Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
14/12/25
Submission to NSW Department of Planning re: SSD-88113706
Re: 46 – 52 Nicholson Street and 59 – 67 Christie Street, St Leonards
Within this submission, reference is made to the PDF page numbers of the following documents:
• Environmental Impact Statement, Build to Rent housing, 46 – 52 Nicholson Street and 59 – 67 Christie Street, St Leonards, prepared by Planning & Co, 15 October 2025 (the EIS)
• 46-52 Nicholson St & 59-67 Christie St, St Leonards, Transport and accessibility impact assessment, prepared for Coronation Property Group, 11 September 2025, JMT consulting (the TP)
I object to this proposed development for the following reasons:
Loss of Council revenue to provide infrastructure and services: The EIS (p. 19) notes that the building will remain in single ownership in perpetuity and will not be subdivided into separate strata lots. This means the Council loses significant potential rates. These rates are vital to provide services that those residents will benefit from – libraries, recreation, streetscapes, street cleaning, etc. With 500+ more units and their residents impacting the area, how is it fair that Council gets no extra funds to provide these services? Sydney Water has classified the local area as having a high risk of sewage overflows because our mains were not designed to cope with the surge in population. Also, Gemma Gas has classified our local area as high risk for gas leaks due to the age of our gas mains and the rise in population, as our mains are among the oldest in the state. Lack of dust mitigation measures: The proposal discusses noise and vibration mitigation (p. 98) but provides no measures to mitigate the dangerous dust impacts from the excavation phase. The Department must protect residents and workers by insisting on dust monitoring and mitigation during this phase if the development proceeds. As the demolition stage has commenced, the surrounding residents have not received any notification of Asbestos removal. Also, there is a childcare facility, Reddam Early Learning School, across the road from the site, where 242 Children aged 1 to 5 and staff play outside at various times during the day. Lack of community consultation: the EIS (p. 69) states that no responses were received to the community survey, indicating a "low level of community concern about the proposal". I fail to see how this conclusion can be drawn. The brochure looks like a sales brochure, rather than a community input request or official notification. It is more likely that recipients thought it was a sales brochure of what they knew had been approved and failed to recognise the significant changes. I live in the delivery. I do not recall receiving that flyer, and if I did, I clearly did not understand its significance. I am moderately well-informed about DA matters. Impacts of Traffic (post construction): The TP traffic demand and modelling (p. 24) is fundamentally flawed, as it relies on TfNSW's Technical Direction on traffic generation rates, issued in 2013 – 12 years ago. Multiple developments in the area have used these numbers to date, and modelling always concludes that the impacts will be minor. A visit to the Oxley/Nicholson/Pacific Highway intersections at peak hour shows the reality – the intersection is already failing and will only get worse. No one understands the cumulative impacts, and the outdated traffic modelling statistics compound the false assumptions.
Vehicle access to the site will be via Christie St and Nicholson St (EIS p. 10) – two streets that are already congested and hazardous for pedestrians, especially at peak hour. The one-way nature of Christie Street means all traffic trying to access the building must come in that direction, competing with traffic seeking to access the adjacent developments. Residents in the existing buildings experience significant frustration at being unable to exit their parking spaces during peak hours, which last several hours.
Despite the reduced number of parking spaces planned for this development (95 instead of 227, TP p. 23), Australians still want cars. They will therefore seek to park in neighbouring streets, compounding traffic issues. In the neighbouring North Sydney Council area (2021 Census), 77% of residents owned at least one car. This is despite having excellent public transport and access to train stations. Data is not available for St Leonards, but it is expected to be similar to or worse than it.
Impacts of Traffic and Transport (during construction): The TP concluded that the proposal's impact on the transport network will be acceptable during and after construction. The TP states that the "surrounding road network can accommodate this volume of traffic subject to appropriate management" (p. 36). How can fifty vehicle movements per day (TP, p.36) not impact the network? All of these will travel along River Road, which is already heavily congested at peak hours, leaving vehicles subject to lengthy delays at multiple intersections.
