Whilst these buildings may have limited, if any, heritage value the proposal to rezone an increase the FSR to benefit a future residential development could dramatically introduce visual bulk and scale not in keeping with the surrounding residential area height, effect solar access to surrounding existing residences, access and amenity for local community, and increase traffic congestion to Darling St/Balmain Road.
M G Dodd
commented
Alberto Street Terraces
Executive Committee
C/- po Box 1214
Rozelle NSW 2040
5th September 2017
Mrs Maria Atkinson
Chair
Sydney Central Planning Panel
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSw 2001
Dear Madam
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
BY ROCHE GROUP
OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY
BALMAIN ROAD / ALBERTO STREET / FRED STREET / CECILY STREET
On behalf of the Alberto Street Terraces Owners and Residents Association, we hereby object to the above-identified planned Development Proposal and submit the attached in support of our objection.
We request that the Panel take our issues into consideration when reviewing the planned proposal.
If you wish to discuss any aspect of our objection or the issues raised, please contact
Michele Dodd on 0410 496 491
Yours Sincerely
M G Dodd
Chair
Executive Committee
Alberto St Terraces Owners and Residents Association
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
BY ROCHE GROUP
OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE LILYFIELD AREA
BOUNDED BY BALMAIN ROAD / ALBERTO STREET / FRED STREET / CECILY STREET
We understand the property developer has indicated to Council that they are desirous of :-
1. Changing the use of the land from commercial to residential; and
2. Erecting a residential block of 7-8 storeys (including a café in the residential block)
We believe that the proposed development would have significant and numerous negative impacts on the local area, local employment and economic opportunities, existing residents and commercial tenants, traffic flow, community services, council services and would be a dangerous precedent to set.
We strongly object to both aspects of the proposal on a number of issues including those outlined below.
1. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY SPACE
We understand there is approximately 6000 square meters of land which is the subject of the planned proposal. This land is currently zoned commercial. The current commercial tenants include a light industrial manufacturer, a home and lifestyle retailer and warehouse as well as artist studios. The artists participate in and contribute to several of Council’s cultural activities and events.
We strongly believe that the loss of any of this employment footprint to be against all interests of the local community and against Council policy. We further do not believe that a small internal café designed to service the residents of the proposed residential block is, in anyway, an adequate replacement for the loss of 6000 square meters of viable employment and economic space. There already exists at least 6 coffee shops between the proposed site and Victoria Road rendering the commercial viability of the proposed cafe questionable.
We submit that it is imperative to the local community that the existing 6000 square meters of employment space be retained as such.
2. LOCAL STREET SCAPE
We do not believe that a multi storey residential block is in keeping with the local area streetscape nor the character of the neighbourhood and this would be amplified by the site’s relatively elevated location. In fact, we believe that the proposed building would be a blight on the streetscape and neighbourhood.
The vast majority of the existing residential housing in the vicinity is comprised of freestanding homes, duplexes and terrace and the predominant scale and size is single or double storey homes.
There is currently no multi storey residential block of the scale under proposal, in the local area.
3. DENSITY
The proposed development relies upon communal spaces external to the property (eg: Callan Park) to justify a high density development and avoid providing sufficient open space. This is a poor principle and precedent to set.
4. HERITAGE
The proposed development site has cultural heritage significance which needs to be retained. The developer themselves even state that “any re-development of the buildings on the Former Bakery site at 469-483 Balmain Road must conserve and not detract from the cultural heritage significance of the former bakery buildings …particularly in terms of size, form, scale, orientation, sitting, materials and landscaping”.
The heritage listing was the subject of a motion at Council in 2006 which was carried unanimously.
5. IMPOSITION ON EXISTING NEIGHBOURS
The proposed development would:-
a. Overshadow existing homes and gardens
b. Reduce sunlight to existing homes and gardens
c. Render a significant loss of privacy to the existing residents
d. Result in a significant increase in noise in the immediate vicinity, from large air conditioning units operating constantly, frequent refuse collection, car ingress and egress, garage doors, communal outdoor spaces;
6. TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Traffic congestion is already a significant problem in the locality. Any redevelopment of the site should have minimal impacts on the local traffic and road networks and also take into account the expected impacts from the WestConnex development. In particular, how will the developers excavate and construct an underground car park in close proximity to the WestConnex tunnels ?
