Tag Archives: Carriageworks

  • -
links

North Eveleigh – Urban Growth NSW applies for ‘ReZoning’ of NE area – Oct 2017

Tags : 

Oct 2017 – Urban Growth applies for Rezoning of the North Eveleigh West land area, proposing a new framework to facilitate an increase in existing building heights and FSR (Floor Space Ratio) to allow for up to 700 Dwellings on the 2.9 hectare land parcel adjacent to Carriageworks.

PLANNING NSW Link HERE

Purpose of study:

Investigate preparation of a new planning framework for the North Eveleigh West site, part of the Redfern – Waterloo Authority Sites State Significant Precinct (SSP), to facilitate an increase in the existing buildings heights and FSRs to allow development of up to 700 dwellings.

NSW Planning website “Study Requirements” can be found Here.

The declaration of this SSP is the mechanism used by Urban Growth NSW to reset the planning controls of the area. The current controls are set within the “State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005” under the RWA Redfern Waterloo Authority which permits:

 

Allowable Building Heights      – 10 STOREYS

Allowable Floor Space Ratio     – 2:1 

We know from prior UrbanGrowthNSW communications that they are pressing for building heights as large as 20 Storeys with an adjusted FSR of up to 6.1:1 for some of the proposed “Superlots”.

The Study Requirements document list the Key Requirements and studies that UGNSW must address to be able to potentially change the planning restrictions currently in place.

Next Steps:

Once a final proposal that addresses all of the study requirements is lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment, this proposal will be publicly exhibited and the community will be invited to make formal submissions. The Department will consider all public submissions in assessing the proposal.

Stealing Our Skies will keep you updated with developments on this regard.

Past SOS posts of interest:

Urban Growth NSW’s 2016 North Eveleigh Plan exceeding allowable Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

North Eveleigh – March 2016 Plan – High Density Living and Open Space Provision – A Vibrant Community Heart?

Picking Holes in the Urban Growth NSW 2015 Concept Plan

If you wish to be included in future updates from this website send an email to wordpressATstealingourskiesDOTcom

 


  • -
screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-4-17-03-pm

Email Submission for DA D/2016/1388 35-47 Wilson Lane Student Accommodation – July 2017

Tags : 

Click on the above Link and Paste the below outline as a starting point to submit your comments and objections. Pls delete any points you do not agree with and feel free to reword any or all passages in your own words.

A council outline for making comments and objections can be found here.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/development-applications/comments-and-objections

NOTE : As per DA submission guidelines FULL NAME and ADDRESS must be supplied in the Context of the email.

—————————————————–Email Subject——————————————————

Regarding DA Notification: D/2016/1388, 35-47 Wilson Lane DARLINGTON  NSW  2008

———————————–Copy Paste Email Body Below as a starting point for your submission————————————

Regarding DA Notification: D/2016/1388, 35-47 Wilson Lane DARLINGTON  NSW  2008

Your Full Name

Your Full Address Line 1

Your Full Address Line 2

To the City Of Sydney,

Regarding DA Notification D/2016/1388 pls find below a list of objections, recommendations and comments.

Whilst supportive of the City of Sydney’s approach to the creation of more Affordable Housing stock, as a local resident of Darlington I strongly object to the proposed development application for the following reasons:

Objections and Recommendations:

Affordable Housing

  • The proposed Scape student accommodation is being developed under the Affordable Housing SEPP – under the guise of a boarding house. Developing under the banner of the AHSEPP allows the developer to  obtain special developer incentives such as increased allowable floorspace (20% more allowable rooms), reduced apartment sizes, reduced solar access provisions and reduced open space requirements. As such Scape must guarantee that the weekly rental prices reflect the affordable housing cost guidelines. Currently rooms of the same size in the Scape Abercrombie Street accommodation are being rented for between $500 and $569.00!!!! (Excluding optional extras) NOTE July 27 SCAPE Website has been updated to include $499 price for ‘Standard Studio’. I cannot see the difference between the Standard and Medium.
  • This is NOT affordable housing and should not be allowed to be built under the provisions of the Affordable Housing SEPP.

screen-shot-2017-07-22

Scape Website screen-shot-2017-07-22

Studio Size

  • The outline of the development (Addendum_SEE page 4) states that overall the proposed studios have increased in size but the majority of them, 133, have remained the same size of 15.08m2. 
  • (Addendum_SEE page 8) states 15.8m2 is the area of the standard studios yet page 19 states 15.08m2. Pls Clarify.
  • Approximately 68% of rooms are still too small in relation to the guidelines outlined in the Sydney DCP. Council has previously noted all rooms should be at least 16.9 m2 as prescribed in Sydney LEP 4.4.1 Boarding Houses and Student Accommodation guidelines.
    • Standard Studio – 133 rooms @ 15.08m2
    • Attick Studio – 10 rooms @ 15.4m2
  • There are conflicting statements in the documentation as to the actual room sizes and room configurations. (Addendum_SEE page 4 and page 19) More detail is required as to the actual config and position of rooms on plans.
  • (Addendum_SEE page 14) states that the room sizes are compliant with the ARHSEPP (Affordable rental Housing SEPP) which stipulates the rooms must be 12m2 minimum except the DA documentation fails to mention that this measurement excludes kitchen and bathroom facilities which based on the supplied design below would make it 11.5m2.  Page 44 – “Unit Sizes” also falsely states that the room sizes are compliant with the SEPP – “Further, the rooms comply with the minimum provisions under clause 29(2)(f) of the Affordable Housing SEPP”.
    The ARHSEPP states:

    • Clause 29 (f)  accommodation size if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

      (i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger.

      screen-shot-2017-07-22-at-12-25-00-am

  • It should be noted the majority of the proposed studios are not much bigger that the minimum size set for NSW Correctional Facility Jail Cells.

Solar Access

  • The lower ground studios have quite worrying Solar Access issues. More details/plans are required to assess.
  • The DCP Specifies that at least one communal living room receives at least 3 hrs direct sunlight to 50% of the windows in midwinter between 9am and 3pm. The June 21 solar access diagrams (below) do not seem to show ‘full’ sunlight is achieved in the lower level courtyard adjoining the Common Lounge. Updated plans showing solar access to the common room in detail have been since provided but they dont match the original birdseye ones (see below). These ‘Suns Eye View’ solar plans have some very suspect shadow movements.  Additionally a common room skylight is mentioned in clause 29(2)c on (Addendum_SEE page 14)  but it cant be found on the plans provided.
  • screen-shot-2017-07-21-at-5-20-28-pmscreen-shot-2017-07-21-at-5-20-46-pm
  • The DCP also specifies the communal outdoor open space is to located and designed to: (a) generally be north-facing to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the area during 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The Solar access diagrams for this period show this is no where near the case.

Building Setback from Wilson street

  • The main bulk of the building along Wilson Street still has no setback and is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. A nil setback will make for a dangerous precedent in the area especially given the forthcoming development across the road for “North Eveleigh”.  As per 4.1.2 of the sydney LEP2012 Front setbacks are to be consistent with the Building setbacks map. Where no front setback is shown on the map, the front setback is to be consistent with the predominant setting in the street.(2) Within heritage conservation areas, new development is to relate to the established development pattern including the subdivision pattern, front, side and rear setbacks.
  • The building still does not resonate with the surrounding street in terms of heritage considerations. Its bulk, height and in particular its materiality do not ‘speak’ with the area. The architectural design of having the facades divided horizontally to emulate the linear elements of the surrounding terrace buildings looks cheap and is not in keeping with the area. 
  • The plans also show a slight  ‘overhang’ over the Wilson Street footpath from the second floor.