Impacts of Worker parking (during construction): The TP says (p. 36) that "the good availability of public transport in the area…will encourage workers to minimise private vehicle use, which will further reduce the impacts on the local road network." A similar TP for a St Leonards South development
DA162/2021 "Audrey" in Canberra Avenue made the same statements in its CTMP (6/10/21 p.9): However, as Lane Cove Council can confirm, the reality has been far from it. During construction, multiple issues have arisen, including workers illegally parking vehicles, necessitating the introduction of a resolute ranger to patrol the area.
The TP also states (p. 38) that "once the basement and parking levels are completed, contractors may be able to use these facilities subject to availability". Throughout the construction of the Audrey development, the basement has not been used for parking, further impacting local streets. Minimal affordable housing: The applicant claims to amend their original proposal to include affordable units, but only 4% of the units (EIS p. 41) are designated as such. The remaining units will be rented at market rates, offering little relief for housing affordability. Instead, it results in a tower of small apartments with limited outdoor space and low-quality amenities, which fails to address the community's needs. Daylight and sunlight loss in existing residences: While the report emphasises that no new overshadowing of Newlands Park occurs (EIS, p. 72), it neglects the impact on existing buildings. The additional levels will cause six nearby buildings to lose sunlight. If existing sunlight requirements were recalculated, many apartments would fail the ADG standards, indicating a significant oversight.
For example, nearby 2 Canberra Avenue will, according to the shadow diagrams, lose sun from 9-10 am (EIS p.72) if these extra levels are allowed. When it was built, its apartments no doubt met the ADG, but recalculations after this are built - multiple apartments will fail the minimum levels.
Another is 4-6 Duntroon Avenue, whose apartments will lose sunlight as a result of this (EIS, pp. 72, 86). This impact on the solar access for existing buildings is being ignored or trivialised, which is unacceptable.
Lack of community benefits: According to the EIS (p.19), the "public plaza and the well-lit residential lobby and amenity spaces on street level create an inviting environment for social interaction and a place for respite". The reality is that public open space is minimal; some of it is beneath the building façade, and, thanks to neighbouring new and future buildings, it will receive no natural sunlight, as shown in the shadow diagrams (EIS p. 72, p. 81). Also, with the population expansion, what about government resources? It is already a 10-11 hour wait for ED at RNSH. Our local Fire and Rescue NSW station in Crow’s Nest has only a 36m ladder truck, which is not long enough to reach the top of these buildings now. How do you expect them to do their jobs safely if they don’t have the correct equipment and resources? Also, what about police resources, as the St Leonards area is between 2 different stations, being Chatswood and North Sydney, which makes it very difficult for them to patrol our area
View loss existing residences: The EIS says that any impacts of the proposal relating to building form and design, residential amenity, and visual and view impacts are acceptable - but to whom? Not to the residents in surrounding buildings who may have purchased with a reasonable expectation that planning controls would not be exceeded. This is the second time existing residents are facing view loss (the TOD already changed things once, now this proposal), with no gain for them or the community in return. The Department is constantly shifting the goalposts, so even well-informed people seeking to understand what development might occur around them are being subjected to building controls.
Impacts on tree canopy: The "Built Environmental Impacts" (EIS p. 12) states that the planned landscaping "provides a harmonious landscape design that supports the proposed built form while retaining the remaining trees on the site and providing an appropriate landscape response along the Nicholson and Christie Street frontages." However, all existing trees on the site are to be cleared (EIS p. 16), and the setbacks (p. 75) have been reduced to such an extent that any street planting will be in a very confined space, with nowhere for the trees to grow. The entire perimeter is overshadowed with little natural light at ground level for new trees.
Loss of commercial space: The original plan included BTR residential, commercial offices, and retail premises, but now it is solely residential. This reduction in commercial space is concerning, especially given the area's existing multiple residential developments and limited infrastructure.
