Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Support
DARLINGHURST
,
New South Wales
Message
Subject: Support with Conditions – Request for Further Assessment of Amenity Impacts
I am writing in relation to the proposed Mixed-Use Development with In-fill Affordable Housing at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463). I wish to express support for the project’s objectives, particularly its contribution to affordable housing, urban renewal, and activation of underutilised land.
However, I do have concerns regarding the amenity impacts on nearby residential buildings, specifically Grenville House (177–185 William Street), which is directly adjacent to the development site.
________________________________________
1. View Impact Assessment – Grenville House
The Visual Impact Assessment lists Grenville House in its scope but is, in my opinion, incomplete.
Grenville House is likely to experience major view loss. The VIA assesses other buildings such as Horizon and Farrell Avenue but does not provide a transparent evaluation of Grenville House under the Tenacity planning principle. The only identified viewpoints from Unit 401 will lose amenity of harbour views and Fort Denison from the main living area and master bedroom. The amendment to the proposal and new plans do allow for a throughway between the buildings (shown in Appendix DDD_CGI Park Public) which may offer some relief, however the image in the amended VIA does not reflect this opening.
Request:
I ask that the Department require a full and transparent view impact assessment for Grenville House, including:
• Photomontages from affected units
• Application of the Tenacity principle
• Consideration of design modifications to preserve view corridors
________________________________________
2. Solar Access and Overshadowing Concerns
The original approved plans made allowances for Grenville House specifically to offset loss of daylight hours. Given the proposed extended building heights, it is reasonable to expect that Grenville House will experience substantial loss of natural light and potential deleterious effect, particularly during winter months.
This raises concerns regarding:
• Compliance with SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide, which require minimum solar access for residential dwellings.
• Amenity impacts on existing residents, including reduced daylight, increased reliance on artificial lighting, and potential health and wellbeing implications.
• Equity in assessment, as other buildings have been evaluated while Grenville House appears to have been omitted.
Request:
I respectfully request that the Department require the applicant to conduct a solar access and overshadowing study for Grenville House, including:
• Seasonal shadow diagrams (e.g., June 21, September 21)
• Assessment of compliance with solar access benchmarks
• Identification of mitigation strategies, if required
________________________________________
4. Conclusion
I support the intent of the development and its contribution to housing diversity and needed urban renewal. However, I urge the Department to ensure that the project proceeds in a manner that respects the amenity of existing residents and complies with planning principles.
A comprehensive assessment of solar access and view impacts for Grenville House is essential to uphold transparency, equity, and good planning practice.
________________________________________
I am writing in relation to the proposed Mixed-Use Development with In-fill Affordable Housing at 164–194 William Street, Woolloomooloo (SSD-80211463). I wish to express support for the project’s objectives, particularly its contribution to affordable housing, urban renewal, and activation of underutilised land.
However, I do have concerns regarding the amenity impacts on nearby residential buildings, specifically Grenville House (177–185 William Street), which is directly adjacent to the development site.
________________________________________
1. View Impact Assessment – Grenville House
The Visual Impact Assessment lists Grenville House in its scope but is, in my opinion, incomplete.
Grenville House is likely to experience major view loss. The VIA assesses other buildings such as Horizon and Farrell Avenue but does not provide a transparent evaluation of Grenville House under the Tenacity planning principle. The only identified viewpoints from Unit 401 will lose amenity of harbour views and Fort Denison from the main living area and master bedroom. The amendment to the proposal and new plans do allow for a throughway between the buildings (shown in Appendix DDD_CGI Park Public) which may offer some relief, however the image in the amended VIA does not reflect this opening.
Request:
I ask that the Department require a full and transparent view impact assessment for Grenville House, including:
• Photomontages from affected units
• Application of the Tenacity principle
• Consideration of design modifications to preserve view corridors
________________________________________
2. Solar Access and Overshadowing Concerns
The original approved plans made allowances for Grenville House specifically to offset loss of daylight hours. Given the proposed extended building heights, it is reasonable to expect that Grenville House will experience substantial loss of natural light and potential deleterious effect, particularly during winter months.
This raises concerns regarding:
• Compliance with SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide, which require minimum solar access for residential dwellings.