  • Setback should be at least 1.5m along the length of the property.

Parking and Vehicle Bay & Pedestrian Safety

  • No Onsite Parking Spaces are provided for employees or residents. Whilst we appreciate the push for all employees and residents to use bicycles or public transport it is an oversight to think that the entire future population will come without a car. No accommodation is provided for the manager/staff who are noted to be available 24hrs. This suggests shift work which may not be amenable to relying on public transport. More onsite parking should be made available as per the ARHSEPP guidelines.
  • The rollergated vehicle/service-bay at the rear of the property on Wilson Lane is too small for a standard utility van / small truck and also appears to have quite poor manoeuvrability space and access into the building. 
  • The service bay has a very dangerous pedestrian blind spot for cars/vans reversing out onto Wilson Lane, adjacent to th e second entry point for the proposed development.
  • It is noted on (Addendum_SEE page 10) that Loading for Servicing and Cleaning will occur via the primary entrance on Wilson Street. This should be what the incorporated service bay is for. With a large number of cyclists already using Wilson Street together with the added cycle traffic proposed by Scape is would seem very unwise to suggest servicing the development in this way from Wilson Street.

Acoustic Noise and Smoking Area

  • No designated smoking areas appear to have been considered in the plans. Recent reports from new Student Accommodation facilities in Abercrombie Street note students noisily congregating at the street entrance at night to smoke cigarettes and make late night phone calls. 

SEPP65 Compliance

  • The proposed building design must be considered for SEPP65 Compliance. The proposed room sizes, solar access figures and open space areas are currently non compliant under this code.
  • In rebutting the requirement for SEPP 65 Compliance (Addendum_SEE page 12) states that none of the student accommodation ‘studios’ are self contained yet all apartments have integrated bathroom and kitchen facilities.
  • (Addendum_SEE page 12) also mentions that Amendment no.3 of the SEPP includes an anomalous statement that could be read to the effect that student accommodation“. This statement appears incomplete, does not make sense and we could find no statements within the amendment that referenced or could be inferred as ‘student accommodation’.
  • The SEPP65 planning guidelines should apply to this BCA Class 3 Development.  (SEPP 65 defines residential flat buildings as including three or more storeys and four or more self-contained dwellings. The Studios are essentially all self contained each containing kitchen and bathroom facilities.) Pls Refer to FAQ section in NSW Planning and Environment Supporting new Generation Boarding Houses – 2014

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-11-37-53-amBoarding House Registration

  • The Scape development on Abercrombie Street has recently opened and is still not listed on the Boarding House register on the office of Fair Trading website. As the Scape development is using the Affordable Housing SEPP “Boarding House” provision it needs to be ensured that they are registered and thus eligible for local council inspections to ensure ongoing compliancy.  http://parkspr.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/BoardingHouse.aspx

The developments this company has undertaken in other parts of the world could not be considered affordable housing.  These 15mofferings will, at best, be semi affordable housing stock.  It appears they are taking advantage of current government policy without any undertaking that they will alleviate rent stress by offering affordable accommodation to those in the community that actually require it. (Generally this kind of student housing will be marketed toward vulnerable international students). We question the companies motives in creating an extremely high density development with little regard for the amenity of the suburb nor the liveability of the eventual development. 


  • -
thisisourwilsonstreet

Support Material for DA D/2016/1388 35-47 Wilson Lane Student Accommodation

Tags : 

 

DA Submission Update – Supporting information.

Summary

The overt number of infractions in the planning controls, listed below, should warrant the ‘for-profit’ commercial accommodation applicant, Scape, to go back to the drawing board and re-present a design more amenable with the local conservation areas character. 

The justifications presented in the applicants “Statement of Environmental Effects” are loose in their attempt to partially ‘tick’ the boxes but at no point take a real consideration of the local color and character of the surrounding area. 

Infractions Summary:

  • Scape (a for-profit UK developer)  is not listed on the boarding house provider register
  • Building Height is over allowed Height
  • Storey Height is over allowed Height
  • Development is not in keeping with surrounding building setbacks
  • No On-Site Car Parking
  • Not enough Private Open Space provided
  • Not in Keeping with Minimum room size 
  • No Vehicular Access for Drop Off / Services / Deliveries
  • Removal off all 40 trees including 2 on the protected/vulnerable list
  • Not enough internal communal space provided
  • The Mansard style roof is NOT in keeping with surrounding terraces in our heritage conservation precinct.
  • Solar Access designs are incorrect for mid winter for communal open space, shadows on neighboring properties and proposed apartments on the other side of wilson street.
  • No onsite boarding house manager
  • No Motorcycle parking

Boarding House Register

The developer/applicant is not listed on the NSW Gov Fair Trading Website Boarding House Register.

However they are already building the Scape student housing “Boarding House” in Abercrombie Street. How is this possible?

http://parkspr.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/BoardingHouse.aspx

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

In Response to  Division 3 Boarding Houses Notes in RED

Division 3 Boarding houses

Part 3 of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 only applies to boarding houses that were operating with lawful consent before 28 January 2000 (formerly subject to determination under SEPP 10). 

To my Knowledge this site was not registered “boarding house” prior to current day

Ref http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/142040/Guidelines_BoardingHouses_DCP2012.pdf   Jan2013

25   Definition

In this Division:

communal living room means a room within a boarding house or on site that is available to all lodgers for recreational purposes, such as a lounge room, dining room, recreation room or games room.

26   Land to which Division applies

This Division applies to land within any of the following land use zones or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones:(a)  Zone R1 General Residential,  (b)  Zone R2 Low Density Residential,(c)  Zone R3 Medium Density Residential,(d)  Zone R4 High Density Residential,(e)  Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre,(f)  Zone B2 Local Centre,(g)  Zone B4 Mixed Use.

27   Development to which Division applies

(1)  This Division applies to development, on land to which this Division applies, for the purposes of boarding houses.(2)  Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area.(3)  Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.

29   Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

(1)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if the density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than:

(a)  the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, or

(b)  if the development is on land within a zone in which no residential accommodation is permitted—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of development permitted on the land, or

(c)  if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus:(i)  0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less, or(ii)  20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1.

FYI – Existing FSR for this site is 1.5:1 . All Surrounding residential terraces are 1.25.1

(2)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on any of the following grounds:

(a)  building height
if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land,
Proposed Height is up to 1.3 meters above Maximum Height Allowed.
(b)  landscaped area
if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located,
Image on application shows planting along the footpath but a setback of Nil would not allow this.
Front Set Back of “NIL” is not in keeping with Surrounding Streetscape 
(c)  solar access
where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,
Winter Solstice Solar Diagrams are Incorrect.
Additionally as seen in the below diagram the proposed development will cast a 22 meter shadow across wilson street onto the proposed 2 storey Wilson street facing “North Eveleigh” residential apartments. We also doubt the winter Solar shadowing on the terrace to the left of the proposed development.

http://www.suncalc.org/#/-33.8937,151.19,18/2016.06.21/13:03/13.3

(d)  private open space
if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

(i)  one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers,
Only 15 percent of Studios have a private balcony averaging in 2.5m2 in size

(ii)  if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation,
No on Site manager is provided for.

