Mixed use development at 61A - 65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood (Mandarin Centre)

I fully support the project. As a resident of Chatswood, I have to agree that whilst the Mandarin Centre is an institution in Chatswood, It is starting to show its age and a facelift is long overdue.

I also strongly agree that having a residential tower above the new centre is a no brainer, as it will significantly increase housing availability and affordability in Chatswood. I do however, wish to see the number of storeys in the residential tower to be above 40 as well as residential carparking.

Written Submission to The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure re: Objection to the Development Application No SSD-85024458 at 61A-65 Albert Avenue Chatswood concerning the demolition of the existing building and construction of a mixed-use development comprising:
• two towers up to 32 storeys with a 4-storey retail podium, and
• 235 residential units, and
• 6 basement levels containing 444 car spaces, and
• so on (hereinafter referred as “The Proposal”.
From:
Mr Arthur Ying-Lim Kwan and Mrs Rita Lai-Ching Kwan
Address: Unit 1803, 37 Victor Street Chatswood NSW 2067
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0408 881 082

Declarations:
• We have not made any reportable political donations in the last 2 years.
• We acknowledge that we accept the Department’s disclaimer and declaration, including confirmation that our submission does not contain offensive, threatening, defamatory or inappropriate content.


Date: 20 March 2026


We, Arthur Ying-Lim Kwan and Rita Lai-Ching Kwan, being immediately adjoining residents to the Mandarin Centre - the building to be redeveloped under The Proposal - submit in brief as follows:

We strongly object to The Proposal on the grounds that:

(a) When the previous plan of redeveloping Mandarin Centre was put forward in 2020, we believe a lot of residents and other interested people in Chatswood and nearby suburbs had formally raised their serious concerns over height, design, loss of views and privacy, overshadowing of Chatswood Oval, traffic congestion and so forth, that would result from the then proposal. The Proposal this time, not only has not satisfactorily addressed and resolved those concerns, but rather, has further significantly aggravated the magnitude and severeness of the issues; and

(b) In the absence of concrete and reliable assurance on the financial support and ability of the developer to have the redevelopment under The Proposal to be carried out and completed on a timely basis, it is not unreasonable for people to have the concern that in case of any unexpected financial, technical or other problems that the project becomes “rotten”, no one can predict how many years that the messy conditions would remain there before someone would take over to complete the redevelopment. In such case, the messy status will inevitably lead to unpleasant appearance and chaotic environment, giving very adverse image as well as undue inconvenience to both the Chatswood residents and visitors.

More details of our submissions are as follows:

(1) From the information available to us, the redevelopment under The Proposal is to convert the existing five-storey Mandarin Centre into two towers up to 32 storeys with a 4-storey retail podium, 235 residential units, 6 basement levels containing 444 car spaces, and so forth. Inevitably, as one can reasonably expect, this will lead to a huge increase of numbers of residents, travellers and car movements adding to the local road network in Chatswood and nearby suburbs, giving rise to the severe and irreversible damages to Chatswood which will be further mentioned in paragraph (3) below.

(2) From personal perspectives, we are resident-owners of Unit 1803, The Sebel, Level 18, 37 Victor Street Chatswood, and currently we have uninterrupted views from our lounge and kitchen, which do provide us with some reasonable visual space, source of natural light and “breathing” area, as well as reasonable privacy.

But then under The Proposal, these views will be obstructed. In effect, the new developed building(s) will be visually so close to ours that not only our privacy is totally lost, but also it would inevitably create an “overcrowding” and “oppressive” environment causing undue annoyance, or even more seriously, emotional distress to our life at home.

However, these personal loss and damage to us are far insignificant and unimportant in the context of the seriousness of the overall adverse effects and harms to the community as a whole and people at large of the Chatswood that would be resulting from The Proposal. These overall costs and harms to the public will be further described in the subsequent paragraphs.


(3) Currently Chatswood, especially the CBD, is already over-saturated with people and buildings. Here the traffic is so congested, the noise pollution so severe, and the available infrastructures and amenity facilities so extremely in shortage. Even taking into account of potential expansion, the road network, infrastructures and amenity are already far insufficient to meet people’s need.

Hence by approving The Proposal and allowing the related redevelopment would simply mean that all of a sudden, there are additions of 235 residential units, many retail shops and hundreds of car spaces, and the resulting enormous burden will be a further stretch of the said facilities beyond their breaking points to a detrimental extent. The adverse consequences, which are irreversible, will be so significant and long-lasting that the whole community will suffer for years and years, and many years to come.

(4) When we look at the current conditions, social, economic and political, both local and overseas, we can hardly have any optimistic views in the next three to five years, or maybe even a longer period, especially on the building development industry.

High stagflation risk in economies including Australia, coupled with inflation, interest rate hikes, squeeze of money supplies and lending, as well as economic uncertainty, would inhibit the Proposer’s ability to secure the necessary financing.

Middle East turmoil, including at the Strait of Hormuz, and the resulting soaring oil and fuel prices, then high transportation, labour and other building costs, not to mention the consequential supply chain instability and disruptions and the resulting materials bottlenecks, could unexpectedly shoot up the costs of redevelopment, and lead to unbearable financial hardship to the Proposer.

All these factors, not only they do not appear to be supportive to the Proposal, rather they are fatal determinants casting doubts on the Proposer’s ability to carry out and complete on time the building redevelopment under the Proposal.

So in the absence of concrete and reliable assurance on the financial support and ability of the Proposer to have the redevelopment under The Proposal to be carried out and completed on a timely basis, it is not unreasonable for us to have serious concern that in case of any unexpected financial, technical or other problems during the redevelopment process that the project becomes “rotten”, how long the messy conditions would remain there before someone would take over to complete the redevelopment? Months? Years?

