Recent comments on applications from NSW Department of Planning Major Project Assessments, NSW

  1. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Suzette Meade commented

    The plans by the government as part of the stadia strategy has been deceitful.
    The land they claim to want to swap is crown land that is protected under parramatta park trust act 2011. The trustees of the park are not acting as per their mandate by allowing this park land to be dissected for commercial interests.

    The consultation process as per the SEAR report was ignored by Venues nsw and the dept of planning chose to ignore this when reported to Minister of Planning Rob stokes and department secretary Carolyn MC Nally.

    There is an alternative concept design that had been produced by the original pool architect that allows both new stadium and the pools to remain but the government refuses to consider

    What the government is failing to publish is that they intend to develop close to 30,000 Sqm of future ancillary commercial development.

    This project should be halted immediately and the pool demolition to be paused until an investigation or inquiry into the stadia strategy be carried out.

  2. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Fiona Crabb commented

    I support the new stadium but strongly oppose how the govt has gone about this. There has been no consultation with pool users until it was too late. Disgraceful and deceitful. The pool can stay the stadium design can be tweaked to accommodate both. Why haven't they taken that into consideration or worked with the community to find solutions?

    The description above with 'complimentary uses' is very non descriptive and is unacceptable in any planning alert. Come clean and announce exactly what is going on. Why is this the case and why does that take priority over a War Memorial pool?

  3. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Neil Joseph commented

    The pool and stadium can coexist. Consideration for the people of Parramatta who use these facilities should be more important than yet another retail precinct, masked as "necessary space for crowd safety". If needed to have a gathering area, then a bridge over the pool could direct the crowd to some similar space. Surely a compromise would be better than to ignore the thousands of protest voices over the period since the plan to demolish the pool was announced??!!

  4. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    Tony Jones commented

    Please move the proposed stadium just enough so that the pool remains. While I applaud the new stadium It would have been better to develop the old one and keep the pool where it is and how it is. Surely it is not too late to slightly alter the footprint of the new stadium so the toxic decision to destroy the pool is reversed. The voters of Parramatta will remember and either reward or punish this important decision.

  5. In Parramatta NSW on “Western Sydney Stadium -...” at 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta, NSW:

    June M Bullivant OAM commented

    This development is a travesty of justice and should not proceed in the current form. To demolish the Parramatta Memorial Pool, using the current plan Venues NSW football stadium is going to use the Crown Land which the pool was allotted from Parramatta Park to build a car park. Plans a few year back allowed for the extension of the stadium and also keep the pool in the current form.

    To have no public pool for many years, and to demolish a ratepayer funded pool with no compensation to ratepayers is breaching the duty of care to the residents of Parramatta. To have no pool at all in "Parramatta We're Building Australia's Next Great City" which is the Parramatta Council motto seems to be a hollow aim for the new super size council.

    To want the tax payer to pay for yet another cost when they refurbished the pool recently at a cost of $9 million dollars is not very business like or efficient. Leave the current pool where it is and keep it for the enjoyment of the school children who learn to swim and the community who want to keep cool.

  6. In Redfern NSW on “Former Rachel Forster...” at 134-144 Pitt Street, Redfern, NSW:

    Clement Grech commented

    A 6 storeys building is much too high in this area.
    It would forever damage the village atmosphere of this part of Redfern.
    I stand against this development. High rise building are for CBD and even there, they are disputed. The local Redfern community will suffer from this development.

