Building R4B Alterations and additions

Please see attached.

Nil response attached

A copy of the TfNSW response letter is attached.

Uploaded PDF Comments

I object to the above proposal.

Reasons:
• The additional height will impede our skyline view affecting our mental wellbeing and health and reducing our amenity for no public benefit
• This is a huge increase from the originally approved plan and should not be allowed on public land given to the developer as it delivers further private gain at public cost
• There would be negative benefit to the public including taxpayers if such a largesse to private developer is approved
• The additional apartments and parking will further increase overcrowding and traffic movements which will have further negative impacts in an already very densely built up area.

I declare that I am not a political donor.

I wish to object to the above submission.

Lend Lease and Crown have been given approval to build on what was once Government Land, public land.

As a result of the building so far, I have lost most of my westerly views, particularly from 1502.

If the proposed modification is approved more of my westerly view will be gone.

Crown and Lend Lease objected to Grocon’s plans on the grounds that it would block their views to the north, so why does this grounds for objection not apply to everyone who is in a building to the north, south or east of the Barangaroo development?

I cannot understand why when a developer gets approval for a development, that they can modify (aren’t we great? We are giving back) and then down the track keep putting in modifications asking to increase the building’s footprint or height.

Lend Lease put in a modification submission just about six weeks ago, giving back a little. I sent in a submission and said that you cannot look at this submission as I know that in about a month’s time that they are going to put in another submission to increase the height of the building.

I support it because it interests me

Approval of the additional floors is against the public interest, because:

1. It is a blatant grab for additional profit at no additional land cost, with developer-coveted premium prices for "higher rise" (and higher views) sales at exceptionally high prices aimed at overseas and local extremely wealthy purchasers.
2. Additional undesirable overshadowing at surrounding ground level and other public areas and other buildings.
3. Additional congestion of road traffic and pedestrian traffic.
4. Additional impediment of views from surrounding existing development against the priciples of Tenacity view sharing.
5. It is in itself an overdevelopment of the site, as is becoming very obvious in the area outside the original Barangaroo master plan..
6. It will create additional need for owner and visitor parking, leading to excessive on-site parking.
7. It will dominate further the nearby heritage area.
8. It is clearly an inevitable result of disreputable, so-called "unsolicited proposals".

For the above and other reasons not canvassed here by me, but by other surrounding owners, residents and the general public, the proposal should be refused.

Refer to letter attached on behalf of SP 61643 Stamford on Kent