1) Traffic Congestion for emergency services like ambulance, fire engine or police
Victor Street is a no-through road with significant traffic congestion due to the presence of:
- 3 residential apartment blocks, including the recently approved build-to-rent NOVUS tower
- kiss-and-ride zone for drop-off to local train station
- thoroughfare for vehicles needing to access the main boulevard (common due to market stalls)
The traffic congestion for Victor and Albert streets is frequently a bottleneck with no cars being able to enter
/ exit Victor St within the timing of a traffic light change.
We propose that any potential redevelopment to include a clause to ensure the carpark entrance is not on
Victor Street.
2) Shadowing of Chatswood Oval
Chatswood oval is the only significant public green space in the central district of Chatswood. It is frequently
used by families as well as local sporting clubs (rugby, cricket etc.)
The proposed height of the mandarin center development will cause overshadowing of the oval which will
impact on its usability.
There are no other suitable public green spaces in Chatswood that can replace the oval.
3) Blockage of Natural Light
The south facing units of the Sebel building (over 100) will have a dramatic impact on loss of natural light into
the units.
The NSW Apartment Design Guide specifies the amount of natural light that should be available for
apartments. The proposed height and setback distance between the 2 buildings will certainly impact on light.
There has been no modelling to determine impact on the residents of the Sebel.
4) Privacy Concerns
The design photos show a very short setback distance between the proposed Mandarin Centre
redevelopment and The Sebel. This will result in the south-facing residents of The Sebel and the north-facing
residents of the Mandarin Centre redevelopment both having significant privacy concerns - being able to
look clearly into each others apartments.
Section 2F of the Apartment Design Guide (NSW Gov - Planning and Development) states that 2 apartment
residential buildings requires a separation distance of 24 metres between habitable rooms and balconies.
This has not been shown to be the case in the proposed redevelopment - this is in violation of the guidelines.
5) Wind Tunnelling
Tall buildings with minimal separation distance results in significant wind tunnelling. There has been no
modelling to show the effects of this, and similarly no discussion on strategies to minimize the impact of wind
tunnelling on pedestrians and residents

24 hour delivery’s will be incredibly noisy and make the streets even more packed. Also only 1456 car spots for 1185 appartments will mean there will literally be hundreds of extra cars on the roads that are already packed.
Lastly, the school in the local area is already small and there are no plans to increase its capacity. Where will the literally hundreds of new kids go to school? Where will they play? There is already such a limited amount of green spaces, they will seriously overcrowd the limited green space and parks that are already here further reducing the quality of life we have here.
LOWER density is needed, not extreme high density. Build fewer 1 and 2 bedroom appartments and build more 3 bedroom townhouses. People need space and this plan doesn’t consider the space people need.

I object for the following reasons:
TRAFFIC ACCESS AND PARKING
William Street and Queens,Road are lready congested to a significant degree. The proposed modification introduces additional parking spaces, new access points and 24 hr loading operations. This, I am sure, will only add to the congestion. William Street is not a very wide road and already has many cars parked on both sides. Parking in the Kings Bay Estate is a problem . Traffic increase of the nature proposed will only add to this problem.
The traffic and planning assessment does not appear to adequately consider the cumulative impact of this development and others in the area.
OPEN SPACE AND LANSCAPING
The proposed reduction of open space is of concern. Residents need open space to relax and enjoy. Reduced landscaping and lack of trees will not bring balance to the development and surrounding areas.
NOISE
I am concerned about noise impacts of a 24/7 loading dock and heavy truck movements. Five Dock is already impacted by aircraft noise and there is a curfew to allow residents to sleep. Heavy truck movements during the night will have an effect on some residents early morning and late at night.
The proposed modification is not in the interests of existing local residents. It priorities increased intensity and infrastructure changes at the expense of existing residents.
I respectfully request that the Department looks again at the traffic which will be generated, the density of the development and the reduction in public open space.

Please refer to the details in the attached planning submission. Concerns are raised as to additional non-compliances, additional parking and traffic and loss of open space. Request that a strategic review of parking and open space be undertaken with such large developments and where there are additional commercial uses and parking evolving. This is an already congested area.
Concern also over noise relating to the 24/7 operation of loading on other nearby housing.

I write to object to the proposal for the UNSW Barker Street Car Park Expansion.
I am a person who cares about the environment, the safety of people, and a local resident who walks and rides a bike as their main mode of transport. UNSW has the benefits of being accessible by light rail (2 lines), buses, walking and cycling (protected cycleways to UNSW).
As a university highly esteemed for its education and progressive research, it’s surprising that someone at UNSW hasn’t done the cost benefit analysis and calculated the detrimental effects this car park expansion will have on the finances for the university, environment, health and community and reputation.
As a resident I don’t understand how the state would allow for a development that will damage the health, education, and increase safety risks to people, by encouraging more people to drive than to take sustainable transport options such as buses, light rail, walking or riding a bike. By increasing the number of vehicles travelling to the car park, the state is responsible for increasing the safety risk of people being exposed to cars, and increasing the dangers on the roads. This impacts the safety of the surrounding environment, creating unpleasant places to walk or ride a bicycle.
I request the Department consider whether building a car park supports the government and the community in developing sustainable, liveable cities, support more people to ride and bicycle by funding more protected cycleways, and prioritising traffic signals for people walking or riding a bike.