PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. As a local resident, I have concerns regarding the development proposal (DA 66/23) to partially demolish a heritage site and construct a 13-storey mixed-use building.

   I have little confidence that this development will provide significant public benefit.

   Over-development, particularly high-rise, high-density buildings will irrevocably change the nature of our built environment, and will destroy much of the character that makes Crows Nest unique. One only needs to look down the road at the St. Leonards 'peninsula' to see the end result - a bleak, characterless cluster of high-rise monstrosities that overwhelm everything around them. They blot out all sunlight in the vicinity and create an unpleasant wind-tunnel effect. They generate an enormous amount of motor traffic. In sum, they significantly decrease public amenity.

   The numerous development proposals for high-density apartment buildings seem to be completely at odds with the objectives of the St Leonards and Crows Nest precinct as articulated by the Greater Sydney Commission. The precinct is intended to be a business, education, and health precinct. In contrast, the goal now seems to be the prioritisation of the provision of high-rise residential development. Such development puts a strain on our infrastructure and on the environment. Furthermore, the St Leonards and Crows Nest vicinity is already characterised by a severe lack of open space, as identified in the ARUP report prepared for the NSW Department of Planning (2017).

   Planning for a 'priority precinct' should not have to lead to a high-rise shadows looming over Crows Nest and Wollstonecraft. I feel that lower-density residential dwellings (eight storeys at most) would be a more suitable compromise for this area, and would not create the sort of problems that are experienced in St Leonards (principally, over-shadowing, wind-tunnel effect, and lack of sunlight).

2. I support the increase in density for the Crows Nest area. 13 stories isn't particularly high, especially given it has commercial buildings all around it.
   High rise developments don't generate "an enormous amount of motor traffic" as claimed by C. Verney - if that was the case the Wollstonecraft Peninsular would be gridlocked. Which it isn't. Even though it has a train station and all the traffic that goes along with that.
   As for putting a strain on infrastructure - the alternative to housing people seems to be building houses in the middle of nowhere which have no infrastructure at all! Crows Nest will have a metro station by the time this is completed as well as the nearby St Leonards heavy rail station, bus routes, hospitals, 3 big supermarkets within walking distance (plus 2 smaller ones).

3. I agree with Peter M’s comments with only two additional observations to make.

   First, I think North Sydney council is moving to reduce the number of car parking spaces these developments can have. I think that is a very bad mistake. Off street car parking with dedicated additional visitor car parking spaces is essential in my view. The Council should not be imposing upper limits, lower limits would be fine, on the number of car parking spaces permitted in these developments.

   Next, the large residential developments along the Pacific Highway at North Sydney ( near Bay Road) have little to no architectural merit. The Council should have as a priority when approving high rise developments that there is architectural merit in the buildings.

4. In response to Peter M., according to the RMIT Centre for Urban Research, high-density housing does indeed increase traffic congestion. (And yes, according to the NSW Department of Planning, thirteen floors is considered high-density).

   “While medium and high-density development supports housing growth in established areas close to jobs and services, it also has a significant impact on road congestion, exacerbating the problems associated with car dependence.” (De Gruyter et. al., ‘Transport Impacts of
   New High-Density Housing:
   Critical Policy Brief’, RMIT University: Centre for Urban Research, 2020).

   While you may not think that the traffic is at ‘grid-locked’ levels, there is still quite a lot of congestion (particularly on the Pacific Highway) and despite the provision of multiple public transport options, this congestion will only worsen as more and more high-density developments are hastily constructed along this corridor. Every one apartment in such a development means at least another two cars on the road. (Even when surrounded by multiple public transport options, Australians won’t cease to use their cars - whether out of habit, convenience, laziness, or because of the at times unreliable nature of public transport).

   And no, the alternative to housing people does not have to be ‘building houses in the middle of no where which have no infrastructure.’ Just as the solution to the current housing crisis is not to build more expensive high-density residential towers in already densely-populated areas, which will not suit young families or the more vulnerable members of society.
   Perhaps we could invest in improved infrastructure in areas outside of the city centres?

   And in response to Garry Besson, this dependence on car travel (despite living in a walkable area with multiple public transport options) is precisely the reason why councils are moving to reduce the number of parking spaces available in these developments. According to De Gruyter er. al., ‘the provision of car and bicycle storage facilities in high-density housing has a strong influence on residential travel choices.’ In other words, a cap is placed on the number of car spaces in the expectation that it will reduce car use, and (hopefully) lessen the transport impacts of high-density housing.

5. In response to C. Verney, yes increased density will increase traffic congestion - to say otherwise would be silly. We're really talking about degrees of increase. I feel you have cherrypicked from the RMIT flyer - it's whole arguement seems to be that you need good public transport with new developments. Exactly what is happening at Crows Nest.

   Your claim that each apartment will result in another 2 cars would seem to be fanciful. Very very few developments have ever provided on-site car parking for 2 vehicles per apartment. If each apartment had 2 vehicles then one would need to be parked on the street. Given the street frontage on front of the average development would hold 5-6 cars where are the other 20-200 cars per apartment block you claim exist being parked? It just isn't happening - it would mean the streets in a several kilometer radius around Wollstonecraft, St Leonards & Chatswood apartment blocks into residential neighbourhoods would be parked out.

   Plus many of the residents won't use their car to get to work - that's what public transport is for. Most of the usage is likely to be out of peak hour and spread out.

   I'd love to hear more about where you think more housing should be built and of what type. It seems a lot of people in the Crows Nest/St Leonards/Greenwich area think it should be built "elsewhere" so that "their" area doesn't have to change.

6. 13 storeys are you joking?! The area is already so completely overdeveloped, with so few areas of open space. Look at St Leonards it is a gloomy wind tunnel now. Don't make Crows Nest the same.

7. I object to this development as it has the potential to increase population density in Crows Nest. As an owner occupier in St Leonards, I feel that any further increase in population will reduce the liveability of the suburb. I feel that it is a constant battle between residents and developers and that the council is failing to listen to and act on the voices of the voters.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to North Sydney Council. 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