PlanningAlerts

46 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. This would destroy the fabric and identity of Erskineville. This is such a ridiculous architectural proposal that I feel it must be a cover for real proposal?

2. Have I missed something? What is happening to ground floor? I certainly don’t support a development of this size. Agree that it will destroy the identity of Erskineville.

3. Why more apartments in an area already over run with apartments. We need more of the original buildings to stay in tact to protect the area from just becoming one big high rise.

4. The site is not Heritage listed but is within the Council's heritage conservation zone.
   The hotel, formerly the Kurrajong Hotel, has a long history in Alexandria and should be preserved within the terms of the current conservation zone. The facade and interior have significant art deco features and should be preserved notwithstanding that some of the interiors have been altered.
   The proposal represents a significant over-development of the site and should be reduced in size.
   There is no mention of the existing ground floor hotel area and we need precise information on what the DA proposes for this area. Will the Kurrajong liquor licence remain on site and be part of the DA or will it be transferred to another site ? If it is proposed to transfer the licence , what is proposed for the ground floor ? The DA needs to be amended with PRECISE details for the ground floor.

5. Hello,

   I am opposed to this over-development of a classic local building. Firstly the development does not comply with either FSR or the GFA allowed and exceeds them by a decent margin. The aim of this development is to maximise value for the land owner (which is displayed by the number of studios in the building).

   Secondly the development is in a heritage conservation area and not sensitive to the heritage of the area. In looking at the artist impression, due to the size of the development it will stand out when compared to anything either on Swanson street or Park Street. No other development on those streets has been allowed to go to 5 stories. Also for the question of "Heritage Fabric" and will it impact the heritage fabric and streetscape I have to disagree with the heritage impact statement. Given this will clearly be visible from the park and Swanson road it will nearly eliminate all heritage elements of this beautiful pub built in the 1930's.

   Given the increase in population in this catchment, adding a series of studio apartments while impacting the ability of a business in the future to use the venue as a pub will detract from the community amenity at the same time as destroying some of the character of the area.

6. See post on Love Erskineville facebook page calling for community submissions and please share if you like.
   https://www.facebook.com/erskineville.sydney/posts/1732788716780533

   ALSO if you put in submission can you share to that page or to Friends of Erskineville.

   My feeling is that the area can't afford to lose a community public space that a pub represents. Erskineville's pubs are overflowing. The community needs places to meet and go. This would be a huge loss.

7. This is a terrible idea. We should not be destroying historical buildings when there are already so many apartments going up in the area and surrounding suburbs.

   Also street parking is getting harder and harder.

8. Absolutely do not support this proposal. The roads cannot take more apartment dwellings and it appears this is nothing more than greed from the City of Sydney council.

9. This is an awful proposal. A 5 storey development does not fit in this location at all and will significantly contribute to the erosion of community and heritage of the area.
   Given the large scale development already occurring in the area, this is an unnecessary proposal.

10. This building is a landmark that needs to be protected. We need to keep some of the character of Erskineville, or it will be just another suburb with rows of apartments. I vote no to a redevelopment...

11. I am opposed to this application for the reasons I outline below:

    1. Application has inconsistencies and contradictions which make it difficult to know exactly what is being proposed. It also has inadequate detail, particularly aspects that might not show the proposal in good light.
    2. The scale is out of proportion to other buildings and developments nearby. It has excessive floor space ratio FSR and the height is well above limit allowing in the planning controls for the area.
    3. The form of the proposed building is not appropriate for a building in a heritage conservation area. While it is understood the intent of additions to building of some heritage value is not to imitate the original form, the proposal of the sheer glass walling of the upper stories is glaring different and out of character for the area and may set a poor precedent.
    4. The present use of a substantial hotel has been a significant contribution to the amenity of the area and it is likely most of this amenity will be lost if this development goes ahead. This is particularly of a concern as the area has undergone increased development and population growth in recent years and the area needs venues and facilities such as the existing hotel.
    
