Chatswood Grand Residences Mixed Use Development

This project will provide a great opportunity to deliver more homes close to transport hubs in line with the Government's housing targets. The project is really well located in the Chatswood CBD and in addition to housing it will be providing childcare services and an active retail precinct. The skyline around Chatswood is evolving and the building heights for this project are similar to other projects that are being built. I really think that this project will be a great addition to the Chatswood area and fully support it.

To: The Planning Assessment Team

Re: Objection to Proposed Increase in Building Height from 90m to 209.5m for this project.

I am writing to formally object to the proposal to increase the approved building height for the above development from 90 metres to 209.5 metres.

The original approval granted in December 2025 was based on a comprehensive assessment of the development and its impacts on the surrounding area. The proposed increase to 209.5 metres is not a minor amendment but a substantial change that significantly exceeds the height previously considered acceptable.

My primary concern relates to the cumulative impact of recent high-density residential developments approved within our area. In recent years, numerous apartment projects have been approved and are either under construction or recently completed. While growth and development are important, the supporting infrastructure and community services do not appear to be keeping pace with the increasing population.

The road network is already experiencing significant congestion during peak periods. A development of this increased scale will generate additional vehicle movements, placing further pressure on local roads, intersections, parking availability, and public transport services. Residents are likely to experience longer travel times, increased traffic delays, and reduced road safety.

In addition, there are concerns regarding the capacity of essential community facilities, including schools, childcare centres, medical services, recreational facilities, and public open spaces. Before approving a development of this magnitude, a comprehensive assessment should be undertaken to demonstrate that adequate infrastructure and services are available to support the projected increase in residents.

The proposed increase in height may also result in adverse impacts on local amenity, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, increased wind effects, visual bulk, and a significant change to the character and skyline of the area. These impacts should be carefully assessed and publicly disclosed.

Furthermore, approving a height increase from 90 metres to 209.5 metres would establish a precedent for future developments seeking substantial departures from existing planning controls and previously approved limits. Such a decision could undermine community confidence in the planning process and the integrity of established planning frameworks.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the application to increase the building height to 209.5 metres be refused. Alternatively, if the proposal is to be further considered, I request that an independent assessment be undertaken addressing the cumulative impacts on traffic, infrastructure capacity, community services, urban amenity, and local character before any decision is made.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours faithfully,

Judy

I would like to object to the project for the following reasons:
1. The additional height and infill will have an effect of increased shadowing and obstruction of morning sunshine for properties in Anglo Street, Chatswood and surrounding streets.
2. Increased population density in the area without increased road infrastructure. This project will bring many more residents cars to the area, contributing to an already congested traffic area.
The existing approved project is significant, and I feel that increasing the height, volume of traffic, and population density even further will stretch relations with the surrounding Chatswood residential community beyond an acceptable limit.

Dear Assessment Team,

I am a local resident living in the Chatswood area, and I would like to express my support for the proposed Chatswood Grand Residences Mixed Use Development.

Having lived in this area, I have seen Chatswood continue to grow into one of Sydney's most important commercial and residential centres. I believe this development is a positive step that will help meet the needs of our growing community.

The location is well suited for higher-density housing because it is close to public transport, shopping centres, schools and employment opportunities. Providing more homes in areas with existing infrastructure is a sensible and sustainable approach to future growth.

I also welcome the proposed mixed-use design, which will bring additional retail, public spaces and improvements to the streetscape. I believe these features will make the area more vibrant, convenient and enjoyable for both residents and visitors.
As a local resident, I appreciate developments that contribute to the long-term vitality of the community while making efficient use of land in well-connected locations. I believe this proposal will have a positive impact on the Chatswood precinct and will benefit both current and future residents.