  7. In Redfern NSW on “Former Rachel Forster...” at 134-144 Pitt Street, Redfern, NSW:

    C Murray commented

    I agree and object to any increase in FSR or size ovrall. The legislation doesnt support ongoing use for low cost accomodation and it doesnt work and is never susutained. Redfern is being over developed. The way thing are going, Redfern will look more and more like Zetland and loose it’s historical charm as a residential area more akin to Surrey Hills. I strongly object to this development.
    I agree with previous - This development is not suitable for this location in Pitt St. A 6 level building is not in keeping with the height of other buildings (note it is located both adjacent to and opposite rows of 2 storey terraces). The proposed height will impact sunlight and current roof top views enjoyed by residents. The lack car parking will be an issue as car parking has been increasingly challenging for residents with permits as development in the area increases. My experience with other similar developments is that, despite the developers claims, residents (never low income as the rents charged are market rate) do have cars and without sufficient car parking on site, will use the surrounding streets for cars and motorbikes. The scale of this development needs to be reconsidered - it is too big for a quiet, predominantly residential enclave (despite zoning for mixed development).

  8. In Sydney NSW on “Harbourside - Staged...” at Darling Drive, Sydney, NSW:

    Chris Davies commented

    There is far too much high rise development going on in this area. Sydney is known as a beautiful city but with the continuing approval of high rise residential buildings the city is looking more like some asian cities, busy, dirty and over-populated. The city and surrounds cannot handle the continuing increase in population. Roads are at breaking point, the air quality is suffering and those who bought property with a view are now losing that view, even though their view was supposed to be protected by planning regulations.

    Council does not consult with residents, they tell residents what is going on then refer to the various planning policies to approve developments. Council should listen to the tax payers and consider the financial and convenience impacts of this development.

    We are not Honk Kong or Jakarta and we don't want to be.

  9. In Redfern NSW on “Former Rachel Forster...” at 134-144 Pitt Street, Redfern, NSW:

    I Fernandez commented

    Redfern is currently undergoing other large scale developments (at least two that I know of - one of them: 134-144 Pitt St) and we haven’t seen infrastructure developments in line with the population increase they will generate such as parking, transport, waste removal, etc. This is not the idea I had of a Green administration that should be privileging quality of living and sustainable growth over short-term gains. The way thing are going, Redfern will look more and more like Zetland and loose it’s historical charm as a residential area more akin to Surrey Hills. I strongly object to this development.
    This development is not suitable for this location in Pitt St. A 6 level building is not in keeping with the height of other buildings (note it is located both adjacent to and opposite rows of 2 storey terraces). The proposed height will impact sunlight and current roof top views enjoyed by residents. The lack car parking will be an issue as car parking has been increasingly challenging for residents with permits as development in the area increases. My experience with other similar developments is that, despite the developers claims, residents (never low income as the rents charged are market rate) do have cars and without sufficient car parking on site, will use the surrounding streets for cars and motorbikes. The scale of this development needs to be reconsidered - it is too big for a quiet, predominantly residential enclave (despite zoning for mixed development).

  10. In Sydney NSW on “Harbourside - Staged...” at Darling Drive, Sydney, NSW:

    donald denoon commented

    203/40 Refinery Drive,
    Pyrmont, NSW 2009.
    Tel 95188681
    Donald.denoon@bigpond.com
    12 February 2017

    Ms Michele Nettlefold,
    Department of Planning & Environment,
    Level 22, 320 Pitt Street,
    SYDNEY NSW 200

    Dear Ms Nettlefold,

    Thank you for encouraging the community to comment on:
    Concept Proposal – Cockle Bay Wharf Redevelopment.

    Like many residents in Pyrmont and Ultimo, I have engaged in many “community consultations” and discussions of development and redevelopment projects over recent decades. So far, there is no sign that community views have any impact, since projects are far advanced before the community is consulted. You may think of this as consultation: we experience it as information sessions.

    But I state these views in case anyone reads these submissions, and for the benefit of social historians of the future who wonder what happened to Sydney in the 21st Century.

    First, while this proposal makes good sense to the developer, and to State revenue, it ignores social needs, the social infrastructure deficit, and parallel development proposals by other agencies in the Inner West (not to mention The Star). I hoped that the Greater Sydney Commission’s emphasis on inter-agency coordination, town planning, and community consultation might have had some influence on this and similar proposals, but apparently this has not yet occurred. Is it too much to ask that – even though you ignore the people - you consult the Departments of Education, Health and Transport before imposing this ill-considered proposal on the communities affected?

