Mixed use development with in-fill affordable housing at 57-61 Archer St & 34 Albert Ave, Chatswood

The size of the development is far too large for the streetscape and it cannot cope with the influx of residents and increased traffic volume.
I am also against the redevelopment of the heritage house at 34 Albert Ave and the loss of four mature trees which provide shade on Albert Ave. The changes are excessive, and there is no need for food and drink to be served in this area, for hygiene reasons.

To whom it may concern,

My name is Rafael Del Rosario and I am the General Manager at the Quest Apartment Hotel in Chatswood, located on the corner of Albert Avenue and Archer Street, across the road from the development in question at 57-61 Archer Street, Chatswood. As a business, we have two objections to the project.

Our first objection is that we believe the proposed 29 storey (32 if including the additional three storey podium) height of the project is too tall. Not only is it significantly taller than any other building in the area and therefore aesthetically unsuitable for this part of Chatswood, but the mere size of the building critically reduces the amount of natural light our property receives during the day. The rooms at our hotel only face east and west. Our western facing rooms already experience natural light deprivation due to the residential part of our block restricting the flow of natural light entering the rooms on that side. At the moment, the eastern side of our building is the only part of our property that receives any natural sunlight.

The proposed height of the 57-61 Archer Street, Chatswood development will plunge our property into darkness, which causes several issues. Firstly, the lack of natural light will force our guests to have to use more electrical light instead to compensate. I have seen the occupants in other buildings in Chatswood who are forced to keep their lights on all day because they are dwarfed by and are in the shadows of other disproportionally taller buildings, blocking any natural light. Not only would this increase our electricity bill but as a result, the increase in electricity usage will therefore also have an adverse effect on the environment. Secondly, the lack of natural light will also negatively impact the mental health of our guests. We already receive these comments regarding mental health from guests who stay in rooms on our western side that already have poor access to natural sunlight. This brings me onto my third and perhaps the most obvious, is the impact to our business. The lack of natural light due to the vast size of the development across the road will lead to complaints from our guests, impacting guest experience and thus harming the reputation of both our property and the Quest brand.

The second objection to the project at 57-61 Archer Street, Chatswood is the increased traffic that the development will cause on both Archer Street and Albert Avenue. Archer Street is busy at the best of times, especially on weekends where traffic can back up all the way to Mowbray Road to the South and Boundary Road to the North. Similarly, Albert Avenue is particularly busy on weekends with west-bound traffic heading towards the Westfield car park. The intersection of Albert Avenue and Archer Street is especially dangerous, with cars coming from the east on Albert Avenue turning right into Archer Street creating a blind spot for cars turning right from Albert Avenue into Archer Street in the opposite direction, as there is no green right turn arrow on the traffic light. The addition of 169 car parking spaces in the new development will exacerbate the chaos on Archer Street and Albert Avenue. Furthermore, Bertram Street is far to small and narrow with limited accessibility for such a large property, if that street is to be considered the entry and exit point for the development.

Considering these objections, we would like to submit two suggestions. Firstly, we would like the plans for the development to be amended for a smaller tower that is not only more aesthetically suitable for the area, but also does not obstruct the natural light as much to our property. Secondly, we would like more studies to be done to analyse the impact that the size of this development will have on local traffic and to amend the plans for the development accordingly.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kind regards,
Rafael Del Rosario

From Paul and Mary-Jane Morgan
9 Neridah St
Chatswood NSW 2067
[email protected]
To NSW Dept Planning and Open Space
This correspondence concerns SSDA at 57-61 Archer Sr and 34 Albert Ave Chatswood NSW 2067 and was sent to the following politicians. However while the main correspondence covers my strong objections outlining the many problems of the SSDA, it outlines a history of problems relating to the revised WCC LEP 2012, as amended several times by a vey incompetent council and planning recommendations. Your deoartment needs to fund housing for essential workers.
The Premier, the Hon. Chris Minns, The Minister for Planning and Open Spaces, the Hon Paul Scully, and The Treasurer, The Hon. Daniel Mookhey, MLC

Overall, I have serious concerns about proposed 30 storey developments on the perimeters of Chatswood town centre through TOD (Transport Orientated Development) and SEPPs (State Significant Development Applications). Your proposals for 4 Herbert St Leonard’s are seriously problematic, and there is limited affordable accommodation in both North Sydney and Willoughby local government areas for the workers that keep Royal North Shore Hospital functioning, except possibly the rich medical practitioner’s investment portfolios.