• Amenity impacts on existing residents, including reduced daylight, increased reliance on artificial lighting, and potential health and wellbeing implications.
• Equity in assessment, as other buildings have been evaluated while Grenville House appears to have been omitted.
Request:
I respectfully request that the Department require the applicant to conduct a solar access and overshadowing study for Grenville House, including:
• Seasonal shadow diagrams (e.g., June 21, September 21)
• Assessment of compliance with solar access benchmarks
• Identification of mitigation strategies, if required
________________________________________
4. Conclusion
I support the intent of the development and its contribution to housing diversity and needed urban renewal. However, I urge the Department to ensure that the project proceeds in a manner that respects the amenity of existing residents and complies with planning principles.
A comprehensive assessment of solar access and view impacts for Grenville House is essential to uphold transparency, equity, and good planning practice.
________________________________________
Benjamin Purvis
Object
Benjamin Purvis
Object
New York
,
New York
Message
The present proposal fails to achieve a reasonable balance between development opportunity and protection of existing residential amenity. It offends established planning principles of view sharing, traffic safety, and public benefit proportionality.
We therefore request that SSD-80211463 be refused or substantially redesigned prior to any determination.
Please see attached document for full details of our objection.
We therefore request that SSD-80211463 be refused or substantially redesigned prior to any determination.
Please see attached document for full details of our objection.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Woolloomooloo
,
New South Wales
Message
Whilst understanding that Sydney needs more infill housing, and affordable housing, of which I am broadly in support, I object to the current form of the development proposed for the following reasons:
Height and setbacks of the newly proposed tower on cnr Dowling and William Street: Previously approved at 10 stories, the 8 additional stories proposed will be on the corner of William and Dowling Street, increasing the height from 33 to 61 metres and more than double the height of any of the other proposed towers and 45% above the SLEP. The second tower facing Dowling Street is also significantly higher. There is no increase on the Forbes Street side. What is described as step down to Dowling Street is as high as the previously highest tower proposed. That’s a “cliff face”, not a “step down” Much has been discussed on view sharing of the harbour and opera house. For those who cannot afford those exclusive harbour views, the current view from the windows and balconies of my terrace in Dowling Street is of the blue sky, this tower will obliterate any view of the sky from the front windows of my house and will be out of scale with the neighbourhood. It will concentrate additional noise in Dowling Street, from the increased development with the balconies facing Dowling Street and angled towards the harbour (or the existing residents). The additional height should be more evenly shared across the four towers, for equity of visual, sound and scale reasons. The proposal talks of balance it is not, it is more likely a way to maximise views and dollars for the developer.
The "privately owned, publicly accessible park" will in reality be primarily for the residents of the development. It has allowed the developer to design zero set back on Dowling, Forbes and William Streets. The lack of set back, hard materials and 80% increase in height in my street will create significant noise and visual bulk, right on the street. Zero set back and 66.3 metres high is not good design for those who live in the street, despite the assurances from developer.
The EIS notes “The proposal includes a lower-scale podium at the rear to transition to the lower scale of the HCA, with setbacks to mitigate potential impacts on adjacent residential developments.” However, there is no set back on the streets where adjacent residential developments are located. There should be.
I note in the EIS “Active street frontages along William Street and the publicly accessible, privately owned park are not to be compromised by required services and exhaust grills” which only leaves Forbes and Dowling Street for them to vent to. This should be faced into the development which is responsible for the services and grills not into the surrounding streets.
Impact on nearby houses in Dowling Street
There is no discussion of how the development will impact the people who live in these more than 120 year old houses, although a lot of comment on the lovely heritage environment. By design all terrace houses have bedrooms at the front of the house and less than 4 metres from the road. These Victorian terraces are not dust or noise proof, and making then so is prohibitively expensive, even if it were allowed by council. This will create significant noise, dust and damage impact both during construction and after for which the developer has shown no mitigation.
Construction Traffic Impact: Every time a truck comes into Dowling Street, it rumbles all the way down the short street, does a three (or more) point turn to get out near the rail line and rumbles down the other side. For the residents in bed, we hear every truck, every reversing alarm (for every point of the three or more point turns required to exit the street), and when they sit and idle their engines it is noisy and polluting. Remember the 140 year old terraces are not noise, vapour or dust proof.