If this happens, the messy conditions will inevitably lead to unpleasant appearance and chaotic environment, giving a very adverse image as well as undue inconvenience to both the Chatswood residents and visitors.


(5) In conclusion, as shown in the foregoing paragraphs, other than being beneficial merely to the Proposers and Developers concerned, The Proposal virtually gives no benefits whatsoever to the Chatswood community and its people. Not only that, the resulting social costs are so unbearably enormous, and the consequential damages are just irreversible and long-lasting.

It would only be those, as it appears to us, who are so self-interested, lack of social consciousness, and totally ignoring the public interest and welfare, could ever work out and formally put forward such abhorring redevelopment proposal.

Thus, after all factors are being considered, we believe there will be no other more appropriate decision that can be rightly made but to have The Proposal rejected.


Finally, we wish to mention that the Department should, and would as we trust, safeguard the interest and welfare of the overall community and people at large of Chatswood and nearby suburbs, and not merely the financial interest of certain individual property owners and developers, and accordingly makes its final determination to have The Proposal rejected.

Hope our above views will meet with the Department’s agreement. Thank you.

ARTHUR KWAN
CPA (Aust) B Com FCPA

RITA KWAN
Patron of Australian Chinese Charity Foundation
Governor Patron of CanRevive Cancer Foundation

The maximum height of either of the 2 towers (eastern and western) should not exceed the 10th floor of the Sage building, thus allowing all-year sunshine and 'breathing space' to the Sage and Sebel buildings residents and does not block the views of neighbouring buildings residents. The concept of a modern Mandarin Centre is favourable but not at the expense of residents on all neighbouring buildings.

My name is Yameng Chen, the owner of the lot 157, Unit 2303 37 Victor Street Chatswood NSW 2067.
My family and I have lived in the Sebel since 1996. Our apartment 2303 has been our beloved family home for over 30 years.
I do not object to the redevelopment of the site in general, but I am strongly against the overdevelopment of the site, specifically against the new proposal of two very tall (32 stories) buildings to be built in the front of the Sebel building. I do not believe the current proposal has sufficient merit to proceed.
I wish to raise 2 issues:
First, impacts to existing views of the Sebel building.
The setback of the development from the Sebel boundary is currently in breach of current State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 and the Apartment Design Guidelines. The proposal does not strike the right balance between view sharing and realising the development potential of the site. The balance is tipped too strongly in favour of the latter, while ignoring the interests of current residents and community members.
My family and I have already suffered significant view loss and loss of sunlight due to the development of apartment towers on Post Office Lane and Railway Street. Even though our balconies are dual facing, there is really only one view that is not entirely blocked, and this is the view to the south. The proposed development will eradicate what view we have left and leave us imprisoned between tall buildings on all sides.
What strikes me as particularly unfair is that the new Mandarin Centre buildings are too close to the Sebel building and there won’t be any privacy for us unless we close our curtains all the time (24 hours x 7 days). This has detrimental impact on the quality of our living and health. It will also reduce the value of our property significantly.
The second issue I wish to raise is traffic impacts and safety.
The new Mandarin Centre buildings will have over 300 new apartments with 550 car parking spaces provided. This will have negative impact on local road network which already exceeded its capacity due to over development of Chatswood CBD in recent 5-10 years.
Anyone who has attempted to get onto the Pacific Highway from the Sebel in peak hour traffic could tell you that it is challenging at best and completely unmanageable at worst. The re-development of the Mandarin Centre will make the traffic situation much worse.
A Traffic Impact Assessment will need to be performed.

1. INTRODUCTION AND STANDING

I am a resident and ratepayer who has lived in the Chatswood area for over 20 years. I submit this objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 61A–65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood (the "Mandarin Centre" site), application reference PAE-85044973, seeking a State Significant Development consent.

I strongly oppose this application. While I acknowledge the need for housing supply in Sydney, this proposal — as designed and as scaled — represents an unjustified and disproportionate imposition on a community and infrastructure network that is already operating at or beyond capacity. The application should be refused, or at minimum significantly scaled back, for the reasons set out below.


2. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL

The application proposes two residential towers of up to 32 storeys above a four-storey retail podium, delivering 235 residential units (including only 26 affordable housing units, approximately 11%), with six levels of basement parking providing 444 car spaces. Critically, the proposal seeks to:

- Increase the maximum building height controls from RL 172.15m and RL 192.9m to RL 192m and RL 205m respectively; and
- Remove the floor space ratio (FSR) control entirely.

These are not minor departures. They fundamentally rewrite the planning framework for this site, and the community and infrastructure impacts have not been adequately addressed.


3. THE HEIGHT INCREASE AND REMOVAL OF FSR CONTROLS ARE UNJUSTIFIED

The existing Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 height controls were established through a deliberate strategic planning process. The application seeks to lift one tower to RL 205m — a level that has not been endorsed by any strategic planning review for this precinct. Height limits and FSR controls exist together as complementary mechanisms: height sets the visual and contextual envelope of a building; FSR controls the total yield. Removing FSR while also increasing height removes the only remaining ceiling on development intensity.

The removal of FSR controls is especially concerning as a precedent. Once removed for this site, it creates pressure to remove them across surrounding developments. There is no demonstrated public benefit that would justify this concession — 26 affordable housing units out of 235 is an 11% contribution that barely meets minimum thresholds and is wholly disproportionate to the scale uplift being sought.


4. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY AT CAPACITY

Chatswood is one of the most intensively developed suburban centres in metropolitan Sydney. The Pacific Highway through Chatswood, Victoria Avenue, Anderson Street, and Albert Avenue itself are subject to severe peak-hour congestion that has worsened progressively as residential towers have been approved and occupied across the precinct over the past decade.