    Further to my point 1. above I note the following:

    Design review brief mentions “carefully studied gable roof” to be a “reflection of the pitched roofs that surround the hotel” These are completely absent from the photo montages and perspective artist views. I believe they would be visible (or they would not be a “reflection”) so it is either deliberate or carelessly missing from those mocked up views giving a misleading impression of the scale.
    The design review goes on to state: the new form will celebrate views over the tree tops and the upper limit was guided by the need to ensure an interaction with the canopy…” While one can accept a little artistic license and flowery language are part of an architectural review the excessive height way above the trees of this building make the phase “interaction with the canopy” particularly inappropriate. The phase “a mediation with the stars” might be more accurate.

    The access design report states the proposed works are “10x sole occupancy units”
    The traffic and parking assessment states “4 studios, 1 one bedroom and 5 two bedroom units” I think the second is consistent with the plans.

    Six garbage and recycling bins required - only 4 shown on the plans so it is not clear if 6 could fit.
    The lift is very small, it is not clear if a bicycle (storage shown upstairs) could fit

    The acoustic report states that there will need to be a 170mm slab for the first floor to mitigate hotel noise. The structural engine has this as steel frame and a 300mm slab for level two. The architectural descriptions stress “lightweight” and “laminated timber”
    The structural report also makes mention of steel columns and central concrete column. There are 11 steel columns shown and mentioned is “new footings” to support those columns. The structural report also mentions re-framing the floor of the hotel. So much for no changes to ground floor.

    The proposal has no provision for parking only, some cycle racks blocking the passageways. It states the two bedroom apartments would be suitable for small families. While it is nice to think that everyone can do without a car it is unlikely in the case of small young families. This is a area that should not be subject to more off street parking. The park across the road is an important amenity and being of a substantial size attracts both nearby walking traffic and also people (especially young families) driving to the park. The addition of the extra apartments will diminish the use of the park by people who need to drive to access it.

    Further to point 4 above and a summary:
    The proposed building should not be approved in its present form. The proposal make a fiction of “no changes” or “out of scope” for the ground floor hotel and presents it continuing as a hotel in the future. It is obvious from the acoustic report recommendation of replacing the first floor with 170mm concrete, and the structural report stating reframing of the ground floor together with new footing supporting 11 substantial steel columns and central concrete column, the services area and lift well, that for the building to be constructed the entire ground floor and basement will have to be gutted. It is very uncertain if when the work for the apartments is complete that the shell left over will be suitable to run as a hotel.
    The amenity of the current hotel building is ground floor bars with restaurant, kitchen and dining room on the first floor. Without even the slightest plan, it is unknown what type of place would be left. The amenity the area requires is for a good sized hotel with dining. To support dining adequate seating is required and a functional kitchen. The hotel will require an adequate plant room and exhaust extraction. If it is not in the plan now, it might not be viable.
    The current hotel also used to have moderately amplified live music or DJ with room for this provided. Can this amenity be supported in the future? Who knows the detail is not there.

    In final summary the proposal should not be approved and any new proposal should not be considered until the full detail of the hotel section is presented.

12. As other residents have noted, the building is within a heritage conservation zone, and very much within the Erskineville village strip. There simply has not been enough investment in infrastructure (particularly with regards to schools and public transport) to warrant further population expansion in this area.

13. Please do not proceed with this proposal. This would dramatically change the neighbour and would be detrimental to the authenticity of Erskineville. We need to maintain buildings and venues like this to keep our history. It’s heartbreaking to think this is even being considered!!!

14. With 7,000 odd apartments going in the Ashmore Estate, Erskineville does not need more. Do you expect the 12,000 new residents to just sit in their little box and not go out and have a social life?
    The Swanson Hotel has a been an integral part of the social infrastructure of Erskineville for decades. If anything we need more social infrastructure in the area to cater for the massive increase in population over the next couple of years.
    Also, a five story development is inconsistent with the surrounding streetscape and, if allowed to proceed would set a precedent for further such development in a heritage conservation area.
    I vehemently oppose this development.

15. Please don't allow this proposal to proceed. The proposed structure is out of character with the area.

16. There will be significant population increase in the area over the next two years with no long term infrastructure planning for public transport, schools or local services. In fact Erskineville Station is planned for shutdown while the Metro line is being built in a couple years. And why is there no Metro station near this area?

    The desire to increase population density with no consideration for supporting services is madness!

    And how does residential apartments above a pub or entertainment venue work? Bound to get shutdown after 1 week of noise complaints.