For these reasons, I respectfully support this proposal and hope it will be approved.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Kind regards,

To be honest, I want to see my city getting more international spill and aura. We need more high rises like this that have essential and premium shopping and eateries downstairs while creating convenient homes for families. The project should go ahead to solve so much needed social housing and Chatswood is a great area for it - see how many good education spots there for families with kids. If we want Sydney to grow and get developed for current and future generations we should not stop such submissions. Billbergia has a greta track record based on we can see in media and credentials like iCIRT and builders communities so they are the right company to make this project happen.

Chatswood Grand Residences is a good opportunity for well located market and affordable housing on a construction ready site.

I support the project because it is ideally located in the Chatswood CBD, close to employment, shops and essential services, with excellent access to both the Sydney Metro and heavy rail network. The proposal will also deliver much-needed affordable housing and childcare facilities, create a more active and attractive retail frontage along the Pacific Highway, and improve pedestrian access and connectivity through the site. Overall, I believe the project will make a positive contribution to Chatswood and the wider community.

OBJECTION TO SSD-93776214: CHATSWOOD GRAND RESIDENCES

CRITICAL PLANNING CONTROL BREACHES

This proposal seeks unprecedented planning control breaches: height increase from 90m to 209.5m (233% increase); FSR increase from 6:1 to 17.8:1 (297% increase); and reduction of non-residential space from 17% to 3.3% (80.6% reduction). These breaches are unjustified and should be refused.

APPLICANT'S OWN EIS ADMITS WIND IMPACTS

The applicant's Wind Tunnel Study (SLR Consulting, March 2026) explicitly acknowledges "Unfavourable Moderate" wind impacts at two pedestrian locations (14 & 16) in the through-site link. Table 5 (p.29) shows:
- Location 14: Target comfort C3 (Standing), Predicted C1 (Business Walking) = Unfavourable Moderate
- Location 16: Target comfort C3 (Standing), Predicted C1 (Business Walking) = Unfavourable Moderate

The study states: "All Unfavourable impacts are considered significant, requiring consideration of mitigation" (Section 4.2). The applicant admits proposed mitigation measures "were not included in the wind tunnel model due to scale limitations" (Section 8.1, p.33). The study recommends "3D CFD simulations may be undertaken" at Detailed Design stage—the word "may" indicates mitigation is uncertain, not assured.

The study further acknowledges that landscaping mitigation is unreliable: trees in high-wind areas experience "wind speeds every 5 years sufficient to destroy or severely damage many trees" and "landscaping planted in high wind locations rarely matures to its normal full height" (Section 4.3, p.13-14). Approval cannot be granted on unproven, speculative mitigation.

INADEQUATE PARKING CREATES SPILLOVER

The Transport Impact Assessment (JMT Consulting, April 2026) proposes 511 parking spaces for 552 apartments = 0.93 spaces per apartment. Standard provision in NSW residential developments is 1.2-1.5 spaces per apartment. This creates a shortfall of 100-250 spaces, forcing residents to seek parking on surrounding streets already experiencing congestion.

OVERSHADOWING OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES

Twin towers of 56-60 storeys rising 200+ metres will cast extensive shadows across Day Street and Anderson Street residential buildings. Neighbouring residents will experience permanent loss of natural lighting, reduced solar access to living spaces, and diminished outdoor amenity. These impacts are irreversible and will devalue neighbouring properties.

INFRASTRUCTURE STRAIN

552 apartments impose massive burdens on local schools, childcare, water/sewerage, emergency services, and roads already at or exceeding capacity. The proposed $80M contribution cannot adequately address cumulative impacts. The 80-place on-site childcare centre addresses only a fraction of demand from 552 apartments (estimated 165-275 child places needed). Schools in the Chatswood area are at capacity.

TRAFFIC ON ALREADY-CONGESTED ROADS

The Transport Assessment acknowledges the site is in "an area experiencing congestion during peak periods" with Pacific Highway being "a major route" (Section 2.3, p.6). 552 apartments will generate hundreds of additional vehicle trips daily on already-strained roads. No adequate traffic mitigation is proposed.