Thank you
Submission to NSW Department of Planning re: SSD-88113706
Re: 46 – 52 Nicholson Street and 59 – 67 Christie Street, St Leonards
Within this submission, reference is made to the PDF page numbers of the following documents:
• Environmental Impact Statement, Build to Rent housing, 46 – 52 Nicholson Street and 59 – 67 Christie Street, St Leonards, prepared by Planning & Co, 15 October 2025 (the EIS)
• 46-52 Nicholson St & 59-67 Christie St, St Leonards, Transport and accessibility impact assessment, prepared for Coronation Property Group, 11 September 2025, JMT consulting (the TP)
I object to this proposed development for the following reasons:
Loss of Council revenue to provide infrastructure and services: The EIS (p. 19) notes that the building will remain in single ownership in perpetuity and will not be subdivided into separate strata lots. This means the Council loses significant potential rates. These rates are vital to provide services that those residents will benefit from – libraries, recreation, streetscapes, street cleaning, etc. With 500+ more units and their residents impacting the area, how is it fair that Council gets no extra funds to provide these services? Sydney Water has classified the local area as having a high risk of sewage overflows because our mains were not designed to cope with the surge in population. Also, Gemma Gas has classified our local area as high risk for gas leaks due to the age of our gas mains and the rise in population, as our mains are among the oldest in the state. Lack of dust mitigation measures: The proposal discusses noise and vibration mitigation (p. 98) but provides no measures to mitigate the dangerous dust impacts from the excavation phase. The Department must protect residents and workers by insisting on dust monitoring and mitigation during this phase if the development proceeds. As the demolition stage has commenced, the surrounding residents have not received any notification of Asbestos removal. Also, there is a childcare facility, Reddam Early Learning School, across the road from the site, where 242 Children aged 1 to 5 and staff play outside at various times during the day. Lack of community consultation: the EIS (p. 69) states that no responses were received to the community survey, indicating a "low level of community concern about the proposal". I fail to see how this conclusion can be drawn. The brochure looks like a sales brochure, rather than a community input request or official notification. It is more likely that recipients thought it was a sales brochure of what they knew had been approved and failed to recognise the significant changes. I live in the delivery. I do not recall receiving that flyer, and if I did, I clearly did not understand its significance. I am moderately well-informed about DA matters. Impacts of Traffic (post construction): The TP traffic demand and modelling (p. 24) is fundamentally flawed, as it relies on TfNSW's Technical Direction on traffic generation rates, issued in 2013 – 12 years ago. Multiple developments in the area have used these numbers to date, and modelling always concludes that the impacts will be minor. A visit to the Oxley/Nicholson/Pacific Highway intersections at peak hour shows the reality – the intersection is already failing and will only get worse. No one understands the cumulative impacts, and the outdated traffic modelling statistics compound the false assumptions.
Vehicle access to the site will be via Christie St and Nicholson St (EIS p. 10) – two streets that are already congested and hazardous for pedestrians, especially at peak hour. The one-way nature of Christie Street means all traffic trying to access the building must come in that direction, competing with traffic seeking to access the adjacent developments. Residents in the existing buildings experience significant frustration at being unable to exit their parking spaces during peak hours, which last several hours.
Despite the reduced number of parking spaces planned for this development (95 instead of 227, TP p. 23), Australians still want cars. They will therefore seek to park in neighbouring streets, compounding traffic issues. In the neighbouring North Sydney Council area (2021 Census), 77% of residents owned at least one car. This is despite having excellent public transport and access to train stations. Data is not available for St Leonards, but it is expected to be similar to or worse than it.
Impacts of Traffic and Transport (during construction): The TP concluded that the proposal's impact on the transport network will be acceptable during and after construction. The TP states that the "surrounding road network can accommodate this volume of traffic subject to appropriate management" (p. 36). How can fifty vehicle movements per day (TP, p.36) not impact the network? All of these will travel along River Road, which is already heavily congested at peak hours, leaving vehicles subject to lengthy delays at multiple intersections.
Impacts of Worker parking (during construction): The TP says (p. 36) that "the good availability of public transport in the area…will encourage workers to minimise private vehicle use, which will further reduce the impacts on the local road network." A similar TP for a St Leonards South development
DA162/2021 "Audrey" in Canberra Avenue made the same statements in its CTMP (6/10/21 p.9): However, as Lane Cove Council can confirm, the reality has been far from it. During construction, multiple issues have arisen, including workers illegally parking vehicles, necessitating the introduction of a resolute ranger to patrol the area.
