I want the buildings above the Crows Nest Metro station to support our
designation as a green nature Precinct and bring more outdoor spaces
for people into the area.
1. I object to a change in planning controls for this site.

2. I object to building any high rise residential towers on this site.
We need open green spaces for mental and physical health of all.

3. I object to any building on Block C.

4. I object to any parking on this site. We want the area to be as CAR
FREE as possible.

Rather than residential buildings I want the buildings above the Metro
to be a green space of nature no higher than 5 stories.

I want the buildings above the Crows Nest Metro station to support our
designation as a Health and Education Precinct and bring more jobs
into the area, enabling us to meet the jobs target set by the Greater
Sydney Commission.
1. I object to a change in planning controls for this site.

2. I object to building any high rise residential towers on this site.
Residential developments do next to nothing to bring jobs and business
to the area.

3. I object to any building on Block C.

4. I object to any parking on this site. We want the area to be as CAR
FREE as possible.

Rather than residential buildings, this site must continue as a vital
employment and business generating retail/commercial/service district
without the encroachment of residential development which does nothing
for jobs or business.
1. I want the buildings above the Metro to be part of an education
hub. These buildings could contain things like: a high tech technology
park; TAFE that specialises in technology, hospitality, cooking and
the film industry; a comprehensive, non-selective high school; a
selective technology high school; a language school; a music school; a
drama school; a dance school, a barista school and a culinary
institute.

1. I want the buildings above the Metro to contain services and
activities that maintain and improve the health of the community:
medical services; alternative health care; recreational spaces; a
performance space; movie theatres; a new community centre; more
childcare; a start-up hub and serviced offices.

I want the buildings above the Metro to become a go-to destination
that bring people and jobs to the area - not more high rise
residential towers.

I want the buildings above the Crows Nest Metro station to support our
designation as a Health and Education Precinct and bring more jobs
into the area, enabling us to meet the jobs target set by the Greater
Sydney Commission.

I object to a change in planning controls for this site.

I object to building any high rise residential towers on this site.
Residential developments do next to nothing to bring jobs and business
to the area.

I object to any building on Block C.

I object to any parking on this site. We want the area to be as CAR
FREE as possible.

Rather than residential buildings, this site must continue as a vital
employment and business generating retail/commercial/service district
without the encroachment of residential development which does nothing
for jobs or business.

I want the buildings above the Metro to be part of an education hub.
These buildings could contain things like: a high tech technology
park; TAFE that specialises in technology, hospitality, cooking and
the film industry; a comprehensive, non-selective high school; a
selective technology high school; a language school; a music school; a
drama school; a dance school, a barista school and a culinary
institute.

I want the buildings above the Metro to contain services and
activities that maintain and improve the health of the community:
medical services; alternative health care; recreational spaces; a
performance space; movie theatres; a new community centre; more
childcare; a start-up hub and serviced offices.

I want the buildings above the Metro to become a go-to destination
that bring people and jobs to the area - not more high rise
residential towers.

At the moment, the infrastructure (road, school) in Crows Nest can not
support the new growth of more residents and more car on the road. If
you put the residential apartments above metro station, you will turn
the roads around like Pacific Highway, Falcon St into car park and the
ambulance, fire trucks will be delayed which defeats the purpose of
having emergency services.

I object to a change in planning controls for this site.

I object to building any high rise residential towers on this site.
Residential developments do next to nothing to bring jobs and business
to the area.

I object to any building on Block C.

I object to any parking on this site. We want the area to be as CAR
FREE as possible.

Attention Director, Key Sites Assessments

Re: Over Station Development

Based on Community Feedback on page 12 for the proposed development
there are lots of best practice concept statements but vague
supporting detail. Two specific issues are:

-Traffic congestion and parking are important to consider
- More green space, community services and facilities are wanted

Traffic studies confirming no significant impact are not believable.
Since the movement to increase housing density along the Pacific
Highway began several years ago, the traffic and parking in Crows Nest
has become increasingly problematic. Council and the RMS have done
little to foster improvement. History shows that despite public
transportation (busses and 4 close in train stations), people buy and
use cars. Local parking is a constant problem for residents and
visitors.