    Bad idea and shame to those who approve this development.

17. I oppose this development for many of the reasons outlined above.
    There are plenty of unoccupied dwellings to cater for residential needs in the Erskineville, Alexandria, Newtown area. The occupancy of these apartments should be assessed and if they are unused they should be used for a accommodation, ie what they were built for.
    Erskineville/Alexandria has an abundance of new and proposed apartments. The market has slumped and this development would be better used as a social hub which is what it was designed for.

18. I am opposed to this redevelopment of a recently refurbished building of cultural significance. It has served as a recreational establishment since the 1920s! Serving both the private and public housing community.

19. A development of this size would be irresponsible and would contribute to ongoing parking and congestion issues in the area. The Swanson Hotel is also a cultural landmark and brings together folks from all backgrounds and walks of life. To rezone the building as residential would be tremendous a loss for the community.

20. This is ridiculous. In the many months this hotel has been closed it has already left a void in the area and has harmed the community feel that I have loved over the last decade. This area does not need more residential units. It needs more areas for people to congregate and enjoy the Erskineville Village we all bought and rented into.

    Whoever purchased this hotel did so knowing of its original use and importance to the community. To buy this with intent to capitalise on its location at the expense of the neighbourhood is entirely self serving. Where was the consultation before purchase?

    It is clear from all the petitions above that there is significant community objection to this proposal. Any attempt from council to justify a decision to the contrary would be morally bankrupt.

21. Erskineville does not need this development.
    The Swanson Hotel has a been an integral part of the social infrastructure of Erskineville for decades. More social infrastructure is needed for the increase in population over the next couple of years.
    A five story development is inconsistent with the surrounding streetscape and should not be allowed to proceed as this would set a precedent for further such development in a heritage conservation area.
    I oppose this development while not living in the area, visit regularly and have been part of Sydney City for many years working in city.

22. I don't see the point of having a heritage conservation area if it can so easily be ignored by large developers. This is a lovely Art Deco building that must be preserved. There's plenty of new apartments nearby at Green Square or Ashmore Estate where this type of development belongs.

23. I strongly object to this proposed development on the following grounds:
    1. The Swanson Hotel is a significant contributing building in the local heritage conservation area. The scale and design of the proposed development will irretrievably damage local heritage and amenity.
    2. The Swanson Hotel is arguably the best example in the surrounding suburbs of an interwar public house in the streamline moderne style and warrants its own heritage listing. It is certainly no less deserving than Erskineville’s heritage listed Rose Hotel at 1 Swanson Street. To this end, an interim heritage order is urgently needed.
    3. The proposed works are extensive, more than doubling the height to 5 floors (well in excess of the LEP height restriction of 15m) and would overwhelm the neighbouring terraces.
    4. The proposed works affect the entire building, largely destroying the parapet (which is a key feature of the facade) by punching enormous holes through the brickwork, and removing the original staircase and first floor interiors.
    5. The addition of the upper floors are entirely out of keeping with the building’s streamline moderne style, both in terms of design and materials and no attempt is made to complement or augment the existing architecture.
    6. The alterations will adversely impact not only the building itself, but also the local streetscape and amenity. Even the smaller apartment building on the opposite corner has been sensitively designed to reflect the local conservation area, with a facade mimicking terrace housing with balconies and ironwork detailing.
    7. The alterations will remove the first floor restaurant and lounge bar, removing meeting places for local residents at a time when the population of the area is to increase by several thousand thanks to the Ashmore precinct and other developments.

24. The Kurrajong/Swanson Hotel was an integral part of our local community and it is sorely missed. It was a real local and one of the many personalities of this area. Residents use it as a place to meet after walking the dog, heading home from the station, watching footy, listening to music, having a pub dinner and to have a much needed relax after working and looking after kids. We want our Kurra/Swannie back.

    Turning this favourite meeting place into a residential block primarily for investors will destroy the heritage and community space so needed in this highly residential area. We cannot afford to lose another cultural landmark to line the pockets of developers.

25. As other residents have noted, the building is within a heritage conservation zone, and very much within the Erskineville village strip. There simply has not been enough investment in infrastructure (particularly with regards to schools and public transport) to warrant further population expansion in this area.