The suggestion that Dowling Street would be a good thoroughfare for construction traffic, per Figure 44: Indicative Construction Vehicle Routes, is ill conceived. Large trucks actually cannot turn around in Dowling Street, and previously police have had to be called to enable them to reverse back into William Street which is extremely dangerous. With construction hours starting at 7, even on a Saturday, construction traffic would start congregating less than 4 metres from my pillow from 6am, with their engines idling for an hour, in preparation for the 7am start, for what will be 3+years . I request there is no access for construction vehicles into Dowling Street for safety and amenity reasons.
Given the car rental company previously located at the development site, has moved across the road, it is highly unlikely that “The proposed development will result in a noticeable reduction in weekday traffic compared to the existing car rental operation, which currently generates up to 350 vehicle trips per day”. Traffic will be in addition to that already existing and the department should not be confused. Indeed, the move from the previous site of No Birds Car Rental to 200 William Street has already increased traffic in Dowling Street.
There seems to be a suggestion that tradespeople would get public transport to the site. That is a fantasy given the tools they need to carry. I request there should be no construction parking except directly in front of the development in Dowling. Given the existing commercial and resident activities in the cul de sac street, the difficulty of safely exiting onto William Street, with high pedestrian activity, significant additional construction traffic, on top of the existing high demand residential and commercial parking would be dangerous.
I further request, given the high level of demand for street residential parking, and that the developer has advised there is sufficient parking, that no parking permits, or visitor parking permits bee issued to any residents.
I expect significant and expensive damage to my very old terrace from the vibrations and building works, especially as the proposed development will now be excavated to 4 basement levels. I would like the dilapidation process to be clearly documented to residents, including any dispute process and thank Michelle for her assistance explaining the general process. Old houses are notoriously expensive to properly and sympathetically repair and any repairs need to be of an excellent standard.
I note that the development has protection from unwanted noise and acoustic pathways for their new residents. My existing house has neither. For the three 3+ years of construction I will barely be able to open a window from the dust and noise. Once the wall of 18 stories of apartments is built I am sure there will still be significant noise as there seems no mitigation, no setback and significant scale.
Precinct trading hours. The noise plan addresses outdoor dining from 10pm – midnight. COS own special entertainment precinct trading hours has standard hours for William Street until 10pm with extended hours to midnight only approved via a DA on a trial basis with a plan of management. I request that the development should only allow outdoor trading until 10pm unless they have a separate and approved DA.
Infrastructure
Is there a plan to work with NBN on the augmentation to telecommunications infrastructure required? Our internet availability is already patchy. I can see details for stormwater but not for telecommunications and request that specifically be addressed.
Lastly, we have a very active, happy and beloved urban possum population in Dowling Street. I have seen no study or discussion of how the construction and subsequent increase in ambient lighting will impact them and how this would be mitigated.
Height and setbacks of the newly proposed tower on cnr Dowling and William Street: Previously approved at 10 stories, the 8 additional stories proposed will be on the corner of William and Dowling Street, increasing the height from 33 to 61 metres and more than double the height of any of the other proposed towers and 45% above the SLEP. The second tower facing Dowling Street is also significantly higher. There is no increase on the Forbes Street side. What is described as step down to Dowling Street is as high as the previously highest tower proposed. That’s a “cliff face”, not a “step down” Much has been discussed on view sharing of the harbour and opera house. For those who cannot afford those exclusive harbour views, the current view from the windows and balconies of my terrace in Dowling Street is of the blue sky, this tower will obliterate any view of the sky from the front windows of my house and will be out of scale with the neighbourhood. It will concentrate additional noise in Dowling Street, from the increased development with the balconies facing Dowling Street and angled towards the harbour (or the existing residents). The additional height should be more evenly shared across the four towers, for equity of visual, sound and scale reasons. The proposal talks of balance it is not, it is more likely a way to maximise views and dollars for the developer.
