Mixed use development with infill affordable housing at 38-42 Anderson, 3 McIntosh and 2 Day Streets, Chatswood

Refer to attached submission.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing as a concerned resident of Chatswood to formally express my opposition to the proposed construction of new high-rise buildings in our community.

Chatswood is already facing significant challenges due to overdevelopment. Traffic congestion has become increasingly severe, with major roads often gridlocked during peak hours. Adding more high-density buildings will only exacerbate these issues, putting further strain on an already overburdened traffic system.

Moreover, local infrastructure and community resources — including public transport, schools, parks, healthcare facilities, and other essential services — are already stretched to their limits. The addition of more residents would severely impact the quality of life for current residents and diminish the character of our community.

While I understand the need for urban growth, I urge you to consider more sustainable and balanced approaches that prioritize livability, infrastructure capacity, and long-term community wellbeing.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Chatswood is overcrowded. Stopped all high rise building approvals. This project has car park spaces of over 490 and the entry will be from McIntosh Street, which is a one-way street. The only way to enter McIntosh Street is from Cambridge Lane. A little laneway already use by residents of 1 Cambridge Lane. I can’t imagine extra 494 cars using this narrow laneway to enter the garage of this project. McIntosh Street will lead to Anderson Street. On Anderson Street it has a school opposite this project. Increased traffic will affect the safety of students and create more traffic jams. At the moment, on the weekends, Anderson Street is always blocked with long queues of cars wanting to go into Westfield Shopping Centre. The height of the buildings will cast a shadow onto the existing buildings and communal gardens in the Pacific Place complex. The new buildings will block the easterly sun and lookout from existing residents of Pacific Place.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on SSD-74670720. Please see the attached response and information sheet and growth data form for the applicant.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed development at 38-42 Anderson Street, 3 McIntosh Street
and 2 Day Street, Chatswood.

I object to the proposal in its current form as I have a number of concerns and unresolved questions.

In summary:
(1) Western boundary setback
(2) Non-compliant GFA split
(3) Overshadowing and solar access
(4) Removal of high value, mature native trees
(5) Lack of public through-site links
(6) Construction noise.

Detailed comments follow. Page numbers refer to the Environmental Impact Statement dated May 2025.

Insufficient Setback on western boundary (p71)
I agree with Willoughby Council's requirement for an 18m separation between the proposed structure and the 1 Day Street building. 1 Day Street is the most severely affected neighbouring building, and Council's requirement seems a fair and reasonable way of mitigating some of the impact severity.

Non-Compliant GFA Split (p76)
The LEP for this mixed-use site requires at least 17% of the total GFA to be allocated to non-residential use. The proposed development falls well short of this, at around 13%. The justification offered is unconvincing, relying on the pre-bonus FSR. Further work is required to come up with a development that complies.

Solar Access (p80)
The proposal sets out the relevant SEPP requirements in this area, and then provides certain solar access statistics. It's unclear whether the proposal complies with the minimum 3 hrs direct solar access in mid winter requirement. The numbers quoted in the proposal do not address this specific requirement. Instead, they quote other measures which would appear to suggest that the proposal is non-compliant.

If the proposal is fully compliant, it should say so. If not, the proposal should be reworked so that it does comply.

Overshadowing 1 Day Street (p81)
The argument presented for being unable to meet the minimum overshadowing requirement for residents of 1 Day Street is unsatisfactory. Perhaps a larger setback on the western boundary of the site, together with a more stepped tower design.

Tree Removal (p91, and Appendix K)
I object to the removal of trees T3 and T5. T3 is a mature brushbox, approx. 18m tall. This is a native, around 1 metre from the site boundary. T5 is a lemon scented gum, around 25m tall. Also a mature native, and also on the edge of the site boundary. Both trees appear to be in excellent condition. The reason given for removing these two significant trees is "the tree is not retainable with the current proposal". The basement should be redesigned so that these trees are allowed to remain and become a feature of the southern side of the site.

Lack of Through-Site Links
The Willoughby LEP calls for greater use of public through-site links. This proposal appears to ignore that requirement. The proposal needs to be updated to include a north-south and an east-west public links. If this is not possible, the proposal should address the matter at least.