The TP also states (p. 38) that "once the basement and parking levels are completed, contractors may be able to use these facilities subject to availability". Throughout the construction of the Audrey development, the basement has not been used for parking, further impacting local streets. Minimal affordable housing: The applicant claims to amend their original proposal to include affordable units, but only 4% of the units (EIS p. 41) are designated as such. The remaining units will be rented at market rates, offering little relief for housing affordability. Instead, it results in a tower of small apartments with limited outdoor space and low-quality amenities, which fails to address the community's needs. Daylight and sunlight loss in existing residences: While the report emphasises that no new overshadowing of Newlands Park occurs (EIS, p. 72), it neglects the impact on existing buildings. The additional levels will cause six nearby buildings to lose sunlight. If existing sunlight requirements were recalculated, many apartments would fail the ADG standards, indicating a significant oversight.
For example, nearby 2 Canberra Avenue will, according to the shadow diagrams, lose sun from 9-10 am (EIS p.72) if these extra levels are allowed. When it was built, its apartments no doubt met the ADG, but recalculations after this are built - multiple apartments will fail the minimum levels.
Another is 4-6 Duntroon Avenue, whose apartments will lose sunlight as a result of this (EIS, pp. 72, 86). This impact on the solar access for existing buildings is being ignored or trivialised, which is unacceptable.
Lack of community benefits: According to the EIS (p.19), the "public plaza and the well-lit residential lobby and amenity spaces on street level create an inviting environment for social interaction and a place for respite". The reality is that public open space is minimal; some of it is beneath the building façade, and, thanks to neighbouring new and future buildings, it will receive no natural sunlight, as shown in the shadow diagrams (EIS p. 72, p. 81). Also, with the population expansion, what about government resources? It is already a 10-11 hour wait for ED at RNSH. Our local Fire and Rescue NSW station in Crow’s Nest has only a 36m ladder truck, which is not long enough to reach the top of these buildings now. How do you expect them to do their jobs safely if they don’t have the correct equipment and resources? Also, what about police resources, as the St Leonards area is between 2 different stations, being Chatswood and North Sydney, which makes it very difficult for them to patrol our area
View loss existing residences: The EIS says that any impacts of the proposal relating to building form and design, residential amenity, and visual and view impacts are acceptable - but to whom? Not to the residents in surrounding buildings who may have purchased with a reasonable expectation that planning controls would not be exceeded. This is the second time existing residents are facing view loss (the TOD already changed things once, now this proposal), with no gain for them or the community in return. The Department is constantly shifting the goalposts, so even well-informed people seeking to understand what development might occur around them are being subjected to building controls.
Impacts on tree canopy: The "Built Environmental Impacts" (EIS p. 12) states that the planned landscaping "provides a harmonious landscape design that supports the proposed built form while retaining the remaining trees on the site and providing an appropriate landscape response along the Nicholson and Christie Street frontages." However, all existing trees on the site are to be cleared (EIS p. 16), and the setbacks (p. 75) have been reduced to such an extent that any street planting will be in a very confined space, with nowhere for the trees to grow. The entire perimeter is overshadowed with little natural light at ground level for new trees.
Loss of commercial space: The original plan included BTR residential, commercial offices, and retail premises, but now it is solely residential. This reduction in commercial space is concerning, especially given the area's existing multiple residential developments and limited infrastructure.
Thank you
Body Corporate - 486 Pacific Highway St Leonards
Object
Body Corporate - 486 Pacific Highway St Leonards
Object
BRONTE
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission attached
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
1. Position: OBJECTION
I am lodging this submission to object to SSD 88113706 currently on exhibition.
The proposal includes, as stated in the exhibition notice:
“a single 36-storey tower comprising 541 units, with three basement levels and 93 car parking spaces”
“amend Clause 4.4 – Floor space ratio to increase the floor space ratio at the site from 4.5:1 to 17.2:1”
“amend Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings to increase the maximum height from RL 174.95m to RL 197m.”
Doc 1 - Notice(1)
These amendments represent a substantial and unreasonable intensification of development beyond what the current Lane Cove LEP 2009 intends for this site.
2. Excessive density and inconsistency with existing planning controls
The proposed increase of FSR from 4.5:1 to 17.2:1 is a nearly four-fold escalation of allowable density.
Such an uplift is incompatible with:
- The current LEP density framework..
- The built form character of St Leonards.
- The strategic planning principle of focusing the tallest towers within the core station precinct, not peripheral lots such as this site.