(e)  parking
if:(i)  in the case of development in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and
No Onsite Car Parking Spaces are provided for.
Loading, Servicing and Cleaning are assumed to occur from the Wilson Street frontage. CoS does not provide onstreet can parking permits for owners/ workers/residents of this style of development. 

Using Wilson Street general curbside parking as a service /drop-off area could be dangerous to the cyclist population and depending on the frequency of use will disrupt traffic during peak hours and during saturday farmers markets where traffic and parking is already under stress.

 (ii)  in the case of development not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and(iii)  in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site,
No Parking Spaces are provided for employees.
(f)  accommodation size
if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

(i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or
Around 11.8 sqm excluding Kitchen and Bathroom Facilities. See Below Sydney LEP Notes.

(ii)  16 square metres in any other case.

(3)  A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.

(4)  A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) or (2).

30   Standards for boarding houses

(1)  A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following:

(a)  if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided,

(b)  no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres,

(c)  no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers,

(d)  adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger,

(e)  if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager,
No Onsite Manager is planned

(f)    (Repealed)

(g)  if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use,(h)  at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.
No Motorcycle Parking provided

(2)  Subclause (1) does not apply to development for the purposes of minor alterations or additions to an existing boarding house.

30A   Character of local area

A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

Although the Application attempts to show it the building is in keeping with the surrounding Heritage Conservation area the pictures below tell a resoundingly Different Story. 
thisisourwilsonstreet

rendering
The above image is quite deceptive in showing the proposed buildings relative height. See elevation image below.


elevation

Winter Solstice Diagrams show Full afternoon shadowing on the ground floor of the Wilson Street facing North Eveleigh  proposed apartments.
http://www.suncalc.org/#/-33.8937,151.19,20/2016.06.21/14:18/13.3
screen-shot-2016-11-13-at-3-27-00-pm
The Surrounding Building Height Limits along Wilson Street are 9 meters. Allowing an increase on the already allowed 12 meter limit is incompatible with the surrounding streetscape.
elevation2
The curved ‘Mansard’ roof does not fit into the surrounding conservation area which all use a 45 degree angled flat roof.  The application suggests that the mansard roof acts like the surrounding terraced roofs that house attics. Its implementation is being solely used to hide the illegal 4th floor and create more apartment space for the loft studios. 
The application also suggests that this style reflects the roof of the carriageworks building. There is no resemblance.

Sydney Local Environment Plan 2012

In Response to  Sydney LEP 2012 Notes in RED

Height 4.1.1

Provisions

(1) Development is not to exceed the maximum number of storeys as shown on the Building height in storeys map. The maximum may only be achieved where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development:

(a) reinforces the existing and desired neighbourhood character;

Wilson street has an amazing heritage character. The proposed building in no way reinforces the character of the neighborhood. See above Image of Wilson St Character.

(b) is consistent with the character, scale and form of surrounding buildings in heritage conservation areas;

Unfortunately the DCP has an ill defined height and storey limit already over all other houses on this section of wilson street. It should not mean the development can take advantage of this.

The Proposed development is in a heritage conservation area and the proposed height does not relate to the existing neighbourhood character in terms of height in storeys and street frontage height in storeys.

(2) The street frontage height of a building must not exceed the maximum height shown for the street frontage on the Building street frontage height in storeys map.

It Does

Setbacks 4.1.2

Provisions

(1) Front setbacks are to be consistent with the Building setbacks map. Where no front setback is shown on the map, the front setback is to be consistent with the predominant setting in the street.

The predominant setback on Wilson Street is between 1 and 2.5 meters. The proposal has a Nil setback. See Above image of Wilson Street Character.

Proposal claims set back is in common with North Eveleigh Precinct Wilson Street facing apartments. The Below image (NorthEveleightSetback) shows this is not the case.

north_eveleigh_setback

(2) Within heritage conservation areas, new development is to relate to the established development pattern including the subdivision pattern, front, side and rear setbacks.

The predominant setback on Wilson Street is between 1 and 2.5 meters. The proposal has a Nil setback.

4.4.1 Boarding Houses and Student Accomodation

4.4.1.2 Bedrooms

(1) The gross floor area of a bedroom is to be at least:

(a) 12sqm (including 1.5sqm required for wardrobe space);

plus (b) 4sqm when a second adult occupant is intended, which must be clearly shown on plans;

plus (c) 2.1sqm for any en suite, which must comprise a hand basin and toilet;

plus (d) 0.8sqm for any shower in the en suite;

plus (e) 1.1sqm for any laundry, which must comprise a wash tub and washing machine;

plus (f) 2sqm for any kitchenette, which must comprise a small fridge, cupboards and shelves and a microwave.

The Majority of “Typical Studio” and “Garden Studio” rooms are less than the required 16.9m2.

x 164 rooms Typical Studio with a GFA of 15.8m2  

x 16 rooms Typical Garden Studio with a GFA –  16.7m2 

4.4.1.4 Communal living areas and open space 

(1) Provide indoor communal living areas with a minimum area of 12.5sqm or 1.25sqm per resident and a width of 3 metres. The communal living area can include any dining area, but cannot include bedrooms, bathrooms, laundries, reception area, storage, kitchens, car parking, loading docks, driveways, clothes drying areas, corridors and the like.

Communal indoor living space with 231 residents would equate to a requirement of 289sqm. Only @ 215spm are available in the lower ground communal indoor area.

(2) Indoor communal living areas are to be located: (a) near commonly used spaces, such as kitchen, laundry, lobby entry area, or manager’s office, with transparent internal doors, to enable natural surveillance from resident circulation; (b) adjacent to the communal open space; (c) to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the windows during 9am and 3pm on 21 June;

(d) on each level of a multi-storey boarding house, where appropriate;

Communal indoor living space is only located on one floor of the 5 Floor development.

and (e) where they will have minimal impact on bedrooms and adjoining properties.

(3) Communal open space is to be provided with a minimum area of 20sqm and a minimum dimension of 3m.

(4) Communal outdoor open space is to located and designed to: (a) generally be north-facing to receive a minimum 2 hours solar access to at least 50% of the area during 9am and 3pm on 21 June; (b) be provided at ground level in a courtyard or terrace area, where possible; (c) provide partial cover from weather; (d) incorporate soft or porous surfaces for 50% of the area; (e) be connected to communal indoor spaces, such as kitchens or living areas; (f) contain communal facilities such as barbecues, seating and pergolas where appropriate; and (g) be screened from adjoining properties and the public domain with plantings, such as a trellis with climbing vines.

(5) 30% of all bedrooms are to have access to private open space with a minimum area of 4sqm in the form of a balcony or terrace area.

NOTE only 15% of rooms have private balconies. Of the 29 apartments with a balcony 24 of those provide only 2.6m2 of private open space within the balcony area. Attempted justification of greater communal space does not justify the requirement for Private Open Space. 

(2) Each bedroom must have access to natural light, from a window or door with a minimum aggregate area of 10% of the floor area of the room. Skylights are not to be the sole source of light.