    Second, even without such consultation, it is clear that the proposal involves gross overdevelopment in terms of bulk and height, transforming Darling Harbour into a series of cliffs which overshadow neighbouring buildings, obscure such social facilities as survive, and transform the Harbour into a pond which is often covered by plastic boats.

    In brief, this proposal assumes either than nobody lives in Pyrmont or Ultimo, or that we have no social needs, or that we do not mind the new barriers between us and the CBD.

    Yours more in sorrow than in anger,

    Donald Denoon

  11. In Sydney NSW on “Harbourside - Staged...” at Darling Drive, Sydney, NSW:

    donald denoon commented

    Dear Ms Nettlefold,

    Concept Proposal – Harbourside Redevelopment

    This proposal must be seen in the context of the many buildings proposed or under construction within half a kilometre of the site – The Star extension, the redevelopment of Blackwattle Bay, the apartments to replace the existing Fish Market etc. The effects of intensified residential accommodation and commercial development include denser traffic, increased demands on schools and medical facilities, and overshadowing existing redicatial buildings and the Harbour itself. There is no indication that the proposal acknowledges these as issues, much less addresses them.

    Residents in Ultimo confront a series of new buildings which face the Harbour and turn their blank backs on Ultimo itself. Many therefore welcomed the renovation of Harbourside as an opportunity to bring useful retail to the area, and reconnect the Harbour with the people living next to it.

    We were mistaken. Instead of access and utility the developer has opted to replace a sun-down shopping centre with an immense concrete edifice competing with other over-sized buildings on both sides of Darling Harbour. This exercise brings to mind the expression “to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.
    Apart from the material damage that isolation inflicts on residents, consider what it must feel like to confront large blank walls impeding any line of sight to the Harbour itself, and to the city beyond.
    This proposal is a lost opportunity, and should be modified to meet the needs of the residents in the area.
    Yours sincerely,

  12. In Sydney NSW on “Harbourside - Staged...” at Darling Drive, Sydney, NSW:

    David Zaoui commented

    Excessive development, too high and not necessary.

  13. In Sydney NSW on “Harbourside - Staged...” at Darling Drive, Sydney, NSW:

    Lisa Pircher-Reid commented

    After reviewing the Harbourside development proposal, I am concerned about the height of the proposed podium. While I understand the need to redevelop harbourside to suit all of the newer Darling Harbour development, I don't believe such a tall building in its location is appropriate. Aside from the reduced views for nearby residents, the tower will cast long shadows over Darling Harbour. Its current height allows for afternoon sun which makes Darling Harbour a warm and inviting place to spend an evening. Such a tall tower in its place will start to chip away at this ambience and destroy the oppeness and character of Darling Harbour. Tall buildings should be kept to the other side of the harbour, in line with the city skyline. However the Pyrmont skyline is not and should not become a second high-rise skyline. I fear if this development proposal goes through then it is setting a dangerous precedent for the building height in Pyrmont.

  14. In Sydney NSW on “Harbourside - Staged...” at Darling Drive, Sydney, NSW:

    Yimmy Seifert commented

    Ultimo Village Voice is a community group of Ultimo residents. We have numerous concerns about this development application in view of its scale, density and the impact on the local community. Details of our concerns are listed below.

    First and foremost, we remind the Government that Darling Harbour is a gift to the people of New South Wales and that in 1984 the then premier of NSW, Neville Wran, announced the Government's decision to redevelop Darling Harbour and "return it to the people of Sydney" in time for Australia’s 1988 bicentennial celebrations. Accordingly, public access and interests should be at the forefront of all planning decisions that affect this area.

    Scale & Building Form

    The proposed podium and tower will result in a massive and unacceptable increase in development compared to the existing low rise building.

