The Boulevarde, Punchbowl, Affordable Housing

Rose Taouil
17 Lennartz St Croydon Park NSW 2133

Owner 2/36 Dudley Street
Punchbowl NSW 2196
Date: 19 October 295

To:
The Planning Secretary
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Subject: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-83256463 — 159 The Boulevarde and 34 Dudley Street, Punchbowl NSW

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am the owner of 2/36 Dudley Street, Punchbowl, which directly adjoins or is in close proximity to the proposed development site at 159 The Boulevarde and 34 Dudley Street, Punchbowl. I wish to formally object to the proposed eight-storey residential flat building comprising 114 affordable housing dwellings under SSD-83256463.

While I support appropriate and sustainable development within the local area, this proposal represents an unreasonable overdevelopment of the site and will have a significant detrimental impact on the surrounding residential neighbourhood, including the value, privacy, and amenity of my property.

My objections are set out below:

1. Unreasonable Overdevelopment and Negative Impact on Property Value
The proposed eight-storey building is entirely inconsistent with the established low-rise residential character of Dudley Street and the surrounding neighbourhood. The excessive bulk and scale of the project will dominate the streetscape and diminish the amenity and appeal of nearby single-dwelling homes and low rise apartments.

Such overdevelopment is likely to negatively affect local property values, including my own due to visual intrusion, loss of privacy, and reduced residential desirability.

2. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls

The proposal exceeds the applicable building height and floor space ratio (FSR) limits set by the Canterbury-Bankstown Local Environmental Plan (LEP).

The excessive height and density undermine the intent of local planning controls, which are designed to ensure development transitions appropriately in scale, preserves amenity, and maintains the character of the surrounding residential area.

Approval of a development that so clearly breaches these controls would set an undesirable precedent for future developments in Punchbowl.


3. Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity

Due to its excessive height, the proposed development will cause significant overshadowing of adjoining and nearby properties, including mine.

This will reduce access to natural sunlight in private open spaces and living areas, particularly during winter months, thereby diminishing residential amenity and quality of life for existing residents.

4. Loss of Privacy

The proposed building’s upper levels and balconies will directly overlook my property resulting in an unacceptable loss of privacy to my home and backyard.

Adequate building setbacks, screening, and landscaping have not been provided to mitigate this issue, and the overall building form does not respect the privacy of adjoining residents.

5. Inadequate Parking and Traffic Impacts

The proposed parking provision is insufficient to meet the demands of 114 dwellings, staff, and visitors, less than 1 parking spot per two units.

This will likely lead to overflow parking along Dudley Street and surrounding residential roads, increasing congestion and reducing safety and accessibility for existing residents. The local street network is already constrained, and the additional traffic movements associated with a development of this scale will exacerbate existing parking pressures.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the approval of SSD-83256463 in its current form.

The proposed development is inconsistent with local planning controls, represents overdevelopment of the site, and will cause substantial and irreversible harm to the amenity, character, and property values of the surrounding neighbourhood.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application or require significant amendments to ensure full compliance with planning controls, appropriate height and scale, and adequate protection for neighbouring properties.

Yours sincerely,

Rose Taouil

To the Consent Authority,

Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

RE: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-83256463

Address: 150 The Boulevarde and 34 Dudley Street, Punchbowl NSW 2196

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the owner of an apartment at 36 Dudley Street, Punchbowl, which is immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed development. I am writing to lodge my formal objection to the development application SSD-83256463 for the construction of an eight-storey residential flat building comprising 114 affordable housing dwellings.

This proposal represents a significant and unreasonable overdevelopment of the site that will have severe and lasting negative impacts on my property and the local neighbourhood. My objection is based on the following grounds:

1. Gross Non-Compliance with Current Planning Controls

The proposal flagrantly disregards the statutory planning controls currently in force for the site under the Canterbury-Bankstown Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2023.

Excessive Building Height: The current LEP specifies a maximum building height of 11.5m for the site. The applicant proposes a maximum building height of 29.8m, which is more than two and a half times the permissible height.

Excessive Floor Space Ratio (FSR): The current LEP permits a maximum FSR of 0.9:1. The proposal seeks an FSR of 2.3:1, which is again, more than double the allowable density.

The applicant's justification relies on a draft Environmental Planning Instrument and a 30% bonus under the Housing SEPP. It is unacceptable for a development of this scale to be assessed against draft controls that have not been finalised or gazetted. This approach undermines the integrity and certainty of the planning system. The application should be assessed against the legal planning framework that is currently in force, under which it would be unequivocally refused.

2. Severe Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity

The sheer scale of the proposed eight-storey building will result in significant overshadowing of my property and surrounding homes, which are predominantly two and three-storey residential flat buildings. The applicant's own overshadowing diagrams (Figure 8) show extensive shadows cast over neighbouring properties to the south and east, particularly during the critical winter months.

