PlanningAlerts

10 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Another huge development in an already crowded, overdeveloped area, 11 storey hotel is too much. The 11-storey ‘lifestyle hotel’ is not providing for housing and yes, its on a transport node but how do you propose people get in and out of the node. Social or recreational housing is the requirement not transient hotel accomodation. How about catering for the population of the next 20 years and not the dollars in council and developers pockets now

2. This DA is full of smoke and mirrors. the devil is in the detail. A. the sound impact assessment is only on the sound coming into the building NOT on the sound that will be coming FROM the building. The Shadow projections Stop at 15:00hrs or 3:00 pm just when it will fall on the residential apartment opposite WHY? It states it is a "LIFESTYLE' hotel. There is no Reception there is no parking because it is a "Lifestyle" The Rooftop terrace is an entertainment area which has noise impacts on the local community. Residents opposite already suffer from the Parties noise of Lifestyle tourist that occurs in the Hollywood Avenue Precinct. Anyone who says it won't is sticking their heads in the sand. Now the truth This development is to provide accommodation for the international Students who attend any of the 9 English Certificate schools in the Bondi Junction area. The developer is IGLOO and simple search on the net will show what this really is. POD accommodation 198 of them which can accommodate up to 2 people. Double your numbers and we are looking at a possible 396 people! all piled into a street frontage of about 40metres adjacent to the parking entry and exit point of Westfield shopping centre. Think international student walking with Mobile phone in hand, pedestrian meets car driving screaming to beat the lights. What are they creating?

3. WITH THE WHOLE OF AUSTRALIA TO BUILD ON
   W H Y FURTHER CONGEST THE MOST DENSELY CONGESTED IPART OF AUSTRALIA?

   CONCRETE JUNGLE DOES NOTHING TO ENHANCE OUR PRECIOUS BEACH AREA !

4. Further to previous comments which I support, correction to Rodney Scherer- the developer of this proposal is Iglu not Igloo. Iglu are a well recognised student accommodation provider who I doubt have any idea what it means to be a contiguous resident of this location.
   Student accommodation under the guise of a "Lifestyle Hotel" is a load of nonsense. As local residents we already have more traffic than we need and the crumbling bitumen of Hollywood Avenue will struggle to cope with what is to come. Pedestrians are constantly crossing against the lights at the adjacent Westfield carpark entrance, one can only imagine the students who will make this LH their temporary home completely oblivious to pedestrian etiquette. When traffic lights meet people with ear buds in their ears distracted by 'connecting' to their world whilst cars slam on their brakes and use their horn because they have stepped out in front of them.
   Oh the blissful sounds of Bondi Junction's periphery.
   This development proposal of 198 rooms, a further 200 or more people on the street, making noise, dragging wheeled suitcases at all hours of the night. Being socially disruptive and unaware of the interruption to peaceful enjoyment of ones home. What about local residents?? Do people who pay rates matter? What about all the older people living in this area? Rooftop noise being broadcast till all hours from the development's rooftop terrace.
   We will not grow old quietly and gracefully, deafness is not an option. This development reeks of getting the dollars in with absolutely no consideration to the place and it's permanent residents.

5. This is a really inappropriate development for this location.

   Why not call it for what it is. Student hostel / accommodation. It would be very disruptive as students regularly circulate in and out, with there being no concierge, rather Resident Administrators who would be expected to introduce the students to the residence and familiarise them with the rules of conduct. Big chance this will happen and be applied across the board and consistently over time.

   Noise from the building is the big concern with the other concern being groups crowding on the sidewalk for a cigarette or just a chat at all hours. As well, the shadowing of local residences would be significant.

   There will be no Lifestyle about this development just trying to cram as many people into one location as possible.

6. Some concerns with this proposal:
   1. Describing the proposal as a "new hotel development" is disingenuous. Call it what it is; student accommodation.
   2. Student accommodation, with an open rooftop area, opposite residential housing. You will hear this blocks away...
   3. 198 rooms and no parking; do they imagine that none of the guests/residents will have a car, irrespective of the public transport options? The additional vehicles will just end up in the nearest non-restricted parking, or clog zoned parking after hours.
   4. This street is already significantly overcrowded from a traffic perspective due to the entrance to Westfields parking. Adding up to another 396 people to the street will not improve matters.
   5. The "justification" for exceeding the height limit is spurious. If a specific limit has been set with the purpose of meeting the objectives set out, then a breach should not be entertained. Certainly, the building does not "provide an appropriate transition in building heights surrounding that land" in relation to the double story terraces diagonally across the road. Obviously other buildings in the area have the same issue, but why make it worse?

7. The proposal for 5-11 Hollywood Avenue was before the Waverley Council as DA 421/2018. It appears now to be on appeal under the same DA number, ostensibly before the Land and Environment Court.

   Residents in the neighbourhood, and in particular those living on Llandaff Street who are most affected by the development, lodged well-argued and cogent objections to Waverley Council before the specified due date of 24 December 2018. The proposal now on appeal bears the same DA number and is the same in all respects. Hence all the original comments and objections made in the previous submissions are important, valid in full measure and indeed even more so as the DA is lodged as an appeal. Some specific points may be reiterated here.