Primarily I am currently very concerned about the proposal at 57-61 Archer St and 34 Albert Ave Chatswood, SSD - 72891212. I request you compulsorily acquire this site for essential housing.
My comments below cover issues you have control to do a great deal about, especially funding for increased green spaces, essential housing and honoring high-quality public-school education.

My concerns are many:
1. The building proposed at 57-61 Archer St and 34 Albert Ave is too high at 29 stories. This concrete box will sit like a monumental symbol on the edge of the commercial and residential town centre.
2. The illustration is very deceptive: The 5 storeys of ‘affordable’ housing appear to have beautiful hanging gardens on the lower levels. Which residents will maintain their beauty on low-paid incomes. Some may like to pot a garden in their recreation, but not everyone has the time or cares about the beauty of our buildings, sadly. Note the eucalyptus towering nearby above the tower. Ha ha!
3. The current proposal, in fact, is 32 stories
4. The adjacent, tall-enough, resident areas along Archer St area are a manageable, visual-density of around ten and eleven stories. These buildings for example, 38 Archer St, are on a human scale. I would be happy to accommodate 5-8 storey buildings along Archer St to the western side of Bertram St, providing there is adequate green space of trees, shrubs, play spaces for children surrounding the increasing housing density.
5. Both state and federal governments should fund essential housing in the area, along Archer through to Bertram, but only to Johnson St.
6. The proposed 57 Archer St will overpower the Chatswood Police Station. It will overshadow the adjacent child care centre, the Chatswood South Conservation Area properties.
7. In the winter, the over shadowing effects reach to Mowbray Road. The residents will use more heating, raise our carbon footprints. It overwhelms the Chatswood South Conservation area which includes nine individually listed heritage properties around Neridah and Johnson Streets.
8. This too-tall building will also overwhelm the magnificent indigenous Angophora tree (which I saved as a WC councillor, 1991-1999) at the rear of the Police Station, just opposite the entry access of 34 Albert Ave. The proposal as it stands could possibly cause wind-tunnelling damage to the tree’s magnificent branches.
9. Willoughby local government area (and North Sydney) have already made excellent progress for high-rise and medium density housing over the last 30 years.
10. The increased height allowable under the ‘affordable housing’ is a fallacy: Fact, the terms ‘affordable’ apartments are returned to the developer or property owners/developers after ten years. They then join the already high-return Chatswood rental market. Rents for affordable housing have only to be 15% below the market rate. What is the market rate in Chatswood. Hardly affordable! Who are you kidding. Do you want Chatswood to be funded from overseas investors!
11. Chatswood town centre needs housing for essential workers, such as retail shop assistants, beauticians, hairdressers, secretarial and personal assistants, cleaners, medical orderlies, motor mechanics, car wash attendants, the service industry. Many of the hard working and poorly paid people I know travel from the outer suburbs to work in Chatswood (Dan! my talented hairdresser comes from Blacktown, 5 days a week – he drives and carbons the sky). Short term, developer-driven, so-called, affordable housing is not the solution.
12. Integrated housing for people in a range of incomes makes for a cohesive society.
13. I have requested that WCC advocate the State and Federal Government to fund housing for essential workers on this site. Remembering that between 1947 and 1966, home ownership rose under federally led Menzies led government (Liberal Party) and later Chifley (Labor) from 46% to 68% through funding and subsidy arrangements. Remembering also, that home ownership provides stable, secure dwelling-place for family life to flourish. Families having autonomy over their property are spared from the typically transient nature of leases and the negative destabilising effects these shorter-term living arrangements create. Hence, mental health issues are reduced and there is greater consistency in school enrolments.
14. Which brings me to the next issue: Chatswood and Willoughby have already over stretched facilities.
15. First, public primary schools. In 2023/4, Chatswood PS had 1325 enrolments, Willoughby PS had 985. These two schools will educate most of the children in any residential proposals for the Chatswood town centre. Both schools are already at capacity. Yes! the children could be bused to Castle Cove PS but, most families and the area amenity benefit if primary age children walk to school.
16. The ‘dive-site’ on the corner of Mowbray Rd and the Pacific Highway is still under consideration. Clearly this land should be zoned school and open space funded by our governments. My family have requested councillors and Tim James advocate for this funding. On behalf of the people of Willoughby, this will also require a tree-lined connected walkway beside Chatswood Park and oval through to Mowbray Rd and Artarmon. Are you reading Premier Minns? Are you listening Paul and Dan? One of your roles is to leave the state with better and beautiful amenities than when you started to lead the government. WCC LEP & DCP 2023 new developments should be of excellent design and incorporate green landscaping with strong sustainability credentials overall. This does not enhance the amenity of Chatswood town. This proposal sits very uncomfortably and awkwardly at the edge, it is too high against the low-rise residential area.