The "privately owned, publicly accessible park" will in reality be primarily for the residents of the development. It has allowed the developer to design zero set back on Dowling, Forbes and William Streets. The lack of set back, hard materials and 80% increase in height in my street will create significant noise and visual bulk, right on the street. Zero set back and 66.3 metres high is not good design for those who live in the street, despite the assurances from developer.
The EIS notes “The proposal includes a lower-scale podium at the rear to transition to the lower scale of the HCA, with setbacks to mitigate potential impacts on adjacent residential developments.” However, there is no set back on the streets where adjacent residential developments are located. There should be.
I note in the EIS “Active street frontages along William Street and the publicly accessible, privately owned park are not to be compromised by required services and exhaust grills” which only leaves Forbes and Dowling Street for them to vent to. This should be faced into the development which is responsible for the services and grills not into the surrounding streets.
Impact on nearby houses in Dowling Street
There is no discussion of how the development will impact the people who live in these more than 120 year old houses, although a lot of comment on the lovely heritage environment. By design all terrace houses have bedrooms at the front of the house and less than 4 metres from the road. These Victorian terraces are not dust or noise proof, and making then so is prohibitively expensive, even if it were allowed by council. This will create significant noise, dust and damage impact both during construction and after for which the developer has shown no mitigation.
Construction Traffic Impact: Every time a truck comes into Dowling Street, it rumbles all the way down the short street, does a three (or more) point turn to get out near the rail line and rumbles down the other side. For the residents in bed, we hear every truck, every reversing alarm (for every point of the three or more point turns required to exit the street), and when they sit and idle their engines it is noisy and polluting. Remember the 140 year old terraces are not noise, vapour or dust proof.
The suggestion that Dowling Street would be a good thoroughfare for construction traffic, per Figure 44: Indicative Construction Vehicle Routes, is ill conceived. Large trucks actually cannot turn around in Dowling Street, and previously police have had to be called to enable them to reverse back into William Street which is extremely dangerous. With construction hours starting at 7, even on a Saturday, construction traffic would start congregating less than 4 metres from my pillow from 6am, with their engines idling for an hour, in preparation for the 7am start, for what will be 3+years . I request there is no access for construction vehicles into Dowling Street for safety and amenity reasons.
Given the car rental company previously located at the development site, has moved across the road, it is highly unlikely that “The proposed development will result in a noticeable reduction in weekday traffic compared to the existing car rental operation, which currently generates up to 350 vehicle trips per day”. Traffic will be in addition to that already existing and the department should not be confused. Indeed, the move from the previous site of No Birds Car Rental to 200 William Street has already increased traffic in Dowling Street.
There seems to be a suggestion that tradespeople would get public transport to the site. That is a fantasy given the tools they need to carry. I request there should be no construction parking except directly in front of the development in Dowling. Given the existing commercial and resident activities in the cul de sac street, the difficulty of safely exiting onto William Street, with high pedestrian activity, significant additional construction traffic, on top of the existing high demand residential and commercial parking would be dangerous.
I further request, given the high level of demand for street residential parking, and that the developer has advised there is sufficient parking, that no parking permits, or visitor parking permits bee issued to any residents.
I expect significant and expensive damage to my very old terrace from the vibrations and building works, especially as the proposed development will now be excavated to 4 basement levels. I would like the dilapidation process to be clearly documented to residents, including any dispute process and thank Michelle for her assistance explaining the general process. Old houses are notoriously expensive to properly and sympathetically repair and any repairs need to be of an excellent standard.
I note that the development has protection from unwanted noise and acoustic pathways for their new residents. My existing house has neither. For the three 3+ years of construction I will barely be able to open a window from the dust and noise. Once the wall of 18 stories of apartments is built I am sure there will still be significant noise as there seems no mitigation, no setback and significant scale.
Precinct trading hours. The noise plan addresses outdoor dining from 10pm – midnight. COS own special entertainment precinct trading hours has standard hours for William Street until 10pm with extended hours to midnight only approved via a DA on a trial basis with a plan of management. I request that the development should only allow outdoor trading until 10pm unless they have a separate and approved DA.
Infrastructure
Is there a plan to work with NBN on the augmentation to telecommunications infrastructure required? Our internet availability is already patchy. I can see details for stormwater but not for telecommunications and request that specifically be addressed.