This degree of intensification constitutes a major departure from established planning policy without adequate justification.
3. Insufficient public benefit to justify major planning variations
Significant amendments to height and FSR should only be considered where clear, measurable public benefits are demonstrated.
This proposal does not provide:
- New public open space.
- Upgrades to community facilities.
- Improvements to local roads or transport.
- Public domain enhancements.
- A meaningful level of affordable housing.
The community bears the negative impacts while receiving no proportional public benefit.
4. Critical infrastructure capacity issues
The addition of 541 units will substantially increase population density in an area where infrastructure is already at or beyond capacity, including:
- Schools: local primary and secondary schools are at full enrolment with no committed expansion plans.
- Public transport: St Leonards Station and surrounding bus routes experience peak-hour congestion.
- Healthcare: Royal North Shore Hospital is already operating under high load.
- Road network: local roads, including Nicholson Street and Christie Street, cannot support additional traffic volumes.
Without parallel infrastructure upgrades, such density becomes unsustainable.
5. Traffic, parking, and safety concerns
Providing only 93 car spaces for 541 units will inevitably cause:
- Severe spill-over parking in surrounding streets.
- Increased congestion from delivery vehicles, rideshare services, waste collection vehicles.
- Pedestrian and cyclist safety risks.
- Long-term operational impacts on Council’s road management.
This configuration is inconsistent with practical demand and creates significant community impacts.
6. Construction impacts
The excavation of three basement levels and construction of a 36-storey tower will result in:
- Multi-year construction noise.
- Heavy-vehicle movements.
- Intermittent road closures.
- Dust and vibration.
- Disruption to emergency vehicle access near the hospital precinct.
These impacts will be substantial and long-lasting for local residents.
7. Amenity impacts—overshadowing, privacy, wind, and built form intrusion
The scale and height of the proposed tower will create:
- Extended overshadowing.
- Loss of daylight and privacy.
- Increased wind impacts.
- A visually dominant built form out of proportion with its surroundings.
These are significant negative amenity consequences not adequately addressed in the proposal.
8. Conclusion
For the reasons detailed above—including excessive density, inconsistency with planning controls, insufficient public benefit, infrastructure limitations, traffic and construction impacts—I strongly object to the approval of SSD 88113706 in its current form.
I request that the Department refuse the application or require substantial reductions in density, height, and scale to align with the existing LEP and community capacity.
9. Declaration
I declare that:
- I have not made any reportable political donations in the past two years; and
- I acknowledge the Department’s disclaimer and declaration requirements.
I am lodging this submission to object to SSD 88113706 currently on exhibition.
The proposal includes, as stated in the exhibition notice:
“a single 36-storey tower comprising 541 units, with three basement levels and 93 car parking spaces”
“amend Clause 4.4 – Floor space ratio to increase the floor space ratio at the site from 4.5:1 to 17.2:1”
“amend Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings to increase the maximum height from RL 174.95m to RL 197m.”
Doc 1 - Notice(1)
These amendments represent a substantial and unreasonable intensification of development beyond what the current Lane Cove LEP 2009 intends for this site.
2. Excessive density and inconsistency with existing planning controls
The proposed increase of FSR from 4.5:1 to 17.2:1 is a nearly four-fold escalation of allowable density.
Such an uplift is incompatible with:
- The current LEP density framework..
- The built form character of St Leonards.
- The strategic planning principle of focusing the tallest towers within the core station precinct, not peripheral lots such as this site.
This degree of intensification constitutes a major departure from established planning policy without adequate justification.
3. Insufficient public benefit to justify major planning variations
Significant amendments to height and FSR should only be considered where clear, measurable public benefits are demonstrated.
This proposal does not provide:
- New public open space.
- Upgrades to community facilities.
- Improvements to local roads or transport.
- Public domain enhancements.
- A meaningful level of affordable housing.
The community bears the negative impacts while receiving no proportional public benefit.
4. Critical infrastructure capacity issues
The addition of 541 units will substantially increase population density in an area where infrastructure is already at or beyond capacity, including:
- Schools: local primary and secondary schools are at full enrolment with no committed expansion plans.
- Public transport: St Leonards Station and surrounding bus routes experience peak-hour congestion.
