37 Herbert Street, St Leonards (“the Site”). I set out below my objections based on the following grounds:
1 Traffic and infrastructure
- Traffic congestion and safety: As 33-37 Herbert Street is right next to Westbourne Street which leads up to the Birth Unit in the Royal North Shore Hospital, it is totally irresponsible to build another 400 units on a main road that leads to the Birth unit of a major hospital (map is attached for ease of reference). This development could cause dangerous traffic increases and enormous stress and delay for mothers on way to the Birth Unit. Furthermore, this could create negative impact on pedestrian safety especially for staff from RNSH, SBS, Australia Post and other commercial units nearby and this was recognised and implemented by NSW Transport for Herbert Street to be a 40K Zone area.
- Insufficient parking: The plans do not provide adequate on-site parking and this could lead to congestion for street parking.
- Drainage and infrastructure: There are major concerns that the development will overload the local stormwater, sewage or utility systems etc.
2 Residential Amenity
- Overlooking and loss of privacy: Balconies or upper-story windows of the Site look directly into private dining living spaces of Herbert Tower A.
- Overshadowing: The new structure will cast shadows on Herbert Tower A, reducing natural light into our home or outdoor areas eg balconies and sunrooms.
- Noise and disturbance: The proposed use residential/commercial will generate excessive traffic, noise and late-night activities and will jeopardise the tranquillity of Herbert Street.
3 Neighbourhood Character and Design
- Visual bulk and scale: The 2 towers (“the Site”) are out of proportion with the neighbouring properties on Herbert Street – the taller Tower (right next to Herbert Tower A) has over 28 levels which is twice the heights of Herbert Towers A and B (13 Levels).
- Site overdevelopment: The footprint of the Site takes up too much of the block, leaving little room for open space and landscaping right next to the neighbouring property i.e. Herbert Towers at 19-23 Herbert Street.
Suggestions:
(a) Open space:
A semi-private courtyard in the size of at least 20 sqm be built between the Site and Herbert Tower A in order to create more open space and reduce density in the area. I attach 2 photos of the latest design from their developer – showing a big courtyard being placed between their 2 towers. I would suggest that they swap the courtyard to be placed in between the Site and Herbert Tower A to create more space and light for the neighbouring residents in Herbert Tower A.
(b) Heights:
In order to reduce the density in the area, the heights of the 2 towers should be restricted to similar heights as the existing buildings.
(c) On-site parking:
On-site parking within the Site should be built and made available to all residents in the Site. 2 levels of underground parking should be built which is the same as Herbert Towers. In this way, the Site will not overtake the heights of the nearby buildings.
(d) Commercial Use:
This should be restricted as this could create excessive traffic, noise and late-night activities.
I also attach photos and map for ease of reference.
Thank you very much for your precious time and kind attention to the above.
Kindest regards
Christina Chiu
I am sorry I have re-submit this as I have to re-arrange the order of importance underneath, my apologies.
I have been a resident in Herbert Tower A, 19-23 Herbert Street over 20 years. The location of Herbert Tower A is right next to 33-37 Herbert Street, St Leonards (“the Site”). I set out below my objections based on the following grounds:
1 Traffic and infrastructure
- Traffic congestion and safety: As 33-37 Herbert Street is right next to Westbourne Street which leads up to the Birth Unit in the Royal North Shore Hospital, it is totally irresponsible to build another 400 units on a main road that leads to the Birth unit of a major hospital (map is attached for ease of reference). This development could cause dangerous traffic increases and enormous stress and delay for mothers on way to the Birth Unit. Furthermore, this could create negative impact on pedestrian safety especially for staff from RNSH, SBS, Australia Post and other commercial units nearby and this was recognised and implemented by NSW Transport for Herbert Street to be a 40K Zone area.
- Insufficient parking: The plans do not provide adequate on-site parking and this could lead to congestion for street parking.