The proposal includes 444 basement car spaces across six levels. This is a substantial traffic generator. Each driveway movement compounds pressure on Albert Avenue, which is a secondary street not designed to absorb the cumulative vehicle movements from a development of this scale. The traffic impact assessment must be rigorously scrutinised — in my experience living in this area, traffic studies consistently understate real-world congestion conditions at Chatswood.

The Chatswood Metro and train stations are already operating well above comfortable capacity during peak periods. The Sydney Metro Northwest line, while adding capacity, did not eliminate crowding — it added a new demand source. Bus services on the Pacific Highway are frequently overcrowded and unreliable. 235 additional dwellings will place further pressure on a public transport network that is already struggling to serve existing residents.


5. SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE IS CRITICALLY INADEQUATE

The school capacity crisis in Chatswood is acute and well-documented. Chatswood Public School, Willoughby Girls High School, and Chatswood High School are all heavily oversubscribed. Families in the area face genuine difficulty securing local school enrolments, and demountable classrooms have become a permanent fixture at multiple schools.

This situation has been made significantly worse by the NSW Government's decision to repurpose the Chatswood Metro construction site — which was widely understood by the community to be earmarked for a new school — to residential development instead. That decision removed the only realistic prospect of meaningful school capacity relief in this area. Approving further high-density residential development in the absence of any new school capacity is irresponsible planning. The Department should not approve additional residential yield in this location without first securing a commitment to new school infrastructure.


6. OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES ARE INSUFFICIENT

Chatswood has an extremely low ratio of open space per capita compared to other Sydney suburbs. The primary parks — Chatswood Park, Beauchamp Park, and the small pocket parks around the CBD — are already heavily used and cannot accommodate additional population without degrading the amenity they provide for existing residents. Albert Avenue and the immediately surrounding streetscape offer minimal tree canopy and no public open space.

The development provides no meaningful public open space contribution. The application should not be approved without demonstrable open space outcomes — either on-site publicly accessible space or a meaningful monetary contribution to the acquisition and embellishment of public open space in the immediate precinct.


7. CUMULATIVE DENSITY AND CARRYING CAPACITY

Chatswood is already among the highest-density residential precincts in metropolitan Sydney. The suburb has seen a wave of tower approvals over the past decade, and the cumulative impact of this densification has never been subject to a comprehensive infrastructure capacity review. Each individual development is assessed in isolation, while the combined effect on roads, schools, parks, sewer, water, and community services is borne entirely by existing residents.

This proposal must be assessed not just on its individual merits but in the context of the cumulative infrastructure burden already imposed on this community. The area has reached a point where further significant density increases cannot be justified without a demonstrated and funded infrastructure response.


8. THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Under section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the consent authority must consider the public interest. Approving this application — at the scale proposed, with the removal of FSR controls, and without credible infrastructure commitments — is not in the public interest for the following reasons:

- It prioritises private development profit over community liveability;
- It rewards an application that deliberately seeks to avoid planning controls rather than work within them;
- It provides only token affordable housing (11%) that is disproportionate to the scale of planning concessions being requested;
- It sets a precedent for the removal of FSR controls that will be used to justify further departures across the Chatswood precinct; and
- It further degrades the quality of life for thousands of existing residents who have reasonable expectations that planning controls will protect their neighbourhood.


9. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

I urge the Department to refuse this application in its current form. If the application is not refused outright, I request that the following conditions be considered as a minimum:

- That the height controls be reduced to comply with the existing Willoughby LEP 2012 controls, or at most a modest and justified variation;
- That the FSR control not be removed, and that a maximum FSR consistent with the existing strategic planning framework be retained;
- That the affordable housing contribution be substantially increased, to a minimum of 15% as a condition of any uplift approval;
- That a comprehensive and independently verified cumulative infrastructure capacity assessment be completed before any consent is granted; and
- That no consent be granted until the NSW Government commits to a funded plan for additional school capacity in the Chatswood precinct.

I have lived in and contributed to this community for over 20 years. I support appropriate and well-planned housing growth. But this proposal, as designed, goes far beyond what this community's infrastructure can sustain, and I strongly urge the Department to refuse it.

1. To start, there is confusion as to what is intended to be built on the site pursuant to this proposal. On the portal which we are directed to for the purpose of looking at the development proposal, there is a letter from your Department which contains a description of the proposal. It states that there will be “Two towers up to 32 storeys with a 4 -storey retail podium”. However, in Item 3.4 of the Sears Design Report, it states that:

“Initial testing has determined that a single tower placed close to the Victor Street and Albert Avenue corner will yield the best outcome. The single tower, positioned far away from the two existing neighbours, create the widest opening for views. Further, the curved inner facade further allows views to be less blocked. Previous proposals on the Mandarin Centre site have yielded two or more towers that restrict the view corridor.”

Also, the proposed scheme in item 3.4 of the Sears Design Report depicts only one tower.

Given this confusion, it is not clear as to whether the analysis in the Sear Design Report is directed at the proposal to build 2 towers or one. This means that we are also left with uncertainty as to the extent of the impact of this proposed development on the Sebel building.

2. If the proposed development is for two towers, then your Department has not done a proper analysis of this development proposal as much of the Sears Design Report has no utility or relevance. The Sears Design Report focuses on there being only one tower. Presenting the Sears Design Report as part of the exhibition for this development proposal is tantamount to deliberate and misleading conduct.

3. Item 2.3 of the Sears Design Report is titled “Existing Conditions Albert Avenue Pedestrian Experience”. It states under one of the photographs that “Current Mandarin Centre shopping mall with cinemas, minimal active street frontage, only entry access on the corner of Victor St and Albert Av”.