- Healthcare: Royal North Shore Hospital is already operating under high load.
- Road network: local roads, including Nicholson Street and Christie Street, cannot support additional traffic volumes.
Without parallel infrastructure upgrades, such density becomes unsustainable.
5. Traffic, parking, and safety concerns
Providing only 93 car spaces for 541 units will inevitably cause:
- Severe spill-over parking in surrounding streets.
- Increased congestion from delivery vehicles, rideshare services, waste collection vehicles.
- Pedestrian and cyclist safety risks.
- Long-term operational impacts on Council’s road management.
This configuration is inconsistent with practical demand and creates significant community impacts.
6. Construction impacts
The excavation of three basement levels and construction of a 36-storey tower will result in:
- Multi-year construction noise.
- Heavy-vehicle movements.
- Intermittent road closures.
- Dust and vibration.
- Disruption to emergency vehicle access near the hospital precinct.
These impacts will be substantial and long-lasting for local residents.
7. Amenity impacts—overshadowing, privacy, wind, and built form intrusion
The scale and height of the proposed tower will create:
- Extended overshadowing.
- Loss of daylight and privacy.
- Increased wind impacts.
- A visually dominant built form out of proportion with its surroundings.
These are significant negative amenity consequences not adequately addressed in the proposal.
8. Conclusion
For the reasons detailed above—including excessive density, inconsistency with planning controls, insufficient public benefit, infrastructure limitations, traffic and construction impacts—I strongly object to the approval of SSD 88113706 in its current form.
I request that the Department refuse the application or require substantial reductions in density, height, and scale to align with the existing LEP and community capacity.
9. Declaration
I declare that:
- I have not made any reportable political donations in the past two years; and
- I acknowledge the Department’s disclaimer and declaration requirements.
Carolyn Ashbrook
Object
Carolyn Ashbrook
Object
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to record my objection to the proposal to increase the height and excessive number of apartments in this building. There are many reasons supporting this objection:
Parking is already very limited in the area and having some 93 parking spaces for 541 units will severely exacerbate this.
Privacy - having bought a unit for long term occupation taking into consideration approved developments, we now find that our unit will be overlooked in close proximity by this proposed building
Access - vehicle access to this area is severely limited with two one lane roads in (Christie and Oxley Sts) but only one out (Oxley St). This already is causing access problems particularly at peak hours.
Value - the loss of outlook, reduced sun, increased wind effects etc will all reduce considerably the value of our unit should we elect to move
Overdevelopment - St Leonards is one of the most overpopulated areas in NSW, yet many current units appear to be vacant. Why and what will the extension of this development do to change this in any way? There is a limit to the number of people who wish to live in rented high rise and this proposal appears to ignore the facts.
Noise - this proposal is very close to other significant developments and will further contribute to unnecessary noise, both human and plant (aircon etc) particularly at night.
Accordingly, I request that sense be applied here and that this unreasonable proposal be denied or at the very least, considerably reduced in number and height.
Parking is already very limited in the area and having some 93 parking spaces for 541 units will severely exacerbate this.
Privacy - having bought a unit for long term occupation taking into consideration approved developments, we now find that our unit will be overlooked in close proximity by this proposed building
Access - vehicle access to this area is severely limited with two one lane roads in (Christie and Oxley Sts) but only one out (Oxley St). This already is causing access problems particularly at peak hours.
Value - the loss of outlook, reduced sun, increased wind effects etc will all reduce considerably the value of our unit should we elect to move
Overdevelopment - St Leonards is one of the most overpopulated areas in NSW, yet many current units appear to be vacant. Why and what will the extension of this development do to change this in any way? There is a limit to the number of people who wish to live in rented high rise and this proposal appears to ignore the facts.
Noise - this proposal is very close to other significant developments and will further contribute to unnecessary noise, both human and plant (aircon etc) particularly at night.
Accordingly, I request that sense be applied here and that this unreasonable proposal be denied or at the very least, considerably reduced in number and height.
