All recent comments on applications from North Sydney Council, NSW

Very upsetting to hear that this property's amazing heritage inside and out will be destroyed.

Council should think long and hard before approving such amendments. The doors, windows, staircase, parquetry and other internal fixtures are one of a kind, and should be protected not destroyed. Homes like this need to be protected not just their facades. Once this history is gone it's gone.

This will completely destroy the character of the building. There is no way you could add an additional storey without completely destroying any architectural integrity the exterior of the building still has. The whole draw of this building is the heritage, this should be placed above getting more money through with increased guests.

13 storeys are you joking?! The area is already so completely overdeveloped, with so few areas of open space. Look at St Leonards it is a gloomy wind tunnel now. Don't make Crows Nest the same.

In response to C. Verney, yes increased density will increase traffic congestion - to say otherwise would be silly. We're really talking about degrees of increase. I feel you have cherrypicked from the RMIT flyer - it's whole arguement seems to be that you need good public transport with new developments. Exactly what is happening at Crows Nest.

Your claim that each apartment will result in another 2 cars would seem to be fanciful. Very very few developments have ever provided on-site car parking for 2 vehicles per apartment. If each apartment had 2 vehicles then one would need to be parked on the street. Given the street frontage on front of the average development would hold 5-6 cars where are the other 20-200 cars per apartment block you claim exist being parked? It just isn't happening - it would mean the streets in a several kilometer radius around Wollstonecraft, St Leonards & Chatswood apartment blocks into residential neighbourhoods would be parked out.

Plus many of the residents won't use their car to get to work - that's what public transport is for. Most of the usage is likely to be out of peak hour and spread out.

I'd love to hear more about where you think more housing should be built and of what type. It seems a lot of people in the Crows Nest/St Leonards/Greenwich area think it should be built "elsewhere" so that "their" area doesn't have to change.

In response to Peter M., according to the RMIT Centre for Urban Research, high-density housing does indeed increase traffic congestion. (And yes, according to the NSW Department of Planning, thirteen floors is considered high-density).

“While medium and high-density development supports housing growth in established areas close to jobs and services, it also has a significant impact on road congestion, exacerbating the problems associated with car dependence.” (De Gruyter et. al., ‘Transport Impacts of
New High-Density Housing:
Critical Policy Brief’, RMIT University: Centre for Urban Research, 2020).

While you may not think that the traffic is at ‘grid-locked’ levels, there is still quite a lot of congestion (particularly on the Pacific Highway) and despite the provision of multiple public transport options, this congestion will only worsen as more and more high-density developments are hastily constructed along this corridor. Every one apartment in such a development means at least another two cars on the road. (Even when surrounded by multiple public transport options, Australians won’t cease to use their cars - whether out of habit, convenience, laziness, or because of the at times unreliable nature of public transport).

And no, the alternative to housing people does not have to be ‘building houses in the middle of no where which have no infrastructure.’ Just as the solution to the current housing crisis is not to build more expensive high-density residential towers in already densely-populated areas, which will not suit young families or the more vulnerable members of society.
Perhaps we could invest in improved infrastructure in areas outside of the city centres?

And in response to Garry Besson, this dependence on car travel (despite living in a walkable area with multiple public transport options) is precisely the reason why councils are moving to reduce the number of parking spaces available in these developments. According to De Gruyter er. al., ‘the provision of car and bicycle storage facilities in high-density housing has a strong influence on residential travel choices.’ In other words, a cap is placed on the number of car spaces in the expectation that it will reduce car use, and (hopefully) lessen the transport impacts of high-density housing.

I agree with Peter M’s comments with only two additional observations to make.

First, I think North Sydney council is moving to reduce the number of car parking spaces these developments can have. I think that is a very bad mistake. Off street car parking with dedicated additional visitor car parking spaces is essential in my view. The Council should not be imposing upper limits, lower limits would be fine, on the number of car parking spaces permitted in these developments.

Next, the large residential developments along the Pacific Highway at North Sydney ( near Bay Road) have little to no architectural merit. The Council should have as a priority when approving high rise developments that there is architectural merit in the buildings.