This is untrue and misleading. There is pedestrian entry access to the Mandarin Centre from another entrance which is on Victor Street and that in fact serves as the main access entry point. In addition, there is access from the basement car park and from the rear of the building. This misleading statement is designed to underplay the significance of the extent of the disturbance to Victor Street arising from this development. This has a direct effect on congestion as discussed in item below.

4. Victor Street is a very short no-through street which means that vehicles entering it can only exit through the intersection with Albert Avenue. Even now, without any new building being constructed, traffic is frequently congested, particularly on weekends and around 5pm on weekdays. Traffic is often at a gridlock at the intersection of Victor Street with Albert Avenue. There is nothing planned with this development proposal to overcome the flow of traffic once the development is completed.

5. Victor Street is also not a particularly wide street so there will also be congestion for pedestrians on the street if this development is allowed to proceed on the basis of its current configuration. The safety and convenience for all pedestrians should be paramount. Pedestrian traffic will increase markedly when this development and the Novus tower are completed.

6. The congestion on Victor Street is exacerbated by the fact that motor vehicles enter the street to pick up or drop off people catching the train or the Metro. There is therefore constant traffic flow in the street with no parking available at all in the street.

7. The soon-to-be constructed Novus tower at the end of Victor Street will only add to this traffic congestion.

8. My apartment in the Sebel building faces south, as do about one hundred others. The proposed tower will block the flow of natural light into all of these apartments. If two towers are built, the blockage will be almost total. The erection of new housing stock should not be at the expense of depriving existing home owners of their right to natural light. The exposure to sunlight has been medically proven to be essential to good health. The proposed height and setback distance between the 2 buildings will certainly impact on light. There has been no modelling to determine impact on the residents of the Sebel building.

9. Chatswood oval is used by many residents in this part of Chatswood for their daily exercises, as it is the only significant public green space available. The proposed height of the development will cause overshadowing of the oval which will impact on its usability and deprive users of access to adequate sunlight.

10. As a resident in the Sebel building, my entitlement to privacy will be severely impacted by the proposed development. The design photos show a very short setback distance between the proposed development and the Sebel building. This will result in me and other south-facing residents at the Sebel and the north-facing residents of the Mandarin Centre redevelopment losing much of their privacy. Each will be able to have a clear view into the other’s living space.

This violates Section 2F of the Apartment Design Guide (NSW Gov - Planning and Development) which states that 2 apartment residential buildings must have a separation distance of 24 metres between habitable rooms and balconies.

11. The Sears Design Report specifies the many beneficial attributes of there being only one tower constructed on the Mandarin Centre site. Those attributes constitute valid points of objection to this development if this development is indeed for the erection of two towers and I rely on those points of objection.

I strongly object to the currently proposed design of this development. The attached document contains the six reasons I object, which are: (i) potential of dramatic loss of natural light for Sebel building residents, (ii) significant privacy concerns for the Sebel building, (iii) abandonment of view sharing principles, (iv) incorrect statements in the view impact assessment of the EIS, (v) overshadowing of Chatswood Oval, and (vi) wind tunneling in neighbouring buildings that weren't designed to withstand it.

Objection to the project due to the following reasons
(A) High-rise fire risk as the redevelopment location is too close to another high-rise Apartments (Sebel, 67 Victor Street Chatswood)
(B) Lose the view of Sydney Harbour Bridge and fireworks from Metro Apartments and Sebel Apartments
(C) Too many construction sites around cause sound, dust and air pollution crisis
(D) Library and local schools would not satisfy the over-populated community as well as car parking spaces during construction time
Thank you for your consideration.

My concerns are as follows:

1. Privacy Impacts
The proposed development includes a tall-rise building in extremely close proximity to The Sebel, where I reside. This raises significant privacy concerns, as the height and positioning of the new structure will likely result in direct overlooking into existing residential apartments. Such an outcome would substantially diminish residents’ sense of privacy and negatively impact our quality of life.

2. Overpopulation and Density Concerns
Chatswood is already a highly dense urban area, and existing infrastructure is under considerable strain. The addition of another large-scale development will further exacerbate:

Traffic congestion in surrounding streets
Overcrowding on public transport networks
Pressure on local schools, which are already facing capacity constraints

Without clear and sufficient upgrades to infrastructure and services, this development risks significantly reducing the livability of the area.

3. Wind and Microclimate Impacts
The concentration of tall buildings around Chatswood Station has already created noticeable wind tunnel effects at street level. Introducing another high-rise structure in such close proximity is likely to intensify these conditions, resulting in stronger and more uncomfortable winds for pedestrians. This can reduce safety and amenity in public spaces, particularly for elderly residents, children, and commuters.

4. Noise and Construction Impacts
The proposed development is expected to involve a lengthy construction period, which will significantly impact nearby residents through persistent noise, dust, and general disruption. In addition, once completed, the increased density and activity associated with the development are likely to result in ongoing elevated noise levels, further affecting residential amenity.

5. Cultural Impact
The Mandarin Centre holds cultural significance for Chinese Australians in the Chatswood area and has long served as an important community and social hub. Its loss would represent not only the removal of a commercial space but also the erosion of local cultural identity and heritage. This impact should be carefully considered in the assessment of the proposal.

6. Emergency Services Access and Safety
The increase in density associated with this development raises concerns regarding emergency services access. Additional congestion and crowding may hinder timely access for emergency vehicles. Furthermore, higher population density within closely clustered high-rise buildings may increase evacuation risks and complicate emergency response in critical situations.

Given these concerns, I respectfully request that the proposal be reconsidered or modified to address the impacts on privacy, infrastructure, safety, and community wellbeing.

