Please attached.

Submission on behalf of 3 residents of The Peak Apartments, reason for objection see attachment.

Submission attached

see attached

09 May 2013

The Director
Karen Jones
Metropolitan & Regional Projects South
NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2000

SENT VIA WEB SITE SUBMISSION

Dear Karen Jones,

Subject: State Significant Development Application for a staged mixed use development comprising residential, commercial, retail, community and open space uses at The Haymarket (Concept Proposal) (SSD5878)


I refer to the above matter and your letter dated 25 March 2013.

As requested in your letter, outlined below is my submission for your consideration.

I object to the planned proposal on the following grounds:


Overdevelopment of the site

Nine towers ranging from 12 to 40 storeys will be built on the current Entertainment Centre and car park site, an area of 47530m2 (less than 5 hectares). Four of these towers are between 25 and 40 storeys.

The recommendation by City of Sydney Planning in their July 2012 submission that more than 3 high-rise towers on the site would lead to "tower crowding" has been ignored.


The problems arising from this overdevelopment are:

1. Overshadowing of existing dwellings

The EIS does not contain sufficient information to assess the number of individual dwellings in neighbouring tall buildings which will be overshadowed at any time, and in particular at the winter solstice. No information is given re vertical (elevation) shadowing. It will be too late by the DA stage to belatedly realise that DCP overshadowing guidelines are far from met for a substantial number of individual dwellings.





2. Excessive building depth of proposed buildings

Each of the nine buildings has a proposed depth greater than the maximum 18 metres specified in the Residential Flat Design Code, and the developer fails to address the specific criteria in the Code under which the maximum may be exceeded.


3. Insufficient building separation of proposed buildings

Within the site, there are 14 separations between buildings. Of these 14 separations, the proposed distances in eight are non-compliant. With the proposed separations in those eight, it is impossible to achieve the intent of the Residential Flat Design Code separation guidelines by detailed designs or any other method.

There is also a non-compliant proposed separation between the NE plot and the Holiday Inn at 68 Harbour St.


4. Inadequate and inequitable view sharing between existing and proposed buildings

The new public facilities and open spaces could be created without adversely impacting on existing private views or outlooks. It is the new private towers which adversely impact on existing private views and outlooks. Therefore view sharing is required.

The EIS pays lip service to view sharing, but it is unwilling to adopt any of the four concrete measures which would promote view sharing, namely avoiding tower crowding, maintaining adequate building separation between towers, building slender towers and creating view corridors.


5. Population Density

The Haymarket currently has 5376 residents on a 53 hectare site (2011 census). The 5 hectare Haymarket Precinct, coupled with the new Quay and Hing Loong Apartments developments will increase Haymarket's population to between 10,650 and 11,000 on 58 hectares- an increase of between 99% and 103%.

The Haymarket will be further impacted by the large developments in Central Park and Harold Park when residents use Haymarket streets to access Paddy's Market, Chinatown and other attractions in the precinct. All these developments will put pressure on the adequacy of public transport; the ability of the precinct's "short grain" roads to cope with increased traffic; community services such as schools, hospitals, libraries and health and community centres, some of which are already at overcapacity; and the ability to maintain pedestrian safety for residents and visitors to the area.


6. Student accommodation

The student accommodation is on public land on a very narrow site between the Powerhouse Museum and Darling Drive. Narrowing Darling Drive will result in greater traffic congestion on this vital access road. Any significant view of the heritage-listed Powerhouse Museum will be obliterated, begging the question about the purpose of heritage-listed buildings.


7. Conflicts between SSD 5878 and SSD 5752 Sydney International Convention, Exhibition and Entertainment Precinct - Redevelopment of convention centre, exhibition centre, entertainment facilities and associated public domain works

o Expansion of the Exhibition Centre at ground level is prevented
o Reduction in capacity of CBD music venue


8. Traffic

There are two major areas of concern, unacceptable levels of service on Darling Drive and Bus & Coach standing both exacerbating the stress on current traffic congestions (Quay St, Ultimo Road and Harris St).

The Transport and Traffic Impact Assessment contains self-contradictory estimates of current usage. Actual observations show that current traffic levels are already very close to the maximum capacity which can be carried by one lane. The proposal to reduce Darling Drive to one lane in both directions when it is already at or near full capacity for one lane will cause unacceptable levels of service during the peak.

The existing bus and coach standing barely copes with current requirements and the plan offers only a single coach drop off space and no alternative provision for the daily tourist bus pickups.

The above limitations, coupled with increased number of residents in the Haymarket Precinct will add further stress on traffic congestion. Frequent double parking, other illegal parking and road rage incidents are currently obstructing streets and making movements in and out of the Haymarket area, let alone our own drive-way difficult and quite frustrating at times. I can only see it getting worse with more residents in this small area.


9. Heritage

With the proposed obliteration of the view from the east of the Powerhouse Museum by the student accommodation and the diminution of the setting of the Chinese Gardens it is hard to give credence to the proposal statement "There will be no impact on heritage items located either within the development site or in its vicinity....".

It is interesting to note that the consultants TKD's Heritage report appears reluctantly to support the proposal and that it was submitted twice to the client for review before acceptance.


10. Consultation Process

The consultation report appears imbalanced and is, in part, an inaccurate portrayal of events as recollected by the attendees at the meetings. Several issues raised in these "consultation" sessions appear to have been readily dismissed and misrepresented. These issues include:

- Overshadowing;
- Loss of views, inequitable view sharing between existing and proposed buildings;
- Reduction in property values of existing buildings (with estimated drop in property value by 10 - 20%);
- Reduced privacy due to insufficient building separation of proposed buildings;
- Pressure and questionable ability of current roads to cope with increased traffic;
- Lack of Public Transport, and ability of community services to service the increase in populations and visitors to the area;
- Reduced public and community space through the development of residential towers; and
- Depressing prospect of living in a demolition/building site for the next decade.




Based on all of the above points raised, I strongly object to the planned proposed. Further details of my objections are provided in the Appendix of this letter.




Yours respectfully,

E Liao
0427 893 081