   The proposed building with glassy external appearance is not only aesthetically unattractive but it only caters to the privacy needs of the residents in the building and not of the residents living in the apartments opposite whose privacy may be invaded in a pervasive fashion by people inside this new building who may gaze at us without our even being aware of this!

   The greater the height of a building of this massivity, the greater the shadow on the neighbourhood around. It would appear that the special exemption sought for the extra floor is purely motivated by profit and shows utter disregard for the residents of the neighbourhood. It should not be permitted under any circumstances.

   The building is presented as a “lifestyle” hotel, a term left deliberately left undefined and vague. Mere provision of a gym and a cafeteria does not make it a “lifestyle” building. Nearly every building in Bondi Junction meets this criterion. As other pertinent comments here have pointed out, it is indeed a student lodging masquerading as a hotel. It is our understanding that a lodging house is not permitted in that location under the zonal building regulations. Presenting it as a “lifestyle hotel” appears to be a way of circumventing those building regulations.

   The social and lifestyle consequences of the DA421/2018 on the residents of the neighbourhood are serious and not to be underestimated. The residential population consists predominantly of senior citizens and young families with small children. The application as it stands should not be approved.

   A development with initial outlay and minimal staff to provide maximum returns with minimal recurrent outlay is not in the spirit of the planning expectations for the area. We as residents understand that the land under consideration is valuable and cannot be expected to be left as is. We are not in the least anti-development. Proposals which are consistent with zonal requirements of creating on-going employment, and which are formulated while keeping the convenience of the neighbourhood in mind, are welcomed by the community around.

8. Barbara Salon
   I have lived in Bondi Junction for many years, and have witnessed many changes to its development ..some good some bad I consider this development to be of a something of a disaster which will have no beneficial effects to the chosen area.
   People’s privacy will be taken from them, not to mention the traffic congestion with taxi and all night arrivals at all hours as well as the noice from the rooftop activities..No person will be a permanent guest therefore not will not show the respect the location deserves...The glassy appearance of the building will be so reflective at certain times of the day...Also, I feel l the little quite resting park opposite will become a meeting place and therefore become another outlet of noise at late hours disturbing surroundings areas and bring further problems if used for recreational purposes.

9. To all concerned patrons: I have been a resident here in the Junction for over 35 years. The last thing we need is another abhorrent site taking our views and blocking our sunshine...
   After speaking to my local member of parliament: I am quite confident this development will not be passed, due to the fact that the Bondi junction Waverley Rsl club was knocked back in a similar fashion last year over a proposed “build” ,which mirrors this current project. It’s a plain and simple outcome: Don’t kid yourself The new council bracket formed could be up for liability (legal ramifications) if they chose to “pass” this in favour over the Rsl(s) previous failed DA application. Council chambers are more than “well aware” of this.

10. Noise
    The acoustic assessment, as well as the SEE, are inadequate in that they mostly consider noise impacts to the proposal’s occupants. They do not consider the full range of possible noise impacts from the proposal to adjoining, existing developments, in particular existing residential developments. The acoustic assessment should consider noise impacts from the café (outdoor component), basement garage door, roof top open air terrace, ground floor open form terrace, as well as any mechanical equipment.
    In this case, the SEE has not fully considered all potential environmental impacts and cannot confirm the site’s suitability.
    Should the development proceed, the roof top terrace should not be operational after 6pm or before 9am 7 days a week. The café should not be operational after 5pm 7 days a week, and not before 8am on weekends. Deliveries, including any collection of waste, should not occur before 8am or after 5pm 7 days a week.
    Privacy
    The eastern elevation is almost entirely glazed, with occupants of rooms looking directly into dwellings on the opposite side of Hollywood Avenue. Although glazing may be ‘visioning glazing’ as noted on the plans, occupants of the proposal will still be able to look directly at adjoining, existing dwellings. While ‘vision glazing’ may not be see through from other properties, there remains the perception by occupants of existing dwellings that they will be overlooked. The sheer number of rooms, and extent of glazing on the eastern elevation is extensive and will significantly reduce privacy.