Construction Noise (p87)
I would like to see a stronger commitment to using less noisy equipment. Example - tower cranes should be electric rather than diesel powered.

An individual should be named at the start of the project as the liaison for surrounding residents and their contact details made readily available, and kept up to date.

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 38-42 Anderson, 3 McIntosh and 2 Day streets, involving two towers (23 and 33 storeys) top shop housing with 258 residential units and in-fill affordable housing.
This proposal raises several concerns, particularly for an already dense urban area:

Overdevelopment: The height and scale are excessive for the location and will further intensify existing issues with congestion and infrastructure strain.

Traffic & Parking: Increased vehicle movement and limited parking provision will add pressure to an already congested street network.

Demolition & Environmental Impact: The project involves demolition of existing buildings, vegetation clearing, and bulk earthworks—posing environmental risks, noise, dust, and long-term disruption to local amenity.

Loss of Amenity & Overshadowing: The towers will dominate the skyline, overshadow surrounding buildings, and reduce privacy for nearby residents.

I respectfully request that the council refuse the current application or require a significantly scaled-back version more appropriate for the area at its current state.

I have serious concerns about the impact this development will have on our community.
My primary concerns include:
- Environmental impact: The construction and increased traffic may threaten local wildlife and green spaces.
- Infrastructure strain: Our roads, schools, and public services are already under pressure, and this project could exacerbate existing issues.
- Character of the area: The scale and design of the development seem out of place in our neighborhood, potentially affecting the area's charm and appeal.
I urge you to reconsider or modify the project to better align with community needs and sustainability goals. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further and hear about potential adjustments.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

I strongly object to this project because it is on an excessive scale which will drastically exacerbate the state of congestion in the neighbourhood. The traffic on Anderson Street is heavy and adding so any residential and commercial properties will result in gridlock and inability of local residents to get around. It is simply inappropriate to expect residents to walk to the shops all the time (caryring heavy groceries, mobillity issues) to avoid traffic congestion. The NSW government is insensitive to the needs of local residents and penalising them for living in a busy suburb with infrastructure by introducing an unsustainable amount of new developments.
The height of these proposed towers will cause overshadowing and invasion of privacy for neighbouring homeowners, and destroy the neighbourhood.
Affordable housing needs to cancelled because it will introduce various social problems into a traditionally safe and family-oriented community.
The NSW government has had years to develop infrastructure and new housing in undeveloped areas of Sydney- these excessive developments in established areas are a lazy and inconsiderate arrangement without regard to the quality of life of established neighbourhoods. This whole project must be significantly curtailed to a minimum, with NO affordable housing.

As per attachment

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed mixed-use development (SSD-74670720) at 38–42 Anderson Street, 3 McIntosh Street, and 2 Day Street, Chatswood. As a resident of 9 Railway Street, I have significant concerns regarding the potential adverse impacts this development would have on the local community and environment.

1. Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight
The proposed development includes two towers of 33 and 23 storeys, which is a substantial increase from the current maximum building height of 12 meters to 90 meters as per the planning proposal . Given the proximity of my residence, this significant increase in height will likely result in considerable overshadowing, particularly during the morning hours, leading to a loss of natural sunlight. This not only affects the comfort and wellbeing of residents but also has potential implications for energy consumption and indoor environmental quality.

2. Construction Noise and Environmental Disruption
The scale of the proposed development, including excavation for a seven-level basement and construction of high-rise towers, will inevitably lead to prolonged construction activities. This raises concerns about noise pollution, dust, and general environmental disruption over an extended period. Such disturbances can significantly impact the health and quality of life of nearby residents, particularly vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, and those with health conditions.

3. Increased Traffic and Parking Concerns
The addition of 258 residential apartments and commercial spaces will undoubtedly increase traffic congestion in an area already experiencing significant traffic issues, especially during weekends and shopping seasons. The proposal includes 494 car parking spaces, which exceeds the council's Development Control Plan (DCP) maximum for the Chatswood CBD area . This overprovision of parking may encourage higher car usage, exacerbating traffic congestion and undermining efforts to promote public transport and sustainable mobility.

4. Overdevelopment and Impact on Community Character
Chatswood has seen a surge in high-density developments in recent years, leading to concerns about overdevelopment and the erosion of the suburb's character. The proposed development's scale and density are inconsistent with the existing built environment and may set a precedent for future developments that further strain local infrastructure and services. This could lead to a decline in the quality of life for current residents and alter the community's character irreversibly.