RECOMMENDATION

The Department should REFUSE this application. If considered further, require: maximum height 120m (consistent with local context); FSR limited to 9:1; 1.3 parking spaces per apartment; 20% affordable housing; and independent verification of all wind, traffic, and visual impact assessments. Chatswood should grow within planning controls that protect community amenity, not be sacrificed for overdevelopment.

This project will provide much needed high-quality housing in an area that has excellent public transport and public amenity. The development fits into the perfect niche of providing housing in a well sought after area that is connected to the public transport system, schools, shopping and public and private amenity and has little to no negative impact on the area in terms of overshadowing and traffic congestion.

The two unit blocks are already going to be taller than most in Chatswood, the addition of further floors and therefore people would put additional pressure on existing infrastructure including roads and transport. The metro is full to the brim now during peak hour when arriving in Chatswood. The roads into carparks already do not cope with existing volumes. Also as the site is on the hill, it will also overshadow existing properties. The height increase of more than double the existing plan will affect everything in Chatswood and allow further developments to take the same approach. While I am all in favor of additional residences, unit buildings with this height is not something we should be considering in Chatswood. Where is the green space, how will the schools cope, let them put money into improvements that will benefit existing residents or the residents that will purchase the units and how they will live in Chatswood.

I significantly object this proposal. I do not support this proposal in its current form because it represents an excessive intensification of the site through increased building height, reduced minimum non-residential floor space, and therefore increased residents and housing.
My concerns are as follows:

1. Excessive Building Height

The proposal seeks to increase the height of the development beyond the established planning controls. This will create an overbearing built form that is inconsistent with the surrounding urban character and will contribute to an increasingly congested skyline within the Chatswood CBD.

The additional height will also increase overshadowing, reduce sky views, and diminish the visual amenity enjoyed by nearby residents and public spaces.

2. Significant Increase in Residential Density

The reduction in the minimum non-residential floor space allows substantially more residential apartments to be accommodated on the site. While this may increase housing numbers, it also significantly increases the resident population without a corresponding increase in supporting infrastructure.

The cumulative impact of multiple high-density developments occurring around Pacific Highway must be properly considered rather than assessing this proposal in isolation. Recent proposals along the Pacific Highway corridor are already contributing to substantial increases in population density within Chatswood.

3. Increased Pressure on Local Infrastructure

The proposal will place additional demand on already constrained infrastructure, including:

* Road congestion along Pacific Highway and surrounding streets.
* Public transport capacity during peak periods.
* Footpaths, public open space and community facilities.
* Local schools, childcare services and health services.
* Water, drainage and utility infrastructure.

There is insufficient evidence that existing infrastructure can accommodate the substantial increase in residents proposed.

4. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety

Additional residents will inevitably generate more vehicle movements, service vehicles, rideshare activity and pedestrian traffic.

Given the already congested nature of Pacific Highway and nearby intersections, the proposal is likely to worsen traffic delays and create additional safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

5. Cumulative Impacts

The Department should carefully consider the cumulative impact of this proposal together with the numerous approved and proposed developments throughout Chatswood.

While each individual proposal may appear acceptable when assessed independently, collectively they are transforming the scale, density and character of the area far beyond what existing infrastructure was designed to support.

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposed amendments in their current form or require significant modifications to:

* reduce the overall building height;
* retain the originally intended non-residential floor space;
* reduce the number of residential dwellings;
* ensure supporting infrastructure is demonstrated to be adequate before any increase in density is approved; and
* fully assess the cumulative impacts of this and other major developments within Chatswood.

I object to the proposed amendments to the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 that accompany the Chatswood Grand Residences development.

The proposal seeks to amend the planning controls applying to the site by:

1. Increasing the maximum building height from 90 metres to 209.5 metres;
2, Increasing the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 6:1 to 17.8:1;
3. Reducing the minimum non-residential Floor Space Ratio from 17% to 3.3%.

While I recognise the need to increase housing supply in well-located centres, housing delivery should occur within a planning framework that is strategically justified, infrastructure-supported and consistent with adopted planning policy.