We believe the proposed development will:-
a. Create increased traffic flow and congestions especially along Balmain Road which is already at capacity at peak times and all weekend;
b. Increase the flow of traffic into, along and out of Alberto Street which already faces traffic congestion and flow problems exiting onto Balmain Road. Constructing an underground car park with entrance/exit via Alberto Street, will only worsen this problem;
c. Further reduce the flow of traffic exiting Cecily Street. The intersection of Cecily Street and Balmain Road is already a traffic nightmare. The egress from Cecily Street is only 1 lane wide, has no dedicated left or right turning lanes, is severely impeded by the increasing traffic volumes exiting Callan Park, the increasing number of pedestrians exiting Callan Park as well as the foot and vehicular traffic associated with the adjacent bus stop and the cars must slow down considerably due to the poor construction of the road and the existence of the extremely deep gutter. These factors combine to significantly reduce the numbers of cars that can exit Cecily Street during any 1 cycle of green traffic lights;
d. Negatively impact on the traffic ingress and egress at the main access point to Callan Park at all times of the day and weekend. Council has successfully increased the number and variety of services, activities and facilities within Callan Park which has created a significant increase in the foot and vehicular traffic. Eg; child care centre, Department of Health, NSW Ambulance Headquarters, University of Tasmania, Refugee Centre, Writers Centre, Sydney University Arts Centre, skate park project, Callan Park farm, glovers Community garden, performance and rehearsal space, studio and exhibition space, tennis and basketball courts, potential kayak and rowing boat launching jetty, yoga and pilates classes, NGO incubators, Bay Run users, dog walkers and the significantly increased number of sporting fields;
e. Exacerbate an already problematic parking issue in all surrounding streets. Alberto Street in particular is already heavily parked every working day. Fred Street and Cecily Street already have no remaining capacity
7. COUNCIL SERVICES AND AMENITIES
The nature and enormity of the proposed development would place a burden on already stretched council services such as an increase in waste and recycling collection services, local community facilities and services , medical centres, child care centres, schools, playgroups, day care centres, gym, pools and Callan Park.
8. PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
The nature and enormity of the proposed development would further stress the already inefficient transport system especially the bus transport along Victoria Road. Council has recently deemed it necessary to remove several bus stops for the purpose of “ensuring buses run according to timetables”. Buses headed along Victoria Road to the city at peak times are already at capacity especially at the stops south of Darling Street.
9. THE NBN
NBN has advised us that there are existing and ongoing problems with the capacity capabilities in the local area and that they are still working on rectifying these problems. The size of the proposed development would add a significant number of households and persons seeking access to the internet which would negatively impact on access and upload and download speeds.
10. SCHOOLS
The size of the proposed development would place undue pressure on the schools in the local area. Rozelle Public School recently changed its boundaries and is now at capacity. Will a new school need to be built to accommodate the potential additional children likely in a development of the size proposed ?
11. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOSUING TARGETS
The developers state that their proposed development will “assist in achieving State and Local Government housing target”. Whilst this is commendable we believe this Local Government has already achieved success in meeting these targets and has contributed significantly to the State government targets.
Kaye Thomas
commented
I would also like to strongly object to this rezoning approval as per all the above points by Executive Committee of Alberto St Terraces Owners and Residents Association.
Anne Connolly
commented
I object to the planned proposal on the basis of negative changes to streetscape which would detract from the community setting at present, on the basis of hindering traffic flow which is presently seriously congested and would not be safe if the development proceeded. I also object specifically to the height and density as it is not in keeping with the local area of low density residential.
M Dodd
commented
13th September 2017
Chair
Sydney Central Planning Panel
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSw 2001
Dear Madam
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
BY ROCHE GROUP
OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY
BALMAIN ROAD / ALBERTO STREET / FRED STREET / CECILY STREET
I hereby object to the above-identified planned Development Proposal and submit the attached in support of my objection.
I request that the Panel take these issues into consideration when reviewing the planned proposal.
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
BY ROCHE GROUP
OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE LILYFIELD AREA
BOUNDED BY BALMAIN ROAD / ALBERTO STREET / FRED STREET / CECILY STREET
I understand the property developer has indicated that they are desirous of :-
1. Changing the use of the land from commercial to residential; and
2. Erecting a residential block of 7-8 storeys (including a café in the residential block)
I believe that the proposed development would have significant and numerous negative impacts on the local area, local employment and economic opportunities, existing residents and commercial tenants, traffic flow, community services, council services and would be a dangerous precedent to set.
I strongly object to both aspects of the proposal on a number of issues including those outlined below.
1. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY SPACE
I understand there is approximately 6000 square meters of land which is the subject of the planned proposal. This land is currently zoned commercial. The current commercial tenants include a light industrial manufacturer, a home and lifestyle retailer and warehouse as well as artist studios. The artists participate in and contribute to several of Council’s cultural activities and events.
I strongly believe that the loss of any of this employment footprint to be against all interests of the local community and against Council policy. I further do not believe that a small internal café designed to service the residents of the proposed residential block is, in anyway, an adequate replacement for the loss of 6000 square meters of viable employment and economic space. There already exists at least 6 coffee shops between the proposed site and Victoria Road rendering the commercial viability of the proposed cafe questionable.
I submit that it is imperative to the local community that the existing 6000 square meters of employment space be retained as such.
2. LOCAL STREET SCAPE
I do not believe that a multi storey residential block is in keeping with the local area streetscape nor the character of the neighbourhood and this would be amplified by the site’s relatively elevated location. In fact, I believe that the proposed building would be a blight on the streetscape and neighbourhood.
The vast majority of the existing residential housing in the vicinity is comprised of freestanding homes, duplexes and terrace and the predominant scale and size is single or double storey homes.
