Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing

246056

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

As a long term resident, living in Gerard Street, I strongly object to this development. Cremorne is a village and we do not require this type of development. I am of an age where aged care may be applicable to me but I do not want this development to proceed. 1. The height of Building 4 is nearly twice the permitted 12 metres limit for Seniors Housing. 2. The setback from Parraween Street of Buildings 2 and 3 leaves only 90cm between the unit balconies and the footpath. These balconies have been planned in place of open front yards. 3. The bulk and scale of the aged care building dwarfs the heritage listed cottages, leaving no visible separation. The cottages should remain as is. The bulk and scale of 3 buildings housing Independent Living Units are oversized and too close to adjacent buildings and the street. 4. The landscaping of the 'public park' is paved with no soft grassed areas for children's play or family picnics. 5. There is no canopy over the public park for shade or cover from the elements. 6. There is no visitor parking for the residents who live in the 58 independent units which comprise 147 bedrooms nor visitors to the 'public park'. 7. There are no details with regard to traffic and parking during the construction stages and the major impact traffic will have on the local population, businesses and schools. 8. The construction timeline from demolition to lockup is given as 16-18 months. The Masters Builders Association has stated that a development of Pathways scope is likely to take 18-33 months or longer. The Traffic statistics were carried out in 2022 and are definitely out of date. Gerard Street is the new Military Road. Peak hour begins at 6am and continues until 8 pm. Traffic is constant the entire day with gridlocks on a very regular basis due to back flow from the Warringah Expressway and the fact that access to Military Road is virtually non existent - hence drivers are using Gerard Street. This traffic problem flows into Parraween Street as drivers endeavour to circumvent the gridlocks. Parraween Street is narrow and, as can be seen from recent unit block construction, blocked footpaths and cranes cause serious concerns for the local residents' safety and well being. A huge development such as Pathways is proposing would in all eventuality, block Parraween entirely, therefore damaging several businesses, residents access to their homes and cause traffic chaos. The bus routes mentioned by the developers is also totally incorrect. The only bus routes that stop at Cremorne (near Cremorne shopping Centre) are 100, 114, 144, 172X, 173X, 230 & 225. The 143 from Gerard Street is the only other bus route servicing the area. My final concern is a major one. The eviction of the residents of the heritage houses in Parraween Street and also the two houses in Gerard Street. It is fact that there is a housing shortage so to evict all these families is of serious concern. Where are they supposed to live? There is absolutely no requirements to have this development in Parraween Street/Gerard Street. Cremorne does not require it. We are a community of young families, couples and singles and the area should remain as is. Thank you.

245929

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

see attached

11 March 2025_IPC feedback Harrison_B - Copy_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 145.9 KB)

243841

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

I am 88 years old and walk with the aid of a stick. I am still able to go out each day to shop and to catch buses, but experience difficulty in crossing Military Road, especially at the corner of Winnie Street (to catch buses), as well as further along towards Spofforth Street (to shop etc.), for the traffic lights change very quickly, in favour of vehicular traffic, making it difficult for pedestrians to complete crossing. I wonder if anyone has taken this into consideration for residents of the proposed Aged Housing, who may well wish to shop or catch buses?

246048

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

I object to this current amended proposal for the same reason as my previous submission as the amended plans have not materially changed. They have not provided a real solution to the fact that the heritage listing includes the back yards of the 6 listed properties, the backyards cannot be built on.