City of Sydney Boarding House Control Plan 2004

In Response to  CoS Boarding House Control Plan – Notes in RED

2.8 Car Parking

(c) Parking Exemptions

In certain circumstances, and dependent upon the size of the proposed Boarding House Council may consider parking provision less than that specified above based on the following:

(a)  traffic and on-street parking within the street is such that parking is not required and can be adequately catered for on- street;

No Additional Parking avaliable on Wilson Street. All “free”car spots are taken 24 hrs a day and the increase in Carriage Works program means it will only get busier. CoS currently advising on whether to implement 2hr parking along the carriagewroks side of Wilson Street.

(b)  on-site parking would unnecessarily impact on residential amenity;

Current building has 12 on site car spots that does not impact surrounding residents. 

(c)  all aspects of pedestrian safety have been satisfactorily addressed in terms of access to and from the premises.

 


  • -
rendering

Email Submission for DA D/2016/1388 35-47 Wilson Lane Student Accommodation

Tags : 

Click on the above Link and Paste the below outline as a starting point to submit your comments and objections. Pls delete any points you do not agree with and feel free to reword any or all passages in your own words.

A council outline for making comments and objections can be found here.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/development-applications/comments-and-objections

NOTE : As per DA submission guidelines FULL NAME and ADDRESS must be supplied in the Context of the email.

———————————–Copy Paste Below as a starting point for your submission——————————————

Regarding DA Notification: D/2016/1388, 35-47 Wilson Lane DARLINGTON  NSW  2008

Your Full Name

Your Full Address Line 1

Your Full Address Line 2

To the City Of Sydney,

Regarding DA Notification D/2016/1388 pls find below a list of objections, recommendations and comments.

Whilst supportive of the City of Sydney’s approach to the creation of more Affordable Housing stock, as a local resident of Darlington I strongly object to the proposed development application for the following reasons:

Objections and Recommendations:

  • I object to the proposed 4 Storey building height and demand that the development maintains the 3 storey building height limit as set out in the City of Sydney Development Planning Controls 2012.  All surrounding residences along Wilson street between Golden Grove Street and Shepherd Street already have a 9 meter (2 storey) Building Height Limit which in itself makes this over-massed proposal not fit within the surrounding street scape. The image provided in the elevation diagram shows that the built form and massing of this proposal is completely out of character with surrounding residences.

screen-shot-2016-10-30-at-1-58-03-pm

  • I object to the application seeking in increase in allowable height from 12 meters to 13.3 meters based on the fact that 12 meters is already higher than allowable either side of the surrounding terraces (9meters) and that this together with the other objections herein will result in an undesirable result for the streetscape.
  • I demand that the applicants ‘Scape’ must outline their Market and Subsidised rental pricing for the proposed ‘mini’ studio style apartments to ensure that it actually qualifies under the guise of Affordable Housing. 
  • I propose that the SEPP65 planning guidelines should apply to this BCA Class 3 Development.  (SEPP 65 defines residential flat buildings as including three or more storeys and four or more self-contained dwellings. The Studios are essentially all self contained each containing kitchen and bathroom facilities.) Pls Refer to FAQ section in NSW Planning and Environment “Supporting new Generation Boarding Houses – 2014”

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-11-37-53-am

  • I object to the proposal being cloaked as a “Boarding House” allowing it to use the laxed Affordable Housing / Boarding House provisions in current legislature. Classification as a “Boarding House” automatically allows the proposal to gain a ‘bonus’ 0.5 FSR. Due to the proposed maximising of all provisions in terms of Massing, Building Heights, FSR, Density, reduced Setbacks, Reduced Solar Access provisions , I demand that the Floor Space Ratio to be retained at 1.5:1. The rest of Wilson Street between Golden Grove St and Shepherd Street is defined as 1.25:1. 
  • I demand a DA notice to be placed on public display both on Wilson Street and Wilson Lane. (It currently resides in a little noticed stairwell of the existing building!) Of note some residents of the current building have not been notified of the proposed application.
  • I object to the proposed setback provision of ‘nil’ along Wilson Street and demand that the Wilson Street frontage is set back at least 2 meters as the plans are not consistent and do not respond to the surrounding character of Wilson Street or the UGNSW proposed 2 Storey apartments on the other side of Wilson Street (North Eveleigh). All houses to the left and the majority of houses to the right of the development site are set back between 1.5 and 4 meters.
  • I object to the development incorporating ‘nil’ active edges setback even though their ‘renderings’ show low shrub planting all along the Wilson Street footpath (which has a nil setback).

rendering

  • I object to the removal of all 40 on-site tress and demand the applicants to find a way to retain the trees that are listed as Vulnerable and Endangered (tree no 17 and 35). (The Arboricultural Report shows 11 trees with ‘HIGH’ retention value)
  • I object that development deems itself exempt from Sydney LEP 2012 guidelines as it intends to remove 40 onsite trees, some of which will require permits and 11 of which are deemed ‘High Retention’ value.  Part 3.1 (5)  To be exempt development, the development must: (b)  not involve the removal or pruning of a tree or other vegetation that requires a permit or development consent for removal or pruning, unless that removal or pruning is undertaken in accordance with a permit or development consent.

screen-shot-2016-11-01-at-1-48-53-pm

  • Parking requirements – AHSEPP requires  0.2 car spaces per boarding room;  “At least one parking space provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on the site”. Whilst the application encourages a nill use of vehicles I believe an area within the development boundary should be designated for vehicular access of Services / Delivery / Dropoffs. No area is currently allocated.
  • I recommend that as per council requirements all owners, tenants and occupiers of this building are advised that it is the Policy of Council that they are not eligible to participate in any existing or proposed Council on-street resident parking schemes.
  • I recommend that the applicants amend the proposed 10pm lockout of rooftop area to 9pm Sunday to Friday. Currently it is 10pm 7 Days.
  • I demand that Solar Access plans are re-presented as the Winter Solstice Solar Diagrams, in relation to the lower level communal open space, do not take into account the 6 m high rear wall and staircase along Wilson Lane to the lower level floor. This would add a 9 meter shadow at Midday June 21. 
  • Comment – The development needs to further demonstrate that the proposal is considerate of the heritage and aesthetic and community ethos of the street and neighbourhood.  The current design does not show visual respect to the surrounding area and does not have a positive impact on the streetscape. Whilst the current building is noted as “detracting” in the buildings contributions map, its surrounding open land with its beautiful tall trees does currently provide an sense of open space which the proposed development will completely REMOVE.
  • The developments this company (Scape) has undertaken in other parts of the world could not be considered affordable housing.  It will at best be semi affordable housing stock for the 15m2 offerings. In Darlington this developer is taking advantage of current government policy to encourage affordable housing developments without any providing any undertaking that they will alleviate rent stress by offering boarding house style affordable accommodation to those in the community that actually require it. (Generally this kind of student housing will be marketed toward international students). It appears obvious that Scape are acting with corporate interests in mind by insisting on corporate branding of their franchise on Wilson Street whilst using every trick in current legislation to cram as many micro-apartments onto this site. We question the companies motives in creating an extremely high density development with little regard for the amenity of the suburb nor the liveability of the eventual development.