I respectfully submit that the Planning Proposal has not demonstrated this.

1. The Proposal is Inconsistent with the Strategic Planning Framework

The proposal represents an extraordinary departure from the planning controls established under the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP).

The current controls were adopted following strategic planning investigations and community consultation. A proposed increase in building height of approximately 133% and an increase in FSR of almost 200% fundamentally alters the planning intent for the site.

The Department should be satisfied that such significant amendments are supported by strategic planning evidence rather than being driven primarily by development yield.

2. Failure to Demonstrate Strategic Merit

The NSW Department's guide Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline states that planning proposals should demonstrate strategic merit and site-specific merit.

In my view, the proposal has not demonstrated either.

It has not adequately justified why this particular site should receive an uplift that is substantially greater than surrounding sites and existing planning controls.

Without a comprehensive precinct-wide review, the proposal appears to constitute ad hoc planning rather than orderly strategic planning.

3. Inconsistency with the North District Plan

The Greater Cities Commission North District Plan identifies Chatswood as a Strategic Centre that should accommodate both employment and housing growth.

Planning Priority N6 seeks to retain and grow employment opportunities while supporting housing delivery.

The proposal moves in the opposite direction by reducing the mandatory commercial floor space requirement from 17% to only 3.3%.

This substantially weakens Chatswood's long-term employment function and risks converting a strategic commercial centre into a predominantly residential precinct.

The Department should require clear evidence that this reduction will not adversely affect employment capacity or conflict with the objectives of the North District Plan.

4. Reduction in Commercial Floor Space

The reduction of the minimum non-residential FSR from 17% to 3.3% represents a loss of approximately 80% of the commercial floor space originally intended under the LEP controls.

Commercial floor space within Chatswood should not be removed unless it can be demonstrated that:
i. demand for commercial space has materially changed;
ii. employment targets will continue to be achieved;
iii. alternative employment opportunities exist within the centre; and
iv. the proposal remains consistent with metropolitan strategic planning.

No such justification has yet been convincingly demonstrated.

5. Excessive Height and Floor Space Ratio

The proposed height of approximately 209.5 metres would make the development one of the tallest buildings outside the Sydney CBD.

Similarly, an FSR of 17.8:1 represents an intensity significantly exceeding the controls that currently apply to the site.

Planning controls should not be amended simply because a larger building can physically fit on a site.

The Department should consider whether the proposed scale remains compatible with the existing and planned character of Chatswood and whether it contributes positively to the skyline, streetscape and public domain.

6. Infrastructure Capacity

Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires consideration of the suitability of the site and the likely impacts of the development.

The proposal would substantially increase population density and demand for:
i. road infrastructure;
ii. Sydney Metro and Sydney Trains services;
iii. local bus services;
iv. schools and childcare;
v. parks and public open space;
vi. health services;
vii. water, sewer, drainage and electricity infrastructure.

The EIS should demonstrate, through robust modelling rather than assumptions, that these services have sufficient capacity.

If infrastructure upgrades are required, they should be identified before any planning controls are amended.

7. Overshadowing and Residential Amenity

The Apartment Design Guide establishes objectives relating to solar access, daylight, privacy and residential amenity.

Given the extraordinary increase in building height, the Department should be satisfied that the proposal will not create unacceptable impacts through:
i. overshadowing of neighbouring buildings;
ii. reduced solar access to public spaces;
iii. increased overlooking;
iv. loss of privacy;
v. diminished outlook.

The burden of proof should rest with the applicant to demonstrate that these impacts are acceptable.

8. Wind Environment

Buildings of approximately 210 metres have the potential to create significant downdrafts and wind acceleration at street level.

The Department should carefully review the wind assessment and require independent peer review if necessary.

The proposal should demonstrate compliance with recognised pedestrian wind comfort criteria for public spaces, retail frontages and transport connections.

9. Public Domain and Human Scale

Good urban design is not measured solely by the number of dwellings produced.