Nicole Oliveira
Object
Nicole Oliveira
Object
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
I live right next to the proposed building with my partner and his friend. I believe the height of this new building is going to take away all the joy we get of relaxing on our balcony and enjoying the view. It would block off a lot of the view on the left side of the balcony. I'm also concerned for the large increase in traffic on Nicholson St. I need to park here every day and I already find it hard to find a spot. The high density of this new building is going to make it very hard to have a car here.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
There was not enough community consultation on the building they intend to build.
The smaller streets behind Pacific Highway, namely, Nicholson St, and Christie St, is insufficient to handle an additional high level of traffic. Due to the location with already existing high rises, there will be lost of views and amenity for the surrounding buildings . Also, the development does not meet the Liveable Lane Cove Plans.
The smaller streets behind Pacific Highway, namely, Nicholson St, and Christie St, is insufficient to handle an additional high level of traffic. Due to the location with already existing high rises, there will be lost of views and amenity for the surrounding buildings . Also, the development does not meet the Liveable Lane Cove Plans.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Manly
,
New South Wales
Message
I am making this submission to object strongly to the proposed development - Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent (SSD-88113706)
I am a property owner in Christie Street.
Let me begin by commenting that the short window for lodging submissions in the run up to Christmas has not allowed sufficient time for all potentially impacted parties to comment on this proposed development. A 2-week exhibition period in mid-December is inadequate time and inconvenient to many people. I also don't recall ever receiving information on the initial development proposal on 46-52 Nicholson Street other than a demolition application but note that the present application proposes a significant increase in height of the development.
The development application also fails to include adequate studies and analysis of the impact on infrastructure and the wellbeing of current and future residents in the immediate vicinity to the development. Affects of traffic congestion, utility needs, roads, education, noise, dust, playing fields, parks, access to solar from shadowing, aesthetics & community well-being should accompany this and any development application.
I appreciate the State Government desire to provide increased housing close to transport hubs however, infrastructure development plans should be presented alongside development proposals to provide an holistic view and demonstrate a well formulated plan instead of the current adhoc proposals from developers. The proposed 541 apartment development with only 93 parking spaces will add greater pressure to already major traffic congestion in Oxley, Christie and Nicholson Streets. It is naive to think that the majority of residents in the proposed development will only use public transport.
The proposed building height of 197 metres should be significantly reduced, certainly not increased from the initial proposal, and should be more in line with other developments already approved in Nicholson and Christie Street to ensure sloped development from the Pacific Highway, to protect views, minimise wind issues and improve access to solar sources. I understand this to be a maximum of 23 levels instead of the proposed 36-storey tower.
I urge the NSW Government to reject this development proposal
Thank you
I am a property owner in Christie Street.
Let me begin by commenting that the short window for lodging submissions in the run up to Christmas has not allowed sufficient time for all potentially impacted parties to comment on this proposed development. A 2-week exhibition period in mid-December is inadequate time and inconvenient to many people. I also don't recall ever receiving information on the initial development proposal on 46-52 Nicholson Street other than a demolition application but note that the present application proposes a significant increase in height of the development.
The development application also fails to include adequate studies and analysis of the impact on infrastructure and the wellbeing of current and future residents in the immediate vicinity to the development. Affects of traffic congestion, utility needs, roads, education, noise, dust, playing fields, parks, access to solar from shadowing, aesthetics & community well-being should accompany this and any development application.
I appreciate the State Government desire to provide increased housing close to transport hubs however, infrastructure development plans should be presented alongside development proposals to provide an holistic view and demonstrate a well formulated plan instead of the current adhoc proposals from developers. The proposed 541 apartment development with only 93 parking spaces will add greater pressure to already major traffic congestion in Oxley, Christie and Nicholson Streets. It is naive to think that the majority of residents in the proposed development will only use public transport.
The proposed building height of 197 metres should be significantly reduced, certainly not increased from the initial proposal, and should be more in line with other developments already approved in Nicholson and Christie Street to ensure sloped development from the Pacific Highway, to protect views, minimise wind issues and improve access to solar sources. I understand this to be a maximum of 23 levels instead of the proposed 36-storey tower.
I urge the NSW Government to reject this development proposal
Thank you
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the 46 Nicholson St Build to Rent Project as I have concerns regarding its height and impact on traffic, transport and parking on surrounding areas. Firstly, the current proposal is 22 meters higher than has been previously approved for the site with nearly double the number of units which negatively impacts the solar exposure for surrounding buildings and views that create a peaceful atmosphere for residents.