Lastly, we have a very active, happy and beloved urban possum population in Dowling Street. I have seen no study or discussion of how the construction and subsequent increase in ambient lighting will impact them and how this would be mitigated.
SP20087, 5-15 Farrell Avenue and 26 Kirketon Road Darlinghurst
Object
SP20087, 5-15 Farrell Avenue and 26 Kirketon Road Darlinghurst
Object
Mount Colah
,
New South Wales
Message
Thank you for considering the attached Planning Submission. This includes more accurate view assessments of the existing apartments within the SP.
Many apartments gain considerable residential amenity from the iconic Harbour land water and city views gained.
This proposal does not comply with expected density standards, is unreasonable in terms of planning and design outcomes and does not appear to demonstrate design excellence or consideration in line with Tenacity principles in terms of view equity/considered sharing. Please reconsider this scale and envelope. Details of planning concerns are detailed in the attached full document. Thank you. Natalie - Planner for SP
Many apartments gain considerable residential amenity from the iconic Harbour land water and city views gained.
This proposal does not comply with expected density standards, is unreasonable in terms of planning and design outcomes and does not appear to demonstrate design excellence or consideration in line with Tenacity principles in terms of view equity/considered sharing. Please reconsider this scale and envelope. Details of planning concerns are detailed in the attached full document. Thank you. Natalie - Planner for SP
Attachments
SP21252
Object
SP21252
Object
Mount Colah
,
New South Wales
Message
Thank you for considering the attached planning submission and view impact assessment provided by the strata
This proposal is excessive and results in unreasonable and severe/devastating view loss of iconic/water views from existing apartments which gain amenity from this outlook. View sharing does not seem to be considered in terms of design options/urban design and the proposal results in design issues and such considerable amenity and area impacts such as not to warrant support of Clause 4.6 to bonussed standards. Thank you for your consideration as to the attached assessment, Natalie
Details within, please be in contact if we can assist.
This proposal is excessive and results in unreasonable and severe/devastating view loss of iconic/water views from existing apartments which gain amenity from this outlook. View sharing does not seem to be considered in terms of design options/urban design and the proposal results in design issues and such considerable amenity and area impacts such as not to warrant support of Clause 4.6 to bonussed standards. Thank you for your consideration as to the attached assessment, Natalie
Details within, please be in contact if we can assist.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
DARLINGHURST
,
New South Wales
Message
Attention: Ms Michelle Niles, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-80211463 for 164-172, 174-194 William Street WOOLLOOMOOLOO NSW 2011
Mixed use development with in-fill affordable housing, 164 - 194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
Dear Ms Niles,
I am a property owner and resident at Strata Plan 20087 (5-15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst) and will be severely affected by the proposed development at 164-172 and 174-194 William Street Woolloomooloo.
I live in [redacted] of Palisades at 5-15 Farrell Avenue. The building has wonderful views of the Sydney city skyline that include the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, and the Domain/ Botanic Gardens. These views are a key component of the value of the apartments and are a major part of the pleasure of living here. It is why people choose to live in this area and many have remained in the area long term for this very reason.
In relation to the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements, the Visual Impact Analysis would be severe at best. Both proposed alternative developments for the William street site will have a significant impact on the views from our building and in turn will impact our quality of life dramatically. The “Infill Housing” proposal creates a solid blockage of all the significant views mentioned above as well as having a very detrimental impact on the view in general. The outcome of this using the Tenacity/Scale/Value metrics in the Visual Impact Assessment would fall into the Severe zone at best with a score of 12 to 14 out of 15. The scale of this building is completely out of keeping with the local buildings. The “Alternative Massing” proposal will be marginally better, reducing the impact to the low end of severe with a score of 10 to 12. However, the immensity of this main tower dwarfs all other building in the precinct and destroys any sense of cohesion in the area.
The scale of both these options is completely inconsistent with the existing buildings on and around William Street and with the current height provisions for the area. It will destroy the outlook of most of the current residential buildings on the southern side of William Street and will completely overshadow the low-level housing in Woolloomooloo. The proposed developments seem to be vastly different to the original approved concept which, despite its size, was more in keeping with the local scale of buildings.