245874

Harrison-Bennett Precinct

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

As attached

11 March 2025_IPC feedback Harrison_B_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 234.29 KB)

245326

Redacted

14/03/2025

Object

Website

To the Independent Planning Commission, I am writing to object to the Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing application. As a resident of Parraween St, I don't believe this development is appropriate for the location for a number of reasons. This development will significantly change the streetscape and will be detrimental to the heritage of the area. I appreciate that 6 existing cottages will be saved/reconfigured, but there are other gorgeous cottages that will be lost, along with the community feel of the street (which has already seen so much development over the last 10 years). The scale of the aged care building will dwarf the heritage listed cottages, leaving no visible separation - the drawings of what it will look like are an eyesore and not respectful to the heritage of these cottages. I don't believe an Aged Care facility is appropriate for an area that offers vibrancy and amenities that able-people should be given more opportunity to enjoy. The residents of the Aged Care facility are unlikely to be able to get out and take advantage of the area (this is certainly the case in Aged Care homes that I have know and visited over the years to see relatives). An Aged Care facility would be more appropriate outside the bustling main village area. Why are we not encouraging more people to the area that will dine at the restaurants/pubs, take advantage of the public transport to get to work and support local businesses? Parraween Street is already a heavily used road with a fair amount of traffic congestion and drivers constantly crawling slowly along it looking for a park (to attend restaurants, The Orpheum or visit a shop). The fact that there is no visitor parking for the residents who live in the 58 planned independent units (comprising 147 bedrooms) nor visitors to the planned 'public park' is only going to add to the traffic congestion and parking woes of the street. Much smaller construction projects in the street have recently caused congestion issues and have taken up valuable parking spaces which has affected both residents and visitors to the street. There has been no details on traffic and parking during all construction stages for the Pathways development and the major impact traffic will have on the locals, businesses and schools. The given construction timeline from demolition to lockup has been advised as 16-18 months. The Master Builders Association is quoted as saying that a unit build timeline to completion has blown out from 18 - 33 months. A development the size of the Pathways scope is very likely to take much longer. I am disappointed by the planned public park details - a fully paved area is not what the street needs. Somewhere with shade for children to play or families to hang out would be much more ideal, and the only positive thing that locals and residents will gain from this development. Lastly, I have concerns with the proposed height and setbacks of some of the buildings. Building 4 is nearly twice the permitted 12 metre limit for Seniors Housing (proposed for 23.45 meters). Along Parraween St, Buildings 2 and 3 leave only 90cm between balconies and the footpath, further adding to the loss of character and community feel of the street. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kind Regards, Danielle Rivett

246008

Redacted

14/03/2025

Object

Website

Please see the attachment.

SS-Written Submission Final_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 1.01 MB)

245672

Redacted

14/03/2025

Object

Website

This submission is made as a local resident. However, I should advise that I am also a current Councillor serving on North Sydney Council. I have been across this development proposal and its many iterations for well over 5 years - and prior to being elected. I recently attended the IPP meeting at Hutley Hall to listen to the proponents updates. My concerns with this proposal are almost entirely encapsulated in North Sydney Councils submission and Mayor Zoe Baker's updated statements and questions. I also support the comprehensive analysis and critique presented by Fiona Gracie and the Cremorne Conservation Group. These arguments (subterranean dining, parking, height, setback and bulk to heritage, visitor spaces, construction management, traffic etc.) are well founded and I hope the panel will give these key issues proper consideration. However, in my discussions with local residents it has been very clear that many feel the pathway link through the development (while an interesting and worthwhile consideration) is poorly designed and does not work. It's not big enough or green enough to be a welcome place to stay and the council has a plaza and two very nearby links between Parraween and Gerard St. The Pathways 'link' does not access any pedestrian crossing or bus stops whereas the existing council links provide this usage - it is in effect a path to nowhere useful. I would submit that reducing this to just a (normal) narrow pathway would be adequate and provide two main design benefits. 1) allow the development some more "width" to relieve/rearticulate the bulk and height of the building behind the heritage cottages 2) Give greater privacy, amenity and setback to the future residents of Pathways whose units are currently very close to the proposed public link. Thank you.

244140

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

Once again, I strongly object to this project. It is wholly unsurprising yet still incredibly disappointing to see that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure is once again ignoring the desires of local communities and siding with a large property developer.In all phases of consultation for this project there have been near unanimous objections in submissions from the public and members of the local community, as well as North Sydney Council. During a time where Australia is facing a housing crisis, it would be far more appropriate to sustainably develop parts of Parraween St that are not heritage listed into medium density housing, to support growing the community for younger people and families, while still maintaining the village feel of the street and not putting too much additional traffic onto the already congested Military Rd. Some more specific comments about the proposal are below: 1) The amended proposal for the Pathways Cremorne Senior Housing development has no significant changes compared to the original and none of the issues raised in initial submissions have been adequately addressed, even though there were over 100 objections where many shared similar concerns. 2) The development is still excessive in height, bulk and scale. This area is zoned as R4, with a maximum height of 12 metres. Claims that the proposed height is similar to adjoining buildings on Gerard St are not valid, as they were constructed prior to implementation of current planning controls. All buildings exceed the maximum allowed height, with one almost double (B4, 23.45m). It also appears that the amended proposal increases the bulk of the development relative to the original. This is an unnecessary overdevelopment and overly intensive use of this site. 3) There still does not appear to be a proper cumulative traffic impact assessment, as this development both during and after construction would significantly increase traffic and congestion on Parraween St. This will pose a real threat to pedestrian safety, particularly as there are childcare centres on the street and the proposed main single drive access road is still poorly placed. There will be an almost 500% increase in cars accessing the onsite parking, relative to those that currently park in the 18 driveway spaces for the cottages that they intend to demolish. 4) The development will demolish heritage listed cottages. 78-88 Parraween St have been listed as local heritage items. The intended plan to demolish the majority of the cottages leaving only a facade is a direct contradiction to the intent of heritage listings, which is to preserve these structures. This also contravenes the state government seniors housing design guide, which states that the integrity, character and fine detail of heritage significant buildings should be preserved. 5) This development will still damage the local streetscape of what has been dubbed as the ‘heart’ of Cremorne village. Many of the mature trees visible to residents and pedestrians will be killed during construction. In addition, this overdevelopment of Parraween St will irreversibly change the atmosphere of the area and greatly impact the now state heritage listed Hayden Orpheum Theatre. 6) This amended proposal has not taken into consideration previous submissions regarding visual impact from the unit blocks directly next to the site, 75 Parraween St, 92 Parraween St and 81 Gerard St. 7) Throughout the entire lifetime of the various proposals for this development, there have been contradictory, insincere communications from the developers and their agents, and their attempts at consultation have not appeared genuine, often happening after setbacks in their plans that have occurred either at the council level or in court. This supposed amendment that has wilfully ignored consistent feedback from the submissions of the original proposal is yet another example. Pathways also has a concerning history of poor patient care that has resulted in a cease of operation at another facility in Roseville.