This will lead to a substantial loss of direct sunlight to private open space, garden, and primary living areas, negatively impacting the resident's amenity and increasing their reliance on artificial heating and lighting. The applicant's claim that there are no "unacceptable impacts" is a subjective assessment that I strongly dispute from the perspective of a directly affected neighbour.

3. Unacceptable Overlooking and Loss of Privacy

The construction of an eight-storey building in such close proximity to lower-scale residential properties will create an unacceptable loss of privacy. The proposal's southern setback of only 6 metres is entirely insufficient for a building of this height. Dozens of apartments will have direct lines of sight into the windows, the common and private spaces of my neighbours. This will result in a constant sense of being watched, destroying the peace and privacy the residents currently enjoy in their home. The inclusion of "privacy screens" is an admission of this impact but is an inadequate solution for such a significant height difference.

4. Inadequate Parking Provision and Traffic Congestion

The proposal to provide only 58 car parking spaces for 114 apartments is woefully inadequate. Most concerning is the provision of only one (1) visitor car parking space.

It is inconceivable that one visitor space can service 114 dwellings. This will inevitably force all visitor parking, as well as parking for residents with more than one vehicle, delivery drivers, and service providers, onto the surrounding local streets, including Dudley Street and The Boulevarde. This will significantly worsen the existing parking congestion, create frustration for current residents, and impact road safety, particularly around the bus zone on Dudley Street and the nearby childcare centre. While the applicant claims compliance with the Housing SEPP rates, these minimum rates create a demonstrably poor outcome for the local community.

In conclusion, this proposal is an opportunistic overdevelopment that relies on draft planning controls to justify its excessive bulk and scale. It will cause irreversible damage to the amenity of the residents at 36 Dudley Street through overshadowing, loss of privacy, and increased traffic and parking congestion.

I strongly urge the Department to refuse this development application.

Yours sincerely,

Phil McNaughton

To the Consent Authority,
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
RE: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-83256463
Address: 150 The Boulevarde and 34 Dudley Street, Punchbowl NSW 2196
To Whom it may concern,
As the owner of an apartment at 36 Dudley Street, Punchbowl, directly adjacent to the proposed development site, I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development Application SSD-83256463 for an eight-storey residential building with 114 affordable housing dwellings.
This proposal constitutes an excessive overdevelopment that will severely impact my property and the surrounding neighborhood. My objections are based on the following grounds:


Non-Compliance with Planning Controls
The proposed development significantly exceeds the current Canterbury-Bankstown Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2023:

Building Height: The LEP allows a maximum height of 11.5m, while the proposed building reaches 29.8m—over 2.5 times the permitted limit.
Floor Space Ratio (FSR): The LEP permits an FSR of 0.9:1, but the proposal seeks 2.3:1, more than double the allowable density.

The applicant’s reliance on a draft Environmental Planning Instrument and a 30% Housing SEPP bonus is inappropriate, as these are not gazette or finalised. Assessing the proposal against draft controls undermines the planning system’s integrity. The application must comply with current legal controls, under which it would be refused.

Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity
The eight-storey building will cast significant shadows over my property and neighboring low-rise homes, as shown in the applicant’s overshadowing diagrams (Figure 8). This will severely reduce sunlight to my private open space, garden, and living areas, particularly in winter, diminishing my family’s quality of life and increasing energy costs. The applicant’s claim of “no unacceptable impacts” is subjective and dismissive of affected residents’ concerns.


Loss of Privacy
The proposed building’s height and minimal 6-metre southern setback will result in significant overlooking into my home and neighboring properties. Numerous apartments will have direct views into my windows and backyard, eroding our privacy and creating a constant sense of intrusion. Proposed privacy screens are inadequate to mitigate the impact of such a tall structure.

Inadequate Parking and Traffic Impacts
The provision of only 58 parking spaces, including just one visitor space, for 114 dwellings is insufficient. This will force visitors, additional resident vehicles, and delivery/service providers to park on already congested local streets, such as Dudley Street and The Boulevarde. This will exacerbate parking shortages, compromise road safety near the bus zone and childcare centre, and negatively affect residents. The applicant’s compliance with minimum Housing SEPP parking rates does not justify the poor outcome for the community.


Conclusion
This proposal is an overdevelopment that exploits draft planning controls to justify its excessive scale, height, and density. It will cause significant harm through overshadowing, loss of privacy, and increased parking and traffic issues. I strongly urge the Department to refuse this application.
Yours sincerely,
Leigh Doumanis

I am objecting to this project as the logistics does not make sense. I own two properties in Punchbowl along Matthews Street.

