27.5.2105

Attention: Director - Key Site Assessments
To: Planning Services
Department of Planning & Environment

I write in relation to MP 08_0244 MOD 3, Application for Development at 23-41 Lindfield Avenue and 7 & 11 Havilah Lane, Lindfield.

There are several aspects of MOD 3 to this DA which, I suggest, should be rejected, as they are CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST:
(a) another reduction in retail space, at this key site next to the railway station; and
(b) another increase in the number of residential units, with a reduction in the ratio of parking places relative to number of residential units, in an area of existing traffic/parking issues.

(a) Retail space

The land subject to this DA is directly opposite the entrance to Lindfield railway station. Part of the original DA and approval was the provision of retail space appropriate to the location of the site. Retail space is an amenity for the general community totally befitting this significant site. But this DA will reduce the number of retail outlets here that have serviced this area for many decades.

If this DA is to provide (as it should) community amenity - and that means the wider community of several suburbs whose residents use the Lindfield station precinct for shopping & public transport - then there should be an increase in retail space provided in this DA, not a reduction. Such an increase in retail space would be readily achievable in MOD 3, as MOD 3 involves an increase in the overall footprint of the site - an ideal opportunity for increased (ground-floor at least) retail space, compared with what is provided for in the current DA.

The sad history of retail space (in square metres) in this DA is as follows:

Original DA: 4,231
MOD 1: 2,379
MOD 2: 2,750
MOD 3: 2,720 (proposed)

This is a key site for the community of Lindfield and surrounding suburbs, and that community should not be deprived of the ongoing amenity of substantial retail facilities on this site. No further reduction in retail space on the site should be permitted.

(b) Number of residential units vs. number of car parking spaces

As was already raised at the PAC hearing into MOD 2 of this DA, the number of trains stopping at Lindfield station was reduced dramatically in the timetable changes introduced in October 2013.

The number of trains stopping at Lindfield station in the morning & afternoon peak periods, combined, was reduced at that time from 135 trains per day to 105 trains per day - a reduction of almost 25 per cent in the commuter rail "service" at Lindfield.

But, totally at odds with the reduction in public transport services, MOD 3 to this DA seeks to bring the increase in the number of residential units on this site, to over 50 per cent above what was originally approved, as follows:

Original DA: 91
MOD 1: 112
MOD 2: 122
MOD 3: 141 (proposed)

And, along with the increase in the number of residential units, the DA has progressively provided for a smaller number of residential car parking spaces relative to the overall number of units.

With the increased footprint of the site, following the recent acquisition of two additional shops, it is to be expected that there would be an increase in the number of residential units. But, as indicated above, that should not come at the expense of retail space. And the developer should not be permitted to provide inadequate car parking spaces for the residential units: traffic flows and parking space are already under pressure in this section of Lindfield.

In summary:
I would earnestly submit that, ON THE BASIS OF PUBLIC COMMUNITY INTEREST,
MOD 3 of this DA should NOT be approved, without a requirement that the AREA OF RETAIL SPACE BEING PROVIDED MUST BE INCREASED back to at least the area provided for in MOD 2 - or ideally closer back to that provided for in the original DA, when the overall size of the development was very much smaller.

Thank you.

Judy Butlin

Comparing MOD 3 (this application) to MOD 2:
The developer has bought 2 additional shops with current retail amenity to the public, and yet, only residential and communal space has increased.
** There is actually a 30 M2 square reduction in retail. There is only increase in residential and communal space.

This seems at odds with the whole proposition in the first place.

That is, the community at large did not feel that this scale of apartment complex was setting the right precedent for this area, nor was traffic around Havilah Lane and surrounds ready to or forecast to be realistically able to cope. There are plenty of submissions around this from the public from the initial application, and the traffic studies are not done by residents who know the area and travel through it frequently.

However, in the interests of revitalising the tired retail space that is currently there, the developer had to consider medium-high density residential to make it viable. This third modification once again only serves that purpose - the private developer's profitability.

Secondly, with the increased (actual and forecast) density in Lindfield,

* there is not one car space added per 1 or 2 bed additional apartment proposed (17 car spaces vs 19 additional apts) on the basis of its proximity to rail presumably the car parking overall will be deemed adequate, and yet,
* the state government has REDUCED trains stopping at Lindfield with the last set of timetable revisions in recent years.

How does this make any sense?

The Perspectives illustrate an overwhelming development not in character with and having a detrimental impact on the existing street scape.

The contrasting design of the upper 3 levels emphasizes the overwhelming and uncertain character of the whole.

Accordingly the proposed increase in number of apartments should not be permitted.

RE: MP08_0244 MOD 2 - Modification to Mixed Use Retail Residential redevelopment (Part3AMod)

Including
* MP08_0244 - Retail Residential redevelopment (Part3A)
* MP08_0244 MOD1 - Increase in height and floor space of residential towers, changes to the apartment mix, retail floor space and provision of car parking (Part3AMod)

In addition to all other correspondence and detailed submissions to the Minister and Premier over the last few years in regards to the development we agree with the sentiments of the Director General and Planning Assessment Committee of the potential isolation of 2 Kochia Lane and that the design should ensure future development on the site is not compromised by the exclusion of this site.
1. The property has again changed ownership. Please note the body corporate of 2 Kochia Lane offered the property in one line this year, however the response in writing from the new owner's management was,
"regarding the possibility of acquiring your building, unfortunately head office response is that we are not interested in adding more sites to the existing project."
2. In the committee's professional experience could you ensure with all your jurisdiction our site is not isolated ensuring adequate setbacks. Could we also have access to the documents of how the EA proposed they were addressing our site to allow it to be redeveloped as a viable stand-alone development in the future (building massing studies)
3. Please enforce your condition F17 - restrictive Covenant to solar access rights- to ALL glazing AND balconies on ALL levels of the southern facade of the Eastern Tower.
4. It is noted the building separation does not seem viable for our future development to the boundary in regards to the Western tower and its eastern facade (and our western facade). Can there be some covenant in regards to loss of solar access, privacy and views of this facade to ensure that our property is not compromised in height and glazing/balconies in the future on our western façade.

See uploaded latters and correspondence

Refer to attached submission.