There is currently no multi storey residential block of the scale under proposal, in the local area.
3. DENSITY
The proposed development relies upon communal spaces external to the property (eg: Callan Park) to justify a high density development and avoid providing sufficient open space. This is a poor principle and precedent to set.
4. HERITAGE
The proposed development site has cultural heritage significance which needs to be retained. The developer themselves even state that “any re-development of the buildings on the Former Bakery site at 469-483 Balmain Road must conserve and not detract from the cultural heritage significance of the former bakery buildings …particularly in terms of size, form, scale, orientation, sitting, materials and landscaping”.
The heritage listing was the subject of a motion at Council in 2006 which was carried unanimously.
5. IMPOSITION ON EXISTING NEIGHBOURS
The proposed development would:-
a. Overshadow existing homes and gardens
b. Reduce sunlight to existing homes and gardens
c. Render a significant loss of privacy to the existing residents
d. Result in a significant increase in noise in the immediate vicinity, from large air conditioning units operating constantly, frequent refuse collection, car ingress and egress, garage doors, communal outdoor spaces;
6. TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Traffic congestion is already a significant problem in the locality. Any redevelopment of the site should have minimal impacts on the local traffic and road networks and also take into account the expected impacts from the WestConnex development. In particular, how will the developers excavate and construct an underground car park in close proximity to the WestConnex tunnels ?
I believe the proposed development will:-
a. Create increased traffic flow and congestions especially along Balmain Road which is already at capacity at peak times and all weekend;
b. Increase the flow of traffic into, along and out of Alberto Street which already faces traffic congestion and flow problems exiting onto Balmain Road. Constructing an underground car park with entrance/exit via Alberto Street, will only worsen this problem;
c. Further reduce the flow of traffic exiting Cecily Street. The intersection of Cecily Street and Balmain Road is already a traffic nightmare. The egress from Cecily Street is only 1 lane wide, has no dedicated left or right turning lanes, is severely impeded by the increasing traffic volumes exiting Callan Park, the increasing number of pedestrians exiting Callan Park as well as the foot and vehicular traffic associated with the adjacent bus stop and the cars must slow down considerably due to the poor construction of the road and the existence of the extremely deep gutter. These factors combine to significantly reduce the numbers of cars that can exit Cecily Street during any 1 cycle of green traffic lights;
d. Negatively impact on the traffic ingress and egress at the main access point to Callan Park at all times of the day and weekend. Council has successfully increased the number and variety of services, activities and facilities within Callan Park which has created a significant increase in the foot and vehicular traffic. Eg; child care centre, Department of Health, NSW Ambulance Headquarters, University of Tasmania, Refugee Centre, Writers Centre, Sydney University Arts Centre, skate park project, Callan Park farm, glovers Community garden, performance and rehearsal space, studio and exhibition space, tennis and basketball courts, potential kayak and rowing boat launching jetty, yoga and pilates classes, NGO incubators, Bay Run users, dog walkers and the significantly increased number of sporting fields;
e. Exacerbate an already problematic parking issue in all surrounding streets. Alberto Street in particular is already heavily parked every working day. Fred Street and Cecily Street already have no remaining capacity
7. COUNCIL SERVICES AND AMENITIES
The nature and enormity of the proposed development would place a burden on already stretched council services such as an increase in waste and recycling collection services, local community facilities and services , medical centres, child care centres, schools, playgroups, day care centres, gym, pools and Callan Park.
8. PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
The nature and enormity of the proposed development would further stress the already inefficient transport system especially the bus transport along Victoria Road. Council has recently deemed it necessary to remove several bus stops for the purpose of “ensuring buses run according to timetables”. Buses headed along Victoria Road to the city at peak times are already at capacity especially at the stops south of Darling Street.
9. THE NBN
NBN has advised me that there are existing and ongoing problems with the capacity capabilities in the local area and that they are still working on rectifying these problems. The size of the proposed development would add a significant number of households and persons seeking access to the internet which would negatively impact on access and upload and download speeds.
10. SCHOOLS
The size of the proposed development would place undue pressure on the schools in the local area. Rozelle Public School recently changed its boundaries and is now at capacity. Will a new school need to be built to accommodate the potential additional children likely in a development of the size proposed ?
11. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOSUING TARGETS
The developers state that their proposed development will “assist in achieving State and Local Government housing target”. Whilst this is commendable I believe this Local Government has already achieved success in meeting these targets and has contributed significantly to the State government targets.
Sally Lloyd
commented
This proposal on the corner of Cecily Street and Balmain Road would have an impact on the already overloaded facilities in this area. Orange Grove School is at capacity, public transport is erratic along Balmain Road, the light rail in Lilyfield is standing room only during peak hours, traffic along Balmain Road is a Carpark during peak hours. Lilyfield is an old suburb and the utilities as I understand it are the original ones which probably will not cope with a big development.
Parking in the area is often unavailable especially at week ends with sport in Callan Park.