246055

Brightmore Precinct

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

Refer attachment - File Name: Pathways Seniors Housing - Brightmore Submission 120325

Pathways Seniors Housing - Brightmore Submission 120325.pdf (PDF, 305.12 KB)

245927

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

I attended the public meeting last week and whilst I have previously submitted my objection to this proposal, I feel even more strongly about how inappropriate this proposal is for the area. 1. The design is way below great architecture standards and just looks like four Lego towers, with little thought to liveability and a lot of thought to maximum profits. It's bulk completely overshadows the surrounding area and is simply a bad design in the wrong position. 2. There do not appear to be any community garden space for the residents of these Lego boxes, in fact very little garden space at all. They developers claim that when mature, there will be 45% green coverage. However, there are no details about who will grow and maintain these trees. Most of them appear to be on the public walkway, and that leaves immature saplings open to vandalism, which happens constantly on Military Rd. 3. The public walkway. Unless there is adequate lighting, this will become a vandals paradise, graffiti everywhere and dangerous to not only the residents but the public who choose to use this walkway. It is entirely inappropriate in its current plan. It will also be a great dumping point for share bikes, which are strewn all over the suburb, creating a hazard for residents. 4. As pointed out in the public meeting, this street is already choked with traffic, it has parking on both sides and leaves a narrow road. Cars speed down this road, ignoring the pedestrian crossing in the centre of Parraween St, and creating a dangerous environment for pedestrians. 5. This area is surrounded by three streets that are already choked with traffic, making it very dangerous for the senior residents of this development to walk anywhere, and where will they walk anyway!. There are no parks nearby, any open space is concrete which makes for awful liveability to these residents. It is the most inappropriate position for seniors housing I can imagine. 6. Parking. The developers said they are providing 88 parking spaces. So, when you add up resident parking, staff and medical parking, there is nowhere for visitors to park. There is nowhere for anyone to park in the surrounding streets now, all streets are clogged with parking, due to all the residential development around which do not allow adequate parking spaces within their building. This just adds another load to our crowded and clogged suburb. 7. Construction. 12-18 mths construction period is a joke and will bring the area to breaking point. We know from other developments in the area, tradies and cement and other trucks completely clog residential streets and there is simply nowhere for them to go in this street. Winnie St is clogged at all times of the day. It takes 2 -3 sets of lights to cross Winnie St to Murdoch St now, even longer during school pick up|drop off periods. During the day, cars are allowed to turn right from Winnie into Military, which always creates congestion. Add construction traffic to this and the area will be impenetrable. We, the residents deserve better than this. Finally, I think this development is ill advised. It is totally in the wrong area, is a horrible, ugly and cheap looking development aimed at making money rather than creating great design. I urge the commission to tell the developer to go back to the drawing board, create something open and smaller, adding gardens, not just trees and keep the feel of the area intact. This is a huge overdevelopment for this area and should be stopped.

245443

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

I object on the following grounds 1) The bulk and scale of the development is overpowering. 2) Insufficient setbacks from the street of Buildings 2 & 3 3) Height of Building 4, which doesn't meet the limit permitted for Seniors Housing. 4) Traffic and Parking during construction and after in this already very busy street. Lack of resident parking. I strongly support the submissions by the North Sydney Council, the Cremorne Conservation Group and the Brightmore Precinct. They have articulated very clearly my objections. Thank you.

