Living in Atchison Street St Leonards for last 15 years have seen the traffic situation becoming more and more conjested! With this development and others in my street alone it’s rapidly coming to the point of just too many people and cars for this area!
I’m in total agreement with Mr Promnitz. The removal 20+ trees with no provision to replace them is of particular concern . I also find it appalling that units can be advertised before the final approval of the construction process. This just makes a total mockery of the whole process .
The blocking of Lithgow St/Pacific Highway will cause a huge traffic issue for everyone in the Lithgow st/Oxley street area as there will be no other way out. The Oxley st/Pacific Highway junction is already a nightmare now between 5-6pm
We agree with Roger Promnitz’ obviously well researched and, in our view, legitimate objections to this DA. There appears to be untimely haste in regards to this proposed construction, along with a minefield of unintended consequences should it proceed. It is on the cusp of North Sydney and North Sydney Council should be consulted on its views having a history of large successful projects within its boundaries.
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.
We require a proper Geotec report since the excavation will below the existing footings of 5-9 Greenwich Road also the height of the development at 9.0m from the foothpath is to high .
The other side of Greenwich has already been nominated for high density development. Traffic is heavy enough near Greenwich and River Road and the surrounding streets, the last thing we need is further development in this area.
There is no documentation listed online. Please upload and restart the 14 day comment period.
There is too much of this privatisation of community purposes and parkland on the basis that a ' service' is to be provided. This is a trend that must be stopped by legislation from Finite land is been alienated for greed and profit. No doubt this land is cheaper to obtain simply because it is not zoned commercial. Public land should be used only for purposes. There is no process to turn commercial zones into public ones. It is exploitation all the way, and the public are suffering.
'Commercial' is 'commercial.' These actions are not sustainable planning.
Ban the use of community purposes, recreational land, and open spaces for commercial use.
AND HANDS OFF THE FORESHORES AND NATURE RESERVES. It is too easy for developers to take advantage when we cannot trust the government to look after the public.
MORE POPULATION NEEDS MORE GREEN SPACE AND PUBLIC PURPOSES LAND.
13 days is not a long enough period to allow comment when developers are making a killing. The commenting time for the public should be extended to 28 days.
This is totally unacceptable. Community land has been rezoned, and a massive overdevelopment is being built in its place. Currently in lane cove there is already a great deal of high density development with no new green spaces for all these new residence. Green spaces are important because they provide recreational places. Indeed, the independent public hearing commission jetted the proposal, but the liberal councillors over road it. I hope you are all voted out for this.
This is totally unacceptable. Community land has been rezoned, and a massive overdevelopment is being built in its place. Currently in lane cove there is already a great deal of high density development with no new green spaces for all these new residence. Green spaces are important because they provide recreational places. Indeed, the independent public hearing commission jetted the proposal, but the liberal councillors over road it. I hope you are all voted out for this.
Just another example of serious overdevelopment. Where are the extra buses? We already have way too many blocks of units crowding out natural light. Why do we have to loose more bushland in Lane Cove? It's a great pity that decision makers in both state and local governments are not more accountable. They are leaving a woeful legacy for future generations.
Is this proposal ready for consideration? Some documents are in Draft!!!. e.g. the Arboriculture Impact Statement.. Should we waste time reviewing this??
We live next door at number 43. It is good to see that they have chosen to make the highest point at the front. However it is hard to tell from the diagrams what impact the height of the rest of the building will have on our views. Specifically the outlook from our bedroom window and the 2 kitchen windows on the side of the house that adjoins theirs. If we are to lose our leafy/sky outlook I would register an objection, if it is to remain at the same height from the perspective of these windows and outlooks I would not have any objection. I would appreciate being contacted asap with regard to this as we will be overseas from 15 September so may not be able to arrange access after this date.
I strongly object to the way this development is being handled. I am extremely disappointed at the way this has been dealt with and the complete disregard for the local community's views, not to mention the advice given by the independent report. This will be the key factor in my voting decision in the September council elections.
Specifically in regards to the height of the development, it appears that consideration has only been given to the change as seen from Longueville Road, not for those of us neighbours who are directly impacted by the height as we are down near the bottom of Richardson Street west. We chose this street because of the leafy outlook, not to look at concrete buildings. Seven stories is far too high and I cannot give my consent to this towering monstrosity.
I would be accepting of this if it were more in keeping with the area, i.e, no more than 4 stories high.