 


  • 2
sightlines

Urban Growth now using Trees to measure building sightlines?

Tags : 

The 2008 Concept Plan Approval fixed the heights of buildings such that they were below a line of sight from the northern side of Wilson Street (Figure 1).

compareView

As seen above in the Nov 2016 plans Urban Growth sneakily tried to get around this by having the ‘bystanders’ sight line from the south side of Wilson Street. City of Sydney quickly picked up on this and ordered it to be addressed.

Now Urban Growth, in what may be a World First, is now using trees in their measurement of sightlines in their April 2016 Plans!  The Website Link Here – Minimising the Impacts of new buildings.

sightlines

Using imagery (like below left) to show the lovely mature trees covering the view of the 20 Storey buildings they failed to show the same view a few meters down Wilson Street where the trees definitely do not coverup the sightlines.

 

 


  • 1
FloorSpaceRatio Map

Urban Growth NSW’s 2016 North Eveleigh Plan exceeding allowable Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Tags : 

2016 North Eveleigh development proposal is exceeding allowable FSR (Floor Space Ratio) 

State Environmental Planning Authority 2005 Redfern Waterloo Map states a maximum FSR (Floor Space Ratio) of 2:1 is allowable in the Site.

Not only is Urban Growth NSW’s current 2016 plan exceeding the permissible building heights for the area (which is 10 Storeys) they are also exceeding the allowable Floor Space Ratio for the buildings.

Allowable Floor Space Ratio = 2:1

Superlot 1 FSR = 6.2:1

Superlot 2 FSR = 5.4:1

Superlot 3 FSR = 2.7:1

calculations below

FloorSpaceRatio Map

Building Height Map

 

Floor Space Ratio defines the permissible physical size of development allowed on a piece of land.

A guide for calculations can be viewed in this PDF here supplied by planning.nsw.gov.au.  Height and Floor Space Ratio PDF  

The FSR Calculation is defined as  Gross Floor Area / Site Area

  • Site Area” is the size or area of the Lots upon which the buildings will be built. (does not include areas such as parks, walkways and public streets/roads)
  • Gross Floor Area” (GFA) is the area of internal walls within each floor of a building. (does not include such areas as stairwells and Lift shafts, Ventilation Ducts)

North Eveleigh West Superlots Site Area.

Allowable FSR = 2:1

Proposed GFA 57000 m²

SuperLot A    4000 m²

  • Storeys 20 – 4 – 16
  • GFA = 24800 m²
  • FSR  = 6.2:1

SuperLot B    4700 m²

  • Storeys 20 – 4 – 14
  • GFA = 25500 m²
  • FSR  = 5.4:1

SuperLot C   2500 m²

  • Storeys 3 – 4
  • GFA  = 6800 m²
  • FSR  = 2.7:1

 

As noted below there is a subclause in the Legislation (State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005) that says the Building Height and FSR restrictions only apply where the minister for planning has not approved a Concept Plan. Until it is approved it is ILLEGAL. In other words he/ she can overrule the legislated restrictions.

It looks like it is up to us as a community to prove to the minister that good planning is NOT:

  1. HIGH POPULATION DENSITY   (506 people per hectare / 1600 residents within a 3.1 hectare precinct)

  2. ILLEGAL BUILDING HEIGHTS   (20 Storey Building Heights where 10 is legislated as the Max)

  3. ILLEGAL FSR   (up to 6.2:1 in an area legislated as 2:1)

  4. POOR ONISTE TRAFFIC (one point of entry and roads crossing public thoroughfares)

  5. INSUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE ( 0.32 ha Public Park for 1600 new residents)


  • -
horizontal 1_small

North Eveleigh – Potential Build Timetable

Tags : 

Based on the April 2016 “UGNSW Information Sessions” we have the following Proposed Build Timetable:

March 2017          -> Concept Plans Approval with Detailed Construction Drawings

July 2017               -> Start Infrastructure Works, Roads, Parks and Clothing Store Overhaul   (Period 1 year)

July 2018               -> Sell SuperLots to Developers and Assess Designs

Dec 2018                -> Construction of SuperLots (High Rise) Begins. Potential for Staggered Construction of the 3 SuperLots each taking 12 to 18 months to complete.

December 2020  ->  Estimated Completion of North Eveleigh Precinct

 

 


  • -

March 2016 Update – North Eveleigh Development Proposals

Tags : 

Portal-Banner

A lot has been happening at StealingOurSkies over the last month

plans2Format

You will have seen our new Banners starting to go up around the neighbourhood. We are still looking for more houses to hang the banners. If you wish to help spread awareness please let us know. There are Vertical and Horizontal versions available.

Recent Posts on the website

(click on the links to visit the full post)


POST: March 30 – Central to Eveleigh and North Eveleigh Stakeholders Update Meeting

UrbanGrowthLogo

There is a meeting on the 30th of March 2016 for stakeholder and community organisations. We will report back the updates here on the website.


POST: The New proposed BIGGER park actually got SMALLER

Park Area

The claim that the new design for the North Eveleigh park is bigger in the new 2015 plan is yet another false and crafty attempt by Urban Growth NSW at tricking the figures and documentation to make their proposed changes appear more favourable. Using some “Google Love” we realise the park actually got smaller…


POST: Picking Holes in the Urban Growth NSW 2016 Plan

PlansCompare

More investigation of the new Urban Growth NSW 2015 North Eveleigh Plans and proposed claims.


POST: The Petition

The online petition has been now turned into an paper petition that can be more readily tabled in the NSW Parliament. You will see in coming weeks a paper petition being handed around to sign.  If you are keen to help volunteer some time to help door knock for signatures please let us know.


POST: City of Sydney responses to Urban Growths Plan

compareView

The City of Sydney officially responds to the 2015 Urban Growth NSW Plan with some interesting findings and ideas. 


Community Forums

Remember the community Forums are Live. If you have received this email you are already signed up and can voice your opinions and concerns here.


SavingOurSkies

To Unsubscribe from email notifications of new posts at StealingOurSkies please reply with “Unsubscribe” in the subject line.


  • -
Park Area

The North Eveleigh proposed 2015 Park Actually Got SMALLER !!!

Tags : 

Despite claims of a bigger park, with a little bit of Google Love I was able to prove the new 2015 plan actually made the “Local Park” smaller compared to the 2008 Plan.

When Comparing the actual area used to calculate “Local Park”, which is the area on the LHS of the above image underneath the entrance to Carriageworks Way, we can see the Area has not increased to the value of 4479 m² but actually decreased to an area of 0.332 ha. (3320 m²).

GoogleMapOverlay

 

parkCOS Park Plan Options

What else are Urban Growth tricking us with ?