243087

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

I live directly in the area proposed for this development. I can see that not only will our privacy be compromised but the area directly around will suffer ecologically. We have birdlife, established trees which add to the overall village atmosphere on this side of Military road. I have lived near parks before and although they can add to a suburbs social facility the one proposed as a walk through park is concerning. Walk through can encourage loitering and noise which can potentially bring disturbances to our community. The height of the proposed buildings will definitely block natural light, to the south facing side of residents in the area. Given Sydney’s mould crisis this would be detrimental to anyone living in immediate proximity of these structures. Whilst the proposal of heritage preservation is now in the planning, the impact of other elements of this development I believe far outweigh the heritage component even though it is an important consideration.

246043

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

1: Built form, Design & Solar Access/Overshadowing: Despite the proposed amendments to the Pathways Project, the height of the complex buildings still exceeds the approved limits for senior housing, and this, as well as their over-size and bulk, significantly impacts adjacent buildings in a number of ways. This impact includes the Paling Street apartment block on the western boundary which has an above ground height of approximately 12-15 metres. Overshadowing and lack of solar access, particularly during the winter months, will be considerably impactful due to the oversize of the buildings and their overly-close proximity to all neighbouring properties, including 1 Paling Street. The living areas in the complex's Building 3 face directly into the lounge, dining and kitchen areas of Level 2 & 3 apartments of this adjacent apartment block as well as bedrooms for some, seriously compromising privacy. This scenario is also applicable for Gerard Street apartments. 2: Noise: With the entrance and exit ramps to the complex at a distance only .979m from the neighbouring 1 Paling Street boundary entrance, vehicle noise will create disturbance unless trees or some other form of noise barrier is put in place along the complex's western boundary. In addition, any air conditioner condensers on the roof of Building 3 will be an ongoing noise problem unless they are adequately sound-proofed so that the decimal level is not higher than 5db. These condensers will also add to the visual height of the buildings and have a negative visual impact for surrounding properties. 3: Construction Timeline: The developer reconfirmed at the recent public meeting that the complex would be completed in 15-18 months. The Master Builders Association has been quoted as stating that a unit build timeline has blown out from 18 to 33 months. That timeline is likely to be much longer with this build given the size and complexity of the construction. 4: Parking/Traffic/Transport: Street parking is already an issue in Parraween and Paling Streets, particularly in the evenings and even more particularly over weekends with Orpheum Theatre patrons and restaurant customers coming into the area. This is over and above the general day-day challenges for local business parking needs and local school and daycare drop-offs and pick-ups. With 58 individual living units and no on-site visitor parking in the complex, congestion and the already challenging parking situation will only be exacerbated. The developer has noted there will be an increase in street parking spots with the elimination of the driveways into demolished homes, however their proposed entranceway drive and walkthrough area removes most if not all of the small amount of additional space this elimination would create. Traffic along Parraween and Winnie Streets is always extremely busy at the various peak times throughout a day given their locations between and connecting Gerard Street and Military Road. With the changes on the northside to the Harbour Bridge entrance and exit points, the through-traffic has increased even more. Despite the above timeline and traffic/parking issues, no plans or details have been provided on traffic and parking management during all construction stages and the major and long-term impact of this project for local residents, businesses and schools. Many in the local community remain concerned by a number of aspects of this Pathways project, and continue to hope that the above issues will be addressed.

245850

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

I have taken a keen interest in all stages of this development- the model shown to the public in Neutral Bay, the support for heritage in the area when the cottages were inspected, the writing of one of the submissions against the proposed development and I attended the public meeting last week. I still object to the bulk and scale of the buildings crammed onto the site. They will be visually abhorrent, being packed too closely together across a large section of Parraween St, quite at odds with the surrounding buildings. A section of the street will look like a gully with cliffs on either side. I live in one of the adjoining Gemini blocks. They were built according to the standards of the day but have very large gardens, beautiful tall trees and lawns which mitigate the building height. The Pathways development won't have these "softening" elements. Re "landscaping"- I am very concerned that the Sydney blue gum on the corner of this area does not get "accidentally" damaged during construction. I think it is strange that an area meant to cater for older folk, as well as the general public where small children might play, has no canopy to reduce the rate of sun damage on the users. Probably my greatest concern comes with the extra traffic generated by this development. Trees may grow to camouflage the hard surfaces of the buildings, grass may grow between hard pavers but the traffic generated will be an increasing problem as larger volumes of traffic try to use Parraween St. You already know it is a rat run, that it has very limited parking, chicanes which slow traffic. Even now, large delivery vehicles or garbage trucks bring flow-through traffic to a standstill. A completion timetable of 33 months with large trucks, cranes and "stop/go" people will make the street impassable more often. Residents will be trapped when traffic backs up from Winnie St because Gerard St is at a standstill too. If Pathways goes ahead, the visitors of many locals will find parking spaces hard to find. One point that I have not heard mentioned is the impractical building of the thoroughfare/ public amenity area, from Gerard to Parraween streets. Pedestrians will still have to go to the plazas at each end to gain access to Military Rd shops and transport. More people may be encouraged to access the back entrance of the Orpheum by crossing without the benefit of either Pedestrian crossing. I love living here in Cremorne but in the last few years we have had about 6 unit blocks built, some solely in Parraween and some going through to Gerard St. One is still being built. I think we have had enough. Please stop this proposed over-development.