Zoe Baker, the Mayor of North Sydney, shared with me her excellent ¬¬understanding of the history of WCC’s attitude/LEP planning laws to both TOD and SEPP as put together, under a previous Council’s ruling and recommended by the WCC (disastrous) planning department. Zoe says both Willoughby’s and Lane Cove’s submissions on TOD were extremely disappointing. I agree. Please take note, Mayor Baker has a wonderful mind and an excellent knowledge of high-quality planning, like her predecessor, Ted Mack. Please note also, Labor’s precarious position regarding political representation. The community independents continue to strengthen across all traditionally-held Labor and Coalition electorates.

Premier Minns, your Ministers, PLEASE, you do not want to leave a legacy of phallic monuments across our beautiful city of Sydney for rich people. We will be deserted by our young folk. I love living with our solo-parenting, daughter and our gorgeous granddaughter. Even in good professional employment, that is, working for a politician, our daughter cannot afford an apartment in Willoughby. And you talk of affordable housing!

My thanks to you for standing up and taking a position of leadership. Please start listening to us instead of being ‘led by vested interests and big donors’ quote Nicolette Boele. I have grave concerns about the integrity of the company behind this particular development at 57 Archer. Please modify it by compulsorily acquiring the land. Build genuinely affordable housing for our influx of wonderful immigrants who enjoy living with their fellow country people in Chatswood.

TOD continues to be a major concern for the people of Willoughby - it is not a good solution to ESSENTIAL and AFFORDABLE housing.

Yours sincerely,
Mary-Jane Morgan on behalf of our family and many neighbours
Phone: 0415 779 707
The Premier,
The Hon. Chris Minns, MP
GPO Box 5341
SYDNEY NSW 2001
(02) 7225 6000 The Treasurer,
The Hon. Mr. Daniel Mookhey
GPO Box 5469, Sydney, NSW 2001

https://www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/ministers/minister-for-planning-and-public-spaces

Dear Sirs

The mass, scale and height is unacceptable. I state
1. The height is not compliant with the Willoughby Development Control Plan
2. There are shadowing impacts and these plans need to be provided to show impact on residents in neighbouring streets. Not only massive shadowing, but greatly reduced privacy by proposed unit dwellers being able to view my back and front yards. This reduced privacy affects dozens and perhaps hundreds of houses

3. There will be significant parking impact and more parking needs to be provided on site (below ground) and that local streets residents need to become resident only parking areas
I get already regularly parked across my driveway, every single day, and have to report this irregular parking to Council Parking officers, on a repetitive and constant basis.