I support the increase in density for the Crows Nest area. 13 stories isn't particularly high, especially given it has commercial buildings all around it.
High rise developments don't generate "an enormous amount of motor traffic" as claimed by C. Verney - if that was the case the Wollstonecraft Peninsular would be gridlocked. Which it isn't. Even though it has a train station and all the traffic that goes along with that.
As for putting a strain on infrastructure - the alternative to housing people seems to be building houses in the middle of nowhere which have no infrastructure at all! Crows Nest will have a metro station by the time this is completed as well as the nearby St Leonards heavy rail station, bus routes, hospitals, 3 big supermarkets within walking distance (plus 2 smaller ones).

As a local resident, I have concerns regarding the development proposal (DA 66/23) to partially demolish a heritage site and construct a 13-storey mixed-use building.

I have little confidence that this development will provide significant public benefit.

Over-development, particularly high-rise, high-density buildings will irrevocably change the nature of our built environment, and will destroy much of the character that makes Crows Nest unique. One only needs to look down the road at the St. Leonards 'peninsula' to see the end result - a bleak, characterless cluster of high-rise monstrosities that overwhelm everything around them. They blot out all sunlight in the vicinity and create an unpleasant wind-tunnel effect. They generate an enormous amount of motor traffic. In sum, they significantly decrease public amenity.

The numerous development proposals for high-density apartment buildings seem to be completely at odds with the objectives of the St Leonards and Crows Nest precinct as articulated by the Greater Sydney Commission. The precinct is intended to be a business, education, and health precinct. In contrast, the goal now seems to be the prioritisation of the provision of high-rise residential development. Such development puts a strain on our infrastructure and on the environment. Furthermore, the St Leonards and Crows Nest vicinity is already characterised by a severe lack of open space, as identified in the ARUP report prepared for the NSW Department of Planning (2017).

Planning for a 'priority precinct' should not have to lead to a high-rise shadows looming over Crows Nest and Wollstonecraft. I feel that lower-density residential dwellings (eight storeys at most) would be a more suitable compromise for this area, and would not create the sort of problems that are experienced in St Leonards (principally, over-shadowing, wind-tunnel effect, and lack of sunlight).

The proposed development will have unacceptable adverse impacts on the character and heritage significance of the Cremorne Point Conservation Area, and an unacceptable adverse impact on the heritage significance of the Kareela Road streetscape, contrary to relevant provisions of the LEP and the DCP Cremorne Point Conservation Area. The proposal will result in an uncharacteristic built form that will dominate Kareela Road, contrary to relevant provisions of the LEP and the DCP.

It is contrary to the streetscape character of Kareela Road of the eastern (lower) side where dwellings are generally set below street level, and where there are steep sites sloping to Mosman Bay with frontages to Cremorne Reserve and Kareela Road.

Based on the view, the topography and location of dwellings and houses the character in this middle section is that the dwellings are located below street level and where there are views over and between buildings across to Mosman Bay.

The coverage of the proposal should be considered to be an "uncharacteristic" element under section 6.4.7 in Part C of the DCP. It is also located within the front setback of the dwelling in a heritage conservation area, and for that reason would also be considered an "uncharacteristic" element under section 13.9.5 of Part B of the DCP, and also contrary to P10 at section 1.5.4 of Part B of the DCP.

The objectives for heritage conservation areas include encouraging change "that will remove uncharacteristic items or reduce the extent of their intrusion" (13.6.1, O4). Section 13.6.2 P4 provides for the removal of uncharacteristic or intrusive elements, or incorporating changes to improve design and visual impact (P6).

Section 79C(3A)(b) requires flexibility in the application of the standards set in the DCP, having regard to whether the objectives of the standards are achieved. It may be that in the context of the topography and the existing development in the section of Kareela Road where the subject site is located, the addition of a garage hard stand car space occupying more than one third of the street frontage and located within the front setback is a departure from the standards set by the DCP, the central issue is that the proposal does not achieve the objectives identified in the DCP.

Section 1.3.6 of Part B of the DCP requires consideration of views from dwellings, and from streets and other public places. Section 13.6.2 P3 in Part B provides that development should not obstruct existing views in the public domain including slot views over and between buildings. Views from Kareela Road are identified at section 6.4.4 in Part C as a significant element in the Cremorne Point Conservation Area.