245321

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

I strongly object to the Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing Development Application proceeding as planned for the following reasons: HERITAGE The Pathways proposal will demolish important heritage in our area. 78-88 Paraween Street, Cremorne were listed as local heritage items in May 2024. Pathways plan to demolish the structures of these cottages at the back only to retain the front structure. And, they propose to build a large, modern structure behind this façade that does not complement the existing character nor add value to the protected buildings. This contravenes the Seniors Housing Design Guide. Destroying protected heritage items is simply not OK. HEIGHT, BULK AND SCALE The North Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) states that the maximum height in the R4 zone is 12 meters. At 23.45 meters, the height of Building 4 is nearly twice that. Why do we have these height controls if they are completely ignored? The height is cited as being “complementary and compatible to the context” of the existing 8-15 storey high rise blocks on Gerard Street. This is unreasonable. These unit blocks are a stark reminder of the now obsolete North Sydney LEP controls which were in place in 1970s. The setbacks from Parraween Street of Building 2 and 3 leaves only 90cm between the unit balconies and the footpath. This is unreasonable. BULK: The proposed bulk should NOT be approved. This proposal is a massive overdevelopment of the site. It distorts the cultural significance of the place and does not respect the heritage of the single storey character cottages. The bulk dwarfs the heritage listed cottages, leaving no visible separation. The 3 buildings housing Independent Living Units are also oversized and too close to adjacent buildings and the street. SCALE: The proposed scale should NOT be approved. The scale of the now 7-storey Gerard building and the 4-storey additions to the back facades of the historic cottages will be clearly visible above the low-rise cottages on Parraween Street. The size of the structures is completely out of context with the Parraween streetscape that is recognised for its village atmosphere and character and is totally unsympathetic to the heritage significance of the historic cottages. TRAFFIC, PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY The proposed number of onsite car spaces should NOT be approved. Parraween Street is a narrow road with rear to curb parking opposite the proposed on-street parallel parking spaces. This is a traffic hazard and is likely to result in accidents. This will significantly increase traffic congestion on an already busy local road frequented daily by residents, locals, commercial delivery trucks and peak hour motorists. (Transport for NSW have refused Pathways access using a Gerard Street entrance/exit). A significant uplift in traffic increases the risk of PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS. Parraween Street is designated a High Pedestrian Activity Area because pedestrians can access a large number of services located on the street, or in the near vicinity, including childcare, schools, medical and allied health services, gym, restaurants, cafes, shops, pubs and cinema. Pedestrian safety is at risk given the predicted significant increase in traffic volume. The pedestrian link between Parraween and Gerard Streets is potentially DANGEROUS. As there are no pedestrian crossings at either the Parraween or Gerard Street exits of the proposed narrow through link, the public benefit of this link is dubious given the heightened risk of vehicle- related pedestrian accidents. It should also be mentioned that Military Road is the state’s 7th busiest road. Pathways residents will be at high risk, as the elderly will need to cross busy roads unassisted when attempting to access services in the area. With increased vehicle traffic and congestion and confusion around parking, pedestrian safety is compromised. There is no visitor parking for the residents who live in the 58 independent units, nor visitors to the public park. This bodes for even more traffic and parking chaos, and less safety for pedestrians. OVERSHADOWING With a proposed building of this bulk and scale, there is significant overshadowing of the surrounding residents during the colder months. And a large section fo the walkway is in shadow for the majority of daylight hours. For these reasons I object to the proposed develop. While I am supportive of the development of aged care facilities in concept, this particular site is not appropriate for such a development to take place.

241209

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

The increase in volume of traffic is very concerning, restaurants, cafes and the theatre take up most of the parking at all times of the day & evening..Delivery vehicles park on the street because they are restricted from delivering on Military Road, often take up to 4 car spaces. To cater for the influx of commuters, a more reliable bus service will be needed.The plans for the building are not in keeping with the area, the buildings are too close to the road and lacking in appearance. The increase in pedestrian traffic has to be addressed as cars, especially at night travel far too fast in Parraween Street.The difficulty of exiting Winnie & McPherson Street is very challenging, no right hand turn allowed onto Military Road before 10am.They should utilise the current style of architecture in keeping with the Cremorne area. I strongly object to the development of Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing because: 1. The bulk and scale of the aged care building dwarfs the heritage listed cottages, as does the 3 buildings housing Independent Living units which are oversized and too close to adjacent buildings and the street. 2.No visitor parking, at the commission hearing the developer said not everyone will have a car because of their age, I totally disagree, I’m 75 and hope to still be driving for a long time yet! 3 Traffic and parking during all stages of construction will have major impacts on locals, businesses and schools. 4construction timelines given as 16-18 months, this is far from the truth, very small construction of units in Parraween Street are still in progress after 2 years. 5 The balconies of these units are 90cm from the footpath, that will give no privacy to the tenants or the public, the height of building 4 is twice the permitted limit for Seniors housing, not in keeping with the area. For all of these reasons I wish to object.