Further there is insufficient parking in the proposed project- 150 units (and calculating an average of 3 people per unit, and not counting zero visitor parking!!), with only 169 parking spaces shows *clear deficiency* in parking. Therefore the size and height of the construction must be severely curtailed to those conform to buildings in the immediate vicinity

4. May create an unsafe wind tunnel impact on Albert Ave.
5. Need to demonstrate ecological benefits (may impact bird/bat flight paths; needs to show positive ecological impact on Chatswood; etc.).
6. The surrounding buildings are far lower in height. To get a building of equivalent height, one must compare to the towers on Chatswood Station (the highest of which is 29 stories, lower than this proposed development!!). Residential buildings of this height are only found in the City Cbd.
7. A building of this height would house around 500 people alone, not counting the visitors/shoppers to facilities located therein. There is already enough general rubbish and stray shopping trolleys left by visitors to my street. This development will exponentially increase litter and noise at all hours
8. Finally, the proposed construction has no architectural merit. The proposed construction seems a poor Brutalist copy of many buildings in poorer parts of the world. Just a square tower of concrete, steel, glass- completely out of sync and harmony of the Federation houses of the area, especially those in Neridah Street. The project therefore favours profit over aesthetics- building over 150 units in a cheap economical building, which will become a slum and eyesore of tomorrow.

It is not an advancement and protection of the many cultural and architectural qualities of Chatswood and Willoughby in general, but rather we are witnessing a systematic destruction of our heritage

Please refer to Officers letter and attachments

Key Concerns:
Overbearing Scale and Impact on Sunlight:
The proposed high-rise building, with its excessive height, will significantly overshadow surrounding properties, severely impacting natural light access and privacy for residents.
Visual Intrusion:
The design of the building is incompatible with the existing low-rise residential character of the area, creating a visually jarring and disruptive presence on the streetscape.
Increased Traffic Congestion:
The additional residents from this high-rise development will undoubtedly put further strain on existing traffic infrastructure, leading to increased congestion and parking difficulties on our streets.
Negative Impact on Amenities:
The proposed development could potentially overwhelm local amenities such as parks, schools, and shops, impacting their usability for current residents.
Potential Environmental Concerns:
Concerns regarding potential impacts on air quality and increased noise pollution due to increased traffic and construction activities.
Request for Consideration:
I urge the planning department to carefully reconsider this application and explore alternative development options that better align with the existing neighborhood character and the needs of residents.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my concerns further and provide additional information as needed.

We have our own workshop in Chatswood and live close to it.
My husband is disabled person so distance is very important for us.
However, as the area develops, we are having financial difficulties due to rising rent and property prices.
We have applied for government housing but
getting a house in a nearby area is almost as winning the lottery.
We are very supportive of the development of this area as this project .

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed development at 44-52 Anderson Street, Chatswood, due to its significant impact on traffic congestion, overcrowding, and the safety of the existing school environment.

Traffic congestion is already a major issue on Anderson Street and surrounding roads. As someone who drives through this area daily, I frequently experience long delays, especially during peak hours and weekends. Chatswood is a busy commercial hub, and weekend traffic jams around shopping centers and dining precincts already make travel frustrating. Adding a high-density development will only worsen congestion, making it even harder to move through the area efficiently.

Public transport services, including the Chatswood train station and bus networks, are already at capacity. Trains and buses are overcrowded, and an influx of new residents will further overburden these services, worsening the commuting experience. Without a clear plan to expand transport capacity, this development will place undue strain on an already overwhelmed system.

Additionally, the proposed development lacks adequate parking, which will lead to spillover into nearby residential areas. Finding parking in Chatswood is already a challenge, and this project will only increase demand, making it even harder for residents and visitors to park.

Furthermore, the increased business activities surrounding the proposed development block will negatively impact the nearby school environment. Higher traffic volumes and increased pedestrian activity pose safety risks for school children, making it more dangerous for them to commute to and from school. The additional noise and disruptions will also affect the learning environment, reducing the overall quality of education for students.