  • Number of new Apartments ? – Should be more like 830 – 870 with a 20% increase in GFA

Saving Our Skies

 


  • -
Portal-Banner

City of Sydney and Urban Growth NSW – MOU and CoS Submission Responses

Tags : 

 

Click the Links for the original PDF’s below:

 

City of Sydney – North Eveleigh Precinct Response – Submission Notes:

  • Overall Plan
    • The Revised 2008 plan does not allow for a practical pedestrian crossing of the railway.
    • Overall increase in Building Footprints which has compromised the shape to the new park reducing its size and functionality.
    • The buildings are set out in an arrangement that leads to large building forms, with the effect that there will be considerable overlooking between the apartments and achieveing visual and acoustic privacy will be challenging.
    • Placing park and residential uses next to each other can cause conflict between the two, leading to restrictions being placed on the park.
    • The use of the buildings seem to be generally restricted to residential with the only other uses being confined to the Clothing Store. The adjacent areas of Newtown and Darlington have employment interspersed with the predominant residential use, the number of workers are approximately one third the number of residents. This produces a lively neighbourhood, a better place to live, reduces congestion, increases walking and bicycle use, and builds community. A mix of retail and small commercial uses, (not simply a small supermarket and café) would provide more choice, competition and vitality to the area. These could be located at the ground level of the proposed buildings on the private lots. These uses will also attract nearby residents, providing for improved social integration.
    • The proposed density is similar to only a few of the densest existing areas of the City of Sydney.
    • The large floor plates for the buildings and their ‘slab’ arrangement could produce a monotonous and overbearing built form; and, limiting uses to residential only restricts the future vitality of the area.
    • The relative high density, prominent visibility and harsh site conditions of the southern lots will require better design.
    • Possible loss of Stair Connection at Wilson st and Golden Grove.

     

 

  • The Park
    • The new park has a compromised shape and is in a compromised location due to its layout as a resultant of the shape of the private lots. As a result it will be of lower value to the community. The park should be improved by ensuring that as far as possible, it has publicly-accessible defining streets or paths along the boundary and it has a more regular and usable shape.
    • The irregular shape of the park has effectively created three smaller parks, resulting in a less effective use of the area available
    • The park proposal may have too many elements,whichcould compromise the quality of each of those elements

 

  • The Clothing Store
    • In its entirety, the Clothing Store would be well-suited for community uses that serves both the new residents and the existing surrounding community. Studio spaces, shared work spaces and community-focused creative spaces could be combined with community facilities to make the Clothing Store a lively and essential part of the existing and new community. There would be the potential for uses to reinforce and support the public nature of the proposed new park.

  • 1
UG_Page_NOt_Found

Urban Growth NSW – c2e Website – Frequently asked Questions – Feb 2016

Tags : 

As at Feb 2016 CentralToEveleigh Webiste Content Extract.

Urban Growth Responding to Community Concerns from November Meeting. (pub. 15 Dec 2015)

          Extracted for posterity in case the web-link disappears…….

UG_Page_NOt_Found

 

Central to Eveleigh FAQ’s

Q: The Redfern, Waterloo, Eveleigh area is a dense inner city area, why are you planning high density development here?

A: Sydney needs more homes in locations close to public transport, jobs and services. We are an evolving city and we’re continually growing. Each week the population grows by 1,600 people, which means over the next 15 years we’ll need more than 650,000 new homes to support population growth. New houses must be built all over Sydney – not just in new subdivisions on the urban edges, but also in existing urban areas in the form of medium and high density development. No part of Sydney is untouched by these growth pressures.

Given its location close to public transport, education and employment the Central to Eveleigh area, like other inner city areas, is ideally suited for new housing.

We are planning for the future of Central to Eveleigh, to accommodate growth in a sustainable way. We are proposing a range of well designed medium and high rise apartment buildings and work spaces, close to improved public transport, to provide accessible and affordable living options, alongside the amenity of new well planned parks and improved community facilities.

We need to plan and manage growth to ensure the area retains its diverse and distinctive identity and remains one of Sydney’s most desirable places to live, work and visit.

Q: Will you protect social housing and provide more affordable housing in the area?

A: Yes. With our Government partners at the Department of Family and Community Services we are placing a high priority on social and affordable housing in our planning to ensure a diversity of homes to meet current and future community needs.

The Department of Family and Community Services commitment is to retain or increase social housing dwelling numbers in the area including the Waterloo Estate – this is a consistent message we have talked through with the community and local elected representatives. We are exploring opportunities to renew the social housing stock and better integrate it with affordable housing and privately owned housing. This will be a long term process – up to 20 years – allowing much time to plan the process well and time to work closely with all existing residents.

Q: There is too much development being planned, why do you want to damage the character of the area with lots of high-rise buildings?

A: We know that protecting the character and amenity of the area from inappropriate development is important and widely valued by the community.

Our focus is on making the most of opportunities to deliver new housing and jobs in a balanced way that maintains and improves the liveability of the area for new and existing residents.

We will be considering a mix of building heights between 2-3 storeys and potentially up to 35 storeys that align with adjoining areas, for example Waterloo already has some buildings equivalent to over 30 storeys in height. There will be a need for all plans to pass strict environmental planning controls and guidelines – and a process to consult and engage with the community through this process as we have been doing. However, given the need to balance metropolitan growth pressures with local amenity impacts we believe we should consider whether tall buildings in defined locations can be built where set back from existing low rise areas can be achieved and solar impacts are limited.

Q: Will proceeds from the sale of public land all be used to fund local infrastructure upgrades?

A: Yes. The land value achieved from medium to high rise development of government land is intended to be prioritised for reinvestment in the local area to support key infrastructure requirements. As confirmed by the Minister when announcing the sale of Australian Technology Park, the revenue generated will be reinvested in the local area.

Our approach is to reinvest proceeds from the sale of public land back into the local area to help finance major infrastructure investments in the Central to Eveleigh corridor, including upgrades to train stations, new parks, restoration of heritage buildings, community facilities and to subsidise delivery of affordable housing. Redfern Station has been identified as a funding priority and we are working with our partners at Transport for NSW in this respect.

Q: How will you ensure critical infrastructure gets upgraded to support population growth?

A: We’ve been working across government to test the impact of future growth on existing infrastructure including public transport, schools, hospitals, community facilities, utilities and green space. This has helped us to identify both the limitations and opportunities for new development in the area.

The Urban Transformation Strategy will identify the key infrastructure required to support growth and will detail the long term funding requirements to deliver infrastructure upgrades.

North Eveleigh community workshop FAQs

Q: Why is North Eveleigh a good place for new housing?

A: Areas with good access to public transport that are close to employment opportunities are becoming the focus for increased density all across Sydney.

The Central to Eveleigh area, including North Eveleigh, has lots of under-utilised and government owned land and is close to the city centre, well serviced by public transport and close to many services and infrastructure, and educational and cultural facilities.

The Central to Eveleigh Urban Transformation and Transport Program will help to meet the current and future needs of residents and support Sydney’s growth as a global city by providing new community facilities and open space, a mix of new housing and employment opportunities and improved connections across the rail corridor.

Increased density also allows us to provide additional community facilities that service the wider neighbourhood. This includes large public parks and restored heritage buildings all contributing to more vibrant local communities.

Q: What makes North Eveleigh suitable for the density and height you are proposing?

A: The inner city needs more homes. We’ve been working across government to test the impact of future growth on existing infrastructure including public transport, schools, hospitals, community facilities, utilities and green space. This has helped us to identify both the limitations and opportunities for new development in the area.

It is not appropriate to have high rise development along the whole length of the Central to Eveleigh corridor because it would overshadow adjoining properties and have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. However, high rise buildings can be located in some areas with minimal impact. In North Eveleigh, tall buildings can be placed next to the railway with minimal overshadowing or overlooking of neighbouring properties.