245983

Cremorne Conservation Group

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

The submission from the Cremorne Conservation Group has been uploaded as a pdf file.

IPC submission_CCG Final_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 3.45 MB)

245584

Redacted

14/03/2025

Object

Website

First I support what North Sydney Council, Cremorne Conservation Group, and Brightmore Precinct and Niche (SP98666) object to and what they are seeking Pathways to amend. In particular the bulk, height, scale and lack of set back are of major concern. In inability of the Pathways to realise or understand what the impact of this building will be on traffic flow, parking during construction and after completion shows a TOTAL LACK of local knowledge, and a disrespect for those living in the area. I could assume that Pathways or designers are NOT intending to be living in the immediate area after the building is completed? Another item is there build time- I and many others believe it is a joke. MY suggestion is that if they say 18 months from Commencement to completion, then YOU the government should place a SUNSET CLAUSE as part of a Special Condition, on their proposed completion time and if they are late, charge them $2,500 per unit (47 I believe) per week for every week they are late. If this was to happen, I would hope that the Goverment could allocate a portion of this recovered money to some local projects, as maybe recommended by North Sydney Council!

243938

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

My wife and I feel strongly that the Pathway Development is inappropriate for the character and vision for Cremorne. A development of such bulk and scale for aged care will significantly increase the traffic in the area which is already at dangerous levels. The proposed height of the tower, etc, will impact residents in the surrounding area, particularly in Winter. The Military Road crossing to the Cremorne Centre shops, medical facilities, etc already requires a good degree of mobility to make it safely - heaven help the aged care residents! The site, if developed at all despite there being so much existing heritage value at risk, is far more suitable for inexpensive housing for City and North Sydney-based workers. Clearly parking will be severely impacted in an already busy area, remembering that no parking is allowed on Military Road and is restricted on Gerard Street. Diana and I see no merit for this proposed aged-care development in this particular location. Regards, Anthony & Diana Curtis

246050

Redacted

14/03/2025

Object

Website

Without going into significant details that other submissions may have or have already been discussed at numerous meetings, court hearings and independent commissions over the last few years. The Aged Care/Independent living facility is oversized for this area. It will impact the location while been built and change the character and atmosphere of Parraween Street, in particular, forever. The removal of family homes will lessen the street rather than enhance it. This major development would be better in a quieter, less busy area, that would be more suitable for a nursing home, medical facility.

245890

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

I support the issues raised by North Sydney Mayor, the Cremorne Conservation Group and the 3 local speakers at the public meeting of the IDPC on Wednesday March 5. While I acknowledge and support the need for seniors housing (all housing actually) in NSW, I find fault with this proposal. 1. The proposed development is in the heart of Cremorne village. It is vast, taking up approximately a third of the length of Parraween Street, and stretching through to Gerard Street for 1/3rd of its length. 2. The proposed development is located on a highly constrained site. It is located between two main traffic arteries, Military Road and Gerard Street. Redlands school located at the western Winnie St end of Parraween Street, is a large and busy site. Parraween Street itself is already a very busy street for traffic. 3.I cannot accept GYDE's assertion that there will be less traffic in the area. The proposed development includes 58 independent living units, most with 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. Seniors are active. In our apartment block opposite the proposed site, there are many 'downsizers' who are 'Seniors'. Each couple generally has 2 cars. All cars are used, rarely remaining in the garages for a day. While we prefer to use public transport where possible, many destinations require using a car. Many Seniors remain employed, either in the paid workforce or in voluntary roles. Following advice given to Seniors, we aim to remain busy, active, healthy and socially connected. We require the use of our cars which take us to commitments with grandchildren, with sport and a range of activities. We do not sit at home all day and night in our apartments. This will likely be the case with the residents of the independent living units. The assertion that there will be less traffic is simply not true. 4. Parraween Street is already busy. In the evenings the Orpheum theatre and Cremorne Plaza restaurants are popular and vibrant. Street parking is difficult every evening of each week. 5. Driving in the street and our apartment access and egress, is already 'tight'. With 88 additional parking spaces there will be more traffic. With parallel parking available for the length of the development along Parraween Street, access and egress to existing buildings will become tighter. 6. The setback of buildings 2 and 3 is a problem. Building 3 currently has a setback of just over 5 metres. At the rear of building 3 the setback from the boundary is 6 metres. Could these please be reversed, with the building set back 6 metres from Parraween Street? Ideally the setback would conform with Council requirements and be 7 metres as is the case with the 'Laurier' building at 38 Parraween Street. 6. To repeat the 'mistakes' made in the 1970s with the construction of tall buildings, does not make sense. The planning decisions of the '70s were reversed because of the unsuitability of such buildings for the locale. To say that building 4 sits comfortably within other tall buildings simply repeats the mistakes made in the 70s. 7. If the proposal goes ahead in any form, there must be clear and inclusive consultation with community representatives. Construction traffic must be managed. Construction will be noisy, dirty and highly inconvenient for the suburb's residents. 8. A time frame must be agreed upon before approval is given. With such a large, proposed development, it is realistic that construction will take years, not months.