Although this is development is approved isn't it time to stop new apartment applications as Lane Cove has more than fulfilled the State Government urban consolidation demands.
Margaret Clinch commented 10 days ago
I oppose the development of 9 town houses in this part of Burns Bay Road.
If densification proceeds in Sydney at the rate it has been happening, there will be nothing left of its character. This applies even more in the case of Lane Cove. The character of Lane Cove is being destroyed by too much development denser than free standing family homes.
Lane Cove is a suburb where people have come to live to invest and enjoy its natural and leafy environment, and raise their families. It is a'modest suburb and not highly commercialised - a contrast with the character of Chatswood and North Sydney.
Some years ago, there appears to have been medium densification on the upper strip of Burns Bay Road with a whole series of town houses along its way. These are quite spacious in layout compared with modern standard with setbacks and room for shared gardens. Nevertheless, these well established town house situations cause parking problems.
This particular part of Burns Bay Road is near the dangerous intersection between Burns Bay Road and Centennial Avenue. Parking is also difficult there because of the nearly shops, a bus route, and a narrower section of the road.
IN RECENT YEARS BECAUSE OF STATE LEVEL PLANNING INTERVENTION,
THERE HAS BEEN TOO MUCH VERY DENSE DEVELOPMENT ALONG LOWER BURNS BAY ROAD, AND AROUND BURNS BAY WHERE ACCESS IS VERY POOR.
THAT IS ENOUGH DENSIFICATION FOR LANE COVE. WE DO NOT WANT EVEN CREEPING LOW LEVEL SUPERIMPOSED ON WHAT IS BASICALLY A DOMESTIC FAMILY SUBURB WITH RESPONSIBLE HOME OWNERS.
PLEASE SAY NO TO THIS NEW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE LIFE OF LANE COVE.
delivered to the planning authority report comment
Fourteen days is a very short time in which to make a comment.
*
I oppose the development of 9 town houses in this part of Burns Bay Road.
If densification proceeds in Sydney at the rate it has been happening, there will be nothing left of its character. This applies even more in the case of Lane Cove. The character of Lane Cove is being destroyed by too much development denser than free standing family homes.
Lane Cove is a suburb where people have come to live to invest and enjoy its natural and leafy environment, and raise their families. It is a'modest suburb and not highly commercialised - a contrast with the character of Chatswood and North Sydney.
Some years ago, there appears to have been medium densification on the upper strip of Burns Bay Road with a whole series of town houses along its way. These are quite spacious in layout compared with modern standard with setbacks and room for shared gardens. Nevertheless, these well established town house situations cause parking problems.
This particular part of Burns Bay Road is near the dangerous intersection between Burns Bay Road and Centennial Avenue. Parking is also difficult there because of the nearly shops, a bus route, and a narrower section of the road.
IN RECENT YEARS BECAUSE OF STATE LEVEL PLANNING INTERVENTION,
THERE HAS BEEN TOO MUCH VERY DENSE DEVELOPMENT ALONG LOWER BURNS BAY ROAD, AND AROUND BURNS BAY WHERE ACCESS IS VERY POOR.
THAT IS ENOUGH DENSIFICATION FOR LANE COVE. WE DO NOT WANT EVEN CREEPING LOW LEVEL SUPERIMPOSED ON WHAT IS BASICALLY A DOMESTIC FAMILY SUBURB WITH RESPONSIBLE HOME OWNERS.
PLEASE SAY NO TO THIS NEW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE LIFE OF LANE COVE.
It seems somewhat strange to be lodging a Development Application seeking Council's approval to "convert open carport to enclosed garage with door & rendered, painted brickwork to match existing building," when this building is currently under construction with a Complying Development Certificate and the carport has already been fully enclosed with a rendered brickwork wall, albeit that the stamped plans show this wall as being a Brick Dwarf Wall of 1470mm height. The only part of this Development Application appears to be the installation of the Garage Door and the painting or the rendered brickwork wall.
Are Development Applications meant to be lodged retrospectively for work already undertaken?
This change to the design, from the plans approved for the original Complying Development Certificate, appears to be an modification of the original Consent and/or Construction Certificate, and should have been approved prior to construction.
I saw the plan for this and there is too much density in this development.
I also live nearby and got no notification of this I think the notification area should encompass all houses along burns bay road, penrose street, cope street, not just the ones backed up behind cope street.