It is disingenuous (and possibly insulting) to say that above station
structures, i.e. 350 new homes, 200 hotel rooms, an 8 story commercial
commercial building, and street level retail will be sufficiently
served by 150 parking spaces and it is worse to claim there will be no
adverse impacts on the road network (Page 22). Simple math, if
applied, discredits this assumption.

Consider, the above over station occupants plus already proposed and
approved and under construction high rise buildings plus current St
Leonards buildings recently opened plus street retail plus current
metering restrictions plus through highway traffic to Falcon Street
and North Sydney plus "significant" (large, to be defined) structures,
and evaluate the legitimacy of the "studies".

Presumably there is a formula for green space relative to population
density. It is woefully inadequate in its current configuration and
appears to be more so as families are stacked vertically. The effects
on children being raised in units without ample outdoor facilities is
a disservice. There is more focus on retail services than open space
recreational facilities. It begs the bigger picture question of what
this is all meant to achieve and what are considered "quality of life"
values. Developer monies are seriously insufficient to realise the
benefits touted in the glossy brochures.

It is worth considering thecurrent disastrous development issues in
NSW (trains, light rail, roads, museum, sporting venues), Council
should try to lead in quality, effectiveness and cost in its
development actions. We voters are at best skeptical, but mostly angry
about the integrity of development. Problems can't be laid on
developers alone; they can't develop what is not abetted, or a more
kindly expression, made available by government.

The Sydney Metro project represents a once in a generation opportunity to
critically evaluate how current, and shape how future, transport looks
Sydney.
Properly executed, the Metro will enable the necessary, but liveable,
density to be achieved to facilitate a growing city.
The current proposal does not achieve this.
Whilst acknowledging the need to increase population density,
particularly around transport corridors, this proposal tips that
balance far too in favour of development.
In very simple terms:
- the scale of the residential complex should be reduced
- the pro-rata car parking provision should be reduced - these folk
will be living on top of a train station!
- the opportunity to reduce the scale of the Pacific Highway through
Crows Nest and to return road space to public land doesn't appear to
have been given sufficient consideration.
It is also incomprehensible how a state government can be deploying a
state of the art metro system through one transport corridor, but at
the same time propose a 1950's solution in the form of a road to the
Northern Beaches.

I oppose this development. NSW citizens continue to have to deal with the
consequences of poor planning decisions. Principally, this is from
high-density residential development without appropriate
infrastructure to support it. The Crows Nest Metro Over Station
Development (OSD) is yet another example of this. The various
assessments conducted as part of this proposal should ring alarm
bells. For example, Appendix AA - Transport, Traffic and Pedestrian
Report states that because the development is on top of a railway
station it would have the effect of "minimising private vehicle
ownership
and trip generation" (page 7). Essentially, the assumption is that
people will use cars less because they can rely on public transport.
This is foolish. People in Sydney will continue to use cars to get
around, even for short trips. The report concedes (at page 65) that "a
significant number of trips each week are taken within North Sydney
LGA that are not commute to work trips" and OSD residents will still
"reasonably require" the use of a private vehicle for shopping and
other social activities. How does this analysis align with the idea
that private vehicle ownership will be minimised? It doesn't. The
mitigation measures proposed are inadequate. Clearly, setting up a
Metro doesn't solve Sydney's disjointed public transport system. The
public transport system is not integrated and it is still more
efficient to travel by car locally within the North Sydney LGA and to
a lot of broader destinations around Sydney. The analysis to support
the conclusion that there is unlikely to be adverse impacts on roadway
congestion is essentially the equivalent of wishful thinking. The
assumption that there will be a "minimising" effect on private vehicle
ownership underpins the reasoning that "Net traffic generated by the
site has been assessed as being less than that of existing land uses
on Crows Nest Station site. As such, modelling was not undertaken for
nearby intersections and the local road network" (page 7). In other
words, if the assumptions don't play out as imagined, we don't even
have any real evidence or insight into what the flow-on impacts will
be to nearby roadways. That is simply not good enough. The report uses
2016 census data (See page 64) to estimate private vehicle ownership
for OSD residents. The estimation for the OSD is significantly short
of the actual numbers for comparative dwellings in St Leonards (which
is just down the road). The plan is to deliberately provide "a minimal
number of parking spaces per apartment" to discourage vehicle
ownership. So again, if the imagined scenario isn't fulfilled, those
vehicles are going to flow-out into on-street parking. Congested
side-street parking is likely. It has happened all across Sydney.
Close scrutiny of this proposal shows that the assumptions on which it
is based are at best optimistic, but most likely flawed. The analysis
papers-over genuine risks that showed be approached with rigor. It's
yet another example of the 'she'll be right mate' approach to planning
that NSW residents have had to deal with. I sincerely hope that there
are people in power who genuinely want to make good decisions for the
good of the people. I hope that they want to base their decisions on
real evidence and proper holistic planning. I hope that they quash
this planning proposal until the planning is supported by robust
evidence and analysis that shows public amenities and public life will
not deteriorate as a result of proposed development.

