1 Eden Street, North Sydney NSW 2060

I am objecting to this application for a Boarding House as part of a Mixed Use business at 1 Eden Street North Sydney.
This is an exclusive residential enclave with a small amount of business premises as part of the mix use zone.
This is not the area for a boarding house to be established, I am not objecting to the requirement for more affordable housing, however these need to be developed in appropriate areas not in a small enclave such as Eden Street.
There are no other boarding houses within 1km of this area and it would set a precedent for future development.
The Council needs to consider the existing use of Eden Street and protect the residents that have purchased their homes in this Street.
Thank you.

I am writing to object to the Development Application (DA) for a mixed-use development at No. 1 Eden Street, North Sydney. I am a resident of 42 West Street, North Sydney.

The subject site is currently occupied by a 2-storey commercial building, with a front setback providing off-streetcar parking for two (2) vehicles.

The proposed development includes demolition of the existing building and construction of a 5 storey Mixed-Use development including a basement bicycle store/ garbage room, ground floor commercial tenancies, three levels of boarding house accommodation and a 5th storey common room with communal laundry, outdoor deck areas and a landscaped terrace. The DA does not comply with the building height control of 13 metres specified by the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 as the section below shows.

I wish to object to the Development Application on the following grounds:

1. Building Height: The 5th storey communal area is above the height limit. The height limit is there for important reasons:

· to promote the retention of existing views,

· to maintain solar access to existing dwellings, public reserves and streets, and to promote solar access for future development,

· to maintain privacy for residents of existing dwellings and to promote privacy for residents of new buildings

2. Loss of privacy: Having a roof top common area above our building would impact privacy and create noise concerns. The DA Acoustic Assessment concludes that the use of the roof should be managed, preventing people from accessing it after 10.30 at night and before 7am. It also recommends the introduction of 1.8 metre Perspex or glazed screens around the open deck areas, suggesting that there will be significant acoustic issues for neighbours.

3. Overshadowing

The SEE includes a shadow analysis demonstrating increased shadow length and additional overshadowing to several adjacent apartments including living rooms, and private open space as well as overshadowing to yard spaces.

4. Out of character with the area: The height, bulk and scale of the proposed building is excessive for this narrow site and surrounding context, which includes heritage listed buildings and residential buildings of up to four storeys. Dalziel lodge is an example of a neighbouring property that offers short stay budget accommodation that is in character with the local area density, landscaping and setback.

· Poor design outcome: potentially creating a negative precedent for future building activity in the precinct. There are a lot of issues with trying to fit 12 accommodation units on such a narrow lot, including:

· Many windows are less than 3 meters from the property boundary, requiring fire engineered solutions including external drenchers.

· The proposed building blocks the existing windows from the neighbour’s south elevation (3 Eden Street) reducing daylight and preventing use of windows for ventilation.

· Plans show issues with equitable access for people of varying mobility – including turning circles for wheelchairs, accessible toilets and wheelchair access to laundry.

5. Construction Management Plan including Demolition, Excavation

In the absence of a construction management plan, we have concerns with demolition and excavation on a narrow adjacent site with limited access, particularly after recent events in Alexander Street Crow’s Nest.

Clearly inappropriate for the area. Read and take notice of the other objections as they are never more relevant to the situation in this area. A strong message needs to be sent to insensitive development application which CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY are in NO WAY suitable for the area in which it is proposed.

A developer who would propose such a 'rape of the neighbourhood' give all developers a bad name and destroys the possibility of ANY reasonable proposal to be rejected. That's not what is wanted in this LGA. Council, with the support of the state government, should apply rejection fees for any proposal rejected by the council. This is a current regulation in most cities over 100,000 in France. Come on try and drag yourselves into the 19th century (when such penalties were first applied)