There will be 114 housing apartments built but 58 carspaces only. This will mean some apartments won't be allocated car spaces and will have to find street parking, which is already incredibly hard to find especially on weekends. On average, a family in Sydney will have 1.8 vehicles, so not only will those families who have more than 1 vehicle have to park on the street, the people who aren't allocated a car spot will have to as well.

There will also be major traffic as a result of 114 more apartments being built. Punchbowl Road and Canterbury Road are two very busy roads as is- the more residents and cars around this area, the more this will lead into congestion and extra traffic around the surrounding areas.

The fact that this apartment building will be 8 storeys is also concerning. The average building height in Punchbowl is around 3-4 levels. This building will be double the size and will not look aesthetically pleasing.

We object to this project for the following reasons:
1. This area, specifically this precinct, has been the subject of multiple developments which has negatively impacted the landscape of the area by turning it from a residential area where residents enjoyed quieter environments, lower population rates and low traffic, to one that is synonymous with a heavily populated, loud and traffic dense area. This project may exacerbate the negative conditions in which the area, specifically the Boulevard area, has been subjected to. The suburban nature of Wiley Park/Punchbowl and its renowned lower density homes and open space will likely be further impacted by the introduction of this high rise development within a space surrounded by lower density homes and businesses.
2. Further from the above, the area's natural landscape has been eroded by the multiple developments and construction. The Metro project has committed to planting trees for every tree removed as part of the Metro construction- this development may conflict with the plan to restore and compensate the area with further greenery. The plan to include open areas within the development does not address this issue.
3. This increase in population to the Boulevarde will mean more traffic and more cars. A drive through the Boulevard at any time of the day will show the significant amount of cars parked on both sides of the Boulevard affecting the flow of traffic on both ends especially with larger vehicles or buses that regularly use this road. There has been countless incidents of car accidents and near misses which poses a significant safety risks for residents and drivers. The construction of this development will exacerbate this issue further unless an arrangement is made with the Council to address this issue.
4. Whilst it is maintained there is no impact on property values, we hold concerns that this development has the potential to lower property values given the change in social landscape within the area and concerns relating to the increase in crime or disorderly conduct in the area. Further to this, the Wiley Park/Punchbowl area is valued for its family orientated and quiet environment and such development has the consequence of changing this dynamic and therefore impacting the value of property in the area.
5. Developing high rise buildings should be developed with the right demographic in mind. The opening of the Metro in 2026 will mean more individuals such as university students, workers, school students etc will benefit from this new infrastructure. With the proximity of this development to the Metro, we are of the view that it may be more suitable to have this project aimed towards towards individuals of this demographic who will more likely be using these infrastructures provided by the Government as opposed to the demographic the application documents have proposed will be the target for this development, who will unlikely require Metro services or won't require regular use of these services by comparison.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.

We cannot attach our file as an attachment. So it is in our comments.

To the Consent Authority,
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

RE: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-83256463.
Reference: D25/1757935 July 3025
Demolition Proposal.

Address: 150 The Boulevarde and 34 Dudley Street, Punchbowl NSW 2196

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are the owners of unit 6 at 36 Dudley Street, Punchbowl, which is immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed development. We are writing to lodge our formal objection to the Demolition Proposal D25/1757935 and Development Application SSD-83256463 for the construction of an eight-storey residential flat building comprising 114 affordable housing dwellings.

This proposal represents a significant and unreasonable overdevelopment of the site that will have severe and lasting negative impacts on our property and the local neighbourhood.

Our objections are based on the following grounds:

1. Gross Non-Compliance with Current Planning Controls
The proposal flagrantly disregards the statutory planning controls currently in force for the site under the Canterbury-Bankstown Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2023.

* Excessive Building Height: The current LEP specifies a maximum building height of 11.5m for the site. The applicant proposes a maximum building height of 29.8m, which is more than two and a half times the permissible height.

* Excessive Floor Space Ratio (FSR): The current LEP permits a maximum FSR of 0.9:1. The proposal seeks an FSR of 2.3:1, which is again, more than double the allowable density.


The applicant's justification relies on a draft Environmental Planning Instrument and a 30% bonus under the Housing SEPP. It is unacceptable for a development of this scale to be assessed against draft controls that have not been finalised or gazetted. This approach undermines the integrity and certainty of the planning system. The application should be assessed against the legal planning framework that is currently in force, under which it would be unequivocally refused.

2. Severe Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity
The sheer scale of the proposed eight-storey building will result in significant overshadowing of my property and surrounding homes, which are predominantly two and three-storey residential flat buildings, and some single story houses. The applicant's own overshadowing diagrams (Figure 8) show extensive shadows cast over neighbouring properties to the south and east, particularly during the critical winter months.