245347

Redacted

14/03/2025

Object

Website

I object to the proposal due to the impact of the construction including construction traffic on the local community and inadequate with of proposed path in the through site link / public park. These items should be addressed as a condition of approval. Construction The construction duration of 16 - 18 months from demolition to lock-up stage is considered unrealistic. I have extensive experience in scheduling and logistics planning in major projects and consider this period to demolish, excavate basements and foundation construct the structure and complete the facade to achieve lock-up to be very optimistic and would not include any contingency for any inclement weather. or restrictions on traffic movements and allowable hours of work. The community will be subject to noise dust and vibration for an extended period. The planning panel could confirm with North Sydney Council that Richard Crookes Constructions have been engaged on 10 - 14 Waters Road Neutral Bay for over 26 months and they have only recently topped out but not yet achieved lock-up stage. Construction Traffic There will a large amount of demolition and excavated material to be removed from the site and many deliveries of formwork, reinforcement, concrete and other materials to be made to the site. Parraween Street is a busy street and is not suited to having two trucks going in opposite directions attempt to pass each other. It is also not suitable for trucks to approach the site from the Macpherson St end and attempt to cross the eastbound lane to enter the site without disrupting traffic going in the opposite direction. The intersection of Paling Street is not suitable for trucks to safely make a u-turn due to the number of pedestrians crossing to / from Cremorne Plaza and traffic islands at the intersection. To minimise congestion and traffic impact It should be a requirement that all vehicles coming to the site approach the site from the Winnie St end and turn left into the site and all vehicles leaving the site turn left and head towards the McPherson Street end. Due to the configuration of the Macpherson intersection geometry all deliveries to the site should be made by rigid trucks where possible and no truck and dog combinations should be used. The Construction Traffic Management Plan submitted with any application should be required to address truck types, vehicle movements, parking and waiting points including preparing swept paths at the intersections either end of Parraween Street and the intersection of Macpherson Street and Gerard Street. The CTMP should also note the restrictions on access to Military Road at peak hours and the future closing of access from Ernest Street onto the Sydney Harbour Bridge in late 2025. Through Site link / Public Park pathway It was mentioned at the Independent Planning Commission Public Meeting that the path in the public park / through site link was to be approx. 1.5 to 2 metres wide. A width of 1.5 metres is considered to be too narrow to allow a resident with mobility issues accompanied by their carer to pass a pedestrian going in the opposite direction. A minimum path width greater than 2m should be set as a condition of approval.

246020

Willoughby Bay Precinct

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Object

Website

Willoughby Bay Precinct, being a community consultation group of North Sydney Council located just north of Parraween Street Cremorne raises the following objection to Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing project: 1. The development will result in significant adverse impact on the heritage significance of the 6 heritage listed cottages due to: demolition of the rear part of the cottages; substantial non-sympathetic changes to the internal fabric of the cottages; and location of an overbearing contemporary building immediately to the rear of the cottages. 2. Excessive height, bulk and scale of the building on Gerard Street. The height of this building significantly exceeds the maximum building height in the NSLEP 2013. The excessive bulk results in the landscaped area of the site being less that the NSDCP 2013 minimum landscaped area. 3. The through-site link will encourage pedestrians to attempt to cross Gerard Street at a place where there is no crossing and where crossing will be unsafe. If the through-site link is to remain, a signalised crossing of Gerard Street should be provided by the proponent.

