422-424 Cleveland Street Surry Hills NSW 2010

I am an owner in the Mezzanine Apartments - I have a three level apartment that looks directly over the backyard of the Kirk building. I have lived here since the building was developed for apartments in May 2000.
Presently I have a quite lovely leafy outlook from my loft over the Surry Hills neighbourhood - terrace houses, their roofs, trees, and notably the very attractive gingko tree. I have noticed over the past few years how appealing this tree is to birdlife at certain times in spring - and sometimes I am awoken by vast numbers of birds singing in this tree. It’s always early - 5.30am - but it is a particularly lovely way to wake up in the big city - to loud birdsong. So I will certainly miss looking out at this tree and the birdlife that it attracts when it is removed. I believe its fate is sealed - as it was agreed at the last DA meeting that it would be removed by the City of Sydney committee that approved the previous DA.
So I will be sad to lose my attractive view, however, I am just one person and this development will seemingly bring many benefits and advantages to the neighbourhood. But if myself and some of my neighbours are to lose our attractive outlooks, then I think it is vitally important that what is built in that backyard is aesthetically pleasing to look at - and if the tree is to be removed then it is of paramount importance that the greening of the building facade is not merely green washing but an aspect of the development that is fixed and non-negotiable. Developments often face financial pressures where desirable aspects of a development get lost along the way due to cost overruns. So I would like to see some sort of guarantee that this green facade is integral and cannot be discarded later.
I believe the building breaches a height cap but this is compensated for by a design that is sympathetic to the church and also a design that tries to maximise light for residents in this apartment building. This seems a fair enough compromise provided that is what is actually done. So I would happily agree with this provided further down the track the design isn’t changed and suddenly the office building has an additional floor. So if this height increase is to be approved then there needs to be strict regulation over what this additional height can be used for. What is proposed seems good - but it must be adhered to.
It is also of vital importance that light to the street level apartments in this building are afforded the best possible outcome in terms of light. Those apartments are already dark and are reliant on that western aspect light. So whatever can be done to maximise light for those residents - and all western-facing residents in this building is of vital importance.
However, I am generally happy with the prospect of a boutique office building. It has many advantages over other options - the workers will largely not be there at night or on the weekends. Some residents of this building will likely be off at their own places of employment Monday to Friday daytime. I think this is the best possible outcome that the residents of this building could hope for really.
I would also like to say that I was vehemently opposed to the previous DA that was approved by council for a boarding house and entertainment venue. It was an extremely undesirable addition to the neighbourhood that no one wanted. This Toga development by comparison is absolutely superior in every way. I have met with representatives of Toga twice and was shown the plans. They have been very proactive in reaching out to neighbours and seeking feedback - something the previous developer never did. We can also see their work across Cleveland St at the Surry Hills Village site and the development looks impressive. They are a quality up-market developer.
So in summary although I will be directly impacted and negatively with the loss of an attractive view, loss of light and loss of privacy, I am in favour of the development. As a lot of money was spent to acquire the site - so something will be built there. I commend the developer on retaining the Kirk building and redeveloping it which will not be simple or cheap - however it is a building with character and also has an impressive history and I am glad that it is going to be repurposed.

I am the owner of a ground level apartment in the Mezzanine building. My apartment runs from Cleveland Avenue to High Holborn Street. The apartment is fairly dark even during the daytime, and I rely completely on the light from the western windows overlooking High Holborn Street to illuminate the interior. One of the windows looks directly onto the Kirk, with a sliver of sky above, and the other looks onto the backyard of the Kirk and provides dappled daylight. The new building will block out this already-filtered light-source. I believe that the roofline of the new building should be no higher than the roofline of the Kirk. If the DA is to go ahead with the planned five storeys, the roof will hopefully be clad in a light-reflective, light-coloured material, and the exterior of the building will exhibit the hanging gardens proposed in the DA, although the new view will not compensate for the near-total loss of light.

I also have concerns regarding privacy, as occupants of the proposed building will be able to look directly across High Holborn Street into my living area. I am hopeful that the project will incorporate louvred windows on the HHS side or other measures to provide ongoing privacy.

I am the owner of an apartment on the opposite side of the street from the proposed Kirk development.
My main concern has to do with traffic, pedestrian safety and the already dire situation with parking in High Holborn St as well as the surrounding streets

As a pedestrian and a public transport commuter, I rely on High Holborn Street as a regular thoroughfare as do many other residents in the vicinity. As the footpaths along High Holborn are extraordinarily narrow, everyone walks mid street, particularly when you’re in the company of one or more other person.
Bearing in mind there will inevitably be more traffic in view of delivery vans to the restaurant/cafe and such, my concern is regarding the safety of local foot traffic.
This is particularly the case on waste collection days when the footpaths are congested with the household bins. There is no option at these times but to use the street as a thoroughfare
I might point out too, that High Holborn St is a one way street only, not two way as mentioned in the Transport Impact Assessment document

With regards to parking, it is totally unrealistic to assume patrons of the restaurant will be using public transport to commute to and from this destination.
I have lived in the area for 26 years and the surrounding streets have never been so challenging to find a park as it is now. This is largely due to the increased visitors to Crown street restaurants, cafes and entertainment venues and while this is heartening to see, parking of some sort needs to be provided. Hopefully they’ll be able to park at the Toga shopping center across Cleveland St

Overall, I am much happier with this design than the previous submission

However, in relation to 4.1 Car Parking

The development should provide some on-site parking. The commercial use and restaurant will bring people to the premises. The Traffic Impact Assessment has made an assumption that most people will come by public transport. This is a false assumption

The surrounding streets are very constrained in the amount of parking that is available and, as a resident, I can attest that a lot of people who visit restaurants and hospitality venues in the area, do drive in and park in the surrounding streets (Crown, Cleveland Ave, Goodlet, High Holborn etc) and parking in the evenings, while these premises are trading, is tight

This is even more important considering that there is a proposal by the developer to remove 3 existing parking spaces, on a part time basis, to enable easier access for service vehicles

Also, as an important point of correction, there is misinformation in 2.2 Road Network 2.2.1 Adjoining Roads of the Transport Management Plan:

This clause states that High Holborn Street is a

"Two-way road that runs in a north- south direction between Devonshire Street in the north and Cleveland Street in the south.
• Approximately 4-metre-wide carriageway with one lane used by cars travelling in both directions.
• No Parking restrictions on the eastern side of the road while 1P parking restrictions apply to the western side.
• Assumed 50km/h residential speed limit"

High Holborn Street is the only access street leading from the development. It is a one way lane (running south to north) with restricted 1P parking on the west side of the lane and no parking on the eastern side. When you take into account the parking on the west side, the access is only one car width wide (even council use small garbage removal trucks as standard trucks would not fit)

Speed limit is 40km/h but the reality is that people drive at 20km/h as it is a very narrow lane to negotiate

I hope that this correct information is taken into consideration