The proposal should demonstrate that the increased density will deliver:
i. comfortable pedestrian environments;
ii. adequate sunlight to streets and public spaces;
iii. high-quality landscaping;
iv. active street frontages;
v. sufficient public open space.

Without these outcomes, increased density risks diminishing rather than improving the quality of the Chatswood centre.

10. Unacceptable Planning Precedent

Approving an increase from 90 metres to 209.5 metres and an FSR increase from 6:1 to 17.8:1 would establish a significant precedent for future planning proposals.

Other landowners could reasonably seek similar uplifts, making it increasingly difficult for the Department to rely upon adopted LEP controls.

Planning certainty is an important public interest consideration.

11. Public Interest

Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires consideration of the public interest.

While increasing housing supply is clearly in the public interest, this objective must be balanced against:
- strategic planning;
- employment generation;
- infrastructure capacity;
- environmental impacts;
- urban design quality;
- community amenity.

In my view, the proposal has not yet demonstrated that these competing public interests have been appropriately balanced.

I respectfully request that the Department:
i. Refuse the proposed amendments to the Willoughby LEP 2012; or
ii. Require the applicant to substantially reduce the proposed building height and Floor Space Ratio so that they remain broadly consistent with the strategic planning framework applying to Chatswood; and
iii. Retain the existing minimum non-residential Floor Space Ratio to preserve Chatswood's role as a Strategic Centre for employment; and
iv. Require independent peer review of the traffic, wind, overshadowing, visual impact, infrastructure capacity and economic impact assessments before any amendment to the planning controls is considered.

The proposed amendments represent a significant departure from the adopted planning framework. Without compelling strategic justification and demonstrated infrastructure capacity, they should not be approved.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Prime Location: Unmatched transport connectivity with seamless access to both Sydney Metro and heavy rail.

Community Impact: Delivering essential housing supply, affordable housing options, childcare services, and a brand-new retail precinct.

Note: You can easily log in via a personal email and choose to keep your details completely confidential.

Every positive submission helps us secure the momentum needed to bring this landmark North Shore project to market, opening up exciting new stock and commission opportunities for your team very soon.

This project is located in the Chatswood CBD so it is a great location for new homes especially as it is close to shopping and services and the Sydney Metro. This project is also going to deliver more affordable housing and child care services.

The scale of change being sought is excessive and represents a significant departure from the planning controls that have previously applied to the site. The proposal seeks substantial increases in height and density through amendments to the applicable planning controls.
I am concerned that this level of uplift constitutes overdevelopment, placing additional pressure on local infrastructure, transport networks, public spaces and community services, while fundamentally altering the character and scale of the surrounding area.
There is also a broader concern regarding planning certainty. Residents and the community should be able to rely on established planning controls and strategic planning outcomes. Continually increasing development limits through successive amendments risks undermining confidence in the planning process and creating outcomes that exceed what was originally envisaged for the site. What comes next? another application to raise it again?

Planning controls exist to provide certainty and ensure growth occurs in a balanced and orderly manner. I do not believe the scale of the proposed departure has been adequately justified by a corresponding public benefit.

I respectfully request that SSD-93776214 be refused or substantially reduced in scale.

Submission Objecting to SSD 93776214 – Chatswood Grand Residences Mixed Use Development