The scale of this development does not align with Chatswood’s infrastructure capacity and will negatively impact livability. I urge planning authorities to reconsider the project and implement proper traffic, transport, and safety solutions before approving further high-density development.

Please refer to the letter attached

Please refer to attachment

To Whom It May Concern,
I am a resident near the proposed site. I believe this proposed site will significantly detract from the quality of life in Chatswood. I wish to express strong objections to the planned development due to several critical issues as below:
1. Excessive Height and Scale: The proposed building is 113 meters tall (32 stories), which exceeds the current height limit by 23.2%. The floor space ratio is increased by 30%, leading to concerns about overdevelopment and its fit within the community.
2. Traffic and Parking: The development is expected to introduce hundreds of new residents along with 169 new parking spaces, potentially exacerbating local traffic congestion and parking strain, particularly during peak hours.
3. Impact on Sunlight and Wind Conditions: The size and placement of the building could create long shadows, reducing sunlight for nearby properties and public spaces. It may also generate wind tunnel effects that could affect pedestrian comfort and safety. 4. Misuse of Affordable Housing Provisions: The developer is dedicating 5 floors of the proposed 32-storey building to affordable housing. However, this affordable housing provision is being used as a loophole to justify substantial increases in the building’s height (23.2%) and Floor Space Ratio (30%), far beyond what is typically allowed under planning controls. While affordable housing is important, the way it is used in this development primarily benefits the developer, not the community.
4. Disrespect for Heritage: The development threatens the significance of the heritage-listed property, Laurels 34, diminishing its cultural value by overshadowing the site with the large tower.
I trust that you will consider these points seriously when making your decision about this development.
Thank you for considering my objection.

Constructing a 29-storey development in this area is inadvisable. Albert Avenue has only two lanes in each direction, with one often occupied by on-street parking, leaving just one lane for traffic. Additionally, there is a police station across from the proposed development, where ease of access and minimal traffic congestion are essential.

Adjacent to the development site is an early learning centre (child care). A high-rise building with a dense population would block the essential sunlight needed for the children's growth. Furthermore, the towering structure would obstruct views in the surrounding area, creating an eyesore.

Therefore, I oppose the development of this housing project.

Application No SSD-72891212
SITE SUITABILITY shop top housing

1. A 32 Storey high-rise
2. Comprising 152 units
3. 169 parking spaces
4. The proposed height of 110.9m not 90m

It might be helpful to trace the history of what is currently a large excavated hole at the intersection of Archer Street and Albert Avenue Chatswood. The site was a group of 12 townhouses known as Peppercorn Terraces built around 2008, they were demolished also demolished was two dwellings constructed in 2009, known as 34A and 34B Bertram Street - all relatively young buildings demolished.

Coronation Property Co Pty Ltd (‘Coronation’) lodged the following two applications to Willoughby Council:
11 January 2024 DA-2023/320 application for excavation and tree removal. To facilitate future mixed-use development on the site.
12 January 2024 DA-2023/328 application to demolish the townhouses (described as non-significant buildings plus 34A and 34B Bertram Street.
22 April 2024 DA-68 proposed temporary use of existing heritage building as a display suite, alterations and additions. The applicant is Chatswood Property Pty Ltd.
On 30 September 2024 Coronation notified local residents that following Willoughby Council’s approval of DA-2023/328, demolition works would commence from October 2024 to early 2025.
On 17 January 2025 excavation work suddenly stopped leaving a bulldozer and backhoe still on site. I hope this is not another Mascot Towers issue or compromised foundations for the adjoining properties.
As at the time of lodging this submission the proposed development site has not been approved by The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure.
This project is for a 32 Storey high rise, which originally had a height limit of 90 metres bus has now been extended to 110.9m far in excess of the current building heights located in the surrounding area. There is no justification for such a monumental high-rise to be constructed in this location. There are a number reasons why this project should be rejected.
I shall try to highlight some of the many issues that should be considered.
The project claims to provide 41 affordable housing units but the detail is that the affordable housing will only be available for 15 years.
150 dwellings but only 169 parking spaces. The assumption is that a family of say three or four will either have one car or no car. When you have teenage children they will demand the need for a car and if there is no car space they will of course look for on street parking.