    The podium is bulky and imposing and would create a four-storey wall along the waterfront with its back to Pyrmont. The tower is excessively high and would dominate the public domain, water and adjacent Pyrmont. The bulk and scale would cause significant impacts within and adjacent to this prime waterfront location.

    The fact that there have been replacements of low rise buildings with taller and denser buildings like the CBA office blocks is not a justification to build more high rise in Darling Harbour. Two wrongs do not make one right! We need to stop this inappropriate “change in character” which will make Darling Harbour no longer a pleasant place to visit with easy open access to the waterfront for all instead of the select few who can afford the expensive waterfront apartments!

    View Impacts & Overshadowing

    The proposed podium and tower are large and bulky and will significantly impose on both
    public and private views.

    As mentioned above, Darling Harbour is dedicated public land and one of its vital roles is providing public access to the harbour, blue skies and a varied skyline. No particular development should dominate outlooks.

    The proposed Harbourside tower will dominate immediate to long-distance public views, blocking or imposing on the sky, including from Cockle Bay, Pyrmont Bridge, Tumbalong
    Park and King Street Wharf as well as Market Street, Darling Drive and the Barangaroo
    foreshore. This will impact severely on the character, amenity and attractiveness of these
    public spaces. The outlook from Pyrmont Bridge is particularly concerning as the heavy
    imposing tower will impact on the experience of walking on this heritage bridge.

    A large number of adjacent residents will also suffer from significant to devastating view impacts from the proposed development, especially in One Darling Harbour, the Oaks Goldsbrough Apartments and the Gateway Apartments, as well to a lesser degree, the Renaissance Apartments, Arena Apartments, The Phoenix Apartments, Harbour’s Edge Apartments and 16-30 Bunn Street. Views are important to the wellbeing of apartment residents, who live with no private open space. A view can connect someone inside an apartment with the outside world and create a sense of space. Loss of views to existing apartments should be avoided and minimized.

    Traffic & Public Transport Impacts

    Ultimo and Pyrmont are amongst the most densely populated suburbs in Sydney, yet the public transport available is appalling. There is only one bus 389 that connects these suburbs to the Central Business District and there are often long waits for this bus even in peak hours. With the increase number of residents from the new residential tower, how is the public transport going to cope?

    Furthermore, providing for 295 residential car parking spaces is excessive and will adversely impact on Harris Street which is already congested and will make the situation worse.

    Pedestrian Access

    Despite the close proximity to the city, there is lack of direct pedestrian access between Ultimo and Pyrmont to and from the city, especially after part of the previous walkway attached to the Western Distributor was removed for new lanes as part of the 2004 Cross City Tunnel changes.

    Residents who want to go to the city are now forced to go via indirect routes into Darling Harbour and make their way to the city, despite promises that the Sydney International Convention, Exhibition and Entertainment Centre Precinct redevelopment would improve access.

    With the redevelopment of Darling Harbour including this development and the Cockle Bay development, it is an ideal opportunity to reinstate direct pedestrian access from Ultimo/Pyrmont to the city.

    Conclusion

    We submit that the proposed development, in its current form, will result in a development that is overbearing in size and does not appear to offer any public benefits that might help justify such a substantial redevelopment. We therefore request that this development proposal be rejected.

  15. In Moorebank NSW on “SIMTA Intermodal Terminal...” at Moorebank Avenue, Moorebank, Liverpool, NSW:

    Local Resident commented

    The intermodal is not appropriate to the area. It will place a huge burden on already overcrowded roads and will excessively increase noise.

    Why is this not located at Badgerys Creek near the proposed airport?

  16. In Moorebank NSW on “The SIMTA site -...” at Moorebank Avenue, Moorebank, NSW:

    Local Resident commented

    The intermodal is not appropriate to the area. It will place a huge burden on already overcrowded roads and will excessively increase noise.

    Why is this not located at Badgerys Creek near the proposed airport?