Lilyfield is a suburb of traditional houses and a tower development would not fit into the local streetscape it would shadow the houses in Fred Street and the southern end of Cecily Street.
Development close to the city has gone into fast forward so surely there will be plenty of accommodation in other areas of inner Sydney.
I strongly object to this proposal.
Chris Badger
commented
I strongly object to this proposal on the grounds that the location on the end of Cecily street and Balmain road will not be able to provide the basic facilities required for an increase in residential accommodation.
What plans have been put in place for parking for a 6 storey residents? What consideration has been put into school capacity with Orange Grove school already over subscribed?
Given the demand on public transport for the Rozelle area is already stretched, adding to that problem with out thought into how it would impact current service is more aligned with profit from a developer rather than the impact on the community.
Lilyfield is not a high / medium density living suburb like Alexandria or Waterloo where infrastructure is being developed to support that style of living.
From an environmental impact what research has been done into the overshadowing and privacy problem this would cause? Plus the disruption that the construction would cause on the already congested Balmain road?
These are just a few issues that I feel have not been given full consideration.
Libby Knott
commented
I strongly object to this proposed development.
The development as a whole is completely out of character for the area, and looks to be a massive 'overdevelopment' for this site. The Balmain Road and Fred Street streetscapes will be negatively impacted, and there will be vast overshadowing to neighbouring homes. It is completely unnecessary to build developments of this nature in a suburb that is made up of low rise dwellings and family homes. The cultural heritage of the area has been overlooked and it is ridiculous that a building of this scale should be allowed to be built.
It also appears that there has been no consideration given to parking issues that would arise from a development such as this either, as well as loss of privacy, impact in local services and amenities.
For these reasons alone this development should not be allowed to proceed. It would be a travesty should it pass.
Chris Badger
commented
I strongly object to this proposal on the grounds that the location on the end of Cecily street and Balmain road will not be able to provide the basic facilities required for an increase in residential accommodation.
What plans have been put in place for parking for a 6 storey residents? What consideration has been put into school capacity with Orange Grove school already over subscribed?
Given the demand on public transport for the Rozelle area is already stretched, adding to that problem with out thought into how it would impact current service is more aligned with profit from a developer rather than the impact on the community.
Lilyfield is not a high / medium density living suburb like Alexandria or Waterloo where infrastructure is being developed to support that style of living.
From an environmental impact what research has been done into the overshadowing and privacy problem this would cause? Plus the disruption that the construction would cause on the already congested Balmain road?
These are just a few issues that I feel have not been given full consideration.
Suzanne Blackmore
commented
I strongly object to the proposed rezoning of this site. It is not in keeping with the Lilyfield suburb of low rise family homes and would be completely out of character for the area, and a huge overdevelopment for this site. The Balmain Road, Fred Street and Cecily Street streetscapes will be negatively impacted with massive overshadowing to homes on these streets. Even homes in Sunnyside Ave will be affected by the height of the proposal. Also a building of this size would would be hugely detrimental to the cultural heritage of the area.
Prue Burnstein
commented
I strongly object to this proposal.
With already significant congestion in this area with cars and lack of parking, an 8 story development would make this even worse by creating increased traffic flow and further congestion in the immediate area as well as the streets that would have to take the on- flow of traffic.
This development would most definitely over shadow Fred Street houses and gardens as well as the co-joining streets, not to mention compromise privacy. The development would additionally result in a significant increase in noise in the immediate vicinity with increased foot traffic, from large air conditioning units operating constantly, frequent rubbish collection, cars coming and going, garage doors, communal outdoor spaces etc
I do not believe that a multi story residential block is in keeping with the local area streets-cape nor the character of the neighborhood and this would set a dangerous precedent for future development.
Please take these objections into consideration,
thank you
Prue Burnstein
Toni Smith
commented
I strongly object to this development for all the reasons that have been previously clesrly stated.
Nicole Lowres
commented
I strongly object to the proposed re-zoning and development application for all the reasons listed above, particularly those raised by M Dodd. Additionally I would like to raise the following concerns:
SOLAR ACCESS - SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WILL GET LESS THAN MINIMUM 3 HOURS OF SOLAR ACCESS
The proposal will prevent the minimum of 3 hours of solar access (as per NSW Law) to the surrounding properties in Fred St, Alberto St, Cecily St and Sunnyside Townhouses. The developers are clearly aware of this as they state the MAJORITY of properties will still get solar access for TWO hours between 9-11.00 am. This is less that what the law mandates. Laws for new residential buildings state surrounding properties must get a minimum of three hours of solar access to principal private open spaces between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice (21 June). With the current proposal, solar access to the neighbouring properties will cease around 10.30 on 21 June, with NO solar access returning in the afternoon or evening.
Every hour of lost sunlight has an adverse impact on the ‘enthalpy effect’ (in this instance, the ability of the material constituting the thermal mass, i.e. concrete, to store heat) that provides passive heat to the room, such that most passive solar design is ineffective with less than three hours of direct sunlight.