The scale of the development also potentially opens the door to the development of further oversized buildings along William Street which will completely destroy the inner- city living atmosphere and turn it into a characterless housing precinct. This will destroy the unique feeling of the area which has attracted people to live here.
There is an obvious need for further inner-city housing including affordable housing, however, it is imperative that it be done sensitively, with reasonable scaling and uplift and not at the expense of those who already reside in the area. It is important that the Department of Planning Housing and Infrastructure consider the impact that this and future development will have on existing housing in the area and ensure an outcome for future development that is balanced for all concerned.
FSR and Height objectives refer to protection of amenities, and require developments to be respectful of character and view sharing. The proposed changes to the original design are a clear breach of the balanced approach required. There will be major impact on existing residents with loss of views and overshadowing, resulting in a lessened living quality for many.
People are drawn to live in this inner-city part of the city of Sydney because of its history, its unique character and its sense of place, and the city itself benefits in a broader sense. Over-sized and ill-conceived development will rapidly destroy this forever. For this reason, it is imperative that this proposal be carried out with a view to being respectful of the needs of current residents as well as providing housing for others in the future.
Yours sincerely,
[Name Withheld]
5-15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst
Re: SSD-80211463 for 164-172, 174-194 William Street WOOLLOOMOOLOO NSW 2011
Mixed use development with in-fill affordable housing, 164 - 194 William Street, Woolloomooloo
Dear Ms Niles,
I am a property owner and resident at Strata Plan 20087 (5-15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst) and will be severely affected by the proposed development at 164-172 and 174-194 William Street Woolloomooloo.
I live in [redacted] of Palisades at 5-15 Farrell Avenue. The building has wonderful views of the Sydney city skyline that include the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, and the Domain/ Botanic Gardens. These views are a key component of the value of the apartments and are a major part of the pleasure of living here. It is why people choose to live in this area and many have remained in the area long term for this very reason.
In relation to the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements, the Visual Impact Analysis would be severe at best. Both proposed alternative developments for the William street site will have a significant impact on the views from our building and in turn will impact our quality of life dramatically. The “Infill Housing” proposal creates a solid blockage of all the significant views mentioned above as well as having a very detrimental impact on the view in general. The outcome of this using the Tenacity/Scale/Value metrics in the Visual Impact Assessment would fall into the Severe zone at best with a score of 12 to 14 out of 15. The scale of this building is completely out of keeping with the local buildings. The “Alternative Massing” proposal will be marginally better, reducing the impact to the low end of severe with a score of 10 to 12. However, the immensity of this main tower dwarfs all other building in the precinct and destroys any sense of cohesion in the area.
The scale of both these options is completely inconsistent with the existing buildings on and around William Street and with the current height provisions for the area. It will destroy the outlook of most of the current residential buildings on the southern side of William Street and will completely overshadow the low-level housing in Woolloomooloo. The proposed developments seem to be vastly different to the original approved concept which, despite its size, was more in keeping with the local scale of buildings.
The scale of the development also potentially opens the door to the development of further oversized buildings along William Street which will completely destroy the inner- city living atmosphere and turn it into a characterless housing precinct. This will destroy the unique feeling of the area which has attracted people to live here.
There is an obvious need for further inner-city housing including affordable housing, however, it is imperative that it be done sensitively, with reasonable scaling and uplift and not at the expense of those who already reside in the area. It is important that the Department of Planning Housing and Infrastructure consider the impact that this and future development will have on existing housing in the area and ensure an outcome for future development that is balanced for all concerned.
FSR and Height objectives refer to protection of amenities, and require developments to be respectful of character and view sharing. The proposed changes to the original design are a clear breach of the balanced approach required. There will be major impact on existing residents with loss of views and overshadowing, resulting in a lessened living quality for many.
People are drawn to live in this inner-city part of the city of Sydney because of its history, its unique character and its sense of place, and the city itself benefits in a broader sense. Over-sized and ill-conceived development will rapidly destroy this forever. For this reason, it is imperative that this proposal be carried out with a view to being respectful of the needs of current residents as well as providing housing for others in the future.
Yours sincerely,
[Name Withheld]
5-15 Farrell Avenue, Darlinghurst