  17. In Rankin Park NSW on “Newcastle Inner City Bypass...” at Between Lookout Road and Newcastle Road, Rankin Park, NSW:

    John Donn commented

    My comments apply to the Northern Interchange of the Rankin Park to Jesmond Bypass.
    The Bypass plan shows noise walls to be erected on the west side of the bypass on the southern side of the Interchange.
    Transparent acrylic walls are proposed to be erected, on west side the Bypass itself, at road level, starting north of the cutting that includes the hospital new road access and continue to the Interchange bridge spanning Newcastle Road.
    A concrete noise wall is to erected on the west side of the Bypass off ramp before the Interchange bridge ( allows traffic to access Newcastle Road.)

    A drawing of the above is shown in the following publication:
    Newcastle Inner City Bypass-Rankin Park to Jesmond
    Environmental impact statement November 2016
    Technical Paper 4 Urban Design, Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment
    Section 5.3 Noise Walls
    Page 64

    My view is that concrete walls as proposed for the off ramp should also be used on the bypass itself, not acrylic walls as proposed.
    Concrete walls have a much higher Sound Reduction Index than acrylic walls.

    As the bypass passes between 50 and 100 metres of residences on the western side, noise reduction should be paramount in the bypass's design.
    It is better and more economically to minimise noise at its source rather than to have to take expensive and less satisfactory secondary measures at peoples homes, such as sound proofing each house.
    There is mention in the above report that transparent acrylic walls allow motorists to view the landscape. Well the only landscape in this area are people's back yards and I think they would prefer the privacy that they have now.

    Thank you

    John Donn

  18. In Sydney NSW on “Goldfields House, Fairfax...” at 1 Alfred Street, 19-31 Pitt Street and 31A Pitt Street, Sydney, Sydney, NSW:

    Lara Milson commented

    We are in such a rush to turn Sydney into an ugly city; Melbourne will be laughing at us.

    Just look at the monstrosity on top of the beautiful Scots Church in York Street.

    Customs House at Circular Quay with its glass top!

    Museum of Contemporary Arts building, its classical design now complete with a glass top.

    Now the few remaining pieces of historical architecture in Bridge st and the Mitchell Library are encouraged to go down the same path as the other buildings were subjected to; all wearing big empty sheets of glass heads, all with the blessing of the state govt. shame on you! Shame on you!

    Is the drive to profit so important that the state govt completely overlooks the importance of the heritage values in these few remaining pieces of history?

  19. In Sydney NSW on “Goldfields House, Fairfax...” at 1 Alfred Street, 19-31 Pitt Street and 31A Pitt Street, Sydney, Sydney, NSW:

    Dave Cok commented

    Another monolith block of hotel/apartments?

    Menzies is going to be demolished and turned into a big bland glass block. And nearby in the sandstone precinct the former education building is having a tall glass block placed on it to replace the original roof. Plus there are a few more of these coming up. Haven't we got enough of these?

    Developments such as this is going to push against both existing and planned infrastructure and public transport bottlenecks. Public transport is already over-capacity and by the time all the new developments are completed, there will be more people and then we find the new transport links will be overcapacity again! Having hotels also means more taxis and coach buses in the area which will choke the streets with traffic and pollution. Then there is also issues regarding rubbish disposal management.

    Instead shouldn't we be finding ways of encouraging more commercial businesses excluding hospitality to set up HQ in this area as opposed to pushing them out into the burbs? As this is where the real jobs are and it will also save people that may live here (but not work in the city) commuting long distances to work and thus cutting travel times.

    Finally all applications must be considered side by side with one another and not be treated in isolation. After seeing the Menzies demolition/development which I was too late to comment, it looks like this is not happening. Minor oversight or something more than meets the eye?

    The scale and sustainability of this development doesn't make sense.

    And what's wrong with Goldfield's Tower? It looks much nicer aesthetically thanks to its vintage appearance than the bland tall glass replacement in this proposal.