I am a resident of Altura at 11 Railway Street, directly adjoining the proposed development site at 849–859 Pacific Highway and 2–8 Wilson Street. My apartment living spaces face east over the Pacific Place communal open space and bedrooms overlook Railway Street. I am writing to object to SSD 93776214 on the basis that the proposal will significantly and unacceptably impact the amenity, safety, traffic conditions, and environmental quality of the Pacific Place community.
My concerns are based on:
- My lived experience of daily congestion on Railway Street
- The overshadowing risks to my apartment and the Pacific Place communal open space
- The cumulative impacts of multiple large developments now proposed in the northern Chatswood CBD
- The lack of compliance with key planning controls under the Willoughby LEP 2012, the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), the Housing SEPP, and the assessment criteria for State Significant Developments
I have reviewed the EIS and supporting documents. In my view, the proposal does not meet the environmental, amenity, or strategic planning requirements necessary for approval.
Summary of Key Objections
My primary concerns relate to:
- - Traffic impacts and unsafe access arrangements
- - Overshadowing and loss of solar access to Pacific Place and Altura
- - Noncompliance with planning controls and objectives under the LEP
- - Precedent risk for excessive height and density in Chatswood
- - Cumulative impacts not properly assessed
- - Inadequate view loss analysis and privacy impacts
- - Construction impacts, dust, wind, and excavation risks
These concerns are explained in detail below.
1. Traffic Impacts
1.1. Railway Street is already failing during peak periods
During evening peak hours, traffic frequently banks up from the Day Street roundabout past the Altura driveway, making it difficult and sometimes unsafe to enter or exit the building.
During rail and metro replacement bus operations which occur regularly on weekends, Railway Street becomes gridlocked. Buses lay over along the street, blocking lanes and parking spaces. This is not reflected anywhere in the Transport Impact Assessment (TIA).
The TIA does not model these real-world conditions.
1.2. The proposed access via O’Brien Street is unsuitable
The development proposes to funnel all traffic through O’Brien Street, a narrow cul-de-sac that already supports service vehicles for Altura. Right turns are prohibited, meaning all vehicles must travel south down Railway Street — directly into the most congested part of the local network.
This is a fundamental design flaw.
Transport for NSW has already indicated a preference for access via Wilson Street, which is a safer and more appropriate location.
The EIS does not explain why O’Brien Street was chosen over Wilson Street, nor does it assess the consequences of forcing all traffic into a constrained residential cul-de-sac.
1.3. Parking provision is inadequate and will spill into local streets
The TIA identifies a shortfall of 126 residential parking spaces and only 12 visitor spaces for more than 550 apartments.
This will inevitably push overflow parking into Railway Street, Day Street, and surrounding residential roads, worsening congestion and reducing safety.
The TIA suggests visitors should use Chatswood CBD public parking, which is unrealistic and ignores the needs of existing businesses and residents.
1.4. Cumulative traffic impacts have not been assessed
The TIA does not model:
- The approved 845 Pacific Highway development (approx. 500 units)
- Rail replacement bus operations
- Construction traffic from multiple concurrent developments
- The proposed median on Railway Street
- The changed turning movements forced by the cul de sac access
- The impact of weekend rail shutdowns
- The increased density allowed under the Housing SEPP
This omission is unacceptable for a State Significant Development.
1.5. Reliance on outdated modelling
The TIA relies on the Chatswood CBD Planning and Urban Design Strategy 2036 (published in 2021). This predates:
- TOD reforms
- Housing SEPP changes
- Multiple new SSD proposals
- The upzoning of northern Chatswood
The modelling is no longer valid.
2. Overshadowing and Solar Access Loss
The EIS shadow diagrams (HAD 600 and HAD 601) show significant overshadowing of Pacific Place and Altura.
As a Level 5 east facing resident, my apartment relies entirely on morning sun from the east. The proposed towers — at 60 storeys — will block this sunlight for extended periods, particularly between 9am and 1pm during winter.
The ADG requires that living rooms receive a minimum of 2 hours of direct sunlight. The EIS does not demonstrate compliance for Altura or other Pacific Place buildings.
The Willoughby LEP 2012 height and FSR objectives require development to:
- Protect solar access
- Minimise overshadowing
- Provide open spaces with good sunlight
- Manage bulk and scale
The proposal fails all of these.
2.1. Impacts on Pacific Place communal open space
The Pacific Place communal open space — used by more than 2,000 residents — will lose almost all afternoon sun during winter.
This is unacceptable for a community recreation area.
2.2. No apartment-by-apartment solar access analysis
The EIS does not provide:
- Solar access modelling for individual Altura apartments
- Floorplate specific analysis
- ADG compliance for surrounding buildings
This is a major omission.
3. View Loss and Privacy Impacts
The Visual Impact Assessment only considers five public viewpoints and does not assess private residential views from Altura, Epica, Cambridge, or B2E.
For Altura residents, views toward Lane Cove National Park and Garigal National Park are highly valued. The proposal will obstruct these views entirely for many apartments.
3.1. Tenacity principles not applied
The Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) view loss test requires:
1. Identifying the value of the view
2. Identifying where the view is enjoyed from
3. Assessing the extent of the impact
4. Assessing the reasonableness of the proposal
The EIS does not apply these principles.
3.2. Privacy impacts
Large windows in the proposed tower directly face Altura’s living rooms. Separation distances appear to be less than the ADG minimum of 24m for buildings over 25m tall.
This will create significant overlooking and privacy loss.
4. Non-Compliance with Willoughby LEP 2012
4.1. Excessive height and FSR
The proposal seeks:
- Height: 209.5m (773% above original controls)
- FSR: 17.8:1 (1087% above original controls)