TRAFFIC IMPACT AND PARKING DEMAND

When the Peppercorn Terraces was constructed its driveway went out to Albert Avenue. But clearly with a proposed 32 Storey high-rise and 169 car spaces it is impractical to construct a driveway onto Albert Avenue, or Archer Street.
Bertram Street is a small narrow street that does not have or allow for two lane traffic at any one time.
For many years Bertram Street has suffered with parking problems. The increase of traffic in and out of a 32 storey high-rise will not improve parking or traffic flow – it will only make matters worse. I hope Willoughby Council’s Traffic Engineers have some input into this particular issue.
Bertram Street has for many years been used by the NSW police vehicles for emergency quick access to Mowbray Road.
Having a large wide driveway to access to the proposed 169 car spaces can only achieve one thing and that is increased traffic, delays and congestion in the immediate area.

STORMWATER AND EASEMENT
The plans do not indicate what has or will happen to the 1.83m wide existing stormwater Pipe Easement at 34 Albert Avenue that was originally approved by Willoughby Council for the development application in July 2008. The plans show a 600x900 MD grated drain located adjacent to the boundary property of 32A Bertram Street. The irony is the two gated drains were dug up during the demolition of 34B Bertram Street and are still visible laying on the ground.
The plans submitted by Coronation indicate a driveway width of 8500 to access the proposed 5 level basement parking. I do not believe that can be achieved without compromising the stormwater and easement pipe that runs from properties further north of the proposed development between Bertram and Archer Streets to the forecourt of 34 Albert Avenue.
There is little communal open space given the size of this development proposal. The project should be rejected.
Regards
Concerned resident

This is a good and needed development, providing much needed housing in a perfect location (near a major public transport interchange). I hope to see it approved

I'm concerned about the increasing traffic flow and whether there'll be enough room in the local public school for more children from this new residential building.

As a resident of Archer Street, Chatswood, I wish to formally object to the proposed high-rise development at 57-61 Archer Street and 34 Albert Avenue. My objection is based on the following key points:

1. Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed height of 113m exceeds the maximum permitted height of 90m, a 23.2% increase. This is out of proportion with the medium-density residential character to the south and fails to provide a smooth transition from the high-density Chatswood CBD to the surrounding areas. The excessive height disrupts the area's character and causes overshadowing, impacting nearby properties.

2. Traffic and Transport Issues
* Congestion: The Transport Impact Assessment shows that key intersections, especially Archer Street and Albert Avenue, are already congested during peak hours. This development will make delays worse, with Levels of Service (LOS) degrading to unacceptable levels (D and E).
* Cyclist Safety: The absence of dedicated cycling lanes on Archer Street and Albert Avenue, coupled with increased traffic, creates serious safety risks for cyclists.
* Pedestrian Stress: Increased pedestrian traffic from the development will strain existing footpaths and crossings, particularly during peak times.

3. Misuse of Affordable Housing Provisions
While the inclusion of affordable housing is commendable, the developer uses it as a mechanism to justify a 23.2% increase in building height and a 30% increase in Floor Space Ratio (FSR). These increases result in an oversized building that imposes excessive impacts on the community, including traffic congestion, overshadowing, and wind hazards.
Additionally:
* The affordable housing units focus on smaller apartments that may not meet the needs of key workers and families.
* The proposal does not guarantee long-term management of affordable housing, raising concerns about its effectiveness.

4. Overshadowing and Amenity Loss
The Architectural Design Report confirms that the proposed height and bulk will cast long shadows on nearby properties and public spaces. This will reduce sunlight and lower the quality of life for residents. The design also fails to meet Willoughby Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Clause 6.15, which ensures sufficient sunlight for neighbouring homes.