240076

New South Wales 2090

24/02/2025

Object

Website

name-redacted-id-240076-redacted.pdf (PDF, 149.06 KB)

239388

New South Wales 2090

24/02/2025

Object

Website

Marina Viese Vivaldi ID 239388.pdf (PDF, 141.23 KB)

240675

24/02/2025

Object

Website

name-redacted-id-240675.pdf (PDF, 141.29 KB)

245551

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Support

Website

We unfortunately could not attend the IPC meeting for Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing, held last week as we were overseas. We support the proposed Pathways Cremorne Senior Housing project. We believe that it will provide a much-needed Seniors Living facility (for an aging population). It will give an option for current residents to continue living in their area, when they decide or need to move from their homes to independent living or assisted living residences. With the limited availability of suitable sites for such a facility, Pathways could not have selected a better location than this site. It is on a flat piece of land, and could not be closer to shops, restaurants, movie theatre, doctors, dentists and public transport. We note the objections raised by all the speakers, however, feel that they do not appreciate that Pathways has purchased all the building sites for the development. If Pathways proposal is defeated, they will have to sell all the properties to other developers, and we will have to go through the same process again, perhaps with multiple developers. Having a project covering the whole proposed site enables Pathways to provide a group of buildings that are architecturally designed to blend, rather than perhaps four buildings designed by four different developers, who will be out to maximise their sites, and we doubt that they will be providing the same amount of green space as the current proposal. While we are not aware of the exact words that were spoken, we received a summary from Fiona Grace and would like to address the speaker’s concerns. 1) Opposition to the development on the grounds that it does not currently conform to local and state planning controls. We understand that Pathways have reduced the height of the large building on Gerard Street from the original proposal. To develop a project the developer must have sufficient scale to make it financially viable. This building is not significantly different in height to the two existing buildings in Gerard Street. We understand that making Pathways reduce the height of the large building, may cause the loss of the proposed green space, as they will have to build on that area. We are keen to have the green space walk-through from Gerard Street to Parraween Street which will open the area and provide a quiet space for the whole community. 2) Traffic concerns during the construction stage. There is always congestion during the construction period. If Pathways does not go ahead and multiple developers purchase parts of the site, then we could be dealing with staged construction over a much greater period with significant traffic congestion for the local community. We do not believe that there will be increased traffic, once the project has been completed. We understand that adequate onsite underground parking has been provided for and in fact North Sydney Council asked Pathways to reduce the number of parking spaces provided in the original proposal. 3) That there will be a negative effect on the local community with the development opposite the commercial heart of Cremorne. We believe that the Pathways project will improve the presentation and liveability of the area. There are currently modern apartments opposite the site on the southern side of Parraween Street and next to the proposed building and Green Space in Gerard Street. A modern facility will give the area a lift and will look more at home, rather than the hotchpotch of small cottages currently along Parraween Street. 4) Concern about the height, bulk and scale of the large building facing Gerard Street. It is however a similar height to 81B Gerard Street, and therefore difficult to argue that the new building should not be allowed. It cannot be denied that the proposed buildings will be large, however as mentioned above, Pathways have reduced the Gerard Street building in height from the original proposal. There will be some overshadowing in some areas during the seasons, however there are very few properties that do not lose the sunlight during some time in the year. 5) The permanent impact on the heritage listed cottages. We find this hard to understand as these cottages have all been purchased by Pathways who have committed to saving the facades, so that is where the discussion should end. The cottages will be repurposed by Pathways and there will be no community access by the public, so the facades are all that the public will see. The public will however gain the use of green space, which has been reallocated from all the back gardens of all the cottages (which were previously not available to the public) to the walk-through area from Gerard Street to Parraween Street. Thank you for considering our point of view.

245282

Cremorne Heritage

New South Wales 2090

14/03/2025

Support

Website

I am putting forward a submission on behalf to save the “heritage” EXTEND the Interim Heritage Order. It is such a significant classic design with a heritage to the community and we cannot afford to lose this sort of architecture with how it was built. It would be the most tragic loss of such a building and its history which has many unique features and is most inspiring. There is no way that this should face demolition because it is irreplaceable to its character. The re-development will spoil the atmosphere with bland and monstrous architectural designs that often replace these historic buildings; it only just shows. It will create more chaos, especially in apartments. The developers must be sympathetic. I helped on for it to be refurbished. Please consider retaining the classic with its architecture while undergoing re-development. The idea is to repaint the façade colour that must blend in and make an inspiring atmosphere. We had so many sad and tragic losses over the years now missing significant buildings. It is an inappropriate position to have this re-developed. I look forward to your reply.. Please notify me what action will be taken. Yours Sincerely, Paul Vonwiller

Transport Solution.pdf (PDF, 65.09 KB)

240687

New South Wales 2090

24/02/2025

Support

Website

name-redacted-id-240687.pdf (PDF, 140.53 KB)

245705

New South Wales 2088

14/03/2025

Comment

Website

please see attached document

Submission re. SSD49472213.pdf (PDF, 2.4 MB)