I am a resident of Victor Street, Chatswood, and I formally object to this proposal.
Unclear plans- The Planning Portal contains conflicting designs for this site. As directly affected residents, we cannot determine what is actually being proposed. No approval should be granted until a single, clearly defined scheme is put forward.
Traffic on Victor Street- Victor Street is a dead-end road already serving three apartment buildings (including the approved NOVUS tower), a station kiss-and-ride zone, and overflow traffic from Albert Avenue during market days. Vehicles frequently cannot enter or exit within a single light cycle. Car park access for this development must not be routed through Victor Street.
Overshadowing of Chatswood Oval- The oval is the only significant public green space in central Chatswood, used daily by families and sporting clubs. A development of this scale would cast substantial additional shadow over it, and there is no comparable alternative nearby.
Loss of natural light to The Sebel- Over one hundred south-facing Sebel apartments would suffer a dramatic reduction in daylight. This will have a detrimental effect on residents' mental health in both Sebel and the new building.
Privacy and building separation- The proposed setback falls well short of the 24-metre minimum separation required by Section 2F of the Apartment Design Guide. Residents on both sides would have direct sightlines into each other's living spaces, and the application offers no justification for this breach.
Wind effects- Two towers in such close proximity will produce ground-level wind channelling. No wind modelling or mitigation strategy has been provided.
Impact on resident wellbeing- These are not abstract planning concerns. Reduced sunlight, loss of privacy, diminished green space, unsafe traffic conditions, and increased wind exposure collectively affect the mental health and daily quality of life of people who already call this neighbourhood home.

My concerns are as follows:

1. Privacy Impacts
The proposed development includes a tall-rise building in extremely close proximity to The Sebel, where I reside. This raises significant privacy concerns, as the height and positioning of the new structure will likely result in direct overlooking into existing residential apartments. Such an outcome would substantially diminish residents’ sense of privacy and negatively impact our quality of life.

2. Overpopulation and Density Concerns
Chatswood is already a highly dense urban area, and existing infrastructure is under considerable strain. The addition of another large-scale development will further exacerbate:

Traffic congestion in surrounding streets
Overcrowding on public transport networks
Pressure on local schools, which are already facing capacity constraints

Without clear and sufficient upgrades to infrastructure and services, this development risks significantly reducing the livability of the area.

3. Wind and Microclimate Impacts
The concentration of tall buildings around Chatswood Station has already created noticeable wind tunnel effects at street level. Introducing another high-rise structure in such close proximity is likely to intensify these conditions, resulting in stronger and more uncomfortable winds for pedestrians. This can reduce safety and amenity in public spaces, particularly for elderly residents, children, and commuters.

4. Noise and Construction Impacts
The proposed development is expected to involve a lengthy construction period, which will significantly impact nearby residents through persistent noise, dust, and general disruption. In addition, once completed, the increased density and activity associated with the development are likely to result in ongoing elevated noise levels, further affecting residential amenity.

5. Cultural Impact
The Mandarin Centre holds cultural significance for Chinese Australians in the Chatswood area and has long served as an important community and social hub. Its loss would represent not only the removal of a commercial space but also the erosion of local cultural identity and heritage. This impact should be carefully considered in the assessment of the proposal.

6. Emergency Services Access and Safety
The increase in density associated with this development raises concerns regarding emergency services access. Additional congestion and crowding may hinder timely access for emergency vehicles. Furthermore, higher population density within closely clustered high-rise buildings may increase evacuation risks and complicate emergency response in critical situations.

Given these concerns, I respectfully request that the proposal be reconsidered or modified to address the impacts on privacy, infrastructure, safety, and community wellbeing.

Re: Objection to Planning Proposal – 61A–65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood (Mandarin Centre)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to formally object to the above planning proposal.

After reviewing the proposal, I have significant concerns regarding its scale, location, and potential impacts on the surrounding community, infrastructure, and environment. My key concerns are outlined below.

Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed height is excessive and fundamentally out of scale with the existing built environment on this environment. Such overdevelopment is inappropriate for this location which is a short and dead-end street, Victor Street (though the address is on Albert Avenue).

Inappropriate Site and Access Constraints
The site’s location on a constrained dead-end street makes it unsuitable for a development of this magnitude. The proposal fails to demonstrate how safe and efficient access will be maintained, particularly in relation to traffic flow and emergency vehicle movement. Currently, traffic getting in and out of Mandarin Centre or other buildings on Victor Street is already easily jammed at peak hours (such as weekends and during office hours). If the project is to go ahead, traffic in Victor Street could easily end up in gridlock situation which even emergency vehicles could not enter or leave.

Traffic, Congestion, and Safety Impacts
The provision of 444 car spaces (for both residents and visitors), with the only access via Victor Street, will significantly increase traffic volumes on an already congested road. This will have serious implications both during construction and once operational.
Given that there is another major redevelopment project already approved on Victor Street, the potential congestion and traffic impact will simply be unmanageable, especially during the construction period.

Given the already congested situation in Victor Street, if this project is to go ahead, traffic in Victor Street could easily end up in gridlock situation which even emergency vehicles could not enter, posting unacceptable risks to residents and visitors especially the elderlies and the vulnerable living in the areas and those visiting clinics and medical centres.
Victor Street joins into Albert Avenue, the traffic congestion will easily backflow onto Albert Avenue, which is already also congested during peak hours.
Victor Street is heavily used by elderly residents, including those with mobility aids such as scooters and wheelchairs. Increased traffic volumes and construction activity will create unacceptable safety risks and reduce accessibility for these vulnerable users.

