There are several areas of concern in regard to this proposal:
• Excessive height and scale
• Use of public land for a private development
• Timing – in advance of proper framing of agreed planning strategy for this precinct
• Advertising and sale of units prior to planning approval being granted
• Removal of trees without replacement
• Lack of consideration of parallel provision of required support infrastructure eg schools
• Adverse traffic impacts, especially on Oxley St
• No green space provision
• No coordination with adjoining Councils, hence no shared strategy for development of this key area
• Little or no oversight by Greater Sydney Commission to ensure adherence to and alignment with the North District Plan.
Height and scale
This site was originally approved for development as a commercial building back in July 2011 by the PAC, and was for an 18-storey building envelope with 6 levels of car parking to cater for 206 vehicles. What is now being proposed is a residential development comprising 654 units with 2 towers, the highest being 47 storeys plus a third tower for commercial, and 9 levels of underground parking to cater for 1138 cars, 559 bicycles and 76 motor bikes. The enormous scale of these changes cannot be over-emphasised, whilst the fact that an approved development lay stagnant for nearly 7 years but now seems to be being pushed through with undue haste and without waiting for signoff by other planning bodies or proper community consultation, is curious in the extreme.
Use of public land for a private development
The originally approved proposal did not include the annexure of Christie Lane or part of Lithgow Street, both of which are public roadways, and which limited the size of the development because of an inability to obtain total amalgamation of all potential sites. Whilst there has been some limited recompense to Council and the community through a VPA and relocated laneways, the degree of compensation is heavily weighted in favour of the applicant. Even some elements of the VPA are not locked in eg direct access to St Leonards station is not guaranteed, whilst provision of appropriate transition to the still only proposed St Leonards Plaza is highly conditional.
Timing
Despite repeated attempts by the NSW State Government to have the 3 local Council areas covering St Leonards work together to develop an agreed development plan and strategy for the precinct, Lane Cove Council has blindly approved several developments, much to the chagrin of most of its residents and ratepayers. Like the much-maligned St Leonards South proposal, the timing and scale of this proposal is all wrong – what the community is seeking is at least an extension to a more reasonable timeframe for responses to the proposal, such that its strategic importance and size relative to other planned developments in the precinct can be considered by all parties in a timely fashion. We note that the DPE website suggests any enquiry is to be directed to LCC, whilst the Sydney North Planning Panel website indicated no meeting to consider the proposal has yet been scheduled, and all this to cover a DA for which submissions close in 2 days.
Advertising of units for sale prior to approval
It was always our understanding that unit sales could not commence prior to final approval of the overall construction project. Submissions for this proposal only close March 2, with responsibility for approval resting with the Sydney North Planning Panel (but for which no meeting to consider has yet been scheduled) so some unknown date in the future, yet this proposal was the feature report in the Domain magazine insert into the Sydney Morning Herald of Feb 24, noting that sales were to commence the same day.
Tree removal
The proposal acknowledges the intended removal of 22 trees, with no plan to replace any of them. This is totally unacceptable, especially in an area which is already short of natural greenery.
Lack of supporting infrastructure
For a development as large as this, being 654 units, there will be a significant uplift in population in the area, putting additional pressure on already over-taxed infrastructure, especially schools and childcare. It appears no thought has been given to assisting in the provision of these aspects: whilst the library provision is welcomed it will do little to help meet the increased pressure on already-full local schools and childcare centres.
Adverse traffic impacts
With the proposed closure of Lithgow St to the Pacific Hwy, the addition of 654 units, 1138 car spaces, a supermarket, 29 specialty shops, a commercial building and various other separate developments in the immediate area, the likelihood of the Pacific Hwy/Oxley St intersection becoming a traffic bottleneck is almost a certainty. It is already difficult, especially for right turning traffic, but the additional volume of traffic given it will become the only road exit from this entire area, means additional traffic planning must be conducted here.
No green space provision
There is no provision for any plant greenery, whilst open spaces will have the tendency to function as wind tunnels, and communal space is reserved only for residents. As mentioned above, 22 existing trees are to be removed, with no plan for any replacement. In such a major development this is just not acceptable.
No shared strategy with adjoining Councils
Despite pressure from both State Government and the public to address long-standing differences in strategy between the 3 Councils administering the St Leonards area, each Council has pursued its own agenda for development. This has led to significant differences in building design and height, inappropriate rezoning, wind tunnels, loss of green space and a general lack of communal facilities. There is an opportunity here to take a step back and review the potential to address some of these shortcomings even whilst striving for “design excellence”.
This leads to the final point, wherein the total proposal is at odds with the vision and intent of the revised GSC North District Plan. Development is welcomed, but only development which embraces the characteristics of liveability, sustainability, productivity, infrastructure and collaboration. Some of these elements appear to be missing from the 88 Christie St proposal.