We are proposing 710 additional apartments at North Eveleigh, with building heights of between three and 20 storeys. The highest buildings will be located at the rear of the site against the rail corridor, with the lowest building heights closest to Iverys Lane and on Wilson Street.

Undeniably, buildings up to 20 storeys in North Eveleigh will have a visual impact – they will affect the outlook for neighbouring residents and will be visible from some distance. However, given the need to balance metropolitan growth pressures with local amenity impacts we believe that the proposed density and mix of building heights is worth considering.

Q: Why are you planning for 20 storey maximum building heights and why do you think these are appropriate next to a conservation area?

A: The plans respond to the heritage conservation area by locating higher buildings next to the railway corridor where they will have least impact, with lower heights closer to existing properties.

We are proposing a mix of building heights with two taller 20 storey buildings next to the railway corridor where they will have minimal impact on adjoining properties in terms of sunlight and privacy. Building heights then drop down towards existing properties along Wilson Street and Iverys Lane to respect the existing character of the neighbourhood.

This is consistent with our http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=236  Key Move 9 , to integrate new high density mixed use buildings with the surrounding area.

Heritage will be represented through the design of the park which will include public art. We also want to create a new hub for community interaction by restoring and adaptively re-using the Clothing Store building as a new community facility.

Q: Do you have a housing target? And if you don’t, how did you come to the number of apartments?

A: There is no target for the number of new apartments or residents. We used population scenarios of between 15,000 and 26,000 new residents in the corridor and between 29,000 and 56,000 new residents in the wider study area to test possible impacts of population growth on infrastructure and community facilities.

Outcomes from this analysis have been considered alongside expert studies and best-practice design principles to assess the level of growth we believe could be achieved in the corridor. Our focus is on making the most of opportunities to deliver new housing and jobs in a way that improves the liveability of the area for new and existing residents.

Our approach is to optimise development outcomes within the limits of good design. This means we will be pursuing medium and high rise buildings to provide as many homes and jobs as possible on sites that can be developed without overly impacting the amenity of adjoining properties and where development can be balanced with public benefits – including new community facilities and parks for the whole community to enjoy.

Q: Are you also planning to upgrade local transport, schools and health services, parks and community facilities?

A: Yes. We are working closely with other NSW Government agencies such as Transport for NSW, the Department of Education and Training, NSW Health and public utilities on the plans for North Eveleigh to ensure local infrastructure can respond to more people living and working in the area.

As confirmed by the Minister for Planning when announcing the sale of the Australian Technology Park, the revenue generated from development and public land sales will be reinvested in the local area to help finance major infrastructure improvements, including renewal of Redfern Station.

The Urban Transformation Strategy will identify the key infrastructure required to support growth and the long term funding requirements to deliver infrastructure upgrades.

As part of North Eveleigh, we’re making provision for a child care centre on site and also proposing a new facility for creative community uses at the Clothing Store in addition to a new neighbourhood park.

Q: How many car parking spaces will be provided at North Eveleigh and how will you manage street parking in surrounding areas?

A: Our goal is for new developments in the Central to Eveleigh area to encourage the trend of reduced car ownership with more people choosing to use public transport or walk and cycle to get around. Promoting a reduced car dependency also reduces carbon emissions and promotes healthy lifestyles.

We are proposing 530 basement car parking spaces, which includes the existing 39 spaces at the Platform Apartments. This is the maximum number of spaces allowed under the City of Sydney’s controls.

We know there is a mix of views about parking; some people favour additional car parking spaces in new developments and others believe this will only encourage increased car usage.

There is a high rate of car-share use in the area. While some apartments won’t have a dedicated car space, car share schemes will mean that all residents can access a car when they need to.

New residents will also be able to easily access public transport services at Redfern and Macdonaldtown stations and on King Street in Newtown. Future pedestrian and cycle links across the rail corridor and improved cycleways and pedestrian paths will create new links across the site and will also help to reduce car use and traffic.

The City of Sydney does not permit residents living in new apartments to get parking permits. Therefore, new residents will not be able to park in surrounding streets for extended periods of time without the risk of parking penalties.

Q: Will North Eveleigh have affordable housing and what percentage will it be?

A: Yes. At North Eveleigh we supported delivery of the Platform Apartments; 88 Affordable Housing apartments completed in March 2015 that are managed by City West Housing. With plans for an additional 710 apartments in the neighbourhood, this means that 11% of all housing at North Eveleigh will be classified as Affordable Housing.
Q: How can the Minister for Planning assess this proposal when he is also UrbanGrowth NSW’s Minister?

A: The development proposal for North Eveleigh will be considered as State Significant Development, which requires the Minister to determine the proposal, as set out in the <em>Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979</em>. While UrbanGrowth NSW reports to the Minister, there are clear guidelines set out in the Act that must be followed to assess the proposal, including formal public exhibition and a call for submissions once the proposal has been lodged.

Q: How did you promote the North Eveleigh workshop held on 12 November?

A: The workshop was promoted through a mix of methods including a letterbox drop to 41,000 properties in the area. Our distributor uses GPS trackers to ensure delivery to all properties in the area. We also sent 500 individual letters to randomly selected households, distributed an electronic newsletter to more than 1,600 people who have signed-up to receive project updates, placed advertisements in five local newspapers and promoted the workshop on the project website, Facebook and Twitter and at our monthly stalls at the Carriageworks Farmers Market and Redfern Markets.

Q: How will you report back and continue to engage the community?

A: Community feedback from the workshop, online discussion forum, social media channels, emails, letters and community markets, will be considered to refine plans for North Eveleigh.

We will publish a report that summarises the feedback received at the workshop on 12 November to provide a transparent record of community concerns and issues related to the development proposal.

We will undertake further consultation to shape plans before finalising a proposal that will be placed on exhibition in mid 2016. More consultation will be undertaken in early 2016 and will include another workshop, a drop-in display and discuss session, some focus groups and an updated online forum.

The development proposal will include a report detailing all feedback received.

Q: What additional traffic is your modelling showing, and how will this be managed?

A: Traffic consultant Parsons Brinkerhoff is updating a traffic model to test the impact of traffic associated with development at North Eveleigh on the local road network. Preliminary study results indicate that the development will not have a big impact on the local area, with the maximum forecast for an extra 100 trips per hour during morning and afternoon peak travel times. The local road network has the capacity to accommodate this volume of additional traffic.

The City of Sydney has a trend of decreasing car use per person. The proximity of North Eveleigh to rail and bus transport supports the trend towards reduced car dependence and we aim to encourage this trend by promoting public and active transport and car-share schemes.

Q: There is only one entry/exit at the site to Wilson Street proposed. Will this be safe and how will this be managed with the number of cars expected to be entering and exiting the site?

A: There is currently only one access point to the site, however at least one additional access point will be constructed when the North Eveleigh East area is developed. The existing access has been designed in accordance with City of Sydney requirements and our traffic engineers will review the existing access arrangement as part of our development proposal. The preliminary traffic study indicates an additional 100 vehicles per hour will enter or exit the site at busiest times (during peak hour). Further reports are being commissioned as part of the development proposal to advise on traffic impacts.

Q: Why can’t the park be bigger?

