Height of buildings map here:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2012/Committee/Planning/050312/120305_Post%20Exhibition%20-%20Draft%20Sydney%20LEP%202011-AttachmentB4.pdf

Post Exhibition - Draft Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2011

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2012/Committee/Planning/050312/120305_PDTC_ITEM06.pdf

Judging by the LEP we are pretty much screwed really in terms of height limit space left

the daley st site in the APDG site should have 200m+? not 110m?

In the few maps I looked at, the height limits seem to be either the height of existing buildings or lower (in cases where some dastardly developer managed to build something taller than existing buildings). Such vision.

I've been trolling through the responses documents: Attachments G. Just the Green Square one, 44 pp, and in almost every case where objections are raised, the council has chosen not to alter its position. And, it seems in some cases there have been reductions in FSR and/or height. The conservative position is always maintained nomatter who or what the objection and all reasons are dismissed as not viable/convincing etc.

In new redevelopment areas, Epsom Park, Lachlan Precinct, Ashmore Precinct, there are lots of fine words but the general FSR is maintained at a low level.FSR of 2.1:1 is considered the most viable for reasons of amenity, sustainability, environment, etc., rather than 2.5:1 which has previously pertained.
What a load of rubbish.

Only in the Lachlan Precinct has consideration, ['further investigation needed'], been given after objections to the restrictive height/FSR limitations which rendered the development sites uneconomical therefore counter-productive, especially in light of the infrastructure demands - new streets, etc. - made on developers with no benefit. Certain key sites will be given extra bonus if design competition is involved, extra benefits given and so forth, but such considerations cost more than the benefit conceded. Always, council supernumeries know better.

All of this flies in the face of the opening statement of objectives about providing for increasing population and creating a sustainable, international financial city.

It is discouraging reading.

*head-desk*

I really have mixed emotions about the Council. I can see what they are trying to achieve and in a way I applaud them for it and for sticking to their guns, but at the same time, looking at the LEP we really are going to end up in trouble and in 20 years time I feel we are really going to regret the current imposed plans and run out of space (speaking in terms of securing prime A grade office space). Unless there is a dramatic shift in working from home, where will new or existing companies build new HQ's? This doesn't seem like a plan, or a city for big business and if Melbourne are going to steam ahead with their vision for a "mega city" then Sydney is going to be left behind. Does anyone else feel like Sydney has given up?

Not given up, just 'fiddlin' while Rome 'burns' and 'rearranging the decks chairs while the Titanic sinks' approach to planning.

The streets are going to be pretty in the city that got left behind because council played prettifying decorator when it should have been being visionary architect.

Nothing has been radically changed from the 2005 LEP plan. We've been this screwed for years.

I really have mixed emotions about the Council. I can see what they are trying to achieve and in a way I applaud them for it and for sticking to their guns, but at the same time, looking at the LEP we really are going to end up in trouble and in 20 years time I feel we are really going to regret the current imposed plans and run out of space (speaking in terms of securing prime A grade office space). Unless there is a dramatic shift in working from home, where will new or existing companies build new HQ's? This doesn't seem like a plan, or a city for big business and if Melbourne are going to steam ahead with their vision for a "mega city" then Sydney is going to be left behind. Does anyone else feel like Sydney has given up?

The state government hasn't given up, they are approving projects well above the councils limits, like Barangaroo and City One.


Not given up, just 'fiddlin' while Rome 'burns' and 'rearranging the decks chairs while the Titanic sinks' approach to planning.

The streets are going to be pretty in the city that got left behind because council played prettifying decorator when it should have been being visionary architect.

We're Adelaide. In fact we're possibly worse off than Adelaide because at least their council has realised the need to modestly raise height limits.

the daley st site in the APDG site should have 200m+? not 110m?

No, that's correct, this block's official height limit is no higher than the height of Goldfields. But this block has been given exemptions, the council seems to actually want new development here.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/onexhibition/PublicExhibitionDraftLEPDCPAPDGBlockCentralSydney.asp
Draft Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2005
(Amendment No. 2)
This draft amendment proposes to enable certain sites within the APDG Block to develop as “Development Blocks”, where increased height will be offered in exchange for significant public domain improvements, including a large publicly accessible central square and an activated laneway network. The draft LEP height controls will act as an alternative to heights currently permissible under Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2005.
and
Draft Central Sydney Development Control Plan 1996
(Amendment No. 20)
This draft amendment includes detailed provisions with respect to future development on the APDG Block to ensure the best possible built form and public domain outcomes.

Okay so here is our plan of action

1. Every NSW poster on this forum should write a submission to Council, outlining our displeasure with the archaic height limits for Central Sydney. Talk about;
- planning's restrictions on Sydney being able to compete with other Australian cities such as Melbourne and Brisbane for future investment from national and international corporations, let alone global cities like Singapore and Hong Kong
- planning's restrictions on height limits causing rents to rise due to what will be a lack of sufficient space
- planning's restrictions on new buildings being built to accommodate firms wanting a 21st Century workspace with big floor plates & energy efficient buildings
- the Lord Mayor's personal 'confession' on twitter that SCC is planning to meet only 85% of future demand through to 2030. This is simply not acceptable.

2. In addition to these submissions (when they can be made to council), send your concerns to the State Government (Hazzard and O'Farrell) calling for intervention like is planned for greenfield development sites. Clearly list the issues above (and more you may have).

3. Email your concerns to potential Mayoral candidates to give them some footing and actually realise that there are people out there that want more than a liveable city.

4. Email your concerns to the Daily Telegraph (not the SMH because they tow the anti-line)

I find it a joke where some areas of town will only allow redevelopment of sites if the proposed building is shorter than the existing one e.g Westpac World HQ.

It doesn't appear like that there has been any change to height limits within the CBD at all.

i have never understood with the fascination with short towers in cbd - because they are still tall enough to create an impact. It would be completely different if the height limit or law said NO TALL BUILDINGS over 50m - but what is the point of a 150m height limit? or a 120m height limit, etc?

and when will people realize that the shorter the building the more we will need so its a lose lose situation for ALL!

^^
Precisely.

Also, when people whinge about 'Nanna State' they should look no further than the height limits enforced by SCC. EVERY SINGLE BLOCK within the council's jurisdiction has a specific height limit.

I'm also dumbfounded as to why there are blocks with shorter height limits than what's there already. :nuts:

Some blocks have multiple height limits... Seems every single address has a specific height limit.

Well we're not doing much just complaining on this forum. We really need to get Daily Telelgraph on side. And people like Alan Jones and Paul Keating.

CofS document: Central Sydney Planning Review

You may find this interesting.

WARNING:
The dichotomy between the expressed aims and intentions and the actual actions and practices you will find either laughingly disparate or send you into the corner for a quiet sob.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Council/documents/meetings/2012/Committee/Planning/050312/120305_PDTC_ITEM04.pdf

Seriously, sack clowncil and put in an administration that views the city as the capital it is and not some backwater village.

Mandatory height and FSR requirements are such blunt, unsophisticated planning tools.

In some circumstances such as important heritage areas or to prevent overshadowing they may be required but to cover a whole inner city in such controls is so stifling.

There seems to be this attitude that the status of Sydney as the greatest city in the world and gateway to the known universe means that there is no need to encourage or support development and that people will still be desperate to invest in the city regardless of how many barriers are put in their way.

the council should take a few months off and take a trip to cities that they think they're competing with eg. hong kong, singapore etc, then come back and have a good look around.

There seems to be this attitude that the status of Sydney as the greatest city in the world and gateway to the known universe means that there is no need to encourage or support development and that people will still be desperate to invest in the city regardless of how many barriers are put in their way.



:applause: Well said, the council needs a dose of reality, and needs to realise how easily Sydney could fall behind.
And this attitude is not limited to the council, many residents have it, especially the BANANAs in Balmain.

It seems the only Height increases we get is when the state gov overrides the council... I think sky's letters are a good idea but maybe leave out the council because everyone could say that to remain a competitive global city we need a large Cbd not a park green. But CoS would disagree no matter which way you put it somehow getting to the argument that Lane ways, uninterrupted sunshine and street art will retain sydney's competitive edge as a global city.