In addition there are already too much dwellings constructed along burns bay road from the nursing home down to Carsibrook. In addition there is the new EVA apartment tower being built along the area before the Pavillions.
Be well aware that by putting in more additional dwellings along this road, there will be even more increased traffic congestion around centennial avenue, burns bay road and penrose street (it is already bad as it is now). Also since there are only two bus routes (252 and 536) buses will be at overcapacity during peak times and will be full by the time they start boarding on Burns bay road/cope street rendering these buses redundant for the rest of the passengers wanting to board these buses. Don't need to be sherlock to figure that out.
If you want some suggestions before proceeding with this here are a few:
1. Ask state government to put additional bus routes along the burns bay road area. EG: Have another bus that goes from burns bay road to city going along victoria road and have one that goes from Lane Cove to Macquarie Park. Is it that hard or we can't do it because it will mean increased expense for NSW government such as hiring more bus drivers? Otherwise set up a few community shuttle buses - again can't be hard to do?
2. Reduce the number of dwellings to a more manageable amount and increase the setbacks and green space. The dwellings look pretty squashed up in the diagrams.
3. Take a more holistic and co-ordinated approach to planning. It seems this application and the EVA apartments is being considered in isolation from one another which just isn't fair. Also all the developments planned for St leonards is another example of this.
What do you mean by multi dwelling housing development?Not another block of units I hope. There are too many now.Look at the new ones on the left before Linley Point,south of Cope St.,with another block soon to be built near the traffic lights just south of Cope St.There are too many now meaning MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTION,MORE PEOPLE LOOKING FOR PARKING AT THE LANE COVE VILLAGE SHOPS-NO MORE DEVELOPMENTS OF UNITS/APARTMENTS PLEASE.LANE COVE HAS ENOUGH!
I have a unit in Burns Bay Road close to no 296 and have been astounded to observe the development in this area in the past 3 years. The infrastructure has not kept pace with the development. I share the concerns of the other respondents regarding traffic flow, parking, green space and public transport. I agree with the comment that this previously attractive area is beginning to resemble a rabbit warren. The proposal to build a shop and child care centre is positive but I urge Lane Cove Councillors and Planning Authority members to visit the site and seriously question if we need more units. A recent Citibank report specifically mentions Lane Cove as being at risk of an oversupply of units by 2017.
Anyone who knows this area, knows that the area is already crowded to too many apartments. The whole area is like a rabbit warren. Parking or turning can be a nightmare. This building would be too high and dominant, overlooking those further down hill. Any decision makers should be required to visit the site, rather than relying on Mock ups, or architect's drawings.
The land in this whole precinct is very steep. Parking for the existing units is already short, In reality, many more people live in the units than was allowed for in the design standard. This area is changing from a pleasant, well planned area, to an over densified one. Access to the whole precinct is very limited. ...
I totally agree with both comments. Planning has just not allowed for sufficient public transport, parking or green space. Drummoyne is five minutes away by car and 45 minutes away by bus when connecting services fail.
Where is the dedicated bus lane promised for the previous apartments in the original DA and the dedicated safe left turn zone? Why is View Street Linley Point the bunny for parking shortage for workers, and no doubt will remain as parking for spill from the apartments. Drummoyne is five minutes away by car and 45 minutes away by bus when connecting services fail.
Anyone who knows this area, knows that the area is already crowded to too many apartments. The whole area is like a rabbit warren. Parking or turning can be a nightmare. This building would be too high and dominant, overlooking those further down hill. Any decision makers should be required to visit the site, rather than relying on Mock ups, or architect's drawings.
The land in this whole precinct is very steep. Parking for the existing units is already short, In reality, many more people live in the units than was allowed for in the design standard. This area is changing from a pleasant, well planned area, to an over densified one. Access to the whole precinct is very limited. Deliveries are virtually impossible.
The need for a park was recognised because of the huge number of people in the new set of tower units, but it will give no relief if it is dull, or in shadow. Any new development will need to provide its own ground level public open space. Spouses left at home with young children are locked in by the poor access to any bus stop. There is need for an on-site public community centre.
One of the most important points is the lack of a shopping centre for all the people now living in this precinct. Carrying family shopping on these hills is no joke, Power and water infrastructure may nee major upgrading. Unless a cap is put on the development in this corner, safety and policing will be a risk. The police station was removed fro Lane Cove some years ago.
This whole precinct has become a fire hazard. It has a good chance of becoming an overpopulated slum.