I am opposed to the Sydney Metro Crows Nest Over Station Development. The
local areas at St Leonards and Crows Nest currently have very
insufficient parking for residents. This has a significant impact on
the residents' quality of life and ease of access to important
infrastructure such as bus stops, shopping centres and train stations.
The Over Station Development Plan did include Appendix AA_ CN OSD
Concept SSDA_ Transport Traffic and Pedestrian Assessment Report.
However, it is concerning that the Report did not model on the impact
the Over Station Development will have on parking and access to key
infrastructure. The stated intention of the Over Station Development
Plan was to improve employment prospects and improve access to
transport. The assumption of the Report was based on the premise that
new residents in the Over Station Development will not own vehicles
and will rely on existing or the Metro for travel. This is a highly
inaccurate assumption because no survey of the prospective new
residents was ever conducted and no intentions of vehicle ownership or
vehicle usage had ever been ascertained. It is appalling that the NSW
Government Department of Planning and Environment planned to approve
the Over Station Development on the basis that they believe the
inaccurate assumptions of the Transport Traffic and Pedestrian
Assessment Report. It highlights a gross oversight about the nature of
the Report's unsound research evidence, faulty methodology, fabricated
conclusions without any basis on facts and complete disregard for the
residents of St Leonards and Crows Nest. If the Over Station
Development is intended to improve employment opportunities, assist
sustainable population growth and access to transport links, then it
falls short of its stated purpose by a considerable measure. I will
urge the Minister to reconsider the Over Station Development and not
approve this Plan.

I am gravely concerned at the scale of residential development in this
plan and the absence of concrete proposals for providing the
commensurate infrastructure improvements required to meet residents'
needs and expectations for acceptable precinct amenity.
The plan seems to be deliberately opaque and disingenuous.
It proposes development to provide future jobs growth, matched with
additional residential options. The most cursory examination reveals
that, on the contrary, what is proposed is almost exclusively
apartment accomodation in massive high rise towers with negligible
commercial space. So are we to assume that the real intention is for
these residents to be housed in this area but commute out of area for
work?
The health precinct is already well established in St Leonards (which
is the subject of massive building at present) but the residences in
this plan are proposed for Crows Nest. What professions/enterprises is
the new job growth going to be in and where is it supposed to be
housed given the ridiculously low ratio for commercial v residential
in the plan.
Furthermore, the plan (sort of) pays reference to the need for
infrastructure improvements. Much is made of laneway design and road
setbacks but passing reference to schools, traffic management (because
let's be clear this many additional residents will bring more cars),
community services and shopping.
Also, the green space proposals are risible for the developments
proposed. If government really wants to encourage a healthy population
residing in areas of optimal amenity then it should be mandating as
much open space as possible.
Finally, the demand for this extra capacity may well be lessened by
events arising at the federal level. The Prime Minister has flagged
conducting discussions with the states on optimal levels of
immigration. Additionally, developers, who will find funding
increasingly challenging, will cut corners to optimise profits
resulting in sub-standard design and construction. Commentary
regarding standards for these two elements in the plan are
superficial.

I want see money provided from this development (State Infrastructure
Contribution Levy) for the expansion of Hume Park in Crows Nest. The
plan must ensure good pedestrian access around the development area
(as wide as possible footpaths - wider than currently exists with
overhead awnings for weather protection of pedestrians and it would be
good to have a walkthrough from the Pacific Highway to Hume Park. The
17 Storey building should be a commercial building NOT a hotel. A
commercial building will provide for more jobs. Ensure minimum
disruption of solar access to Hume Park.