5. Cumulative Impact of Multiple Developments
There are several other significant developments proposed or underway in the Chatswood area, including at 44–52 Anderson Street and 54–56 Anderson Street . The cumulative impact of these developments on traffic, infrastructure, and community wellbeing has not been adequately addressed. A comprehensive assessment of the combined effects of these projects is essential to ensure sustainable and balanced urban growth.

While I acknowledge the need for additional housing in Sydney, it is crucial that such developments are balanced with the preservation of community wellbeing, environmental quality, and infrastructure capacity. The proposed development, in its current form, poses significant risks to the quality of life for existing residents and the character of the Chatswood community.

I urge the Department to reconsider the scale and design of this development and to engage in meaningful consultation with the local community to address these concerns adequately.

Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,

I am an owner of an apartment in Altura, 11 Railway St Chatswood.
I strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
1. The buildings at 117m are much higher than the 90m control.
2. The design of the 2 towers would make the buildings dominate the area and the skyline.
3. The buildings are not in character of the suburban street which contains heritage buildings and low rise apartments.
4. The tall towers would overshadow large areas of Chatswood and block sunlight from balconies of apartments east of them for most of the morning. This includes my balcony and my living and bedroom areas which receive direct sunlight in the morning, as would all the other Epica and Altura apartments facing towards the proposed development. The overshadowing would make these apartments dark, where currently they are sun-filled in the mornings. The buildings will also result in shadowing of our community area, our outdoor swimming pool and community garden.
5. The traffic congestion would be increased with 258 extra apartments, many of owners will have cars. Chatswood already has regular traffic jams and does not need such an increase in cars on a small suburban street.
6. There is very limited street parking in the area, causing extra congestion. Public parking stations are quite far away. The street is only one lane each way and is a small suburban street.
7. Chatswood being on the ridge line is quite a windy area and these 2 buildings will increase the wind tunnel effect significantly.
8. The demolition of the buildings on the site will cause much noise, dust and vibration impacts on the surrounding residents. High levels of noise, dust and vibration will have further severe impacts on residents during the long construction period.
9. The dominating and bulky buildings will have a great impact on the view from my apartment and the many other apartments in Altura and Epica facing towards the proposed buildings. Currently I can see water views including the ocean at North Head from my apartment and these views would be totally obscured by the tall buildings.
10. The buildings will affect the privacy of surrounding residents as they will tower over people's gardens, balconies and the swimming pool area of Altura and Epica.
11. There is a lack of infrastructure in the area. For example this will only increase the problems of overcrowding in the local schools and further traffic congestion and parking problems in the area. The footpaths in Chatswood shopping area are already jam-packed during busy periods and adding many more residents in the apartments can only exacerbate the situation.
12. There is no need for further retail space in the buildings, as Chatswood is already serviced by several large shopping centres.
13. Many established trees (47 trees in total) will need to be removed when established trees are needed for shade and temperature control.
14. There are a number of high rise developments (23 -33 storeys) being considered along Anderson Street and along Wilson and O'Brien Streets and if all of these are approved, there will be a cumulative impact. It will result in huge visual impact, a very large increase in the number of people, increased traffic congestion and a forest of high rises with no improved infrastructure or amenity!

This development looks incredible and will be a great addition to the Chatswood CBD.
However, the provision of 386 residential car spaces and 36 visitor spaces for 258 residential units is excessive, especially considering that the site is within the Chatswood CBD. The extreme number of car spaces necessitates a 7 level basement, which increases construction costs and means that the housing provided is less affordable. There should also be an increase in bike parking, as 73 spaces is not enough to accommodate 258 units.

The parking rates according to the traffic impact assessment is based upon the the non-discretionary rates requirement set out in the Housing SEPP. However, the intention of the non discretionary parking rates under Clause 19 of the housing SEPP, is to prevent other planning authorities from setting more onerous standards, e.g., the applicant should only utilise the housing SEPP non-discretionary standards if the local consent authority requires a higher amount of parking. The parking rates in SEPP 65 are to ensure that there are not an under-supply of parking in developments, not to allow exceedingly high amounts of parking. In this case, the parking rates in the housing SEPP should not be used. The non discretionary standards technically allow for an unlimited amount of parking, which has adverse impacts, and therefore the use of these standards to propose an amount of parking as high as the applicant desires should not be supported.