    Building Height/4.6 Exception request
    The height permitted by the Waverley LEP 2012 is 32m. The proposal breaches this height by 3.8m. In breaching the height, the proposal includes 1 additional storey than what would normally be permitted. In doing so, it provides a full 11 additional rooms that will overlook adjoining dwellings, generating privacy impacts above what is contemplated by the Waverley LEP 2012. As such, the proposal is inconsistent with objective 4.3(1)(a) of the WLEP 2012, and the exception request cannot be supported.
    In our view, generating additional privacy impacts does not represent an appropriate transition with respect to building heights and surrounding land, as required by objective 4.3(1)(c), further demonstrating why the Clause 4.6 request should not be supported.
    Total Occupants
    The proposal allows for 198 rooms. Potentially, between 198 to almost 400 people could be accommodated within the development. Community services in the locality, and in particular active open spaces are severely strained. Adding further people to this extent will severely compromise existing community facilities. Ultimately it is permanent residents of the community who feel this strain the most, whilst for occupants of the proposal, it is merely a temporary issue, if an issue at all.
    Café
    The café is proposed to operate between 6am to 10pm, 7 days a week. As indicated earlier, the café should not be operational after 5pm 7 days a week, and not before 8am on weekends. This is particularly given there are dwellings directly on the opposite side of Hollywood Avenue.
    Car Parking Along Hollywood Avenue
    We note the proposal includes parking along Hollywood Avenue. The noise impacts associated form this has not been considered in the acoustic assessment and should do so given the number of permanent residences on the opposite side of Hollywood Avenue. Specifically, there will be noise from the closing of car doors, which during the night will disturb the sleep of permanent residents in a case where currently there are no car spaces.
    B3 Zone Objectives
    We note the land use related objectives of the relevant B3 zone focus towards promoting commercial floor space and employment generating. The proposal’s floor space is almost entirely for short term residential purposes and as such, is entirely inconsistent with the zone objectives. The proposal should be amended to include notably more commercial floor space to strengthen Bondi Junction’s roles as a core commercial centre, thereby providing further employment opportunities for not only a growing population, but more importantly, permanent residents.
    We understand Council and the relevant planning panel has enforced this outcome on several other developments and/or recent approvals within or in close proximity to Bondi Junction centre.

    Design Excellence
    We are of the view the proposal would not satisfy the amenity related objectives of the WLEP 2012 design excellence clause. As mentioned earlier, the proposal will severely overlook existing dwellings on the eastern side of Hollywood Avenue due to the extent of glazing on it’s eastern elevation. Further solid materials should be incorporated on the eastern elevation to reduce the perception of overlooking. Additionally, the extent of commercial floor space should be increased which will further decrease opportunities for overlooking (and in doing so, assist with satisfying the commercial related objectives of the B3 zone).
    Traffic/Parking
    The proposal includes 0 onsite parking spaces, whilst an onsite drop off/pick zone is also absent. Rather, the proposal relies on 2 – 3 potential on street spaces which currently do not exist and there is no clear policy direction as to whether they will be implemented.
    Any hotel, regardless of its location or perceived target market generates substantial parking demand as well as pick up/drop off requirements. In this case, the application’s traffic and parking assessment is questionable. Our experiences over a number of years is that traffic along Hollywood Avenue and surrounds is increasing substantially. This results in inconvenient congestion for permanent residents, as well as over use of horns and the like, to the detriment of private amenity.
    The proposal will generate substantial traffic and parking demands, and as a consequence, further congestion and amenity related impacts.
    Plan of Management (PoM)
    The PoM indicates that there would not be a reception as part of the proposal. This suggests the proposal is not a ‘hotel’, but rather a boarding house or other form of residential accommodation, both of which are prohibited in the subject zone.
    Further, the absence of a ‘manned’ reception brings into question security and the general operation of the premises. This is because reception staff typically provide the most effective form of surveillance to any hotel.
    A basement drop off zone is referenced in the PoM. The SEE and architectural plans do not show or reference such a zone in the basement.
    There is very limited details included in the PoM in relation to cleaning, and cleaning any outdoor spaces or any public domain in the vicinity of the proposal. The PoM should stipulate, at a minimum, during which hours outdoor cleaning will take place. This is important to protect the amenity of nearby residents. Cleaning with the use of motorised blowers, vacuum cleaners, or the like before 9am or after 5pm would impact on the amenity of nearby residents. This is particularly the case as there are currently issues with cleaning contractors at the premises using motorised machinery late in the evenings, impacting on residential amenity.
    The PoM should also detail exact cleaning procedures so as to reassure residents in the locality that the area will be maintained in a clean, and tidy condition..
    The PoM is flawed in that it does not suggest a contact number will be readily available to members of the public to respond to any nuisances. Typically, a hotel or boarding house operator provides an emergency contact number to adjoining residents or will offer to make such a number visible on the proposed building (such as on the front door).
    As stated in Council’s Pre-DA minutes, the PoM was to address social and economic impacts, but does not consider these in any form. The PoM does address how nuisances will be addressed, or how inevitable increase in community, social, and open space demands arising from the proposal (which could accommodate up to around 400 people) will be met.
    Floor Space Ratio
    We recommend requesting gross floor area plans as there appears to be errors in relation to floor space ratio, albeit it minor. For example, according to the architectural design report, it appears the basement laundry has not be considered as GFA, when it is not listed as item to be excluded according to the definitions in the WLEP 2012.
    Traffic Assessment
    The SEE and traffic assessment assume that all guests will arrive at the proposal by public transport, taxi, or walking. The lack of any onsite parking, and supposed reduction in congestion is based on this assumption. However, this assumption is not qualified with any evidence. It is recommended that a comparison analysis be undertaken of other hotels to confirm this outcome. In this case, it should be noted that most other hotels or serviced apartments in Bondi Junction include substantial onsite parking. This includes Meriton suites and the recently completed Quest hotel.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment