1 King Street - Demolition, remediation and associated works

To Whom It May Concern,

We are writing to object to the current proposal for the above development. While I support thoughtful and sustainable development in our area, the proposal as submitted represents a significant and unacceptable departure from the scale and density originally approved.

When the site was first assessed, it was approved for medium-density development, with a defined height limit that balanced growth with the existing character and infrastructure capacity of the neighbourhood. The current proposal now seeks to convert this into a substantially higher, high-rise development, far exceeding what was previously considered appropriate.

This intensification raises several concerns:
1. Congestion
The local road network - particularly George Street - cannot support the traffic load associated with a high-rise structure. George Street functions as a one-way in, one-way out corridor, creating an already congested bottleneck during peak periods. Increasing density far beyond what was planned will exacerbate traffic issues, strain access for emergency services, and reduce liveability for existing residents.

2. Public Transport Capacity
The area does not have access to a metro station; it is serviced only by a train station. This significantly reduces the public transport capacity needed to offset the impacts of a major increase in population density. The original medium-density approval was appropriate for the existing transport conditions, whereas a high-rise proposal is not.

3. Departure From Original Planning Intent
The proposed height and density are inconsistent with the planning outcomes previously endorsed for this site. The original approval already struck a balanced compromise between growth and the area's constraints. Any increase beyond that should be modest and justified - not a wholesale shift to a high-rise form.

We are not opposed to any development on the site, and believe it is important to build more housing across the state. However, the massive increase in height is not suitable for the infrastructure in the area, and request the development is responsible and appropriate to the local environment.

Accordingly, we request that Council require the development:
reverts to the originally approved height limit, or
limits any increase to only a few additional floors, rather than the scale currently proposed.

This approach would support growth while preserving the safety and accessibility of Concord West.

Thank you for considering this objection.

Public Submission – SSD-90337724
1 King Street, Concord West (Demolition, Remediation & Associated Works)
From: Owner – 33 George Street, Concord West NSW 2138

1. Incorrect Demolition Boundary Information Exhibited to the Public

I object to SSD-90337724 on the basis that demolition documentation publicly exhibited on the NSW Planning Portal incorrectly depicts 33 George Street as within the demolition boundary.

The Department was first notified of this error on 8th December 2025. The Department has since confirmed on 10th December 2025 that this representation is an error in documentation supplied by the applicant and that 33 George Street is not part of the application site.

However, despite this acknowledgment, the incorrect demolition plans remained publicly available for the full duration of the exhibition period, including at the close of submissions (Refer to Appendix 1 - Screenshot of the Incorrect Demolition Plans as of close of submissions on 16/12/25)

This is a serious matter. Public exhibition material must be accurate and reliable, particularly where it relates to the demolition of private dwellings.

2. Procedural Fairness and Integrity of the Exhibition Process

Once an error of this nature was identified, it was incumbent on the applicant and the Department to ensure that misleading information was corrected or clearly annotated during exhibition.

Allowing submissions to close while incorrect demolition information remained on an official NSW Government portal:
• undermined the integrity of the exhibition process;
• prevented affected landowners and the public from making submissions based on accurate information; and
• compromised procedural fairness.

This issue alone warrants refusal, deferral, or re-exhibition of the demolition component of the proposal.

3. Need for Correction and Second Notification Period

Given the nature of the error and its direct relevance to adjoining properties, the demolition component of SSD-90337724 cannot be lawfully assessed on the basis of the exhibited material.

I submit that the Department should require:
1. immediate correction of all demolition plans and associated documents; and
2. a second notification and public exhibition period for the demolition works, so that submissions may be made on the basis of accurate information.

Proceeding without re-notification would perpetuate reliance on misleading documentation.

4. Impact on Adjoining Landowners

For adjoining owners such as myself, the incorrect depiction of demolition boundaries:
• Created confusion & significant distress regarding property status
• Perceived threat of forced displacement
• Substantial time expenditure seeking clarification
• Impacts on property value and market confidence
• Concerns about property security, value, and future saleability
• Loss of confidence in the statutory assessment process; and
• Affected the ability to meaningfully engage in the planning process.

These impacts are relevant planning considerations under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. Conclusion

The demolition documentation for SSD-90337724 was materially incorrect during public exhibition and remained uncorrected at the close of submissions.

This represents a fundamental procedural flaw.

I respectfully submit that the demolition and remediation component of this application should not be determined until:
• all incorrect documentation is corrected; and
• a second notification period is undertaken.

Failure to do so would undermine public confidence in the planning system and deny affected landowners procedural fairness.

Submitted by:
Owner – 33 George Street
Concord West NSW 2138

Appendix 1: Screenshot of the Incorrect Demolition Plans as of close of submissions on 16/12/25 ( in Submission Attachment)

I object to State Significant Development consent for SSD 90337724. The SEARs gap analysis reveals deficiencies so significant that lawful determination is impossible. The EIS is high-level, generic, and fails to meet mandatory requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) and the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs). These gaps are not technical—they strike at the core of statutory obligations to consider cumulative impacts and the likely effects of the development as a whole.

Why Approval Cannot Lawfully Proceed

Section 4.15(1)(b) of the EPA Act requires consideration of the likely impacts of the development as a whole. Section 5.5 requires examination to the fullest extent possible of all matters affecting the environment. Limiting assessment to demolition and remediation fails to consider mandatory relevant considerations, including cumulative impacts, and risks jurisdictional error. Part 8 of the EP&A Regulation empowers the Department to deem an EIS deficient and seek further information under section 4.40 where form or content gaps exist. On the present record, those gaps are material and must be corrected.

The EIS frames these works as the first stage of an eight-tower, forty-storey redevelopment. Approving this SSD in isolation would pre-empt and bias the main project assessment and lock in outcomes before the full scope of impacts is tested. This approach conflicts with the State Significant Development Guidelines, which warn against piecemeal approvals that undermine transparent and lawful decision-making. Concord West should not be sacrificed as a gateway for high-rise at the expense of its human-scale streets, green canopy, and family-friendly character.

I attach a tabulated document (“SEARs Compliance and Gap - 1 King St Concord West Demolition”) outlining the key SEARs failures and gaps, and I make mention of the following which holds close to my heart.

Key SEARs Failures

• SEARs Item 9 – Transport and Accessibility: No Transport Impact Assessment under TfNSW GITA. No modelling of intersection capacity, pedestrian safety, or cumulative traffic impacts. Haul routes lack enforceable controls.
• SEARs Item 13 – Flooding and Water Management: Interim flood risk untested. Drainage and erosion controls are conceptual only, contrary to SEARs and the Blue Book (Managing Urban Stormwater: Soil and Construction).
• SEARs Item 14 – Contamination and Waste: Acid sulfate soils and groundwater risks deferred. No robust monitoring, waste tracking, or EPA sign-off.
• SEARs Item 15 – Social Impact and Amenity: No Social Impact Assessment. No visual analysis, solar access, privacy, or wind assessment. Community feedback selectively disclosed, breaching procedural fairness.

Real-World Impacts Ignored

Concord West is not an abstract planning concept—it is a living community. I walk my dog daily. Anyone with a reactive dog knows how stressful sudden changes can be. Construction detours push us onto narrow paths crowded with extra foot traffic. Temporary fencing blocks familiar routes. There is often no safe place to pause when another dog approaches. These disruptions are real and affect wellbeing.

After heavy rain, I have watched water sheet across roads and flood footpaths. Without proper drainage and erosion controls, demolition will send runoff with sediment and contaminants into our streets and waterways. The EIS does not address these patterns we see in real life.

Litter and rubbish from construction already creep into gutters and parks. Add hundreds of workers and heavy vehicles, and the chokehold on vehicle access will be complete. Emergency vehicles will be delayed. Parents walking children to school will face unsafe conditions. This is not inconvenience—it is a direct impact on safety, health, and livability.

Procedural Fairness and Accessibility

The EIS fails to comply with guideline expectations by omitting a full Social Impact Assessment and providing no evidence that community feedback was meaningfully considered. It is implausible that only one impact was identified. The attached correspondence (“Email Confirmation from Billbergia Post Seminar” and “1 King Street_Concord West_Webinar Q&A summary”) confirms multiple questions and concerns raised by residents, yet these are not reflected in the EIS. Selective disclosure breaches principles of procedural fairness and erodes trust.

Residents with limited English proficiency or accessibility needs are excluded when materials and consultations are not provided in multiple languages or accessible formats. I have contacted both the proponent and DPHI on several occasions regarding accessibility concerns, yet these issues remain unresolved. The seminar date for community members was also incorrectly publicised (see attached “CALD Communities and Incorrect Seminar Dates”), compounding confusion and exclusion. These omissions amount to unfair treatment and breach of trust. If the consent authority proceeds without addressing these gaps, it risks judicial review for failure to consider mandatory relevant considerations and denial of natural justice.

The planning portal also displayed an incorrect submission closing date, which misled community members and compromised their ability to participate fully in the process, see attached (“Planning Portal Incorrect Submission Closing Date”). This error further undermines transparency and procedural fairness. I raised this issue directly with Liam Frayne. In addition, the EIS itself contained an erroneous reference to “Waterloo works” and omitted an appendix, as evidenced in the attached email correspondence (“Incorrect Waterloo Project Reference and Missing Appendix”). These errors are not trivial—they reflect systemic gaps in accuracy and accountability that erode trust in the process and deny the community a fair opportunity to engage.
Relief Sought

Refuse or defer determination until a single integrated assessment of the entire redevelopment is completed. If approval proceeds, it must be conditioned with enforceable requirements:

1. A full Transport Impact Assessment under TfNSW GITA, complete access design pack, Construction Workforce Travel Plan, and public exhibition of the final CTMP.
2. Detailed drainage and flood emergency plans, climate scenario testing, and Council sign-off prior to works.
3. Strengthened remediation obligations including acid sulfate soils and groundwater management, imported fill validation, EPA IWTS tracking, and independent auditing.
4. Transparent community reporting of milestones, validation results, and incidents.
Concord West deserves planning that respects its scale, protects its amenity, and tests cumulative impacts holistically—not a staged approval that pre-decides outcomes. Please refuse or defer this SSD until the full impacts are lawfully and transparently assessed.

Best regards
Louise

We are very concerned about the demolition of this site, not only about the demolition itself but also and more with the prospect that the demolition will be the precursor that paves the way for the high rise building blocks

About the demolition of this site:

1: What if the excavation or other demolition activities causes any damage to our property, such as cracks, spills; we request an pre-demolition inspection report (dilapidation report) for our property before the any work gets started;
2: How will our privacy be protected during and after the demolition activities? George Street is the only street in and out for us. How will the disturbance be minimized, especially during school days?

About the high rise building block:

3: Is there any current DA for the high rise building construction after the demolition work please? Have council members or State Government members visited George Street around 3pm in a school day afternoon? I will go out of my way to object and protest this construction. Have you thought how this will affect the already disastrous traffic condition faced by local residents?

Dear Planner
I object to the demolition and remediation proposal for 1 King Street for the reasons outlined below.

1. Excessive Noise Levels – NMLs Exceeded at ALL Sensitive Receivers
The Construction Noise Assessment confirms that predicted noise emissions will exceed the Noise Management Levels (NMLs) at every sensitive receiver. This is an alarming finding and, constitutes grounds for refusal or redesign.

1.1 Impacts on Residents
Exceeding NMLs means residents may be exposed to noise levels that are:
(a) 10–20+ dB above recommended thresholds, with worst-case scenarios predicting 60–89 dB around the site throughout the demolition and remediation program;
(b) Well above WHO safe community noise guidelines (50–55 dB outdoors)
At these levels, evidence shows increased risks of:
(a) Sleep disruption
(b) Elevated stress hormones
(c) Cognitive fatigue and reduced concentration
(d) Cardiovascular strain
(e) Reduced respiratory function
(f) Insomnia and chronic stress
The assessment also notes that demolition and remediation equipment (hydraulic hammers, bulldozers, jackhammers, air compressors, concrete breakers, heavy trucks) will create high-intensity, harmful noise spikes.

1.2 Impacts on St Ambrose Primary School Students
St Ambrose Primary School lies within noise impact area “S1,” placing young children—who are more vulnerable to noise—at significant risk. Potential impacts include:
(a) Impaired concentration and slower learning
(b) Heightened agitation or behavioural stress
(c) Noise-induced anxiety

These impacts are compounded by existing noise sources:
(a) Regular train movements at Concord West Station
(b) Loud playground activity
The cumulative effect will create an acoustic environment far beyond what is safe for children or nearby residents.

2. Vulnerable Household Members With Documented Medical Conditions
My household includes medically vulnerable individuals for whom the proposed noise levels pose serious health risks:
(a) one member suffers from chronic migraines, sleep difficulties, anxiety, and respiratory sensitivities;
(b) Another member is elderly (70+) and has high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and sleep-related health conditions.

Noise above NMLs may trigger:
(a) Blood pressure spikes
(b) Sleep deprivation and associated cardiac strain
(c) Anxiety attacks
(d) Exacerbation of respiratory and cardiac symptoms
These conditions make it unsafe for us to remain in our home during the high-impact demolition and construction works, and therefore we request a temporary relocation plan to be provided.

3. Dust, Asbestos and Contaminant Risks – Inadequate Assessment of Off-Site Spread
The demolition and remediation works will release:
(a) Airborne asbestos fibres
(b) Silica and construction dust
(c) Contaminated soil particles
(d) Diesel particulate from trucks and machinery

Key concerns include:
(a) No clear plan for containing contaminated dust during high-wind conditions
(b) No analysis of spread via wind, stormwater runoff, vibrations, truck tyres, or accidental spills
Airborne fibre and dust exposure poses serious long-term health risks, particularly for the elderly and those with existing respiratory conditions (including members of my household).

4. Lack of a Clear Construction Timeline
The application does not provide key project details, including:
(a) Start and completion dates
(b) Identification of high-noise periods
(c) Demolition and excavation phases
(d) Remediation stages
(e) Truck and machinery movement schedules
Residents—especially medically vulnerable households—require this information to plan for safety, temporary relocation, or alternative arrangements.

5. Traffic and Safety Impacts
The surrounding road network is already heavily congested during peak hours, particularly on:
(a) Concord Road
(b) Wallbank Street
(c) Pomeroy Street

Further concerns include:
(a) Narrow residential streets (King Street and George Street)
(b) High traffic volumes from buses, trains, and school drop-off/pick-up
(c) Limited parking on King and George Streets

The addition of heavy construction vehicles will:
(a) Increase road safety risks for children and parents
(b) Worsen congestion and delays
(c) Increase the likelihood of traffic conflicts
(d) Expose pedestrians to dust, emissions, and safety hazards

For the reasons outlined in this submission, I respectfully request that the proposal be rejected in its current form, amended, or conditioned to ensure the protection of nearby residents, schoolchildren, and vulnerable households. I urge the planning authority to prioritise community wellbeing and to require a significantly safer and more responsible approach before any approval is granted.

Thanks and regards,
Concord West Resident

Formal Submission Letter – Objection to SSD-90337724
To:
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Major Projects Division
Re: Objection to SSD-90337724 – 1 King Street, Concord West
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 1 King Street, Concord West (SSD-90337724). While I acknowledge the importance of housing supply and urban renewal, this project in its current form presents serious and unacceptable impacts on the local community. My opposition is based on clear evidence relating to road traffic congestion, rail commuter capacity, and broader community safety and livability concerns.
1. Road Traffic Congestion – King Street and Surrounding Streets
Existing Conditions:
• Traffic volumes in Concord West are already high, particularly during school pick-up and drop-off hours.
• The section of King Street adjacent to Concord West Station is not a through road, creating a natural choke point.
• The intersection of King Street and Pomeroy Street near North Strathfield is a well-documented bottleneck, with queues extending into surrounding streets during peak periods.
Evidence from EIS and Local Studies:
• The EIS acknowledges traffic impacts but proposes only minor operational adjustments such as signal timing changes.
• No structural upgrades (road widening, intersection redesign, or bypass creation) are proposed.
• Traffic Impact Assessments in similar projects (e.g., Concord Avenue proposals) highlight that without physical interventions, congestion worsens exponentially with new dwellings.
Projected Impact of SSD-90337724:
• With over 1,300 dwellings and associated retail/commercial activity, vehicle movements will increase significantly.
• School traffic will be directly affected, with longer delays and increased risks for children crossing congested intersections.
• Emergency vehicle access will be compromised in peak periods.
Conclusion: The project fails to adequately address the severe traffic congestion already present in the area.
2. Rail Commuter Capacity – Concord West Station
Current Situation:
• Boarding trains to the City from Concord West Station is already extremely difficult during peak hours.
• Rhodes Station commuters, due to overpopulation, fill trains before they reach Concord West, leaving little to no capacity for Concord West residents.
Evidence from EIS:
• The EIS assumes Concord West Station can absorb additional human traffic without upgrades.
• It highlights proximity to rail but does not propose station capacity improvements, pedestrian flow management, or service increases.
Projected Impact of SSD-90337724:
• Thousands of new residents will rely on rail transport.
• Without upgrades, overcrowding will worsen, reducing accessibility for existing residents.
• The project undermines its own claim of being a transit-oriented development, as the infrastructure cannot support the demand.
Conclusion: The project will exacerbate overcrowding, reduce accessibility, and compromise the viability of public transport in Concord West.
3. Broader Community Impacts
• Safety Concerns: Increased traffic and pedestrian congestion around schools and the station precinct pose risks to children and vulnerable community members.
• Infrastructure Deficit: The proposal does not include binding commitments to major traffic junction upgrades or rail capacity improvements, leaving critical infrastructure gaps unaddressed.
• Livability: The scale of the development is incompatible with existing transport infrastructure, threatening the quality of life for current and future residents.
4. Requested Action
Given these unresolved issues, I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:
1. Reject the proposal in its current form, or
2. Require substantial revisions to include:
o Major traffic junction upgrades at King Street and Pomeroy Street.
o Rail capacity improvements at Concord West Station, coordinated with Transport for NSW.
o Binding commitments to infrastructure delivery prior to or concurrent with construction.
Closing Statement
In conclusion, SSD-90337724 represents a development of excessive scale for the existing transport infrastructure. Without meaningful interventions, it will impose unacceptable burdens on the Concord West community. I urge the Department to act in the best interests of residents, commuters, and school communities by rejecting or substantially revising this proposal.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours faithfully,
Marek Pionka
243 Queen Street, Concord West, NSW 2138
0435009565

We, the residents of 174 George Street, Concord West, object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-90337724) for Demolition and Remediation Works at 1 King Street.
This objection is framed by the requirement that the project must align with the objectives of the State Significant Development (SSD) policy and satisfactorily address the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs). We submit the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the demolition phase fails to demonstrate how negative impacts on the local community will be limited and how the works will safely integrate with the existing local area, as required for a project of this scale.
As the closest in proximity residents, particularly those located directly opposite the site on George Street and King Street, our primary concerns relate to the immediate and direct impacts of the proposed demolition and remediation works on our comfort, health, and quality of life.
Disturbingly we are aware of advertising from Billbergia, the developer, calling for expressions of interest for purchasing properties at this site in https://concordcentral.com.au/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOY7n9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA80MDk5NjI2MjMwODU2MDkAAR7lKMb4JkhrJ5lxp4jlKpEHU_nzH50AQli7UThgwMvVLgEYaP6xxM4YZTvMfQ_aem__AfcE_SayQdXGijuZw6KbA . This advertising is suggesting that the developer is confident that the demolition is a fait de accompli.

1. Potential Loss of Property Value
The EIS completely fails to consider the severe financial impact and potential loss of property value for the two homes (and other adjacent properties) located directly opposite the site at 172 and 174 George St. The extended period of intense demolition, remediation, construction traffic, contamination risk, and severe loss of amenity makes these properties extremely undesirable for purchasers, thereby devaluing the primary asset of these residents.
We acknowledge that an initial property assessment was undertaken by engineers contracted to Billbergia, we strongly suggest that the developer conduct an independent, pre-construction property valuation of the two most-affected homes, followed by a post-remediation valuation. The developer must be conditioned to compensate the homeowners for any demonstrable loss in market value directly attributable to the demolition and remediation activities.

2. Severe Noise, Vibration, and Dust Impacts
The EIS severely underestimates the direct impact of heavy demolition and earthworks on immediately adjacent residential properties. Noise and vibration will cause untenable disruption, and the EIS does not adequately detail measures to prevent significant dust generation (PM10 and PM2.5) carrying contaminants across the street into residential homes. We reside at 174 George St and work from home 3 days per week, this will be untenable with these works. We have a pet who lives outside, and use our external living spaces for drying of clothes, relaxation and food preparation (BBQ). The noise and dust from this work would prevent us from using these spaces as we currently do.
There are residents in the units at 27 – 29 George St with complex health needs and poor immune systems. There is also a day care centre with children who would be exposed to this unacceptable risk.
If this project is to go ahead at the minimum we would expect mandated strict noise and vibration limits with real-time, continuous monitoring at the property boundaries of the two houses closest to the works. The developer should be required to install high-level acoustic hoardings and use continuous water suppression systems on all demolition surfaces, and provide adjacent residents with air purifiers for the duration of the works.

3. Contamination and Hazardous Materials
Given the site's industrial history, the EIS does not provide sufficient assurance that the management of potential unexpected contamination finds, and hazardous materials (such as asbestos) will be managed safely. There is an elevated risk of airborne contaminants affecting the health of residents in the adjacent houses due to their immediate proximity to the source. As stated above there are residents in the units at 27 – 29 George St with complex health needs and poor immune systems, as well as patients who attend the Rehab Health & Fitness clinic there. There is also a day care centre with children who would be exposed to this unacceptable risk.
If this project is to be allowed to proceed we would expect at the minimum an independent, community-appointed auditor to oversee the on-site contamination and dust monitoring program, with real-time data for air quality made publicly accessible to residents, especially those directly opposite the site, at the daycare centre and 27 – 29 George St.

4. Psychological Stress and Loss of Amenity
The cumulative impact of prolonged, intense demolition activities immediately opposite residential homes, combined with the fear of contamination exposure, will cause significant psychological stress and anxiety for the residents in the closest houses. The EIS fails to address the impact on their basic right to residential amenity and a safe living environment.
If this project is allowed to proceed, as the minimum we would expect that the developed would be required to establish a formal compensation and assistance program for the two properties immediately opposite the site to cover costs associated with deep cleaning, temporary relocation during the most intensive, high-risk works (e.g., demolition of major structures such as the carpark or removal of significant contamination), and a formal mechanism to address stress-related impacts.

5. Community Engagement and Monitoring
This EIS lacks clear, accessible, and binding mechanisms for ongoing community consultation and problem reporting. It fails to demonstrate that community feedback has meaningfully changed or refined the demolition methodology.

The plan is silent as to how residents can report unexpected problems (such as excessive noise, dust, or hours breaches) during the works, nor are there clear processes for the developer to provide real-time information to the community.

We request a mandatory, easily accessible Community Liaison mechanism be established before works commence, including a 24/7 hotline and a dedicated, responsive contact person, with penalties for the developer if community reports are not addressed within a specified timeframe (e.g., 24 hours).

Conclusion
The proposed Demolition and Remediation Works (SSD-90337724) pose an unacceptable level of risk to the immediate surrounding residential community, particularly the houses directly opposite the site, due to the critical shortcomings identified in the EIS regarding contamination management, uncontrolled noise/dust, traffic, potential property value loss, and the failure to address severe psychological stress.
We urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject the current application or to impose mandatory, enforceable conditions as detailed in our suggestions, to ensure the health, safety, and financial security of the local community are protected before granting consent for these high-impact works.

There is one road in and out, this is a safety hazard if there are emergency’s plus also a nightmare for residents to come and go from their homes. The traffic in our area from Rhodes and Wentworth Point developments means it takes half an hour to travel a few km.
This is made even worse when there is an event at Olympic park or when DFO is operating.
The schools and Concord Hospital are full, the trains we can’t even get a seat as the population has gone up so much.

Public Submission – SSD-90337724
1 King Street, Concord West (Demolition, Remediation and Associated Works)

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing & Infrastructure

I write as the son of the owner of 33 George Street, Concord West, a home that has sheltered my family for more than 45 years. This is not an investment, nor a temporary residence. It is the place where my mother has lived most of her adult life — where she raised children, welcomed grandchildren, and where her sense of safety, identity and peace is deeply rooted.

Our home directly adjoins the western boundary of the proposed 1 King Street demolition and remediation site. Because of this immediate proximity, the impacts of this proposal will not be theoretical for us — they will be felt daily, physically and emotionally, within the walls of a long-standing family home.

I do not oppose development in principle. However, I strongly object to this proposal proceeding in its current form, because the documentation provided does not demonstrate that my mother’s physical safety, mental wellbeing, or right to live peacefully and privately in her home of 45 years will be protected.

Disproportionate Risk to an Elderly Resident

The Environmental Impact Statement treats surrounding homes as abstract receivers. For us, this is deeply personal. The proposal places intensive demolition, deep excavation, contaminated soil handling and heavy vehicle movements metres from my mother’s bedroom and living spaces.

The EIS does not convincingly demonstrate that the works will not:

cause structural damage or settlement to her two-storey home

introduce contamination or airborne asbestos into living areas

generate vibration that compromises both the building and her sense of safety

erode her privacy, peace and ability to rest in her own home

For an elderly resident, prolonged exposure to noise, vibration, dust and uncertainty is not a minor inconvenience — it is a serious and cumulative stressor with real consequences.

Structural and Ground Stability Concerns

The proposal involves demolition and deep excavation for a two-storey basement immediately beside our boundary. Yet there is no property-specific modelling that gives confidence that our home will remain structurally secure.

My mother should not be expected to live with constant fear that cracking walls, shifting footings or moisture intrusion may appear months or years later as a result of works approved today.

Stormwater Drain Beside Our Home

I am particularly alarmed by the proposal to construct a stormwater drain immediately adjacent to our house. This is a permanent piece of infrastructure, yet the EIS provides no assurance that it will not undermine footings, alter groundwater conditions or introduce long-term moisture risks.

Once built, any damage will not be reversible. My mother will be left to live with the consequences long after contractors and consultants have gone.

Health, Air Quality and Contamination

The EIS acknowledges contamination and asbestos risks, yet does not clearly explain how my mother will be protected on a day-to-day basis. Demolition will occur only metres from her windows and outdoor areas.

No elderly person should be left wondering whether the air inside their own home is safe to breathe.

Loss of Privacy and Peace

Without strict, enforceable controls, the proposal will result in:

direct overlooking into private living and sleeping areas

constant construction presence along our boundary

loss of backyard privacy and enjoyment

After 45 years in the same home, my mother deserves dignity and privacy — not to feel watched or intruded upon during months or years of construction.

Traffic and Safety Impacts

George Street and surrounding roads are narrow and heavily used by families, children and older residents. Increased heavy vehicle movements introduce real safety risks that have not been convincingly resolved in the EIS.

My mother should not feel unsafe entering or exiting her own driveway.

Why This Matters

Planning decisions are not only about buildings and compliance tables. They are about people. Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act requires genuine consideration of impacts on the built environment, human health and residential amenity.

If this proposal proceeds without stronger safeguards, it will fundamentally change the lived experience of an elderly woman who has done nothing more than remain in the home she has loved for 45 years.

Requested Outcome

I respectfully ask that the Department refuse approval of SSD-90337724 unless substantial, enforceable conditions are imposed to genuinely protect adjoining residents — particularly those living immediately beside the site.

At a minimum, this must include:

independent verification that excavation, drainage and remediation works will not damage our home

continuous monitoring with clear stop-work triggers

strict controls on noise, vibration, dust and work hours

relocation or redesign of infrastructure that poses permanent risk

enforceable protections for privacy, safety and amenity

Approving this proposal without such safeguards would expose my mother’s home — and her wellbeing — to avoidable and unreasonable harm.

I ask the Department to place human impact at the centre of its decision.

Respectfully submitted,
Son of the Owner
33 George Street
Concord West NSW 2138

I am the immediate neighbour to the proposed Billbergia development on 1 King St Concord West. I live on 2 King Street, Concord West and my fence is the current fence neighbouring the potential development site.
I object to the current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) supplied by Colliers on behalf of Billbergia. The main reason being it inadequately addresses the Specific Environmental Assessment requirements SEARs for the project and the relevant requirements in the EP&A Regulation. It is NOT prepared to a sufficient standard. The safety of our community and its residents are paramount, and I do not think are sufficiently safeguarded with the current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on submission. A major revision and much more detailed statement should be provided by Colliers/Billbergia/Concord West Property Pty Ltd before proceeding to the next step.

Please see below for some deficient areas I have identified and want to bring to your attention:
• Page 25 of the EIS and Appendix B Demolition Diagram contains a MAJOR ERROR. This is failure to “Provide an accurate summary of the detailed assessment of the impacts of the project and integrate the findings and recommendations of technical reports into the justification and evaluation of the project as a whole” as per 1. Statuary Context in SEARs.
Red dashed lines indicate “DEMOLITION” as per the key in Appendix B. Our property on 2 King St Concord West along with my backdoor neighbour 33 George St Concord West are drawn into the diagram with red dashed lines indicated for demolition. There are also red dashed demolition lines extending diagonally into the properties of 35 and 37 George St Concord West. These are all sites OUTSIDE of the 1 King St boundary site.
This is not an INACCURATE demolition plan but also provided great deal of distress when it was seen by residents for fear that their houses were being completely disregarded i.e. equivalent to demolished in the developer’s point of view. This must be revised in the EIS before it can be approved otherwise the accuracy requirement of SEARs is negated.

• Appendix I _Demolition Management Plan does not address but instead defers to the Contractor’s Construction Management Plan (CMP) which is not yet developed. That means no clear thought has been put into addressing key areas that will affect neighbouring residents by the actual demolition/remediation works. Deferring to a document that has not yet been created is inadequate.

• Appendix J_Remediation Action Plan Appendix N_Geotechnical Report identifies that there are
“Exceedances of health and ecological criteria for non-asbestos analytes were identified within fill materials across the site.” “Acid sulfate soils (ASS) were identified in approximately 60% of natural soils below 2.0 m bgl across the site.” “exceedances of human health criteria (HSL-B) relating to benzo(a)pyrene and TRH (F2 / F3) were identified”. The remediation plans do not identify how neighbouring residents (a human receptors left out of their analysis) who live just meres away from hazardous soil/land they intend to remediate will be protected from the demolition/remediation works.

• Appendix L_Preliminary Construction Traffic Management Plan, the preliminary plan does not acknowledge that George St is a one road access into this construction site. For residents living on King Street, Victoria Avenue and distal George St, they are effectively in a dead end. Even without construction vehicles, during school drop off/pick up hours, there is congestion on the road. A large truck trying to enter the site via the round-a-bout is likely to block/slow down residents past this point from entering or exiting the area. Many elderly neighbours rely on regular carers and health services, ambulance for their health needs are unlikely to be able to receive timely care due to congestion from construction vehicles due to only one road access. There should be no construction vehicles access on King St or Victoria avenue due to risk to pedestrians exiting the trains, school students to and from school. There must be safe and robust pedestrian and cyclist safety measures, especially for children and elderly. No actual modelling has been provided that maps up the potential impact these construction vehicles will have on the road access. Residents like myself in the dead end situation, need to be provided with residents ONLY car access routes so we are not going to be stuck behind a reversing construction vehicles for 30minutes at a time trying to leave or enter our home. In addition, residents from the units on George St that normally commute to Concord West Station will have trouble accessing the train station as they normally walk along George St past Victoria Avenue and cross King St to arrive the Train station. However, their safety will be an issue as they will need to pass through the 2 main site access points for construction vehicles on George St, a hazardous situation.

• Appendix M_Drainage Easement Plan: They propose decommissioning the current stormwater pipes that run under 1 King St to diversion so that it runs right next to my property, then straight into the higher risk known flood zone at the curved bend at George St. There has been no modelling about how this pipe diversion could affect neighbouring properties. Also, in the worst-case scenario outcomes such as storm water pipes leakages/burst/backflow how this may affect neighbouring properties.

• Appendix G_FIRA and Water Management Plan: The current Flood Impact and risk assessment states on page 13 of 32 that: “The performance and flood impacts of the proposed pipe diversion have not been assessed in the available studies.” Even in the EIS document itself, its state in 6.8.2 (page 49) it states “While flood modelling does not cover flood conditions at the site post demolition and remediation prior to main works…” Acknowledging no modelling has been performed for this, as such it cannot be concluded or assumed that the pipe diversion and demolition/remediation will not result in unacceptable flood level increase (as they have assumed without performing modelling). This is inadequate, if a pipe diversion is proposed along with the demolition then they must provide flood risk modelling with their new proposed model. The area behind 1 King St is known to be a flood prone region as residents who have lived here for decades know. They also need to take into account its effect on the immediate adjacent properties in worse case scenario given the pipe flows into a flood prone corner where there is high risk of back flow.

• Appendix T_Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment: Page 51 was the EIS states “The analysis determined that the expected noise emissions are expected to exceed the Noise Management Levels (NMLs) at all sensitive noise receivers. Additionally, the Highly Noise Management Levels (HAML) is expected to be exceeded at R1, R4, R5, R6 for specific activities operating close to the boundaries of these receivers including bulldozers, excavator mounted hammering and jackhammering.” Noise emissions are predicted to exceed the NML at the Educational receiver…”

HAML is > 75 dB(A). Prolonged or repeated exposure above these levels starts posing a risk for hearing damage. As the immediate neighbouring resident to this site in R1. The actual Mitigation measures provided on page 31 and 32 are so very basic (the main mitigation measure for them to work as far away as possible from sensitive receptors, nevertheless, easement/stormwater pipes diversion as above occur just metres away from my property) and are wholly inadequate. The EIS leaves the community defenceless against intolerable disruption and potential damage to health, hearing and property by the limited mitigation and monitoring measures provided in this EIS.
I respectfully request that the Department require a majorly revised EIS before allowing the demolitions to proceed to the next step. The safety of the residents and community members who live and traverse through this community is paramount and a responsibility of the State government given it is a State Significant Development.
Yours sincerely,
2 King Street resident.

SSD-90337724 1 King St demolition/remediation work Environmental Impact statement
Submission letter – Objection. 13 December 2025.
I am the immediate neighbour and owner of the proposed Billbergia development on 1 King St Concord West. I live on 2 King Street, Concord West and my fence is the current fence neighbouring the Westpac site.
Where my family and I live is a DEAD END with only ONE road access (via George St) into the area. I have lived here since I migrated to this country in the 1980s and lived here with many of my long-standing, elderly, vulnerable neighbours for the last forty years. My daughter who also lived in this house since her birth and still a resident in this house with her young family is helping me write this letter. May it be known that the documents are inaccessible for non-English speaking background and she has had to try to translate as much as possible and help write my thoughts in this letter.
I have grave concerns about the upcoming demolition being RIGHT next to it. The EIS developed by Colliers on behalf of Concord West Pty Ltd (for the the property developer Billbergia), does NOT protect my safety sufficiently and I request it be revised until safety and mitigation plans are properly detailed. The current mitigation plans are brief and inadequate to protect my safety, my family’s safety or that of my neighbours, the primary school children and daycare children that frequent the area and parks nearby.
Please find the faults and gaps in my reading of the current Environmental Impact Statement document. The sheer number of documents was overwhelming for an English speaker born and raised here (i.e. my daughter), so please forgive me as I could not read and understand everything even with her help (difficulty with translating all the technical concepts):
• EIS document page 25 Figure 9 Demolition Plan and APPENDIX B Demolition Plans -
To my horror, my house 2 King St Concord West is included in the RED DASHED LINES, according to the key it means my house is for DEMOLITION (despite it being OUTSIDE of their drawn site boundary line)!
o I cannot express the absolute disgrace that a developer would draw in a plan that my house is to be demolished (or is an expected side effect/collateral damage of their demolition plans) and that I was not properly contacted or notified of this before my daughter read this document. It is not just my house, but also, my back door neighbour 33 George St is drawn into the demolition lines. Our neighbours also have red lines drawn. Our family went through a period of absolute shock, psychological and physical distress (I felt like I was going to have a heart attack) to pure anger after viewing this diagram. The incorrect publication has caused significant harm, including perceived threat of forced displacement, property security concerns, and substantial time spent seeking clarification.
o It is an INACCURATE diagram, and the EIS must be revise so that it is ACCURATE before proceeding to the next stage. Accuracy is a key element of any EIS as per the SEARS and this basic criterion has not been met but this inaccurate diagram. I attach also the letter I wrote to the State Government representative overseeing this SSD earlier to alert of this inaccuracy. At the bottom of this document is a screenshot of the accurate diagram.
o Furthermore, the mixed used scoping report (which has been separated from this review, and really should be assessed together) has drawn concept diagram with a high rise over our block.

• Noise, vibration and pollution are key areas that need detailed mitigation strategies.
o The EIS clearly notes the noise is likely to exceed >75decibels for immediate neighbours like myself. Prolonged exposure to this level of noise is likely to cause hearing impairments, headaches and affect our health. Even the primary school children are at risk of this level of noise as documented in the report. I have lived through past relatively much smaller developments (Telstra demolished to become the current Westpac site). Each time from memory the noise was absolutely exceeding this level. For a development on a scale like this, with demolition and remediation works plan, main noise mitigation strategies such those provided on page 31 in Appendix are too basic, do not safeguard residents at all with any enforceable monitoring targets (two times a month reports are too infrequent)
o Many pollutant particles in the soil (acid sulphate soil/rocks and asbestos), in the old petroleum tanks, and chemical particles have been identified in the EIS. There is inadequate mitigation and monitoring strategies for neighbouring residents who were not even identified as one of the potential and sensitive human receptors in the remediation action plan (Appendix J) or geotechnical reports (Appendix N).
o My neighbour, the only one with a pool on our block, suffered from severe visible collection of dust and pollutants falling into her pool daily from construction works on Rothwell St which is much smaller in scale and much further away. There is nothing in the current mitigation and monitoring strategies that will protect them and I from all the foreseeable pollutants. Our health will very surely to be impacted. The EIS should give confidence in best possible efforts by the developer to protect the neighbours from harm. It currently fails to do this.

• Traffic and access to our house is a key concern and current preliminary traffic management plan are inadequate.
o Peak congestion times include school drop off and pick up, even now, parents and residents struggle to get in and out of the dead-end region. With the addition of construction vehicles (many very slow and blocking the main roundabout into the dead-end section, residents and other frequenters of this region will have immense trouble access their homes, school and park facilities. Even more concerning are health carers access of which many of my elderly neighbours require several times a week. In the event of emergency, emergency vehicle access is likely to be delayed given demolition/construction trucks could block the roundabout at that very moment (even if given few minutes warning from emergency vehicles, the slowness of construction/vehicles means speed of emergency vehicle access to residents are likely to be impaired.) the preliminary construction management plan is too basic and does not provide real life strategies to manage the foreseeable congestion/blocked access in this large demolition and construction development that will bother residents for years.
o Also nothing is mentioned about how Geroge St residents/pedestrians who normally commute down George St past that roundabout to go to Concord West Station will be granted safe passage one daily basis.

• Flooding risk, new stormwater pipe diversion.
o The EIS proposes decommissioning the current storm water piper running down the middle of 1 King St to a new path running directly parallel to my property on 1 King St. It drains directly into a known flood zone in George St. The area behind George St heading down to the park/Powell creek is a well-known flood zone to local residents. Firstly, my concerns are the stormwater pipes installation next to my house means deep excavation only metres away from my properly bringing all noise/pollution/vibration even closer to cause personal health and property structural damage more likely. Then there is the problem that no modelling of this new proposed stormwater pipe has been made, how it will cope with the proposed mixed used development plans (on a large scale never seen before in our area). I can forsee flooding, back flow/over flow and even burst storm water drains being a problem and there has not even been any attempt to model this in the current report. Moving a stormwater pipe, public property, a problem for the council and government, needs independent modelling to ensure that it is safe to go ahead. Residents also need to be given evidence that their property is unlikely to be damaged even in the worst case scenarios.

The current EIS does not provide the Department/State Government/Council with the information required to make a lawful or informed decision. Approving the project without detailed traffic/noise/vibration/pollution/hazardous mitigation strategies, traffic/proposed new stormwater pipe flood risk modelling (with the mixed use development information in mind), enforceable safety measures and proper assessment of amenity impacts would expose the community—particularly vulnerable residents and school children—to unacceptable health and personal risk.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department request a major revision and uphold higher standard to the application until the required statutory, technical and safety information is properly provided.

They must reach a safety standard such that residents/pedestrians using the area can feel safe and protected and able to live without their health and wellbeing being impaired. We must work to minimise, as much as possible, the disruption this large demolition/mixed-used development will most definitely cause before they are given approval to begin.
 

SSD-90337724 – 1 King Street, Concord West
Demolition, Remediation and Associated Works

Submission – Adjoining Landowner

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing & Infrastructure
From: Owner, 33 George Street, Concord West NSW 2138
Date: 15 December 2025

Introduction and Site Context

The submitter is the registered owner of 33 George Street, Concord West, which directly adjoins the western boundary of the subject site at 1 King Street. The dwelling is a two-storey residential building constructed immediately adjacent to the proposed demolition, remediation and excavation works. The property has been continuously occupied by the same family for over 45 years.

Given the lack of physical separation between the sites, the proposed works are likely to result in impacts of a greater intensity and duration on 33 George Street than on non-adjoining properties. These impacts include excavation-related structural risk, vibration, contamination exposure, groundwater disturbance, stormwater infrastructure risk, traffic and safety impacts, privacy loss, and prolonged noise.

Assessment Framework

This submission addresses the matters for consideration under section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs). It identifies deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the absence of enforceable mitigation measures necessary to prevent unacceptable impacts on adjoining development.

Excavation and Structural Impacts

The proposal includes demolition and deep excavation for a two-storey basement immediately adjoining 33 George Street. The EIS does not provide property-specific, boundary-level engineering analysis addressing soil movement, lateral displacement, groundwater drawdown, differential settlement or structural damage to adjoining buildings.

In the absence of this information, the likely impacts on the built environment cannot be fully assessed. This is inconsistent with sections 4.15(1)(a)(i) and 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act and the SEARs.

Required conditions:
• Independent peer review of excavation, shoring and retention design
• Mandatory pre-, mid- and post-construction dilapidation surveys by an independent structural engineer
• Real-time monitoring of settlement, movement and vibration at the shared boundary
• Enforceable stop-work triggers where agreed thresholds are exceeded

Vibration Impacts

Due to the minimal setback, the proposed demolition and bulk earthworks present a high risk of vibration-induced damage to the structure, finishes and external elements of 33 George Street.

Required conditions:
• Boundary vibration monitoring adjacent to 33 George Street
• Compliance with DIN 4150-3 residential criteria
• Immediate cessation of works upon exceedance
• Regular reporting to affected landowners

Contamination, Asbestos and Air Quality

The EIS identifies contamination and asbestos but does not adequately specify handling procedures, monitor locations or real-time exceedance notification, despite demolition occurring within metres of habitable rooms.

Without these details, the proposal does not adequately demonstrate that risks to human health can be managed, contrary to section 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act.

Required conditions:
• Continuous PM10, PM2.5 and asbestos fibre monitoring at the boundary
• Monitoring equipment located immediately adjacent to the dwelling
• Independent asbestos hygienist present during demolition
• Mandatory stop-work responses to any exceedance
• Public availability of monitoring results

Stormwater Infrastructure

The proposal includes a stormwater drain to be constructed immediately adjacent to 33 George Street. The EIS does not demonstrate that this infrastructure will not undermine footings, alter groundwater conditions, or cause long-term settlement or moisture ingress.

Given its permanent nature, this represents an unquantified structural risk.

Required conditions:
• Property-specific structural and hydrogeological assessment
• Relocation or redesign of the drain where any risk is identified
• Implementation of protective measures such as underpinning or waterproofing
• Long-term monitoring and developer responsibility for remediation
• Incorporation of all measures as enforceable consent conditions

Groundwater and Hydrogeological Impacts

The EIS does not include property-specific hydrogeological modelling demonstrating that excavation, dewatering or remediation will not adversely affect groundwater conditions at 33 George Street.

Required conditions:
• Independent, property-specific groundwater modelling
• Peer-reviewed groundwater and dewatering management plans
• Continuous boundary monitoring with alert and stop-work triggers
• Independent inspection of footings and subfloor areas

Noise Impacts

Noise modelling does not adequately account for two-storey receiver heights or direct line-of-sight exposure, resulting in a likely underestimation of impacts.

Required conditions:
• Updated modelling for two-storey adjoining dwellings
• Boundary noise monitoring at elevated receiver locations
• Enforced noise limits with stop-work triggers
• Scheduling of high-noise activities to mid-day periods

Privacy, Traffic and Safety

The EIS does not include enforceable measures to address overlooking, boundary encroachment, construction traffic safety or emergency access on narrow local streets.

Required conditions:
• Continuous solid privacy screening for all construction stages
• Construction vehicle exclusion zones on surrounding residential streets
• Traffic controllers for all heavy vehicle movements
• Continuous access for residents and emergency services

Work Hours

Extended or intrusive work hours would result in unreasonable impacts on residential amenity, contrary to section 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act.

Required conditions:
• Weekday works limited to 8:00 am–5:00 pm
• Saturday works limited to 9:00 am–1:00 pm
• No Sunday or public holiday works
• Strict justification and impact thresholds for any out-of-hours work

Cumulative Impacts, Compliance and Financial Risk

The EIS assesses demolition and remediation in isolation and does not adequately address cumulative impacts, compliance mechanisms or financial risk transfer to adjoining landowners.

Required conditions:
• Cumulative impact assessment across all stages
• Independent compliance auditing and complaints handling framework
• Adequate contractor insurance, security bonds and developer indemnity

Conclusion

On the basis of the information provided, the proposal does not adequately demonstrate that impacts on adjoining development can be avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level. Approval without the conditions outlined above would not satisfy section 4.15 of the EP&A Act.
Approval without these conditions would expose my property, my family, and my long-established home to unreasonable and avoidable risk.

I do not oppose redevelopment in principle, but SSD-90337724 in its current form is unacceptable.
Approval would expose my property, family, and long-established home to unreasonable, avoidable, and permanent risk.
I request that the Department require a revised EIS or impose the above enforceable conditions prior to any approval.
Sincerely,
Owner
33 George Street
Concord West NSW 2138

I am the daughter of one of the direct neighbours to the proposed 1 King St development. I have lived in this house since 1973 (52 years) and am one of longest residents in this area.

I object to the current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SSD-90337724 1 King St demolition and remediation. It needs major revision and further detail to meet the SEARs requirements and to protect me as a very close neighbour to the development site.

My mother is almost 80 years old and this demolition will affect her terribly. The proposed demolition works will have huge damage to her quality of life and even the basic ability and right to access my/ her home.

Mum has health carers that attend to her several times a week at home. They all drive a car to attend to her and she also frequent medical appointments at Concord Hospital and in the area via car transport. As George St is one road access to her house, which effectively a dead end, I have serious concerns the demolition site will likely slow down or even block road access to her house.

Even more dire, is only last week mum needed an ambulance how would emergency services such ambulance/paramedics attend to her quickly if there are road blockages or slow down points where they will most likely have their cranes/trucks etc blocking their entry point (which I understand is mostly George St roundabout region plus more). The current Construction Traffic Management Plan proposed is too basic and does not actually indicate how access/congestion will affect the resident who are effectively living in a large dead end or how this will be properly mitigated.

I want to give an example of how troublesome this one road entry to my dead end could be if access if slowed or blocked. Several years ago, there was a siege/police operation in one of the units in George St and no one could get into or out of King St or the end of George St as the police operation blocked the entire access >24 hours. I truly my stuck in my house and my carers could not get to me.

In 1998 there was a train derailment at Concord West Station. If we are not only block/slowed road access into property by road and in the worse luck, a train derailment occurred, we would not even be able to exit to the other side of the station by foot.

In the last few years there have been the apartment developments perhaps 30 metres behind our house on Rothwell Avenue. These were much smaller apartment than what is proposed to be at 1 King St, however, the amount dust/debris that blew over from that site into my pool, back yard and covered my house was horrendous. There was grey fine dust that changed my backyard pool to a dirty grey colour. I spent every day trying to have the pool cleaned. There was also a chemical smell to the dust and debris that blew over. Keep in mind this is more than 30m and 1 King St is just right next door. I have no idea how we can protected as pre-existing residents in this area safely from the amount of debris/dust/pollution that I will be exposed to. Before Westpac, and before Telstra was a Massey Ferguson factory. I am horrified to know what might be uncovered when they really dig down (acid sulphate soils/rock, asbestos, chemicals) during demolition and construction of their proposed development. The current EIS does not adequately address how the current neighbours, human receptors, that live right next to the development will be protected from the noise/vibration/pollution/hazardous material will protect

I have lived here when Telstra was built and then when it was torn down and Westpac was built. These were huge constructions, and the noise/pollution was horrible at the time. However, the proposed demolition and mixed-use build is truly on a scale never seen in this area. Mum has migraines that lead to hospitalization. She has great noise sensitivity during migraines and noise is also a trigger. I am sure the demolition and build is going affect her health, probably shorten her lifespan. The developer at present has not shown in adequate detail how the current residents will be protected from the hazards that are foreseeable from this proposed demolition, remediation and build. This must be addressed in further detail that is not present in the current EIS before they can proceed to the next stage.

Whilst I support the project, I wish to see a high storey residential building with a mix of shops and restaurants on the street level as well as a mix of privately owned apartments and apartments set aside for public housing and essential workers.

1. Introduction and Principle of Support for Density

I am a long-term resident of North Strathfield and submit this opposition to the current proposal for a 38-storey residential tower.

I wish to state clearly that my opposition is not to high-density housing or urban consolidation in principle. I recognise the urgent need to address the housing crisis and support development that increases housing supply. I believe responsible, higher-density development, such as the original proposal of approximately 10 stories, is both appropriate and necessary for our suburb.

However, the current proposal of up to 38 stories represents a dramatic and unsustainable overreach that fundamentally conflicts with established planning principles, the character of our neighbourhood, and essential infrastructure capacity.

2. Concerns Regarding Scale and Neighbourhood Character

The most significant objection is to the unprecedented scale of the proposed building, which is entirely inconsistent with the existing urban environment.

Precedent and Context: North Strathfield and Concord West is characterised by low-to-medium density housing, two-storey townhouses, apartment blocks of 4-6 stories. The proposed 38-storey tower would be an isolated outlier, dwarfing every structure within a 5-km radius. This is contrary to good planning practice which seeks a gradual transition in building height, not a sudden, massive vertical jump.

Visual Amenity and Streetscape: The immense bulk and height will create an unacceptable visual impact, transforming the streetscape from a leafy, suburban, community-focused environment into one dominated by a single, imposing structure. This is not the organic growth of a city centre, but an aggressive intrusion into an established residential pocket.

Overshadowing and Wind Tunnel Effects: A tower of this height will inevitably cast vast shadows over neighbouring properties, public parks, and streets, especially during winter afternoons. Furthermore, tall buildings are known to exacerbate wind turbulence at ground level, diminishing the quality and usability of public spaces and nearby residences.

3. Infrastructure and Amenity Overload

This development is not being assessed in the context of the current density; it must be assessed against the cumulative impact of an almost fourfold increase in dwellings over the original, reasonable proposal.

Traffic Congestion: The addition of potentially 1300+ new residential units, along with associated visitor and service vehicles, will critically overload local roads and intersections, such as Pomeroy. The accompanying traffic study is likely to underestimate the true impact on rat-running through residential streets.

Public Transport Capacity: While close to Concord West station a development of this scale will place immediate and overwhelming pressure on peak-hour services that are already operating near capacity.

Essential Services: The demands on water, sewerage, and electricity infrastructure were likely planned for the original, smaller-scale proposal. The current height and density may necessitate costly and disruptive upgrades to public infrastructure that the current community will bear the brunt of.

Open Space: The proposal significantly increases the local population without a commensurate increase in public open space or community facilities. Our existing parks will become over-utilised and degraded.

4. Conclusion and Recommendation

While supporting responsible urban densification, I strongly oppose the proposed 38-storey development on the grounds that it represents spot rezoning that breaches the planning vision for North Strathfield and fails to deliver integrated urban growth.

The primary flaw lies in the excessive height and floor space ratio (FSR). The development's success is not measured by the maximum number of dwellings, but by its ability to integrate seamlessly and sustainably with the surrounding community.

I respectfully urge the Planning Authority to reject the current 38-storey proposal and mandate a return to a scale that aligns with the established local context and infrastructure capacity – specifically, a building height limited to approximately 10-12 stories.

A development of this reduced scale would still deliver significant housing supply, respect the neighbourhood character, and ensure the necessary infrastructure can cope effectively.

Thank you for considering this submission.

The following comments are provided for the Planning Authority to consider before approving the above DA.
The King Street entry/exit to the Concord West railway station is currently used by (1) Victoria Avenue Public School children, (2) residents living along George Street and surrounding areas, (3) elderly residents from all other areas using Bi-Centenary Park for health and recreational purposes. Currently there are no 'Pickup and Set Down" facilities or a turning bay available on King Street in front of the station for the smooth operation of traffic. This situation creates pedestrian/traffic conflicts during morning and evening peak periods in the vicinity of the station on King Street. Also, no formalised pedestrian crossing available in the vicinity to improve the safety situation.
Considering the above pedestrians and traffic situation, I strongly object to any demolition or debris haulage vehicles accessing the work site ( 1 King) via King Street. All such vehicles to be confined to George Street only. There are number of feasible and safe access points available to the site from George Street which could be safely used by the construction vehicles.
Further I understand that as part of the future development King Street will be extended to George Street which is not a good planning outcome. This arrangement will encourage through traffic not only in front of the Railway Station but also through the development site compromising pedestrians' safety significantly. It was also brough to the resident's notice that this connecting road will be a private road maintained by the Body Corporate of the future development. This is an unusual arrangement as public road becoming private and then public within a short length. Also, quality of the road maintenance will not be guaranteed on a long run.
In summary I have no objection for the Major Projects to approve/endorse the DA with the condition that the demolition vehicles should be confined to George Street only.

The proposed construction (8 mixed use buildings containing 1400 dwellings, retail and commercial floorspace) will severely impact traffic flow and parking along my already busy street (George St), as traffic must flow out past this street to reach main roads. Although there is a train station nearby, there is no doubt that traffic will increase, plus difficulties with parking around my area, which is already a problem. The roads themselves are not very wide as it is (plus there are windy areas); I foresee the roads being unsafe for the residents and problematic with more congestion/traffic in the area. I already have trouble reversing out of my driveway or having visitors over, as kerbside parking is already at a premium due to people parking there to use the train. Unfortunately, there are already other large constructions already being conducted in the area which add to our problems as residents here. I wholeheartedly object to this project and sincerely hope it does not go ahead.

The Transport Study Report presents concerning findings for the George Street / Pomeroy Street intersection.

If my understanding of the modelling is correct, it shows the following:
• A Level of Service (LoS) D in the current AM peak, indicating the intersection is near capacity and operating under significant strain. This level of congestion typically warrants a safety and crash (accident) study to understand associated risks.
• A deterioration to LoS F in the 2036 Future Reference Case, meaning the intersection is forecast to operate over capacity, with unstable conditions and excessive delays.

These findings are documented in Tables 6-3, 6-4, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8 and 6-9 of the Transport Study Report for this project.

This matter is more serious than routine congestion. George Street is the sole vehicular access route in and out of this neighbourhood. If this intersection becomes gridlocked or blocked, residents cannot leave, and emergency services may not be able to enter. The risk extends beyond inconvenience and presents an unacceptable safety issue for existing residents, particularly in the case of fire, medical emergencies or evacuation needs.

Given these results, it is essential that the NSW Government:
1. Address the capacity and performance of the existing road network in this precinct, noting that it is already near or at capacity before any further development occurs; and
2. Undertake the required accident (crash) study, given the intersection’s current congestion and the future forecast of over-capacity operation; and
3. Advise residents as how the demolition plans will not deteriorate the existing road network beyond the existing rating of "near capacity and operating under significant strain".

I wish to be clear that I support and welcome the proposed development, provided that the existing and future road network issues are properly addressed.

However, it is difficult to reconcile how this precinct was zoned R4 High Density Residential when the current road network is already near capacity and forecast to deteriorate further without intervention.

SSD-90337724 – 1 King Street, Concord West (Demolition, Remediation & Associated Works)
From: Owners – 41 George Street, Concord West NSW 2138
Date: 15/12/25

To whom it may concern,

I am the owner of 41 George Street, a historic, classic Californian bungalow, and have lived here since 1970 with my wife. Both of us are currently undergoing medical treatment and require peace, quiet, and stability. The proposed demolition and excavation at 1 King Street directly adjoining our home will expose us to unreasonable risks, including structural damage, vibration, contamination, air quality hazards, noise, privacy loss, and traffic safety concerns.

Key Concerns:

Structural Safety: Deep excavation and basement works pose serious risks to foundations, footings, and long-term stability. EIS lacks property-specific engineering and mitigation plans.

Vibration & Noise: Minimal setback threatens cracking, slab movement, and damage to structures. Noise modelling fails to account for elevated line-of-sight exposure.

Contamination & Air Quality: Demolition occurs near windows and outdoor areas. The EIS provides insufficient details on asbestos, dust, or air monitoring and reporting.

Stormwater & Groundwater Risks: Proposed drains may compromise foundations, alter groundwater, and cause settlement. No property-specific modelling is provided.

Privacy & Amenity: Works will overlook our home and backyard, reducing privacy and peaceful enjoyment.

Traffic & Safety: Narrow streets and school bus routes are threatened by heavy vehicles. Emergency access must be maintained.

Cumulative Impacts: The EIS ignores long-term effects of staged demolition, vibration, dust, noise, and future construction.

Insurance & Liability: No evidence contractors have sufficient insurance or financial protection for adjoining property damage.

Required Protections:

Independent engineering and hydrogeological assessments with peer review.

Mandatory pre-, mid-, and post-construction structural surveys.

Real-time monitoring for vibration, movement, and air quality with automatic stop-work triggers.

Continuous privacy screens and enforcement of strict work hours.

Construction vehicle exclusion zones to protect residents, school buses, and emergency access.

Full insurance and indemnity protections for adjoining property owners.

Requested Outcome:
SSD-90337724 should not be approved unless all the above enforceable conditions are imposed. Approval without these safeguards would place our health, safety, and long-established home at unacceptable risk. We do not oppose redevelopment of this site, but the current proposal is unacceptable.

Sincerely,
Retired Residents & Owners
41 George Street, Concord West NSW 2138

I object to the project as currently proposed. Please see submission below.