Mixed-use Development Mackenzie St, Lavender Bay

I am a nearby resident and I am writing to formally object to SSD-88702457 in its current form.

I support the need for additional housing and I am not opposed to appropriate development of this site. My concern is the scale, height and intensity of the development proposed and the cumulative impact it will have on Lavender Bay and the people who already live here.

1. Excessive height, scale and bulk

The proposal includes three mixed-use buildings of up to 20 storeys. This represents a significant change in scale at the point where the North Sydney CBD meets the much lower-rise, established residential and heritage character of Lavender Bay.

This site should provide an appropriate transition between the CBD and Lavender Bay, rather than extending high-rise development further into the residential neighbourhood.

I ask that the height, bulk and overall density of the development be substantially reduced.

2. Cumulative impact of development in Lavender Bay

My strongest concern is that this proposal cannot reasonably be assessed in isolation.

There are multiple significant developments proposed within a very small area around Lavender Bay and North Sydney Station. The combined effect of these developments will be substantially greater than the impact of any individual proposal.

The Department should assess the cumulative effect on:

local traffic and congestion
pedestrian and cyclist safety
parking and servicing
construction traffic
noise and disruption
overshadowing and solar access
public views and open space
heritage and neighbourhood character
local infrastructure and public amenity.

Residents should not be expected to absorb the impacts of multiple major developments when each application is assessed largely within the boundaries of its own site.

3. Traffic, congestion and road safety

The local road network is already heavily constrained.

Lavender Street, Blues Point Road and the surrounding streets carry significant traffic, including traffic entering and leaving the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Warringah Freeway network. The streets immediately surrounding the site were not designed to accommodate the intensity of development now being proposed across this precinct.

The additional movements created by residents, visitors, deliveries, waste collection and other service vehicles need to be considered alongside the traffic generated by other proposed developments nearby.

I am particularly concerned about the effect on pedestrian and cyclist safety and the potential for additional congestion to extend beyond the immediate site.

4. Construction impacts

The construction implications of a project of this scale are significant for people living nearby.

Demolition, excavation and construction of three substantial buildings will potentially mean years of heavy vehicles, noise, dust, vibration, road occupation and disruption.

This becomes considerably more concerning if major developments around Lavender Bay and North Sydney Station are constructed concurrently.

A detailed and realistic cumulative construction assessment should therefore be required, including construction vehicle numbers and routes, hours of operation, road closures, parking impacts, noise, vibration and measures to protect nearby residents.

5. Overshadowing and loss of residential amenity

Buildings of up to 20 storeys have the potential to significantly alter solar access and amenity for surrounding properties and public spaces.

I ask the Department to carefully consider the shadow analysis, particularly during winter, and not simply whether minimum technical requirements are achieved.

Existing residents should not experience an unreasonable loss of sunlight, outlook or amenity as the price of achieving greater development density.

6. Privacy and overlooking

The height and proximity of the proposed buildings also raise significant concerns about overlooking of existing homes, balconies and private outdoor spaces.

Lavender Bay contains many lower-rise residential properties that were never designed to sit immediately alongside development of this scale.

The assessment should consider the real experience of residents in these properties, rather than relying solely on numerical separation requirements.

7. Heritage and character of Lavender Bay

Lavender Bay has a distinctive heritage and residential character which is fundamentally different from the North Sydney CBD.

I am concerned that development of this height and scale will visually dominate the surrounding lower-rise neighbourhood and heritage buildings rather than providing a sensitive transition between the CBD and Lavender Bay.

The retention of individual heritage buildings within the development does not, by itself, address the impact that the scale of the new buildings will have on their setting or on the broader heritage conservation area.

8. Public views and public benefit

The harbour outlook and public views around this part of North Sydney and Lavender Bay are significant community assets.

These should not be compromised primarily to create private views and additional development value.

Given the substantial increase in height and density being sought, there also needs to be a clear and proportionate public benefit. The assessment should demonstrate what the broader community receives in return for accepting development of this scale, including genuinely affordable housing, improved public space, connectivity and infrastructure.

9. The combined impact on Lavender Bay

My objection ultimately comes down to proportionality.

I recognise that this is a well-located site close to North Sydney Station and that additional housing should form part of its future. However, proximity to transport should not mean that almost any level of density is acceptable.

Lavender Bay is a small, established residential and heritage community. The cumulative effect of several high-density developments risks fundamentally changing its character and placing considerable additional pressure on its residents, streets and public spaces.

I therefore ask that SSD-88702457 not be approved in its current form.

At a minimum, I ask the Department to require:

a substantial reduction in height, bulk and density
a genuine transition in building scale between North Sydney CBD and Lavender Bay
an independent assessment of the cumulative impacts of the major developments surrounding North Sydney Station and Lavender Bay
stronger protection of residential solar access, privacy, heritage and public views
a comprehensive cumulative traffic and construction assessment
clear and enforceable measures to minimise construction impacts on nearby residents
demonstrable public benefit proportionate to the additional density being sought.

I support appropriate additional housing in our area. However, it needs to be delivered in a way that respects the people, heritage and public spaces that already make Lavender Bay such a valued part of Sydney.

I respectfully request that the Department require the proposal to be substantially reconsidered before any approval is granted.

I object to the proposed development at the above site.

The proposal should be refused in its present form because its height, bulk, scale, density and design response are incompatible with the site and Lavender Bay’s sensitive context. It would cause unacceptable amenity, heritage, visual, traffic and infrastructure impacts, and the application material does not establish that those impacts can be appropriately avoided or mitigated.