If this application includes the provision of additional bedrooms then I support it. It is the best way to achieve the state govt. mandate to increase the number of resident accommodation by 15,000. Spreading this mandated increase across the municipality via small development with share the the impact more evenly than the current impact that 44 story developments deliver the commUNITY.

It's either:
wind tunnel, loss of light, concentrated overburden on facilities, loss of our villages, etc. that high rise delivers,
or
spreading residents across the whole municipality and maintain the nature and livability of our precious suburbs.

The Architect appointed by the owners has advised Council has requested they prepare a photomontage to allow an analysis of the impact to views. They also intend to prepare certified, accurate 3D images of the proposal overlayed onto GPS positioned photographs.
The submission before council st this stage does not illustrate the Street effect of the proposed da. There has not been an artist’s impression prepared or submitted of the completed project showing its effects when viewed from Kareela Rd. This vista to Mosman Bay is important, it is one of the remaining slit views and provides Kareela Rd users and residents an irreplaceable Mosman Bay view and would affect the current amenity provided including visual observations of the moored vessels and vessels in use including Ferries. In addition sunrise and sunset across the bay would be lost.
A place of natural beauty in a bush setting, Cremorne Point offers superb vantage points to the harbour and access to water sports and recreation for its residents. The views from Kareela Rd to Mosman Bay are heritage significant and should be protected by council for current and future generations

Main objection:

The entrance to the building is a major oversight in planning as it would create a very dangerous point for all pedestrians accessing Hayes St beach or Hayes Street in any way, buses, cars, pet owners, kayakers especially at peak times when the ferry comes in and over weekends when many families access the beach. Very unsafe. Car lifts are rarely used as they're a hassle even when in less congested areas.

2nd objection:

over development and loss of beach's use in time needed to develop. Shadowing. Up-scaling what is there and correcting existing issues could reduce footprint in development, save in costs and time.

I support this application for an increase in the available space above a garage if it:

1. increases the number of sleeping rooms, and
2. has no major adverse impact on neighbours.

I do this as it is a gentler way to increase the state government's mandate for the increase in population in North Sydney by 15,000 residents. The alternative is the loss of the municipalities' beautiful "village" type of accommodation with the erection of multistory wind tunnels. Laughingly call apartment blocks ("block" as in sun and the continuance of a healthy commUNITY).

Please seek to put in conditions that ameliorate the wind tunnel effect on this site through considered design. The corner of Pacific hwy and Christie st is awful. Equally, cnr Pacific hwy and Albany is just as bad. These 35+ storey buildings in the area shadow and exacerbate winds decreasing amenity for all. St Leonards is fast becoming a very austere, souless and bleak suburb.

If this development delivers additional bedrooms to this home then I support it if it fits in with the surrounding properties.
Given the state government has mandated that North Sydney needs an additional 15,000 beds then adding such space to existing homes is far better than the monstrous high rise the building lobby is bringing to the municipality.

I support this development if it includes additional bed space in the property and doesn't clash with the surrounding area.

This is a better way to achieve the state govt's mandated increase in population for North Sydney. Building high rise wind tunnel, overshadowing, ugly high rise apartments are not the best enhancement to our environment.

When are we going to wake up about building illumination and the futility of illuminated advertising signs?

There are certain things I 'boycott' these days:
Harvey Norman - for pocketing overpayments of Covid supporting payments,
Qantas - for gouging domestic and international airfares. They have 70% market share here. If it were a US registered corporation it would likely to be broken up for having a level of market share that is considered there as anti-competitive.

Seems I'll have to add advertisers who pollute our environment with USELESS light intrusive signs, not to mention the coal burnt to illuminate them. Too many of these advertisers simply ignore mandated illumination hours. When was the last time Council pulled up such transgressions?

We even had a mayor not so long ago say that advertising signs were great as that brighten up the CBD area at night. Go figure!

IF you think you cannot ban this pollution then at least fine those who disregard the illumination mandated hours. Make them place a $20,000 security in escrow. If they transgress by ignoring the curfew then claim $5,000 as a penalty. from that escrow If they don't transgress then give them the interest earned on the escrowed amount.

Stop pussy-footing about.

Couldn’t agree more - this should apply across the whole CBD what a waste of energy these signs are.

