Mixed-Use Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing - 691-699 Pacific Highway, Chatswood

Please see attachment

As per attached document

Please see the attached Sydney Water response, Growth Data Form and Development Application Sheet (For proponent).
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Urban Growth team at [email protected].

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to lodge an objection in representation of residents on Level 22 (around ~40 residents) to the proposed development of SSD-77127711 due to overdevelopment, and I urge Council to reject it in its entirety, due to the following reasons:
1. Excessive Building Height
The proposed height is incompatible with the surrounding streetscape and will block sunlight to nearby homes and plunge neighbouring properties into permanent shadow. It will unnecessarily block any remaining views.
2. Strained Infrastructure
The current Chatswood infrastructure is already at breaking point. Local footpaths and roads are congested, and there’s already a waitlist for schools, childcare centres, and medical services. This development will add to the additional overload.
3. Traffic Congestion
This development will dump hundreds more cars onto already gridlocked streets. Peak hour mornings and school pick up are already unbearable.
4. Pressure on Public Transport
There is insufficient public transport to support this many new residents. Buses are full and don’t stop now, metro and trains are overcrowded, and there are no new services or more frequent services planned. Residents may be forced into cars, compounding the congestion crisis.
5. Noise Pollution and Loss of Amenity
Increased noise, light pollution, environmental impact and construction disruption may erode our amenity facilities.
6. Precedent for Overdevelopment
If this is approved, it sets a dangerous precedent. Another tower or higher density rezoning. This development benefits developers, not residents.

Appreciate you considering our submission and protecting the community you represent by rejecting this proposal.

Refer attached document

This project should be approved, as it will help increase the supply of market and affordable housing. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, and by approving high yield projects near good public transport and existing infrastructure, the department is increasing the amount of more affordable housing options for people to live in. Higher density also also has benefits such as encouraging activate and public transport usage, increasing social interactions, and increasing business revenues. I would however request the applicant to consider reducing the provision of parking, as providing parking in an 8 level deep basement is inconvenient for users, and also expensive, costing around 100k per space (Cost and feasibility estimates for supplying new residential dwellings in NSW, CIE) 2024. The high provision of parking actively increases the cost of providing new housing, which works against the goal of providing affordable housing.

Submission concerning SSD – 77127711 ; 691-699 Pacific Highway Chatswood.
Objection to current proposal. This objection is made due to
1. proposed building height
2. traffic issues
3. potential impact on nearby heritage housing

This project needs to be considered as part of a whole; that is, the MU1 zone bounded by the railway, Mowbray Rd, Pacific Highway and Albert St. Chatswood. There are multiple towers planned for this area. Taken as a whole, there will be a massive uplift in housing.
Given that the zone is within walking distance to an established transport hub (train, Metro and bus), car spaces should be minimised.

Many of the same issues/objections are summed up in the Willoughby City Council response to SSD-74439970, (5-9 Gordon Ave Chatswood), which is part of this zone.

1.
The current DCP lists the MU1 area as having a maximum height limit of 90m. This is already proportionally extremely high when contrasted to the 8.5m guideline for the South Chatswood Conservation area on the east side of the railway.

As noted in the Council objection to the Gordon street project -
Having regard to the In-fill Affordable Housing Practice Note, it is noted that in-fill affordable housing bonuses do not override any LEP height control. The Practice Note states that: The in-fill affordable housing bonuses should not be treated as an entitlement. DAs that propose in-fill affordable housing will be subject to merit assessment by the consent authority.

2.
At the outset, the traffic assessment provided with SSD-77127711 proposal is incorrect. For example, it refers to the proposed development at 5-9 Gordon Ave Chatswood using the prior DA information (50 car spaces planned), not the current SSD proposal (121 car spaces). This discrepancy diminishes the perceived traffic load in the area. Additionally, it suggests that all other information contained in the report needs to be fact checked.

Car spaces for all developments in this MU1 zone should be kept to the minimum required for the DCP. This is consistent with the aim to provide increased active transport options (walking, cycling, public transport) in this area.

Ellis Street, Nelson Street and Gordon Ave provide access in and out of this area however Hammond Lane is not appropriate for high car numbers.
It is highly likely that cars seeking to exit directly onto Pacific Highway from this development will back up at peak times, given the proposed amount of parking and the volume of traffic on the highway. Human factors (e.g. frustration) should be considered when looking at road safety.

3.
Potential impact on nearby heritage housing.
Given that existing homes in this area have recently experienced vibration from the Metro tunnelling, consideration should be given to the possible effect/s of further earthworks.
Visually, it is preferable that any development would enhance the heritage value of a location. The current proposal does not seem to address the wider environment in this sense.

With access to a major road and a train station, you couldn't find a better location for such a project

There are other big projects in Roseville and Lindfield that will add traffic volume to the Pacific Highway. Before all these projects are approved, who will ensure the Pacific Highway can handle all the southbound traffic?