26. John Ibrahim secret purchase of the Swanson Hotel, in Erskineville, for a reputed $7.5 million.

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/teflon-john-ibrahim-mr-legit-watches-on-as-raids-target-family-20170808-gxs0wk.html

27. This is an inappropriate use of this site, in an area that is already too densely populated by apartments. The Council needs to show leadership in this instance by rejecting the proposal and protecting the character and heritage of the area. Scale and lack of heritage sensitivity are key issues.

28. The Kurrajong hotel must be heritage listed and therefore protected from the proposed development plans. Living a few streets away we were at pains to maintain the very strict rules of heritage preservation outlined by Sydney City Council regarding our residential renovation. I therefore find it implausible and concerning to think Sydney City Council would not be applying the same exacting standards for anyone proposing to touch the iconic Kurrajong.

    We are relying on Council to maintain their Planning integrity and protect the Erskineville/Alexandria area as a priority from development requests such as these. The Kurrarong must be preserved as it was built (and recently restored) as an irreplaceable and iconic heritage pub.

29. I have deep concerns about this development. The Kurrajong / Swanson Hotel provided a wonderful focal point for the local community which has been removed since it closed down. Sydney's "city of villages" suffer when places like this are converted into yet more apartments with closed doors, instead of pubs, cafe's and restaurants with open doors and vibrancy.

    The building itself is also an extremely important part of the local area. It is a beautiful example of period architecture and should not be touched in any way. To plonk a modern block of studio apartments on top of it would be obscene.

30. I am opposed to this application.
    The design is not consistent with the area or with maintaining the heritage look and feel of this historic building, which has been an important part of the Erskineville community since 1939.
    Extending the building's height to five stories is against all other developments in close proximity and would change the landscape of Swanson and Park Streets.
    The development proposal is inconsistent and lacking detail. Do they intend to continue to operate the ground level as a pub? If so, how? The kitchen on the first floor is being removed to make way for apartments. I feel that this proposal is covering up other plans.
    There is no mention of parking (other than 10 bicycle spaces) to cover 10 apartments which could in theory house far more than 10 individuals (families of four could live in the 2-bed rooms apartments, couples could live in the studios). Parking is already at capacity in and around Park Street and Swanson street and when community events occur at the park or Erksineville Oval, the streets are rammed with cars.
    With 7,000 apartments being built at the Ashmore site, Erskineville does not need more apartments. We need more amenities to support our growing community - we need amenities like cafes, pubs and restaurants which make a suburb a thriving, dynamic community. Since the Swanson Hotel was purchased last year and closed down, the area west of Erskineville Village has been seriously lacking in community spaces.
    To approve this development application would be a serious detriment to Erskineville. iT change our neighbourhood and the fabric and heritage aspects of our community.

31. I am against this development. The reasons are quite clearly stated in the previous comments but specifically the main issue for me is ruining the vibe of Erskineville with a landmark and communal space being destroyed for private residences.

32. I totally object to this the kurrajong hotel was part of Erskineville and badly missed. We don't have enough places in Erskineville for entertainment etc and are surrounded by apartments. Please don't let this project go ahead it is up to the council to protect us from this sort of thing.

33. I object to this proposal.
    1. The changes are out of keeping with the heritage area. With so many new developments in Erskineville/Alexandria, it’s important to retain examples of older architecture such as the Kurrajong/Swanson Hotel.
    2. The pub is already missed. With thousands of new residents joining the area currently and in coming years due to the Ashmore Estate, we need more venues for entertainment and services. How can the pub reopen and operate for the broader community with apartments directly above? Surely it would be subject to noise complaints straight away.
    3. There is no provision for parking in an area that already has extremely scarce parking.
    4. The development would be too tall to be in character with the surrounds.

34. The proposed development will be significantly taller than surrounding buildings and not in keeping with the aesthetics of the area. This number of new appartments will also add to already stretched local amenities (parking/transport etc)

35. I strongly object to this proposal, it is not in keeping with the surrounding area which is mainly terraces and is not sympathetic to the original design of the building which has remained largely unchanged since 1939. I dispute the heritage statement conclusion that the works are “subservient to the majority of surrounding buildings”. This statement is plainly inaccurate, as this development would far exceed the height and scale of the surrounding terraces. The proposed height of 5 stories is too high for this part of erskineville. I also do not agree the additions are “reasonable and positive with minor impact to the street frontage” - the additional levels will be clearly visible and do not suit the current character of this classic piece of 1930s architecture. Just because the building itself is not heritage listed does not mean it can be modified in this manner.
    I also agree with other submissions that the area already has many major apartment developments in progress, and there is no justification to add another one in the Swanson/kurrajong hotel.