Whilst the council's DCP is not relevant in SSDA, DPHI has the jurisdiction to conduct a merit based assessment. Under this perspective, Willoughby council's DCP could be used a guide for parking requirements. The department could also consider the parking rates under the Guide to Traffic Impact Assessments, where Chatswood is classified as a category one area, and therefore has parking rates of 0.4 space per 1 bed, 0.7 space per 2 bed, 1.2 spaces per 3 bed, and 1 visitor space per 7 dwelling.

According to the Willoughby council DCP, developments in the Chatswood CBD must have no more than 0.5 space per studio
and 1, 2, 3 or more bedroom units; 1 visitor space per 7 dwellings. This would net a maximum amount of 129 spaces for the units, and 36 visitor spaces, giving a total of 165 car spaces, which is a far from the proposed 422 residential car spaces. Common sense should prevail here, and the parking provision needs to be reduced.

Chatswood and nearby are over-crowded, particularly next to rails. The trafics are too far busy to drive cars around, whcih becomes pain, times when I was driving in the area. It is also environmently dedasat for people living in Chatswood.
I strongly object to the project!

I strongly object to the Carter Williamson scheme, it is hiding the negative impact on residents’ health and wellbeing, exposing them to potential long-term risk of constant loss of sunlight, massive overcrowding, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and traffic congestion in such a small area that could impact residents’ safety risk. The revised Carter Williamson proposal has substantially more negative impact on residents in 1 Cambridge Lane than the previous proposal which was rejected by Willoughby Council due to the impact on 1 Cambridge Lane residents. There are no shadow diagrams, if it was it will be clear that 1 Cambridge Lane will be completely overshadowed.
Drew Dickson Architects' scheme is substantially more reasonable, the tower at 3 Mcintosh Street and Day Street is only 5 floors, this will allow for some sun/day light to come to 1 Cambridge Lane.
I understand the importance of building more homes in Sydney but the Carter Williamson scheme should be objected to as the Willoughby council previously objected due to risk to the residents at 1 Cambridge Lane.

A) 3 McIntosh Street Tower – 23 levels
I strongly object to the proposed Carter Williamson scheme of 3 McIntosh Street Tower – 23 levels; the height should be restricted to the existing 4 levels and not higher than 1 Day Street (5- 6 levels). With the proposed development at 3-5 Help Str (DA-2023/160) next to this proposal, it will make the area around 1 Cambridge Lane overcrowded, unlivable, very noisy, with too many people and cars and too little space and light. It will also increase the resident’s safety risk. Reasons for the objection:
- Loss of sunlight and overshadowing - the proposed height of 3 McIntosh Street Tower will cause material loss of light to the lower-level north-east apartments of 1 Cambridge Lane. Sun will be completely overshadowed from morning to sunset, particularly in Autumn/Winter/Spring - from March to November.
- Loss of privacy, overlooking - the proposed height of 3 McIntosh Street Tower is too close to surrounding buildings (1 Cambridge Ln), it will cause loss of privacy, directly overlooking the north-east apartments of 1 Cambridge Lane.
- Noise and disturbance – the proposed Tower at 3 McIntosh Street is too close to surrounding buildings (1 Cambridge Ln) and pedestrian area, only 3- 4.5mm. The north-east corner of 1 Cambridge Lane is already too noisy. The proposed Tower height (with many new apartments/balconies) will further increase the noise and disturbance level to residents living in 1 Cambridge Lane.

B) Vehicle access via McIntosh Street
I strongly object vehicle access via McIntosh Street due to:
- Traffic congestion and increased resident’s safety risk - Cambridge Lane is very narrow, additional traffic to access McIntosh Street could block entry to/exit from 1 Cambridge Lane. This will materially increase the resident’s safety risk in case of emergency in case of fire or ambulance access.
- Excessive noise level at the corner of Cambridge Lane and McIntosh Street - the noise will impact the residents living at the north-east corner of 1 Cambridge Lane. This area is already very noisy, particularly in the morning. Additional noise will materially impact residents’ health and wellbeing.