5. Wind Tunnel Effects
The Pedestrian Wind Environment Study highlights areas where wind speeds exceed safety and comfort limits. While the developer suggests solutions like vegetation and screens, these measures depend on proper maintenance, which is not guaranteed. Wind hazards will make public spaces less usable and unsafe for pedestrians.

6. Flood Risks
The development will increase impervious surfaces on the site, which could worsen flooding for properties to the south. While the developer has proposed stormwater management measures, they do not adequately address downstream impacts.

7. Cultural and Heritage Impact
The development incorporates a heritage-listed property (Laurels 34) but fails to respect its significance. The tower’s height and bulk overshadow and diminish the heritage building’s prominence, undermining its cultural value.

8. Poor Transition to Residential Areas
The design lacks adequate setbacks and landscaping to soften the visual bulk of the building. This creates an abrupt transition from a 32-storey high-rise to the lower-density residential neighbourhood to the south, failing to maintain the area’s established character.

9. Insufficient Community Engagement
The Engagement Report shows that only six community submissions were received. This suggests insufficient effort was made to engage with the local community and gather meaningful feedback.

10. Construction Impacts
The scale of the development will lead to long construction timelines, causing ongoing noise, dust, and vibrations. The mitigation measures proposed are inadequate to protect residents from these disruptions.

Conclusion
While I support affordable housing and urban development, this proposal does not align with the local context and poses significant risks to community amenity, infrastructure, and safety. I urge the council to reconsider this proposal and request modifications that better integrate with the surrounding area and address these concerns.

Subject: Concern Regarding High-Rise Development in Chatswood – Building Height, Urban Line, and Traffic Impact
Dear Sir or Madam
1. Building Height: The proposed building height appears to exceed the standard guidelines for the Chatswood area. While I understand the need for urban development and increased housing capacity, it is crucial to maintain a balance that respects the existing skyline and ensures the structural harmony of the area.
2. Traffic and Infrastructure Impact: An increase in building height and occupancy inevitably leads to a rise in traffic. Chatswood is already experiencing significant congestion, and additional high-rise developments without corresponding infrastructure improvements could exacerbate the situation. It is essential to assess the impact on local roads and public transport systems and to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to mitigate potential traffic issues.
3. Urban Line and Aesthetic Integration: The design seems to diverge from the established urban line, which could disrupt the visual and structural coherence of Chatswood's urban environment. The alignment of buildings along major streets contributes significantly to the area’s aesthetic and functional integrity, and deviations might impact the overall urban experience.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 57-61 Archer Street Chatswood 2067. The pre-existing residence was a 2 storey building. Now a 32 storey building is proposed! This will significantly impact the pre-existing traffic congestion in this area. There is already overdevelopment in the Chatswood CBD. Traffic is often at a standstill and it can take more than 30 minutes to move from one end of Archer Street to the other. Albert Avenue is similarly congested especially during peak hours and weekends. This development will significantly worsen traffic congestion, not only during the construction phase with large vehicles likely to be blocking roads and obstructing thoroughfare, but by residents' vehicles entering and exiting the building once construction is completed. The carparks in Westfield, Chatswood Chase and Mandarin Centre are usually full at peak times and this will only be exacerbated. The significant size of this building is excessive in comparison to neighbouring residences and will impact on sunlight exposure as well as privacy, and will contribute to greater noise impact on surrounding residents. Local schools are at breaking point and can't accommodate more students. Shops and restaurants are already crowded. The local hospital can barely sustain the current local population with extensive waiting lists for services, and this will create even more pressure on existing services. I am dumbstruck that my local government body is permitting such gross overdevelopment of the Chatswood area, as well as considering construction of a massive building that is grossly incongruent with the current streetscape. Apart from the visual impact, the previously mentioned issues are also considerable and detrimental to the Chatswood community and local residents. I would appreciate it if consideration was given to the local residents rather than that of construction companies and developers.

Too high

32 level is way too high, compare to the other building in similar position they all under 10, u r crazy