36. Since the first day we started living in Erskineville, my partner and I have enjoyed the architecture and quietness of this lovely suburb. Only few weeks after our arrival, the Swanson hotel sadly closed its doors forever. We would like to see the hotel open again, preserving its original structure, providing the area with a common place which is badly missed. This project totally breaks the harmony with the surrounding houses and parks. Erskineville's main appeal is that neighbours know each other and share time together on the street or in the restaurants/pubs in the area. This is possible because of the characteristic architecture of the area. We don't want Erskineville to become another modern-residential area, that would kill Erskineville's magical soul. We consider that the city is plenty of areas to develop this kind of projects. For a couple who have lived in many different cities in Europe, Erskineville is a kind of suburb that you can hardly find elsewhere and its genuine essence must be always protected from speculative interests.

37. As stated previously by another opponent, I am opposed to this application for the reasons I outline below:

    1. Application has inconsistencies and contradictions which make it difficult to know exactly what is being proposed. It also has inadequate detail, particularly aspects that might not show the proposal in good light.
    2. The scale is out of proportion to other buildings and developments nearby. It has excessive floor space ratio FSR and the height is well above limit allowing in the planning controls for the area.
    3. The form of the proposed building is not appropriate for a building in a heritage conservation area. While it is understood the intent of additions to building of some heritage value is not to imitate the original form, the proposal of the sheer glass walling of the upper stories is glaring different and out of character for the area and may set a poor precedent.
    4. The present use of a substantial hotel has been a significant contribution to the amenity of the area and it is likely most of this amenity will be lost if this development goes ahead. This is particularly of a concern as the area has undergone increased development and population growth in recent years and the area needs venues and facilities such as the existing hotel.

    Further to my point 1. above I note the following:

    Design review brief mentions “carefully studied gable roof” to be a “reflection of the pitched roofs that surround the hotel” These are completely absent from the photo montages and perspective artist views. I believe they would be visible (or they would not be a “reflection”) so it is either deliberate or carelessly missing from those mocked up views giving a misleading impression of the scale.
    The design review goes on to state: the new form will celebrate views over the tree tops and the upper limit was guided by the need to ensure an interaction with the canopy…” While one can accept a little artistic license and flowery language are part of an architectural review the excessive height way above the trees of this building make the phase “interaction with the canopy” particularly inappropriate. The phase “a mediation with the stars” might be more accurate.

    The access design report states the proposed works are “10x sole occupancy units”
    The traffic and parking assessment states “4 studios, 1 one bedroom and 5 two bedroom units” I think the second is consistent with the plans.

    Six garbage and recycling bins required - only 4 shown on the plans so it is not clear if 6 could fit.
    The lift is very small, it is not clear if a bicycle (storage shown upstairs) could fit

    The acoustic report states that there will need to be a 170mm slab for the first floor to mitigate hotel noise. The structural engine has this as steel frame and a 300mm slab for level two. The architectural descriptions stress “lightweight” and “laminated timber”
    The structural report also makes mention of steel columns and central concrete column. There are 11 steel columns shown and mentioned is “new footings” to support those columns. The structural report also mentions re-framing the floor of the hotel. So much for no changes to ground floor.

    The proposal has no provision for parking only, some cycle racks blocking the passageways. It states the two bedroom apartments would be suitable for small families. While it is nice to think that everyone can do without a car it is unlikely in the case of small young families. This is a area that should not be subject to more off street parking. The park across the road is an important amenity and being of a substantial size attracts both nearby walking traffic and also people (especially young families) driving to the park. The addition of the extra apartments will diminish the use of the park by people who need to drive to access it.