Council is the perpetrator so you MUST let it know you don't agree for who else is going to change the rules except those who make them?

It is hard to gain support for the cause of taller buildings because for many people its just a height. To the council they would claim that there is no significance of a taller tower than say 150m because the height is just a number and not a measure of economy, etc. BUT what they fail to see toward their own argument is that if height is so insignificant - then i ask - WHY IS IT SO HEAVILY CONTROLLED?

Council is the perpetrator so you MUST let it know you don't agree for who else is going to change the rules except those who make them?

Exactly.

Whilst the State Govt has been criticised for lacking vision/getting on with the job, I have to say I've been pretty impressed with Mike Baird. I think NSW will be a better place when he is Premier. (supporter of Barangaroo & pier hotel from the get go, called for privatisation of polls and wires electricity & supports 'bold' Packer plans...he's a goer for the future).

Also see Berejiklian doing a good job in a tough portfolio. Hopefully TfNSW comes up with a good transport plan and is able to implement it.

I don't think the council feels they are in competition with Singapore or Hong Kong (although they are)

They seem obsessed with places like Paris, Copenhagen, Zurich and Stockholm. All of which as cold Northern European cities obviously have so much more in common with Sydney than our nearest Asian-Pacific neighbours.

It's a bitter shame, but what can we do :(

I'm just thankful there's some exciting projects that will get underway hopefully over the next few years. The skyline will be transformed with Barangaroo, Bathurst St, completion of 163 Castlereagh, 1 Alfred St etc over the coming decade. It doesn't take too many buildings to change the face of a city. Just look at Frasers Broadway! It's massive! I can't wait to see its completion. In the mean time -I'll be happy with several buildings of the quality of 1 Bligh St and Westfield Tower. These are the types of buildings that should be constructed over all areas of the city with limited height. They are truly breathtaking in the flesh.

We all know the council is the cause of the problem, but what I am saying is that no matter how many letters one writes, is it going to change their attitudes? Is the legislation going to be rewritten? The only two scenarios I see occurring that support our cause is the libs overriding council, but that may give bad press... Or a possible mayor candidate that has an positive attitude to towards a more globally competitive and taller syd... but I won't hold my breath!

A great: a fever pitch of apathy. The Great Ozstrayyan Waaay.

What have you go to lose? Might as well have a go.

I notice that on council submissions my name and email address pop up all but automatically these days. If nothing else I'll annoy someone's day.

Cudos to you for still having faith that clo mo can change... I have sent in stuff in the past and I got responses weeks later saying look at the planning info on the web and others like 'im right you're wrong, I'm smart, you're dumb and there is nothing you can do about it' so I am waiting on the Libs to bring about change for anything to happen! Maybe O'Farrell's bid to get rid of clo mo out of the legislative assembly or role of mayor is the first step?

I tweeted Clover Moore and she got me to direct message her my email address so that council can get in contact when the consultation process begins for the CBD Planning Review.

Going to need EVERYONE here to email council raising all the points that come up on this forum. We should probably email our thoughts to the Planning Minister (i.e. 100 storey buildings) then, as well as the likes of the Sydney Business Chamber.

Sure! A list of the essential points we need to include in the letter would be helpful.

Melbourne will be number one in Australia within a few years.

I think a few people on this forum are suffering from some sort of paranoia.

Yes Sydney hasn't grown/constructed/performed economically as well as Melbourne over much of the last decade, but several aspects including bars, dining and shopping have been substantially improved during this time.

In addition it seems the new government is committed to re-energising Sydney as a cultural (where is has long trailed Melbourne) and tourist hub (still, arguably, the tourist hub of Oz).

Melbourne being number 1 is such a blanket term because there are several areas where Sydney still clearly leads and it will take more than 'a few years' for Melbourne to catch up and surpass Sydney in said areas.

I'd also point out that Melbourne/Victoria's economic performance over the past 12 months was less than spectacular and the state lost more net jobs than NSW during that time. After a decade of under performing, the NSW economy has proved to be more resilient during the latest downturn than Victoria's. This could negatively impact on Melbourne's high-rise boom.

Sure! A list of the essential points we need to include in the letter would be helpful.

Will get on it.