4.2. Non-residential GFA shortfall
Clause 6.25 of the LEP requires 17% non-residential GFA. The proposal provides 13.04%, a shortfall of 1,371m².
This undermines Chatswood’s employment role and contradicts the intent of the MU1 Mixed Use Zone.
The Clause 4.6 variation request does not provide sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the departure.
5. Inconsistency with Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Policy
The TOD reforms aim to:
- Reduce car dependency
- Encourage public and active transport
- Improve walkability
- Reduce traffic impacts on residential streets
Yet the proposal includes 10 basement levels and funnels all traffic into a constrained residential cul de sac.
This is inconsistent with the policy that justified the site’s upzoning.
6. Cumulative Impacts
Chatswood’s northern CBD is undergoing multiple simultaneous redevelopments. The EIS does not assess:
- Combined overshadowing
- Combined wind impacts
- Combined construction noise
- Combined traffic impacts
- Combined dust impacts
- Combined excavation impacts
Without this, the assessment is incomplete.
7. Construction, Dust, Wind, and Excavation Impacts
7.1. Dust impacts
No dust management plan has been submitted. Dust will be blown into:
- Pacific Place communal open space
- Altura balconies
- The swimming pool
This will significantly reduce amenity.
7.2. Wind impacts
No wind tunnel testing has been undertaken. The proposed height will create wind tunnelling effects into Pacific Place.
7.3. Excavation risks
Deep excavation poses risks to:
- The Altura pool
- Retaining walls
- Structural stability
- Groundwater levels

8. Conclusion and Request
Based on the issues outlined above — particularly the severe traffic impacts, overshadowing, non-compliance with LEP objectives, TOD inconsistencies, and inadequate environmental assessment — I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD 93776214 or require substantial redesign.
At minimum, the Department should require:
- Relocation of vehicle access to Wilson Street
- A full private view loss assessment
- A detailed solar access impact analysis for Altura and Pacific Place
- A revised TIA including cumulative impacts
- Compliance with Clause 6.25 non-residential GFA
- Reduced height and bulk to meet LEP objectives
- Proper modelling of overshadowing using ADG criteria
- Wind tunnel testing
- A dust management plan
- A construction environmental management plan
The proposal in its current form is excessive, unsafe, and incompatible with the surrounding residential community.
Thank you for considering my submission.

I support the project.

As a resident of Chatswood, I seriously believe it will improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would however like to see the number of units and storeys significantly increased as well as units set aside for essential workers like nurses working at the nearby Royal North Shore Hospital.

Fantastic proposal! Absolutely appropriate for a connected suburb like Chatswood

This will deliver much needed housing including affordable housing in an excellent location that is close to transport, schools and amenities.

The need for housing across Sydney is there - this is an empty site which I drive past most days and looks like the ideal place for housing and shops. Any affordable housing would also make sense.