- Drainage and infrastructure: There are major concerns that the development will overload the local stormwater, sewage or utility systems etc.
2 Residential Amenity
- Overlooking and loss of privacy: Balconies or upper-story windows of the Site look directly into private dining living spaces of Herbert Tower A.
- Overshadowing: The new structure will cast shadows on Herbert Tower A, reducing natural light into our home or outdoor areas eg balconies and sunrooms.
- Noise and disturbance: The proposed use residential/commercial will generate excessive traffic, noise and late-night activities and will jeopardise the tranquillity of Herbert Street.
3 Neighbourhood Character and Design
- Visual bulk and scale: The 2 towers (“the Site”) are out of proportion with the neighbouring properties on Herbert Street – the taller Tower (right next to Herbert Tower A) has over 28 levels which is twice the heights of Herbert Towers A and B (13 Levels).
- Site overdevelopment: The footprint of the Site takes up too much of the block, leaving little room for open space and landscaping right next to the neighbouring property i.e. Herbert Towers at 19-23 Herbert Street.
Suggestions:
(a) Open space:
A semi-private courtyard in the size of at least 20 sqm be built between the Site and Herbert Tower A in order to create more open space and reduce density in the area. I attach 2 photos of the latest design from their developer – showing a big courtyard being placed between their 2 towers. I would suggest that they swap the courtyard to be placed in between the Site and Herbert Tower A to create more space and light for the neighbouring residents in Herbert Tower A.
(b) Heights:
In order to reduce the density in the area, the heights of the 2 towers should be restricted to similar heights as the existing buildings.
(c) On-site parking:
On-site parking within the Site should be built and made available to all residents in the Site. 2 levels of underground parking should be built which is the same as Herbert Towers. In this way, the Site will not overtake the heights of the nearby buildings.
(d) Commercial Use:
This should be restricted as this could create excessive traffic, noise and late-night activities.
I also attach photos and map for ease of reference.
Thank you very much for your precious time and kind attention to the above.
Kindest regards
Christina Chiu
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
St Leonards
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Mr Keiran Thomas,
I have been a resident in Herbert Tower A, 19-23 Herbert Street over 20 years. The location of Herbert Tower A is right next to 33-37 Herbert Street, St Leonards (“the Site”). I set out below my objections based on the following grounds:
1 Neighbourhood Character and Design
- Visual bulk and scale: The 2 towers (“the Site”) are out of proportion with the neighbouring properties on Herbert Street – the taller Tower (right next to Herbert Tower A) has over 28 levels which is twice the heights of Herbert Towers A and B (13 Levels).
- Site overdevelopment: The footprint of the Site takes up too much of the block, leaving little room for open space and landscaping right next to the neighbouring property i.e. Herbert Towers at 19-23 Herbert Street.
2 Residential Amenity
- Overlooking and loss of privacy: Balconies or upper-story windows of the Site look directly into private dining living spaces of Herbert Tower A.
- Overshadowing: The new structure will cast shadows on Herbert Tower A, reducing natural light into our home or outdoor areas eg balconies and sunrooms.
- Noise and disturbance: The proposed use residential/commercial will generate excessive traffic, noise and late-night activities and will jeopardise the tranquillity of Herbert Street.
3 Traffic and infrastructure
- Traffic congestion and safety: As 33-37 Herbert Street is right next to Westbourne Street which leads up to the Birth Unit in the Royal North Shore Hospital, it is totally irresponsible to build another 400 units on a main road that leads to the Birth unit of a major hospital (map is attached for ease of reference). This development could cause dangerous traffic increases and enormous stress and delay for mothers on way to the Birth Unit. Furthermore, this could create negative impact on pedestrian safety especially for staff from RNSH, SBS, Australia Post and other commercial units nearby and this was recognised and implemented by NSW Transport for Herbert Street to be a 40K Zone area.
- Insufficient parking: The plans do not provide adequate on-site parking and this could lead to congestion for street parking.