    Further to point 4 above and a summary:
    The proposed building should not be approved in its present form. The proposal make a fiction of “no changes” or “out of scope” for the ground floor hotel and presents it continuing as a hotel in the future. It is obvious from the acoustic report recommendation of replacing the first floor with 170mm concrete, and the structural report stating reframing of the ground floor together with new footing supporting 11 substantial steel columns and central concrete column, the services area and lift well, that for the building to be constructed the entire ground floor and basement will have to be gutted. It is very uncertain if when the work for the apartments is complete that the shell left over will be suitable to run as a hotel.
    The amenity of the current hotel building is ground floor bars with restaurant, kitchen and dining room on the first floor. Without even the slightest plan, it is unknown what type of place would be left. The amenity the area requires is for a good sized hotel with dining. To support dining adequate seating is required and a functional kitchen. The hotel will require an adequate plant room and exhaust extraction. If it is not in the plan now, it might not be viable.

    In final summary the proposal should not be approved and any new proposal should not be considered until the full detail of the hotel section is presented

38. I’m opposed to this development on the grounds that this building is significant to the heritage of the area. The new proposal doesn’t not respect the architectural features of the old pub. Furthermore, I don’t not believe that sufficient allowance has been made for the ground floor of the proposal to continue to function as a community space (eg there does not appear to be an allowance for kitchen/dining in the plans). Erskineville is very densely populated and we need community spaces such as pubs and restaurants. This development makes a mockery of the heritage conservation area and detracts from our amenities.

39. This cannot be allowed to happen in the village of erskineville.
    How does a heritage , community pub close and become a target for a developer?
    This type of location must be protected as developers continue to push multi apartments with no consideration for parking , and local communy needs.
    This is completely out of place in this location & the very vague plans for the ground floor alone should be seen as a warning .
    Please do not allow another developer to play the system and destroy another piece of Erskineville community & vilage life .

40. To Sydney City Council
    This development of the pub on Swanson street seems completely unrealistic. The concepts and application are misleading as to the final use of the venue. Erskineville itself is also becoming heavily overpopulated and there are several developments not even finished yet.

    Before proceeding or accepting this application. Clarity is needed. Consideration is needed of the surrounding area. Ie schools, parking, communities, overpopulation, amenities.

    Erskineville is the epitome of Sydney’s vision of “City of Villiages” but with this development and its subsequent obliteration of a community venue, goes completely against this ethos.

    Consider the village, the surrounds, what Erskineville has achieved as a community and say no to this vague and inconsistent development that is misleading and without planning for the future of the village.

41. I am concerned that the heritage value of the building will be destroyed by this development.
    The structural modifications required to carry the weight of the proposed apartments above the pub are likely to cause extensive damage - and indeed completely destroy - the interior of the pub, which needs to be substantially preserved.
    The fact that the proposed development exceeds the height restriction is also of concern, as this will not only be visually overpowering, but will also set a precedent that is likely to lead to other developments in the area being similarly excessive in height.
    I believe that the building should be properly evaluated for a heritage listing, and that any development applications should only be considered after a heritage determination has been made.

42. I strongly object to the redevelopment of the Swanson Hotel for the following reasons:
    - construction of units on top of a long standing local heritage will wreck the interior of the pub for structural reasons and destroy its local atmosphere;
    - exceeds the height restriction for the area;
    - should be heritage listed as contributes to local community amenity, is well used by local sporting and dog walking groups.

43. I am concerned that the heritage value of the building will be destroyed by this development.
    The structural modifications required to carry the weight of the proposed apartments above the pub are likely to cause extensive damage - and indeed completely destroy - the interior of the pub, which needs to be substantially preserved.
    The fact that the proposed development exceeds the height restriction is also of concern, as this will not only be visually overpowering, but will also set a precedent that is likely to lead to other developments in the area being similarly excessive in height.
    I believe that the building should be properly evaluated for a heritage listing, and that any development applications should only be considered after a heritage determination has been made.

44. I do not support this! Horrible and terrible idea.

    It is out of keeping with heritage area, will destroy local amenity, ruin integrity of pub which should be heritage listed.

45. I oppose this development. i believe that it will ruin a piece of local heritage and do significant harm to the existing businesses and residents.

    I would welcome a proposal that honours the history of the building and the present of the local community. This proposal does neither.

46. Five storeys is a bit punchy in that area. They should stay within the height limits and parameters.