Unfortunately the sign on this building has not been following the curfew for building and signage for decades. Sometime they follow it, sometimes they don't. Also unfortunately council and the state government 'appear' powerless to act against these transgressions.

It is particularly bad in summer as during late evenings and overnight those residents in 'line of site" of the building are unable to gain the advantage of evening/over night southerly sea breezes on a hot day because of the light intrusion. Our relief can only be gained by using 'environmental damaging" air condition to could our homes. Not only is the building contributing pollution from their building illumination and signage, residents are forced to do so as well. Why ANY sane person thinks their sign helps their image in today's pollution aware commUNITY defies logic. Take a look at the CBD in Melbourne. Building illumination and advertising signage has virtually disappeared. Sydney/North Sydney need to follow suit.

Until building owners realise this then they need to be dragged ('kicking & screaming', if necessary) into the 21st century. To assist this, council/state govt should introduce a scheme that would require building owners to deposit a $20,000 bond with the council, who would put it into an interest bearing account (with earnings returned annually to the building owner if they comply with illumination hours). Each failure to comply during the year should see $5,000 removed from the deposit and given to the council + any interest earned in that year will be given to the council.

Unless council/state government manage the local environment adequately and eliminate the environmental, light intrusion and breaking of local commUNITY standards this ignorance will continue. Toughen up.

I support applications that increase the number of bedrooms in an existing property, if the amenity of the area and nearby neighbours is not greatly adversely impacted.

State government has mandated NSC area must increase its population significantly of the coming years. Currently this is essentially seeing the increase in oversized, over-height, wind tunnel inducing, inappropriate TOWERS.

Developments such as in this application are the best way to ensure the 'village' nature and community focused areas of the municipality continue to make the environment liveable. TOWERS don't!

If this conversion is going to see an increase in the number of beds in this property, then I support it as a way to achieve the NSW govt mandated increase in residents in North Sydney. Much rather small steps, one-by-one to achieve this mandate then the community destroying, grossly inappropriate, wind tunnel inducing, high rise development that has been destroying the municipality for the last 10 years.

Egress is already a major issue at this transport interchange (Station/Bus) where, often, commuters/school children have to use the road way to pass this interchange (typically in peak hour when bus and other vehicle movements are at their peek.

Stop using our rail station asset for unnecessary commercial activity, which is already covered by the Greenwood shopping centre across the road. In fact there are 7 such businesses within 120 mitres of the proposed location. STOP THIS NONSENSE.

Couldn't agree more. Council needs to require a deposit from such building owners from which it can extract a penalty from in the event of breaches of illumination time mandates.

Having looked at the DA closely, I see that not only are 37 Offices proposed, which intimates 74 workers. If single occupancy, then work from home! There are, on the ground floor FIFTY SEVEN desk spaces in addition. A coffee shop, reception, this could possibly mean a total of 137 people with only TWO car spaces planned. The DA clearly shows only 2. This is ludicrous.
To submit a survey stating there are 7 Go Get spaces in the vicinity, there may be, but on checking they all have a car permanently parked there.
The closest bus stop does not come into use until 10.00am.
Therefore the DA ascertains that only 1.45% of the workers attending will wish to travel by car and park.
Parking is not allowed on Cranbrook Lane and Cranbrook Avenue a small cul de sac is 2 hour slots only.
This is at best ridiculous.

Given the continuing and extensive number of breaches of building signage illumination through this area of North Sydney, adding more opportunities for flouting of times of operation, I strongly object to providing further opportunity being given to this application.

1. The prominent position of this building will see light spillage across a large area of the municipality to the east and south of the building.
2. Such illuminations are far from 'world's best practice' in today's age of environmental damage being caused in providing mostly coal based energy for its illumination.
3. Dozens and dozens of breaches of the mandated illumination hours continue to go unmanaged through out the North Sydney CBD. Council needs to introduce a scheme whereby a deposit (lodged by the building owner) is held in abeyance by the council for the provision of the payment of fines for failure to comply with the hours of illumination. Walk around North Sydney of a night and see the number of breaches currently occurring.
Until North Sydney Council fines building owners' transgressing the hours permitted for illumination, NO FURTHER applications to further pollute our environment should be entertained.