- Drainage and infrastructure: There are major concerns that the development will overload the local stormwater, sewage or utility systems etc.
Suggestions:
(a) Open space:
A semi-private courtyard in the size of at least 20 sqm be built between the Site and Herbert Tower A in order to create more open space and reduce density in the area. I attach 2 photos of the latest design from their developer – showing a big courtyard being placed between their 2 towers. I would suggest that they swap the courtyard to be placed in between the Site and Herbert Tower A to create more space and light for the neighbouring residents in Herbert Tower A.
(b) Heights:
In order to reduce the density in the area, the heights of the 2 towers should be restricted to similar heights as the existing buildings.
(c) On-site parking:
On-site parking within the Site should be built and made available to all residents in the Site. 2 levels of underground parking should be built which is the same as Herbert Towers. In this way, the Site will not overtake the heights of the nearby buildings.
(d) Commercial Use:
This should be restricted as this could create excessive traffic, noise and late-night activities.
I also attach photos and map.
Kindest regards
Christina Chiu
I have been a resident in Herbert Tower A, 19-23 Herbert Street over 20 years. The location of Herbert Tower A is right next to 33-37 Herbert Street, St Leonards (“the Site”). I set out below my objections based on the following grounds:
1 Neighbourhood Character and Design
- Visual bulk and scale: The 2 towers (“the Site”) are out of proportion with the neighbouring properties on Herbert Street – the taller Tower (right next to Herbert Tower A) has over 28 levels which is twice the heights of Herbert Towers A and B (13 Levels).
- Site overdevelopment: The footprint of the Site takes up too much of the block, leaving little room for open space and landscaping right next to the neighbouring property i.e. Herbert Towers at 19-23 Herbert Street.
2 Residential Amenity
- Overlooking and loss of privacy: Balconies or upper-story windows of the Site look directly into private dining living spaces of Herbert Tower A.
- Overshadowing: The new structure will cast shadows on Herbert Tower A, reducing natural light into our home or outdoor areas eg balconies and sunrooms.
- Noise and disturbance: The proposed use residential/commercial will generate excessive traffic, noise and late-night activities and will jeopardise the tranquillity of Herbert Street.
3 Traffic and infrastructure
- Traffic congestion and safety: As 33-37 Herbert Street is right next to Westbourne Street which leads up to the Birth Unit in the Royal North Shore Hospital, it is totally irresponsible to build another 400 units on a main road that leads to the Birth unit of a major hospital (map is attached for ease of reference). This development could cause dangerous traffic increases and enormous stress and delay for mothers on way to the Birth Unit. Furthermore, this could create negative impact on pedestrian safety especially for staff from RNSH, SBS, Australia Post and other commercial units nearby and this was recognised and implemented by NSW Transport for Herbert Street to be a 40K Zone area.
- Insufficient parking: The plans do not provide adequate on-site parking and this could lead to congestion for street parking.
- Drainage and infrastructure: There are major concerns that the development will overload the local stormwater, sewage or utility systems etc.
Suggestions:
(a) Open space:
A semi-private courtyard in the size of at least 20 sqm be built between the Site and Herbert Tower A in order to create more open space and reduce density in the area. I attach 2 photos of the latest design from their developer – showing a big courtyard being placed between their 2 towers. I would suggest that they swap the courtyard to be placed in between the Site and Herbert Tower A to create more space and light for the neighbouring residents in Herbert Tower A.
(b) Heights:
In order to reduce the density in the area, the heights of the 2 towers should be restricted to similar heights as the existing buildings.
(c) On-site parking:
On-site parking within the Site should be built and made available to all residents in the Site. 2 levels of underground parking should be built which is the same as Herbert Towers. In this way, the Site will not overtake the heights of the nearby buildings.
(d) Commercial Use:
This should be restricted as this could create excessive traffic, noise and late-night activities.
I also attach photos and map.
Kindest regards
Christina Chiu