Emergency and Medical Access Risks
Unimpeded access for emergency services is critical, particularly given the significant elderly population in the area. The proposal raises serious concerns about potential delays for ambulances and other emergency vehicles.
In addition, a medical health centre located on the street—including general practitioners, pathology services, and dental care—relies on consistent and safe access for patients, staff, and time-sensitive medical deliveries (such as urgent blood specimens). This access may be compromised.

Construction Impacts
The construction phase will generate substantial heavy vehicle movements, further exacerbating congestion, access limitations, and safety risks within this already constrained street environment.

Overshadowing and Built Form Impacts
The proposed height and bulk will result in significant overshadowing, including impacts on Chatswood Oval and the solar infrastructure on the rooftop car park of the adjacent Westfield shopping centre. These impacts have not been adequately justified.

Inadequate Community Benefit
The provision of only 4% affordable housing is unacceptably low for a development of this scale. This suggests the proposal is predominantly profit-driven and fails to deliver meaningful community benefit.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly urge that this proposal be refused. At a minimum, it should not proceed without substantial redesign to address the serious concerns relating to scale, access, safety, and community impact.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours faithfully,
Beatrice Cheng

I write as a Victor Street resident to register my formal objection to this development application.
Contradictory documentation- The materials published on the Planning Portal show different designs for the same site. Until the applicant commits to a single proposal, affected residents have no way to understand what is planned for our neighbourhood, and the application should not advance.
Road capacity on Victor Street- Victor Street is a cul-de-sac that is already stretched beyond any reasonable limit. It provides access to three residential towers — among them the recently approved NOVUS build-to-rent — while also functioning as a kiss-and-ride point for the train station and absorbing diverted traffic from Albert Avenue on market days. It is common for cars to be unable to clear the street in a single traffic light phase. Any consent granted for this site should prohibit car park entry from Victor Street.
Shadow impact on Chatswood Oval- Chatswood Oval is central Chatswood's only meaningful public open space, relied upon by families, dog walkers, and local sporting teams alike. The height of the proposed development would bring significant new overshadowing to the oval, and no equivalent green space exists in the area to compensate.
Daylight to The Sebel- More than a hundred south-facing units in The Sebel stand to lose a considerable share of their natural light. Despite the NSW Apartment Design Guide setting explicit solar access benchmarks, the application contains no assessment of how existing Sebel residents would be affected.
Overlooking and separation distance- Section 2F of the Apartment Design Guide sets a 24-metre minimum between habitable rooms and balconies of facing residential buildings. The proposed setback does not meet this threshold, meaning occupants of both The Sebel and the new development would look directly into one another's homes. No case has been made for why this standard should be waived.
Wind at street level- Towers built this close together inevitably create wind-tunnelling effects for people on the ground. The application offers neither modelling of these effects nor any proposed mitigation.
Cumulative effect on residents' wellbeing- Taken individually, each of these issues is serious. Taken together — less sunlight in the home, compromised privacy, degraded public space, worsening street safety, harsher wind conditions — they represent a tangible decline in the mental health and everyday quality of life of the people who already live here.
I call on the decision-maker to require these shortcomings to be addressed before the application is allowed to proceed.

I object to the proposed Mandarin Centre redevelopment in Chatswood due to its impacts on congestion, infrastructure, amenity, and non-compliance with planning standards.

1.) UNCLEAR AND INAPPROPRIATE CARPARK ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Victor, Albert, and Orchard Streets are already heavily congested due to cars trying to get in and out of Chatswood CBD, people coming to use restaurants and entertainment etc, multiple residential buildings, a train station kiss-and-ride zone etc; yet you still approved the coming NOVUS tower and are considering these two Mandarin Centre towers!
Bottlenecks are a daily occurrence, with vehicles unable to clear a single light cycle.
Any additional vehicle access from this development will further worsen congestion and increase safety risks.

We would welcome more buildings IF there was some foresight and answer to the traffic congestion.

The proposal does not clearly specify separate access arrangements for public (retail) and private (residential) parking- or if it does, there is such a mountain of information to wade through that an average person wouldn't be able to find this information easily. You are hoping to hear from the Community, but we are not all tech-savvy architects or planners who understand all the building jargon.

If current plans indicate reliance on Victor Street for vehicle access, given Victor Street is a constrained no-through road, this is totally inappropriate and will intensify congestion and vehicle conflicts. There is no evidence of traffic modelling or justification for this arrangement, nor consideration of alternative access points.
Car park access should not be via Victor Street, and separate access for public and private vehicles must be clearly defined and justified.

2.) CUMULATIVE OVERDEVELOPMENT
The recently approved NOVUS tower has already introduced excessive height and density to this precinct despite strong community objection. It was presented as addressing housing demand, yet further large-scale developments are now proposed in the same street. We in this part of Chatswood feel our voice is being ignored by the state government.

3.) DESIGN ESCALATION.
The initial concept for this site indicated a single tower designed to reduce visual bulk and avoid an overbearing built form. The current proposal has shifted significantly to two large, high-rise blocks, materially increasing scale, bulk, and impact. The towers have no gap or reprieve between them.
This escalation raises serious concerns about planning consistency and overdevelopment. The cumulative effect places undue strain on infrastructure and reinforces the community’s view that concerns are not being genuinely considered.

4.) TOTAL LOSS OF NATURAL LIGHT (The Sebel south face)
Over 100 south-facing apartments in The Sebel will lose ALL their natural light, reducing amenity and wellbeing. We don't understand how this can be legal.

5.) OVERSHADOWING OF CHATSWOOD OVAL
Chatswood Oval is the only significant green space in the Chatswood CBD. The proposed height will increase overshadowing, reducing usability. No equivalent alternative space exists. Solar access must be preserved. We don't understand how this can be legal.