This will lead to a substantial loss of direct sunlight to the residents’ private open space, balcony, and windows in the primary living areas, negatively impacting the resident's residential amenity and increasing our reliance on artificial heating and lighting. The applicant's claim that there are no "unacceptable impacts"  is a subjective assessment that I strongly dispute from the perspective of a directly affected neighbour.

3. Unacceptable Overlooking and Loss of Privacy
The construction of an eight-storey building in such close proximity to lower-scale residential properties will create an unacceptable loss of privacy. The proposal's southern setback of only 6 metres is entirely insufficient for a building of this height. Dozens of apartments will have direct lines of sight into the windows, the balcony, the backyard, and the private spaces of all residents. This will result in a constant sense of being watched, destroying the peace and privacy residents currently enjoy in their home. The inclusion of "privacy screens" is an admission of this impact but is an inadequate solution for such a significant height difference.

4. Inadequate Parking Provision and Traffic Congestion
The proposal to provide only 58 car parking spaces for 114 apartments is woefully inadequate. These days most people living in Sydney find it necessary to own a car. Therefore at least 114 car spaces would be required.

Also of concern is the provision of only one (1) visitor car parking space. It is inconceivable that one visitor space can service 114 dwellings. This will inevitably force all visitor parking, as well as parking for around half of the residents, delivery drivers, trades and service providers, and emergency vehicles, onto the surrounding local streets, including Dudley Street and The Boulevarde. This will significantly worsen the existing parking congestion, create frustration for current residents, and impact road safety, particularly around the bus zone on Dudley Street and the nearby childcare centre. While the applicant claims compliance with the Housing SEPP rates, these minimum rates create a demonstrably poor outcome for the local community.

In conclusion, this proposal is an opportunistic overdevelopment that relies on draft planning controls to justify its excessive bulk and scale. It will cause overshadowing and irreversible damage to the amenity of residents and my neighbours through overshadowing, loss of privacy, and increased traffic and parking congestion.

We strongly urge the Department to refuse this development application.

Yours sincerely,
Judith Strickland and Ivan Desailly - concerned neighbouring property owners of Unit 6/36 Dudley Street, Punchbowl.

We need more affordable housing, and this well-designed thoughtful project sits within walking distance of the train station and town centre. It must be approved.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at The boulevarde, Punchbowl, affordable Housing.

As a resident of the street and area for over 45 years, I have several serious concerns regarding this proposal:

1. Negative Impact on Local Infrastructure

The local roads, public transport, and utilities are already under significant pressure. Adding further development in this area will only exacerbate traffic congestion and reduce the overall quality of life for current residents.

2. Environmental Concerns

The proposed development would result in the loss of green space and established trees, which are vital for biodiversity and the local ecosystem.

3. Incompatibility with Local Character

The scale and design of the proposed buildings are out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The development would undermine the visual integrity of the area, which consists predominantly of [e.g., low-rise residential homes, two level unit complexes].

4. Increased Noise and Disturbance

Construction and increased density will inevitably lead to a rise in noise levels and general disturbance, particularly affecting residents. This will negatively impact health and well-being.

5. Poor Design and Street Appeal

There appears to be limited design and asthetics in this building. Infact it looks ike a huge brick gungle with no variety of materails in the external apperance of the building.

I urge the Planning Authority to seriously consider these objections and to reject this proposal in its current form. The building needs to be scaled back and reduced in size alomg with an improvement in the facade and design elements of the building.

Thank you for your attention.

I support this project however, we need to change the traffic conditions on punchbowl Road leading to the Boulevard traffic lights intersection, NO stating sigs should be implemented for 24 hours from Dudley street to the Boulevard. I have been asking for this for the past 5 years please see if we could implement

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on SSD-83256463. Please see the attached response alongside an information sheet and growth data form for the applicant. Please contact [email protected] if you require any further information.

Concern regarding insufficient parking provision for proposed development
I wish to raise a concern regarding the inadequate parking allocation for the proposed development. Increasing the site from 26 units, with sufficient off-street parking, to 114 units with only 58 car spaces is likely to place considerable pressure on surrounding streets. This will not only reduce the availability of street parking but also contribute to increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the area.
My concern is informed by personal experience with a nearby development on my street, where a boarding house was constructed using a similar 'prescribed' ratio of units to car spaces. At the time, the justification provided was that the boarding house would accommodate low-income residents who were unlikely to own vehicles. However, this assumption has not held true in practice. A significant number of residents do own cars and are forced to park on the street due to the lack of allocated spaces.
Applying a standardised ratio for parking in developments of this scale does not reflect the actual needs of residents and the surrounding community. I urge that this issue be reconsidered to ensure the development does not negatively impact local infrastructure and liveability.