Secondly, these overshadowing standards do not consider any impact upon the operation of solar collectors, with there being a sharp reduction in effectiveness for every hour of lost sunlight during the winter solstice.
OVERSHADOWING AND PRIVACY
The current height of the buildings on Alberto St , Cecily St and Fred St is not in keeping with the current street and residential landscape. Although it is stated that the buildings directly adjoining Fred and Alberto streets will be limited to the height of the current building, on the current proposal the height of the buildings front rises steeply up to 6 storeys (not far back from the street front) and has significant impact on overlooking and lack of privacy. This will directly affect privacy of neighbouring properties as the new residences will look directly down into backyard and into bedroom and living room windows.
NO OUTDOOR OR GREEN AREA PROVISION
Apart from the proposed retail café / plaza area, there is no outdoor area / green space provision in the proposal. It is just a high density residential block.
The original proposal from the developers included two large open green areas to allow somewhere for the proposed residents to go. The current proposal has no provision.
IMPACT ON TRAFFIC
In addition to the issues of increased traffic congestion on Balmain Road, which is already a very big problem especially on the weekends where it can take upward of 10-15 minutes to drive 800 meters along Balmain Rd from Cecily St to Merton St Rozelle. The increased residential load will also have direct effects on Cecily st traffic, which already has congestion and safety issues. Currently Cecily st is only wide enough for cars to drive in one direction at a time. Therefore, the traffic going in one direction has to pull over and wait for the cars coming in the other direction.
PROPOSAL DOESN’T OUTLINE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WILL ACCOMMODATE
The total number of proposed residential units/townhouses/accommodation is not clearly stated. It is therefore not possible to directly measure how much of an impact the current proposal is going to have on the current local infrastructure including NBN, schools, transport and traffic
Joelle Patten
commented
Dear Madam
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
BY ROCHE GROUP
OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY
BALMAIN ROAD / ALBERTO STREET / FRED STREET / CECILY STREET
I understand the property developer has indicated that they are desirous of :-
1. Changing the use of the land from commercial to residential; and
2. Erecting a residential tower block of 7-8 storeys (including a café in the residential block).
I believe that the proposed development would have significant and numerous negative impacts on the local area; local employment and economic opportunities; well being of existing residents and commercial tenants; traffic flow; parking availability; community; medical and council services. The proposal would not accommodate the proposed future residents needs and would be a dangerous precedent to set for the area.
I most strongly object to this planned proposal for the reasons below:
1. LOSS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE EMPLOYMENT IN THE AREA
Currently there are thriving artists, jewellers, light manufacturing, whare housing and retail furniture stores on the 6000 m2 site. The artists in particular enhance our local culture and engage in community activities in the area. I have always seen these spaces occupied since I've moved here six years ago. Replacing them with yet another local café would have a negative impact on the economy of the area.
2. UNSUSTAINABLE
The proposal is unsustainable on many levels. Lilyfield is not a high / medium density living suburb where infrastructure is being developed to support it. There would be negative effects from traffic, parking, visual impact, noise and pollution, school enrolments, NBN congestion, water and storm runoff, council, child care and medical services. I can testify myself to the lack of parking spaces on Fred street currently. The intersection at Balmain Road and Fred street is already a nightmare with foot and car traffic to/from Callan Park, pedestrians crossing Fred street, no turning arrow for traffic on street lights, no dedicated turning lane and the necessity for cars to slow down either to navigate the deep gutter or the sharp left turn into Fred street. Cecily street is narrow and traffic can only pass in one direction, traffic coming in the other direction must find a space to pull over or wait at the bottom of the hill.
TRAFFIC
Along Balmain road to Rozelle and Balmain it's always congested at peak times including Saturdays, and at a standstill from the Victoria Road lights to Fred street.
COMMUNITY WELL BEING
Community well being would be negatively impacted by the overshadowing on Fred street and Cecily street to Sunnyside Ave. As a previous comment states 'The proposal will prevent the minimum of 3 hours of solar access (as per NSW Law) to the surrounding properties in Fred St, Alberto St, Cecily St and Sunnyside Townhouses.' is admitted by the developers who have chosen to flaunt this and adversely impact residents' well being. Overshadowing will also be a significant loss to privacy for residents.
GREEN SPACE
The developer has also chosen to flaunt provisions for green space and relies upon communal spaces in Callan Park to justify a high density development and avoid providing sufficient open space. This is a poor principle and precedent to set. The Master Plan for Callan Park is still in very early stages and the infrastructure for the park not in place to cope with this increased use.
VISUAL IMPACT
The current Lilyfield streetscape is of older single storey traditional houses and a tower block at this elevated site would be an eye sore and detrimental to the area. the bakery on the corner is a significant landmark and part of local history of the area. The exterior has been unkempt and not maintained - I feel this is a deliberate tactic of the developer. The heritage listing of the bakery was the subject of a motion at Council in 2006 which was carried unanimously.
SERVICES
Transport, child and school care, medical and council services are already at maximum capacity in this area and there is not the infrastructure in place to fulfill needs from this proposal.