6.) NON-COMPLIANCE- NSW Apartment Design Guide (Light)
No solar or daylight modelling has been provided to demonstrate compliance with NSW Apartment Design Guide standards. This must be addressed.

7.) PRIVACY AND SEPARATION
Insufficient setback will result in direct overlooking between buildings. The required 24m separation under Section 2F has not been demonstrated, indicating non-compliance. We don't understand how this can be legal.

8.) WIND IMPACTS
No wind assessment has been provided. Likely wind tunnelling effects will impact pedestrian safety and comfort. A study and mitigation measures are required.

The proposal lacks adequate assessment, does not demonstrate compliance, and will significantly impact residents and the community. It should be reconsidered and substantially revised.

I would like to object to this development as a resident of the neighboring building.

Victor street is already quite narrow for a hub such as Chatswood and a new high rise would increase both foot and vehicle traffic to potentially dangerous levels, along with the additional noise pollution in the area.

Apart from this, I worry for potential blockage of natural light in our existing building along with loss of privacy also.
I believe many other owners in our building is of the same mind.

Please reconsider.

Thank you.

I object on the following grounds
1. The lack of natural light that will be brought about in our apartment due to the new building. It has a detrimental on mental health to receive no natural light.
2.The traffic congestion on Victor Street is already untenable, to increase traffic on this street would be a nightmare for residents on the street. In fact the traffic congestion in Chatswood due to all the new apartment blocks and no upgrade to the roads or the infrastructure is already a significant problem.
3. There will be little privacy for residents of the Sebel with apartments in their new block looking in on them.

The project with two towers up to 32 storeys, if approved, will totally block apartments at 37 Alber Avenue, the Sebel, leaving residents there in a deplorable condition: poor light source, air flow, views, etc. More seriously, this shows total lack of town planning at Chatswood CBD, resulting that buildings around the outer circle of the city ring totally enclose buildings inside.
For better landscape and town-planning, I hope the height of the new Mandarin Centre should be well lower than that of Sebel.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the Mandarin Centre, on the basis that the development will result in unacceptable and adverse impacts on traffic, public amenity, access to sunlight, privacy, and pedestrian comfort. These impacts are contrary to sound planning principles and will significantly diminish the liveability of the surrounding residential area and the broader Chatswood community.
1. Traffic Congestion and Access Impacts
Victor Street is a no‑through road that is already operating beyond its practical traffic capacity. The street is burdened by multiple, competing traffic demands, including three existing residential apartment towers (with further density recently approved), a heavily used kiss‑and‑ride zone servicing the nearby train station, and its function as a de facto access route to the main boulevard, particularly during market operations.
As a result, traffic conditions on Victor Street and Albert Street are frequently at gridlock. Vehicles are regularly unable to enter or exit Victor Street within the duration of a single traffic light cycle, creating persistent bottlenecks, unsafe queuing, and heightened risk for all road users.
The addition of a major redevelopment will compound these already‑critical conditions, leading to increased congestion, longer delays, reduced access for residents and emergency vehicles, worsening pedestrian safety, and a measurable decline in local amenity. The surrounding road network lacks the capacity to absorb further traffic generation without severe and ongoing disruption.
2. Overshadowing of Chatswood Oval
Chatswood Oval represents the only substantial and functional public green space within the central Chatswood area. It is an essential community asset, relied upon daily by local families, recreational users, and organised sporting clubs, including rugby and cricket, for training and competitive use.
The proposed height and bulk of the Mandarin Centre redevelopment will result in increased and prolonged overshadowing of the oval. This loss of sunlight will directly undermine the usability, comfort, and environmental quality of the space, particularly during key daytime hours when sporting and community use is highest.
There are no alternative public open spaces within Chatswood capable of absorbing this loss of amenity. The overshadowing impact is therefore not temporary or substitutable—it represents a permanent degradation of a critical piece of community infrastructure, diminishing public health, recreation opportunities, and overall quality of life for the surrounding population.
3. Loss of Natural Light to The Sebel Apartments
The proposed development will cause a significant and detrimental loss of natural light to the south‑facing apartments of The Sebel building, affecting over 100 existing residential dwellings. These apartments currently rely on available daylight for basic residential amenity, including thermal comfort, energy efficiency, and occupant wellbeing.
The scale, height, and proximity of the proposed structure will substantially obstruct sunlight penetration into these homes. This outcome is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles set out in the NSW Apartment Design Guide, which establishes minimum expectations for solar access and daylight to habitable rooms.
The absence of any provided solar modelling or impact analysis further exacerbates concern. Without formal assessment, the proposal fails to demonstrate that existing residents’ living conditions will be protected, effectively disregarding the rights and amenity of a substantial number of current occupants.
4. Privacy and Building Separation
The design documentation shows an extremely limited setback between the proposed Mandarin Centre redevelopment and The Sebel building. This insufficient separation will result in direct sightlines between apartments, allowing residents of each building to look directly into neighbouring living spaces and balconies.
Such conditions create ongoing and unacceptable privacy impacts, eroding residential dignity, comfort, and security for both existing and future occupants. The issue is not minor or subjective, it is a direct consequence of building massing and layout.
NSW Apartment Design Guide Section 2F clearly requires a minimum separation distance of 24 metres between habitable rooms and balconies of apartment buildings. The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with this standard, indicating a clear departure from established and widely accepted residential planning benchmarks. This failure significantly undermines the suitability of the development in its current form.
5. Wind Tunnelling and Pedestrian Comfort
High‑rise buildings constructed in close proximity are well documented to create adverse wind effects, including wind tunnelling and downdrafts at ground and podium level. These conditions can dramatically reduce pedestrian comfort and, in severe cases, create safety hazards for residents, visitors, and passers‑by.
Given the scale and density of the proposed redevelopment, the absence of wind impact modelling is a serious omission. Without assessment or mitigation strategies, there is a high risk that the development will generate hostile wind conditions in surrounding streets, footpaths, and shared spaces.
This has the potential to discourage pedestrian movement, reduce street usability, and negatively affect the broader public domain. The failure to address wind impacts reflects an inadequate consideration of environmental and human comfort outcomes in a dense urban setting.
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed Mandarin Centre redevelopment fails to adequately address key planning considerations relating to traffic, public open space, residential amenity, privacy, and safety. The cumulative impacts on the surrounding community are significant and have not been sufficiently justified or mitigated.
I respectfully request that Council refuse the application in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
Rachel, resident of Sebel apartment