  20. In Sydney NSW on “Sandstone Precinct -...” at Bridge Street, Sydney, NSW:

    Eric Kok commented

    By building hotels here you need to provide lots of parking and public transport. Otherwise you will be putting lots of pressure on existing and future infrastructure. Yes there is already talk of metro services etc... but do they stack up against future growth??? Our services are already over capacity by a large margin.

    The design of the glass "box" addition also does not look right. Does not integrate well with the heritage elements of the building. It is too large and this "modern" "boxy" look cheapens and overpowers the building. Maybe it should be pitched instead and made shorter? But then it is profit margins over quality that rules in the end. Such a shame NSW.

  21. In Kurri Kurri NSW on “Weston Aluminium Dross...” at 129 Mitchell Avenue, Weston, NSW:

    Peter Reeves commented

    What does quarntine waste mean. This is in close proximity to residential housing. What are the prevailing winds and what impact does this have for air pollution?

  22. In Sydney NSW on “Sydney Opera House - The...” at Bennelong Point, Sydney, NSW:

    Lara milson commented

    What about terrorism? I don't feel comfortable about this.

    I have previously donated to Sydney Opera House but will not be doing so anymore. I personally feel they have lost the plot.

  23. In Smeaton Grange NSW on “Smeaton Grange Recycling...” at 52 Anderson Road, Smeaton Grange, NSW:

    Wayne Batchelor commented

    I would like to object to the proposed Recycling Facility for the following reasons:
    1. applicant states that there is no recycling centre in the area. This is incorrect - Spring Farm has a dedicated recycling area
    2. Opening times of 10pm mon-fri & 6am start saturday will create substantial noise pollution - Currans Hill is a quiet neighbourhood
    3. Flood lights at night will create significant light pollution
    4. Narellan Road & Camden Valley Way are already at bursting point. This facility, plus the bottling plant plus the galvanising facility plus all the thousands of additional homes will create gridlock
    5. How will they stop asbestos contaminated products being dumped
    6. Smeaton Grange is surrounded by residential estates, it needs to be reclassified to stop planning applications such as this that can have a material affect on the wellbeing of the residents
    Kind regards

    Wayne Batchelor

  24. In North Sydney NSW on “Shore School - Construction...” at Senior school campus on Blue/William Streets and 4 and 5 Hunter Crescent and 16 William Street,, North Sydney, NSW:

    Jack commented

    Termination of residence shouldn't be allowed for this school which already has a plethora of land to build on.
    It will create even more street issues along William street and is over the top. The council should not cave in to this conglomerate of a school anymore.

  25. In Camperdown NSW on “Royal Prince Alfred...” at Church Street, Camperdown, NSW:

    David Springett, (Architect #4722) commented

    1. Inappropriate that a hospital should be encouraging car use rather than public transport.
    2. Inappropriate that child care should be replaced with car use, but if so then it should be done in the most efficient use of land.
    3. Optimum site for car park width is approximately 34 metres, site is 29.820 so each of the 8 levels of car parking are missing out on an additional 35 car spaces, x 8 levels i.e. 280 car spaces: the car park could then be 2 levels lower....less overshadowing
    4. Inappropriate that a 2.650 be used floor to floor height, should be 2.850 to allow for flexible use such as office or residential when car parking is superseded.
    5. There are other sites on the hospital car park area, especially the perimeter which would allow for the most efficient car park use.
    6. The selected materials such as perforated metal and spaced brick encourage dirt, dust and loose garbage retention and require maintenance and lighting, open areas to allow wind cleaning and clear vision for security preferred.

  26. In Orchard Hills NSW on “585-649 Mamre Road -...” at 585-649 Mamre Road, Orchard Hills, NSW:

    leanne broadbridge commented

    I am very concerned about the noise and the extra traffic that this development would create. running 24 hrs there is no quite time this would disrupt the ambience of the area and quality of our lives.