I find this proposal unsustainable in all the above areas and not fit for the future.
These are just a few issues that I feel have not been given proper consideration by the developer and can only conclude they do not care for the local community and the proposal is for developer profit only.
Calvin Smith
commented
I object to this proposal on multiple grounds.
There are limited employment opportunities in the area so we shouldn't remove a valuable space and associated jobs
The density and height of this block is completely out of keeping with the area,
Traffic conjestion is already bad, so why would we put in all these extra houses. Why 6 stories it's just a gready developer cashing in without a thought for the streetscape, facilities or correctness of the development.
Transport links are not great as it is, with another high volume of housing, it would get worse.
Schools and services are at capacity so why are we cramming in apartments just so some developers can turn a profit. There are thousands of units being build on top of train station around Sydney so we don't need this white elephant
Adam White
commented
I strongly object to this proposal and have listed my concerns below.;
1. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY SPACE
We understand there is approximately 6000 square meters of land which is the subject of the planned proposal. This land is currently zoned commercial. The current commercial tenants include a light industrial manufacturer, a home and lifestyle retailer and warehouse as well as artist studios. The artists participate in and contribute to several of Council’s cultural activities and events.
We strongly believe that the loss of any of this employment footprint to be against all interests of the local community and against Council policy. We further do not believe that a small internal café designed to service the residents of the proposed residential block is, in anyway, an adequate replacement for the loss of 6000 square meters of viable employment and economic space. There already exists at least 6 coffee shops between the proposed site and Victoria Road rendering the commercial viability of the proposed cafe questionable.
We submit that it is imperative to the local community that the existing 6000 square meters of employment space be retained as such.
2. LOCAL STREET SCAPE
We do not believe that a multi storey residential block is in keeping with the local area streetscape nor the character of the neighbourhood and this would be amplified by the site’s relatively elevated location. In fact, we believe that the proposed building would be a blight on the streetscape and neighbourhood.
The vast majority of the existing residential housing in the vicinity is comprised of freestanding homes, duplexes and terrace and the predominant scale and size is single or double storey homes.
There is currently no multi storey residential block of the scale under proposal, in the local area.
3. DENSITY
The proposed development relies upon communal spaces external to the property (eg: Callan Park) to justify a high density development and avoid providing sufficient open space. This is a poor principle and precedent to set.
4. HERITAGE
The proposed development site has cultural heritage significance which needs to be retained. The developer themselves even state that “any re-development of the buildings on the Former Bakery site at 469-483 Balmain Road must conserve and not detract from the cultural heritage significance of the former bakery buildings …particularly in terms of size, form, scale, orientation, sitting, materials and landscaping”.
The heritage listing was the subject of a motion at Council in 2006 which was carried unanimously.
5. IMPOSITION ON EXISTING NEIGHBOURS
The proposed development would:-
a. Overshadow existing homes and gardens
b. Reduce sunlight to existing homes and gardens
c. Render a significant loss of privacy to the existing residents
d. Result in a significant increase in noise in the immediate vicinity, from large air conditioning units operating constantly, frequent refuse collection, car ingress and egress, garage doors, communal outdoor spaces;
6. TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Traffic congestion is already a significant problem in the locality. Any redevelopment of the site should have minimal impacts on the local traffic and road networks and also take into account the expected impacts from the WestConnex development. In particular, how will the developers excavate and construct an underground car park in close proximity to the WestConnex tunnels ?
We believe the proposed development will:-
a. Create increased traffic flow and congestions especially along Balmain Road which is already at capacity at peak times and all weekend;
b. Increase the flow of traffic into, along and out of Alberto Street which already faces traffic congestion and flow problems exiting onto Balmain Road. Constructing an underground car park with entrance/exit via Alberto Street, will only worsen this problem;
c. Further reduce the flow of traffic exiting Cecily Street. The intersection of Cecily Street and Balmain Road is already a traffic nightmare. The egress from Cecily Street is only 1 lane wide, has no dedicated left or right turning lanes, is severely impeded by the increasing traffic volumes exiting Callan Park, the increasing number of pedestrians exiting Callan Park as well as the foot and vehicular traffic associated with the adjacent bus stop and the cars must slow down considerably due to the poor construction of the road and the existence of the extremely deep gutter. These factors combine to significantly reduce the numbers of cars that can exit Cecily Street during any 1 cycle of green traffic lights;
d. Negatively impact on the traffic ingress and egress at the main access point to Callan Park at all times of the day and weekend. Council has successfully increased the number and variety of services, activities and facilities within Callan Park which has created a significant increase in the foot and vehicular traffic. Eg; child care centre, Department of Health, NSW Ambulance Headquarters, University of Tasmania, Refugee Centre, Writers Centre, Sydney University Arts Centre, skate park project, Callan Park farm, glovers Community garden, performance and rehearsal space, studio and exhibition space, tennis and basketball courts, potential kayak and rowing boat launching jetty, yoga and pilates classes, NGO incubators, Bay Run users, dog walkers and the significantly increased number of sporting fields;
e. Exacerbate an already problematic parking issue in all surrounding streets. Alberto Street in particular is already heavily parked every working day. Fred Street and Cecily Street already have no remaining capacity
7. COUNCIL SERVICES AND AMENITIES
The nature and enormity of the proposed development would place a burden on already stretched council services such as an increase in waste and recycling collection services, local community facilities and services , medical centres, child care centres, schools, playgroups, day care centres, gym, pools and Callan Park.
8. PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
The nature and enormity of the proposed development would further stress the already inefficient transport system especially the bus transport along Victoria Road. Council has recently deemed it necessary to remove several bus stops for the purpose of “ensuring buses run according to timetables”. Buses headed along Victoria Road to the city at peak times are already at capacity especially at the stops south of Darling Street.
9. THE NBN
NBN has advised us that there are existing and ongoing problems with the capacity capabilities in the local area and that they are still working on rectifying these problems. The size of the proposed development would add a significant number of households and persons seeking access to the internet which would negatively impact on access and upload and download speeds.
10. SCHOOLS
The size of the proposed development would place undue pressure on the schools in the local area. Rozelle Public School recently changed its boundaries and is now at capacity. Will a new school need to be built to accommodate the potential additional children likely in a development of the size proposed ?
11. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOSUING TARGETS
The developers state that their proposed development will “assist in achieving State and Local Government housing target”. Whilst this is commendable we believe this Local Government has already achieved success in meeting these targets and has contributed significantly to the State government targets
Janine Smith
commented
I strongly object to this proposed development for all the valid reasons previously stated.
Barbara Mary Oates
commented
I strongly object to this proposal. Having been a resident in Maida Street since 1988, there have, in that time, been very many ill-considered planning proposals made in this area and this particular property on the corner of Balmain Rd and Alberta St has already been the subject of a previous proposal by the present owners, Roche Group, which was soundly defeated because of local resident and City of Sydney support, the latter body in the interests of maintaining the light industries that have existed there for many years and which give employment of this nature in the inner city. The traffic impact on Alberta Street is unimaginable, likewise extra owner and visitor parking from the proposed units on the surrounding quiet, residential streets. We have, as a collective, fair-minded group of residents, been able to defeat many ill-advised development proposals here in Lilyfield and Rozelle, i.e. the heritage site of Callan Park and the Tigers Club on Victoria Road. I will strongly support all action in defeating this proposal.
Rebecca Brady
commented
To Whom It May Concern,
As a resident of Cecily Street I strongly object to this proposal on many grounds. It is not in character with the surrounding residential area, there will be negative impact on the street scape, street parking for residents in Cecily St and Fred St is already limited and a 6 storey residential development will only increase the demand for street parking, the development will overlook various residential homes creating privacy issues and there will be loss of solar access to surrounding properties.
Additionally, the cultural heritage of the site and the surrounding original residential properties will be affected. A development of this size is not in keeping with the surrounding original residential terrace dwellings (some dating back to the 1890's) and the streetscape of Balmain Road.
Increasing the residential load in the area will increase traffic congestion on Balmain Road at the intersection of Balmain Road and Cecily Street in particular, and affect traffic entering into Callan Park.
Allowing high density residential accomodation at this location will negatively impact the residents and surrounding community of Lilyfield and Rozelle.
Therefore, I strongly object to this proposal.
Julia Gordon
commented
To the Planning Panel,
As a local resident & business owner, I strongly object to the proposed changes in zoning & building heights to this site as it will have overwhelming negative impacts on the neighbourhood.
These impacts include: - significant increase in bulk & scale, out of character with local low rise buildings; overshadowing & overlooking of existing residences; traffic congestion; loss of employment in commercial / light industrial sector in the area; stress / overcrowding of local schools & public transport.
Please do not approve these changes.
Daniel Roberts
commented
Dear Madam
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING/PROPOSAL BY ROCHE GROUP OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY BALMAIN ROAD / ALBERTO STREET / FRED STREET / CECILY STREET
I understand the property developer has indicated that they are desirous of:-
1. Changing the use of the land from commercial to residential; and
2. Erecting a residential tower block of 7-8 storeys (including a café in the residential block).
The proposed development would have significant and numerous negative impacts on the local area; local employment and economic opportunities; well-being of existing residents and commercial tenants; traffic flow; parking availability; community; medical and council services. The proposal would not accommodate the proposed future resident’s needs and would be a dangerous precedent to set for the area.
I would like to strongly object to this planned proposal for the reasons largely amounting to: UNSUSTAINABILITY
The proposal is unsustainable on many levels. Lilyfield is not a high / medium density living suburb where infrastructure is being developed to support it. There would be negative effects from traffic, parking, visual impact, noise and pollution, school enrolments, NBN congestion, water and storm runoff, council, child care and medical services.
PARKING
From my experience I can testify myself to the lack of parking spaces currently on Cecily street. With more than 75% of the current residents having no off street parking on their properties, street parking is already at a premium. As a full time worker myself, I rarely find a park in front of our double fronted 4 bedroom terrace.