A: The proposed park is 4,479 sqm . The size of the new park has been increased by more than 1,000 sqm from the original design by changing the layout of buildings and internal roads. We believe the current design is the optimal balance between open space and well spaced buildings, respecting Clothing Store curtilage, creating through-site links and minimising overshadowing. The park will include a children’s play area, large kick about space and barbeque facilities for community use. Increasing the size of the park further would mean reducing building separation and potentially increasing heights, which would not deliver the best design outcome for the site.

Q: How can you say the development space has only increased by 20% when building heights appear to have more than doubled?

A: Although maximum building heights have increased from 12 to 20 storeys, the total development floor space has only increased by around 20% compared to what was approved as part of the 2008 Concept Plan. Previously, development floor space was approximately 50,000m<sup>2</sup> and is now approximately 62,500m<sup>2</sup>.

This has been achieved by designing taller buildings with smaller footprints to maximise publically accessible space through the site.

The development floor space in the 2008 Concept Plan was all residential, we are now proposing some retail and community uses as part of the revised proposal which is included in the proposed 62,500m<sup>2</sup> of floor space.

Q: What assurances can you give us of the quality of design and construction?

A: We have a long history of delivering design excellence in our projects, and the design principles will guide planning for new development across the area to ensure buildings are well designed and contribute to the creation of highly liveable neighbourhoods.

The planning system in NSW has measures in place to ensure quality design through initiatives such as the SEPP 65 policy for the design quality of residential apartment buildings and through the Building Code of Australia, which sets the provisions for the design and construction of buildings. We will also be guided by the City of Sydney’s approach to achieving design excellence.

In addition to this we are exploring opportunities to require design competitions for new buildings on the site to drive design innovation and excellence.

Q: How will this affect future connections with South Eveleigh? Where is the promised bridge?

A: We know it is important to create connections across the railway corridor, with design that will allow for future pedestrian and cycle links potentially to the Australian Technology Park and South Eveleigh.

The Urban Transformation Strategy will establish the preferred locations for new crossings. A crossing close to the Australian Technology Parkto is likely to be built within the next five to 10 years once development plans around Redfern Station and/or South Eveleigh have been approved. Timing for a crossing is difficult to confirm due to the complexities of construction over the rail line and the need for works to coincide with any above or adjacent development.

The park design allows for a potential walk/bike future crossing from North Eveleigh to South Eveleigh.

Q: With the large increase in foot traffic to and from Redfern Station, how will you make sure Wilson Street is safe?

A: The proposed North Eveleigh development will create buildings fronting onto the street which will provide more active frontages and passive surveillance along Wilson Street. People walking to and from the site will result in increased foot traffic and activation of Wilson Street. Busier pedestrian areas are generally considered to be safer.

As part of http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=236  Key Move 2, Wilson Street will be part of a ‘green network’ which means it will be tailored for increased pedestrian and bike use. Pedestrians will use the footpath, separate to cyclists and cars. The footpath on Wilson Street has minimal driveways, which means that it is already a safe pedestrian area.

Q: When will Iverys Lane steps be opened?

A: Access to the stairs to Iverys Lane is currently restricted while we undertake additional work to improve pedestrian safety. This includes: </p><ul><li>appointing a road safety auditor to review the location of the stairs and any additional measures to improve safety</li><li>preparing a concept design for a shared zone in Wilson Lane </li><li>obtaining endorsement from the City of Sydney’s Local Pedestrian, Cycling and Traffic Calming Committee and agreement for the shared way to proceed. </li></ul><p>We hope to construct the shared way in 2016 after which we can open the stairs for public access.

Q: How will you manage basic utility services, for example won’t there need to be an additional 800 garbage bins collected from one narrow street?

A: The traffic study being done to inform planning for the site includes analysis of how to adequately service the site for garbage collection and other services.

We are developing the Urban Transformation Strategy that will guide future development in the short, medium and long term while the City of Sydney will retain responsibility for providing municipal services to the area, such as rubbish collection. We meet regularly with the City of Sydney to ensure they are involved in the early planning of the area. There are no foreseeable issues with having a weekly garbage collection service the site.

Q: Why has our opposition to height been ignored?

A: All feedback from the community is carefully considered in our planning. It is our job to consider the trade offs associated with the benefits and impacts of new development on the city and the local area.

We have been consulting with the community for more than two years to develop a <a href=”http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=236″>vision, design principles and the 10 key moves</a> to ensure that we deliver balanced outcomes at metropolitan, inner city and local neighbourhood levels. Feedback indicates that there is broad support for the vison, key moves and design principles. </p><p>There are mixed views about height and density. Some people are strongly opposed to high rise buildings, but many others have told us they can accept tall buildings and high density development as long as we ensure design excellence, variety and innovation and deliver in line with the design principles. </p><p>Our consultation focus is, and always has been, about how we plan and deliver medium and high density development to provide homes and jobs in a way that ensures the area remains a highly desirable place to live, work and visit.

Q: Will there be overshadowing and what impact will it have (including from 8am)?

A: All high rise development casts long shadows, but the impact of the shadows can be minimised through good design. The proposed building layout at North Eveleigh seeks to minimise overshadowing of neighbouring properties and the park by putting taller buildings on the southern boundary near the rail line so that shadows fall primarily into the rail corridor.

<a href=”http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=356″>Shadow diagrams</a> have been prepared in accordance with industry standards to show the impacts of overshadowing at key times of the day in mid-winter, when there is the least amount of sunlight, including 9am, 11am, 1pm and at 3pm. They show that at these times the proposed buildings will not overshadow the habitable areas of existing houses and will have minimal impact on the park.

The 8am mid-winter <a href=”http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=356″>shadow diagram</a> shows more extensive shadowing to the park and houses backing onto Iverys Lane. However, this shadowing has largely gone by 9am as the sun rises. </p><p>The <a href=”http://www.centraltoeveleigh.com.au/index.php?cID=356″>shadow diagrams</a> show that the park will be in full sun for most of the day, which exceeds the City of Sydney’s requirements for only half the park to get direct sunlight for four hours between 9am and 3pm.

 


  • 4
plans2Format

New Banners – Feb 2016

Tags : 

We have x2 new Banner designs available.

At 3000×750 mm the Banners are designed for horizontal balcony positioning. Alternatively there are a few Vertical banners as well (see designs below).

Let us know if you can place one of these on your property to help assist spread the word and SaveYourSkies.

Ideally we want a banner on each corner along Wilson Street. Flyers will go out soon to promote the cause and to drum up support for the forthcoming Petition.

plans2Format

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizontal_Jenny


  • -
Portal-Banner

North Eveleigh Precinct community Forums are live – 2016

Tags : 

Stealing our Skies website now has community forums.

Current Forums:

  • Community Concerns Forum
  • North Eveleigh Meetings and Events Forum
  • Help Forum

 


  • -

  • -
UrbanGrowthPlans

  • -
Support

Increase Awareness with a banner

Tags : 

Support

Spread community support with a Banner or Window Poster.

In early 2016 you will find Links here for banner artwork to print and post.

Feel Free to add your own links and ideas.


  • -
public Awareness

Public Awareness Website For North Eveleigh

Tags : 

public Awareness

Public Awareness Website For North Eveleigh Development at Carriageworks


Forum Login

UserOnline

Users: 1 Guest