Secondly, I have concerns that if this project were to proceed that this would negatively impact traffic and transport in the surrounding area. Existing road ingress and egress from the area are already insufficient. Adding a high number of residential residences that are not accessed via the Pacific Highway will exacerbate the gridlock.
Thirdly, I believe the parking provisions of this project are inadequate. The large number of apartments (541) is not supported by a suitable number of car parks (93 car parks only) within the building and is below the survey results of regular work transport (let alone weekend travel) in their own documentation. It also fails to meet the plans outlined in their own social impact scoping study, which uses 4 basement levels, not 3. This will significantly impact street parking access, which is already impacted by the development’s plans. Other similarly sized developments have far more parking.
Fourthly, other similarly sized developments included significant facilities, public space and parks. This proposal, while adding 541 apartments, fails to provide anything for the local area and fails to meet the Liveable Lane Cove Plans and does nothing to address the shortfall of facilities identified in the St Leonards and Crows Nest Station Precinct Social Infrastructure and Open Space Study 2018.
Lastly, the project’s scale and massing contradict the previously agreed planning envelope (including the Lane Cove LEP 2009
and the St Leonards South Masterplan) and will clearly provide negative impacts on the feasibility of developments currently in process or planned on the Pacific Highway.
Secondly, I have concerns that if this project were to proceed that this would negatively impact traffic and transport in the surrounding area. Existing road ingress and egress from the area are already insufficient. Adding a high number of residential residences that are not accessed via the Pacific Highway will exacerbate the gridlock.
Thirdly, I believe the parking provisions of this project are inadequate. The large number of apartments (541) is not supported by a suitable number of car parks (93 car parks only) within the building and is below the survey results of regular work transport (let alone weekend travel) in their own documentation. It also fails to meet the plans outlined in their own social impact scoping study, which uses 4 basement levels, not 3. This will significantly impact street parking access, which is already impacted by the development’s plans. Other similarly sized developments have far more parking.
Fourthly, other similarly sized developments included significant facilities, public space and parks. This proposal, while adding 541 apartments, fails to provide anything for the local area and fails to meet the Liveable Lane Cove Plans and does nothing to address the shortfall of facilities identified in the St Leonards and Crows Nest Station Precinct Social Infrastructure and Open Space Study 2018.
Lastly, the project’s scale and massing contradict the previously agreed planning envelope (including the Lane Cove LEP 2009
and the St Leonards South Masterplan) and will clearly provide negative impacts on the feasibility of developments currently in process or planned on the Pacific Highway.
Johan Choi
Object
Johan Choi
Object
St Leonards
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I strongly object to the proposed changes in height and density for this development.
I direct considerable concern towards the significant impact towards the existing infrastructure- as I understand the current site at Nicholson St is a small, local road and would be grossly under-equipped to handle the influx of traffic that this development would bring, should this proceed.
Furthermore, I call into question the actions of the developer, who, in my view has not consulted with the local community and residents regarding the proposed change in height. Adding to this is the fact that previous planning assessments for the area had already concluded well before said proposal; to allow such actions to happen unabated seriously tarnishes my perspective and faith in the NSW Dept. of planning, particularly in terms of their ability to act with the interests of the public in mind.
I reiterate that I object to the proposal for the Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent for the reasons outlined above, and implore the Dept. of planning to seriously consider the impact this proposal will have on the wider community.
I strongly object to the proposed changes in height and density for this development.
I direct considerable concern towards the significant impact towards the existing infrastructure- as I understand the current site at Nicholson St is a small, local road and would be grossly under-equipped to handle the influx of traffic that this development would bring, should this proceed.
Furthermore, I call into question the actions of the developer, who, in my view has not consulted with the local community and residents regarding the proposed change in height. Adding to this is the fact that previous planning assessments for the area had already concluded well before said proposal; to allow such actions to happen unabated seriously tarnishes my perspective and faith in the NSW Dept. of planning, particularly in terms of their ability to act with the interests of the public in mind.
I reiterate that I object to the proposal for the Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent for the reasons outlined above, and implore the Dept. of planning to seriously consider the impact this proposal will have on the wider community.