From a history of living in apartment buildings, I can personally testify that apartment complexes are never built with two car parks per residence. This will have a detrimental effect on the current residence.
TRAFFIC
The intersection at Balmain Road and Fred Street is already very dangerous due to the current level of car traffic. With foot and car traffic to/from Callan Park, pedestrians crossing Fred street, no turning arrow for traffic on street lights, no dedicated turning lane and the necessity for cars to slow down either to navigate the deep gutter or the sharp left turn into Fred street. Cecily Street is narrow and traffic can only pass in one direction, traffic coming in the other direction must find a space to pull over or wait at the bottom of the hill.
Along Balmain road to Rozelle and Balmain it's always congested at peak times including Saturdays, and at a standstill from the Victoria Road lights to Fred Street.
Furthermore the quality of the current roads and paths cannot support current traffic. How does the inner west council propose they monitor the already awful quality of paths, paving, roads with the extra stress from an increased number of residence..
COMMUNITY WELL BEING
Community wellbeing would be negatively impacted by the overshadowing on Fred Street and Cecily street to Sunnyside Ave. As a previous comment states 'The proposal will prevent the minimum of 3 hours of solar access (as per NSW Law) to the surrounding properties in Fred St, Alberto St, Cecily St and Sunnyside Townhouses.' is admitted by the developers who have chosen to flaunt this and adversely impact residents' wellbeing. Overshadowing will also be a significant loss to privacy for residents.
GREEN SPACE
The developer has also chosen to flaunt provisions for green space and relies upon communal spaces in Callan Park to justify a high density development and avoid providing sufficient open space. This is a poor principle and precedent to set. The Master Plan for Callan Park is still in very early stages and the infrastructure for the park not in place to cope with this increased use.
VISUAL IMPACT
The current Lilyfield streetscape is of older single storey traditional houses and a tower block at this elevated site would be an eye sore and detrimental to the area. The bakery on the corner is a significant landmark and part of local history of the area. The exterior has been unkept and not maintained - I feel this is a deliberate tactic of the developer. The heritage listing of the bakery was the subject of a motion at Council in 2006 which was carried unanimously.
SERVICES
Transport, child and school care, medical and council services are already at maximum capacity in this area and there is not the infrastructure in place to fulfil needs from this proposal.
Can I query further on sewerage amenities? Upon our renovations, we found sewerage infrastructure lacking in our area. How does the developer and council propose to fix this with such a large apartment complex proposed without major disruption and compensation to current residence?
I find this proposal unsustainable in all the above areas and not fit for the future.
These are just a few issues that I feel have not been given proper consideration by the developer and can only conclude they do not care for the local community and the proposal is for developer profit only.
Kate Winchcombe
commented
I strongly object to the planned proposal for the reasons previously raised.
As a local resident, I am particularly concerned about additional traffic congestion, lack of street parking and further demands that would be placed on public transport. Buses running along Balmain Road and Victoria Road already run late and the Light Rail is overcrowded. How will the current infrastructure support the needs of this development?
I am also concerned about building a development that is not in keeping with the existing streetscape. I believe this development would have a negative impact on the community and agree with Prue Burnstein that it would set a “dangerous precedent for future development”.
Susan Connor
commented
As a local resident, I would like to strongly object to the rezoning of this site. All the points I wanted to make were made eloquently by the Executive Committee of Alberto St Terraces Owners and Residents Association. I agree with all their points.
Please do not approve this re-zoning proposal
Jenny Catterall
commented
I strongly object to the proposed re-zoning and development application for all the reasons listed above, particularly those raised by M Dodd.
Additionally I would like the following concerns clarified:
Could you please advise why our streets were not informed?
What impact will this have on my street and the surrounding streets? Noise, pollution, traffic, parking etc.
Why did this not go through local council? I cannot understand this at all!
For example: if I'd like to do a small change to my home, such as including a deck or pergola, I have to go through local council BUT if you want to bulldoze a factory, which houses industry, art galleries, shops / showrooms, and peoples homes, you don't need to go through 'local' council.
What impact will this have on Callan Park? Will pedestrian access be impacted? I'm sure that it will!
Please do not approve this re-zoning proposal.
Julia Weston
commented
I live in Cecily st. On the weekends ALL DAY and on weekday mornings the traffic on Darling Street where this proposed development (NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING/PROPOSAL BY ROCHE GROUP OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY BALMAIN ROAD / ALBERTO STREET / FRED STREET / CECILY STREET ) is already GRIDLOCKED.
How can you possibly bring more people and cars into an area that is impossible to access or leave at these times?
This is obviously an industrial building which would have been empty at weekends. If you put a block of flats here you have 100's more people all queuing in their cars going NOWHERE!
Is this really the future of Sydney??
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.
This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the
OpenAustralia Foundation.
PlanningAlerts is powered by small donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their
local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.
Read more information
25 Comments
Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.
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