Kenelm Winslow
Object
Kenelm Winslow
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
-A Direct negative impact to solar access to unit in Cameo and Aria,
specifically close to the Winter Solstice (21 st of June each year) that is not
considered
-There does not appear to be any analysis / assessment of the solar access
impact on Aria and Cameo on the Solar access report (E3 Architectural
Design Report A2 Solar Access) - why is this not completed?
-The current infrastructure (think 304 buses) does not allow for further
population density in an area that is already one of the highest densities in
Australia. Albeit the Metro has opened up, however that is closer to Redfern
than the population hub here in Waterloo.
-Increased Wind Tunnels
-A 36-storey building is out of character with the current building heights and
will detract from the existing building elevation / skyline – I personally think the
design is quite ugly and detracts significantly from the current and proposed
building form.
specifically close to the Winter Solstice (21 st of June each year) that is not
considered
-There does not appear to be any analysis / assessment of the solar access
impact on Aria and Cameo on the Solar access report (E3 Architectural
Design Report A2 Solar Access) - why is this not completed?
-The current infrastructure (think 304 buses) does not allow for further
population density in an area that is already one of the highest densities in
Australia. Albeit the Metro has opened up, however that is closer to Redfern
than the population hub here in Waterloo.
-Increased Wind Tunnels
-A 36-storey building is out of character with the current building heights and
will detract from the existing building elevation / skyline – I personally think the
design is quite ugly and detracts significantly from the current and proposed
building form.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
WATERLOO
,
New South Wales
Message
Hello,
I'd like to formally lodge objections to the plans for DA 881-885 Bourke Street as they currently exist. I, together with my wife and my son, live and work at 1 Danks Street, and our apartment building adjoins the parcel of land where development is proposed.
My primary objection relates to the changes in the masterplan for the area. Originally the slated buildings adjacent our property were to be 7 storeys, and the current application now lists a building as high as 19 storey between our lot and Hillsong Church on Young St. We understand the priority of development in our city and are willing to enter the process with goodwill, but if the changes in the current application are allowed to proceed, the living conditions of ours and our fellow tenants - not to mention the material value of our existing property - will be impacted severely.
Privacy is a huge concern. The 19-storey tower as it’s currently proposed will expose living rooms, bedrooms, and balconies that were previously private, to potentially hundreds of strangers.
As is sunlight. By 3.00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach a large amount of apartments facing the proposed 19-storey tower, and as these apartments face west, they have no other access to sunlight, and have been designed to maximise the exposure to sunlight they currently receive.
The new proposal represents a drastic departure from an original plan that, as owners buying into our building, we considered and deemed an appropriate amount of risk to take on as tenants adjacent the proposal. The drastic change in size and scope of the project undermines the goodwill in the planning process, and erodes our faith in future development controls.
I’ve attached some visuals that will hopefully add more context around our and our fellow tenants outlook, particularly towards that string of proposed developments that sit between our building and Hillsong Church.
I'd like to formally lodge objections to the plans for DA 881-885 Bourke Street as they currently exist. I, together with my wife and my son, live and work at 1 Danks Street, and our apartment building adjoins the parcel of land where development is proposed.
My primary objection relates to the changes in the masterplan for the area. Originally the slated buildings adjacent our property were to be 7 storeys, and the current application now lists a building as high as 19 storey between our lot and Hillsong Church on Young St. We understand the priority of development in our city and are willing to enter the process with goodwill, but if the changes in the current application are allowed to proceed, the living conditions of ours and our fellow tenants - not to mention the material value of our existing property - will be impacted severely.
Privacy is a huge concern. The 19-storey tower as it’s currently proposed will expose living rooms, bedrooms, and balconies that were previously private, to potentially hundreds of strangers.
As is sunlight. By 3.00pm in winter, no direct sunlight will reach a large amount of apartments facing the proposed 19-storey tower, and as these apartments face west, they have no other access to sunlight, and have been designed to maximise the exposure to sunlight they currently receive.
The new proposal represents a drastic departure from an original plan that, as owners buying into our building, we considered and deemed an appropriate amount of risk to take on as tenants adjacent the proposal. The drastic change in size and scope of the project undermines the goodwill in the planning process, and erodes our faith in future development controls.
I’ve attached some visuals that will hopefully add more context around our and our fellow tenants outlook, particularly towards that string of proposed developments that sit between our building and Hillsong Church.
Attachments
City West Housing
Object
City West Housing
Object
Pyrmont
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see attached submission for further details on City West Housing's objection to this development.
Attachments
Gerrit Jan Schipper
Support
Gerrit Jan Schipper
Support
Waterloo
,
New South Wales
Message
I object on the following grounds:
1. The proposed height of the development is far higher than the existing infrastructure. The new development will change the character of the neighbourhood in a negative manner. It will exacerbate the existing wind tunnels created by the high-rise building, and this one in particular will cast large shadows and block sunlight.
2. Existing road infrastructure is already overwhelmed.
3. Public transport, whilst good, is already stretched. For example, Bus 304 already runs 10-12 services per hour during peak hours. Gadigal Road and Potter Road cannot handle more traffic. Metro and Green Square stations are 15 minutes away on foot, so first port of call is bus or private transport.
4. Addition of affordable housing will have a detrimental impact on property values and adversely affect existing residents that bough in good faith into a gentrifying area.
5. There are insufficient educational facilities. The existing ones are close to full.
6. Insufficient public space. The existing areas are already used to capacity.
7. Parking for private cars is already almost non-existent.
8. Food deliveries by e-bike are already a hazard to pedestrians. This will get far more dangerous.
I would support a development of a lower density, of 10-14 floors mixed use, with no affordable housing, and a plan for increased investment in educational and recreational facilities within a short, defined timeframe.
1. The proposed height of the development is far higher than the existing infrastructure. The new development will change the character of the neighbourhood in a negative manner. It will exacerbate the existing wind tunnels created by the high-rise building, and this one in particular will cast large shadows and block sunlight.
2. Existing road infrastructure is already overwhelmed.
3. Public transport, whilst good, is already stretched. For example, Bus 304 already runs 10-12 services per hour during peak hours. Gadigal Road and Potter Road cannot handle more traffic. Metro and Green Square stations are 15 minutes away on foot, so first port of call is bus or private transport.
4. Addition of affordable housing will have a detrimental impact on property values and adversely affect existing residents that bough in good faith into a gentrifying area.
5. There are insufficient educational facilities. The existing ones are close to full.
6. Insufficient public space. The existing areas are already used to capacity.
7. Parking for private cars is already almost non-existent.
8. Food deliveries by e-bike are already a hazard to pedestrians. This will get far more dangerous.
I would support a development of a lower density, of 10-14 floors mixed use, with no affordable housing, and a plan for increased investment in educational and recreational facilities within a short, defined timeframe.