I submit this objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Mandarin Centre on the grounds that it will give rise to serious and unacceptable impacts on traffic conditions, public amenity, residential sunlight, privacy, and pedestrian comfort. Taken collectively, these impacts are inconsistent with established planning principles and will materially reduce the quality of life for nearby residents and the wider Chatswood community.
1. Traffic Congestion and Network Stress
Victor Street is a dead‑end street that is already subject to severe and ongoing traffic stress. It accommodates multiple conflicting traffic functions, including access for three residential apartment complexes (with additional density recently approved), a high‑turnover kiss‑and‑ride zone associated with the adjacent railway station, and overflow vehicular access to the main boulevard—particularly during market periods.
As a result of these overlapping demands, Victor Street and Albert Street experience frequent standstill conditions. It is common for vehicles to be unable to enter or exit Victor Street within a single traffic signal phase, producing recurring blockages, unsafe vehicle queuing, and elevated risk to drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Introducing a large‑scale redevelopment at this location will intensify an already overburdened road network. Increased traffic volumes will worsen delays, restrict accessibility for residents and emergency services, undermine pedestrian safety, and further erode local amenity. The existing street network does not have the capacity to accommodate additional traffic without persistent and severe disruption
2. Overshadowing of Chatswood Oval
Chatswood Oval is the sole major public open space within the central Chatswood precinct and serves as a vital recreational and community facility. It is used extensively by families, casual visitors, and structured sporting groups—including cricket and rugby clubs—on a daily basis.
The proposed scale and height of the Mandarin Centre redevelopment will cast extended shadows over significant portions of the oval. This reduction in sunlight will adversely affect the usability, comfort, and environmental quality of the space, particularly during daylight hours when sporting and community activities are most concentrated.
There is no comparable public open space in Chatswood that could compensate for the resulting loss of amenity. The overshadowing impact is therefore permanent in nature, leading to a lasting diminution of a key community asset and negatively affecting recreation, wellbeing, and social use for current and future residents.
3. Deprivation of Natural Light to The Sebel Apartments
The development will significantly reduce daylight access to the south‑facing apartments of The Sebel, impacting more than 100 existing homes. These dwellings depend on available sunlight to maintain reasonable living conditions, including internal comfort, energy performance, and occupant health.
Due to the proposed building’s height, bulk, and proximity, sunlight access to these units will be substantially obstructed. This outcome conflicts with the intent of the NSW Apartment Design Guide, which establishes minimum standards for solar access and daylight to habitable rooms in residential developments.
Compounding this issue is the absence of any solar access modelling or formal impact assessment. Without this analysis, the proposal fails to demonstrate that the amenity of existing residents has been meaningfully considered or safeguarded.
4. Privacy Impacts and Insufficient Building Separation
Submitted design material indicates a critically small separation distance between the Mandarin Centre redevelopment and The Sebel building. This minimal setback will result in direct overlooking between apartments, enabling occupants of both buildings to view into neighbouring private living spaces and balconies.
Such outcomes represent a serious and ongoing loss of privacy, undermining residential comfort, personal security, and everyday liveability. This is not a marginal design issue but a direct consequence of excessive building mass and inadequate separation.
Section 2F of the NSW Apartment Design Guide requires a minimum distance of 24 metres between habitable rooms and balconies of apartment buildings. The proposed design does not demonstrate adherence to this requirement, reflecting a clear departure from accepted residential planning standards and raising fundamental concerns about the appropriateness of the development.
5. Wind Effects and Pedestrian Amenity
Closely spaced high‑rise buildings are widely recognised as contributing to adverse wind conditions, including accelerated wind speeds, downdrafts, and wind tunnelling at ground level. These effects can significantly compromise pedestrian comfort and, in some circumstances, pose safety risks.
Given the height and density of the proposed redevelopment, the lack of any wind impact assessment represents a critical deficiency. Without proper analysis or demonstrated mitigation measures, there is a substantial risk that the development will create hostile wind conditions in adjacent streets, footpaths, and communal areas.
Such an outcome would discourage pedestrian activity, reduce the usability of the public domain, and negatively affect residents’ daily experience of their neighbourhood. The omission of wind considerations reflects an inadequate evaluation of environmental and human comfort impacts.
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed Mandarin Centre redevelopment does not satisfactorily address core planning considerations relating to traffic capacity, protection of public open space, residential amenity, privacy, or pedestrian safety. I respectfully request that Council refuse the application.

Yours sincerely,
Resident, Sebel Apartments

I object to the project on the following grounds
1. The traffic on Victor Street is currently terrible , I can't imagine how bad it will be with another large residential development accessing the same road and cul de sac. Additionally over the weekend and particularly on Fridays afternoons it can take 15-20 minutes to reach the Pacific Highway from our building.
2.I am concerned about the engineering and construction of the project for structural imparement on our own building. I don't see how large construction equipment will come up Victor Street. The disruption will have enormous effect on residents.