  27. In Orchard Hills NSW on “585-649 Mamre Road -...” at 585-649 Mamre Road, Orchard Hills, NSW:

    Paul Ochieng commented

    I have no issue as long as the residents would be part of the development and employment.

  28. In NSW on “Meadowbank Employment Area...” at Bowden, Belmore, Church & Waterview Streets; Nancarrow & Rothesay Avenues; Constitution Road and Hamilton Crescent West, Well Street, The Loop Road, Meadowbank/Ryde/Shepherds Bay, NSW:

    Anil Shukla commented

    We are retired couple living at 55 Moss Street, West Ryde. We shop, walk, bicycle and excercise in this area. In last 15 years we have seen a sea change in the area.

    With the development so far, I find traffic on roads and pathways has increased significantly. Parking is harder, driving through is harder, bicycling on cycle pathways is harder. During 7-9 am and 4-7 pm, traffic on Constitution Road and Belmore street is bumper to bumper at times. On bicycle cum pedestrian pathway there are more people walking. It is getting very popular.

    With more density, it will be very hard to bicycle. It is a great bicycling area to as it is one of the few long bicycling path in Sydney. It links Sydney Olympic Park, Rhodes,Parramatta, Auburn, Ryde, Putney and Gladesville. This area has given increase in cycling in area. Apart from this, more townhouses are coming in place of houses in the area already and density is increasing in other ways. There is big development on old Defence land in Rydlemere on on the North side of the Prramatta River near Silverwater Road, Wentworth Poinf and in Rhodes. There has been an explosion in the number of people moving into the area. Green spaces and other public recreation facilities are not increasing.

    There is hardly any parking in the area on and around Belmore Street or the Meadowbank ferry area.

    I am totally against the proposal.

  29. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Memorial Avenue Ettalong...” at 218-220 Memorial Avenue, 47-50 The Esplanade, Ettalong Beach, NSW:

    Jack Lloyd commented

    As a regular visitor and shopper at Ettalong, I am concerned that this application will create an over-development situation, spoil the amenity of the beachfront area and further compound problems which already exist with insufficient car parking. In terms of over development, the modification expands the floor space ratio to nearly three times the standard set in the Gosford LEP 2014. A further problem relates to building height at 22.4 metres compared with the LEP restriction to 11.5 metres.The Mantra development dominates the landscape and shows how inappropriate further high buildings would be at this time. The Stage 1 development may create significant overshadowing in The Esplenade area. For these reasons, I oppose the proposal.

  30. In Chippendale NSW on “UTS Blackfriars Precinct -...” at 4-12 Buckland Street, Chippendale, Chippendale, NSW:

    Magnus A Local commented

    I love Chippendale; it's changing, it's part of the city.
    Question to the residents... Does 8 stories sound like UTS is pushing the envelope just a little?
    I don't think Sydney City would ever turn it down, so it is imperative residents help guide the encroachment on our sight, sound and sunlight. This latest development really does need to include the locals.
    REAL LOCAL INPUT; I don't mean just in pushing through green buildings (that would be nice) but that we the residents of Chippendale dearly need local space, community space. A space where we feel we can belong. Proactively seek out who are the real locals - the area is becoming more and more transient.

    Be BRAVE UTS... don't pretend this is near the same height of the heritage buildings; it's way over. Make us proud to be part of Chippendale and your shadow, not just a box-ticking exercise that will have post-approval modifications that leads to the developer's true desire - we are all experts after years of "progress" and really get tired of the games.

    Soon Blackfriars Street will turn into a drop-off / pick-up for the already approved child care centre; if you were wondering where it is moving to - we will have new traffic problems, although they have statistics to prove that not to be the case. UTS is giving back to the community (at a percentage). Traffic is a problem and it's getting worse.

    Be BOLD UTS; we love beautiful buildings - you definitely have a few!

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible 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.

Back PlanningAlerts