Under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the consent authority must consider the applicable environmental planning instruments and development control plan, the proposal’s likely environmental and social impacts, the suitability of the site, submissions received and the public interest. 1

1. Excessive height, bulk, scale and density
The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site. Its building envelope, massing and intensity are not subordinate to the established topography and built form of Lavender Bay. The development would present as a visually dominant structure rather than a contextual addition to the locality.

In particular:

the proposed height and floor space exceed, or appear inconsistent with, the scale reasonably anticipated for the site;
the building mass is insufficiently articulated and does not adequately step with the slope;
the upper levels, roof form and plant areas contribute excessive visual bulk;
the setbacks do not provide an adequate transition to neighbouring properties and the public domain; and
the development’s intensity would place additional pressure on a constrained site and surrounding local streets.
If the application seeks to vary a development standard, the consent authority should scrutinise whether the variation produces an outcome consistent with the objectives of the standard and the applicable zone. The strategic desirability of additional housing does not, without more, justify excessive site-specific impacts.

2. Incompatibility with local character and streetscape
Lavender Bay has a distinctive character arising from its steep landform, fine-grained residential development, mature landscaping, harbour setting and layered views. Mackenzie Street is particularly sensitive to changes in height, massing, excavation, access and traffic because of its constrained street geometry and close relationship to adjoining properties.

The proposal does not demonstrate an adequate contextual response. Its scale and architectural expression would erode the established rhythm of development and create an abrupt and visually intrusive element when viewed from Mackenzie Street, neighbouring properties and surrounding public places.

3. Heritage and conservation impacts
The application should be assessed rigorously against clause 5.10 of the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 and the applicable heritage-conservation provisions of the North Sydney Development Control Plan 2025, including any relevant conservation-area statement of significance or heritage inventory sheet.

The relevant question is not confined to whether heritage fabric on the development site will be retained. The assessment must address the effect of the development’s height, envelope, materials, excavation, landscaping and visibility on:

nearby heritage items;
any applicable heritage conservation area;
the historic subdivision and development pattern;
significant views and visual relationships; and
the setting in which heritage significance is experienced.

A development that retains isolated heritage elements but overwhelms their setting does not provide an acceptable heritage outcome. An independent review of the applicant’s heritage impact assessment should be obtained if the proposal materially changes the established scale, landscape character or visual setting of the locality.

4. View loss and visual impact
The proposal is likely to cause material loss of district, harbour, bridge, water and landmark views presently enjoyed from neighbouring properties and public places.

5. Overshadowing, privacy and residential amenity
The development would unreasonably affect surrounding residents through overshadowing, overlooking, visual enclosure, noise and increased activity.

6. Traffic, parking, access and pedestrian safety
Mackenzie Street and surrounding streets have limited capacity, constrained sight lines and existing parking pressure. The development would generate additional vehicle movements, servicing, deliveries, waste collection and construction traffic.

7. Excavation, geotechnical, drainage and construction impacts
Given the slope and proximity of adjoining buildings, substantial excavation may create geotechnical, vibration, groundwater, drainage and structural risks.

8. Landscaping, tree canopy and ecolog
The loss of mature vegetation would increase the proposal’s visual prominence, reduce habitat and worsen heat and stormwater impacts.

9. Inadequate information and cumulative impacts

10. Public interest
The public interest is not served by approving development whose private yield depends on disproportionate impacts on neighbours, heritage character and the public domain.

There are myriad other areas which would not be as significantly impacted as this will be by an unsightly towering development which serves only greedy developers.

I am a local resident and overall, I support the renewal of the site. The area would benefit from thoughtful redevelopment that improves the public domain, creates more accessible community spaces, and enhances the neighbourhood for both current and future residents. However, I have significant concerns about aspects of the current proposal.

Firstly, I believe the development should provide a greater mix of housing types and affordability. Rather than being primarily focused on luxury apartments, the project should include more housing suitable for a broader range of residents, including families, key workers, and people on moderate incomes. This would contribute to a more diverse and sustainable community. I am also concerned that a large proportion of high-end apartments may ultimately be used for short-term accommodation, such as Airbnb, rather than as permanent homes. This would do little to address housing needs or strengthen the local community.

Secondly, the scale of the proposed building appears excessive and out of proportion with the surrounding neighbourhood. Given its elevated position on the hill, the building's height and bulk are likely to result in significant overshadowing, extending as far as Lavender Street. This would reduce sunlight to surrounding properties and public spaces, diminishing the amenity of the area.
The size of the development also raises concerns about increased traffic. The surrounding streets are relatively narrow and quiet, and they are not well suited to accommodating a substantial increase in vehicle movements generated by a large number of apartments, particularly if some are used for short-term accommodation with frequent arrivals and departures.

These traffic concerns are compounded by the proposed conversion of the nearby Zurich office building into residential apartments and a new residential building at 64-66 Lavender St. When considered together, these developments could place considerable additional pressure on the local road network, parking availability, and neighbourhood amenity. I believe the cumulative impacts of these developments should be carefully assessed rather than considering each proposal in isolation.

I encourage Council to support redevelopment that enhances the area while ensuring it remains compatible with the character and capacity of Lavender Bay. This includes reducing the overall scale of the proposed building, increasing the provision of diverse and family-friendly housing, limiting the potential for excessive short-term accommodation, and ensuring that traffic, overshadowing, and cumulative impacts are appropriately addressed before approval is considered.

*The proposed development is inconsistent and incompatible with the Lavender Bay Conservation Area in both its scale and design. Up until now the development of North Sydney was contained along the North Sydney station and train line.This SSD breaks this line and brings yet further over development ever closer to the harbour and destroys the heritage character of the area.The proposed towers result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the surrounding heritage items and conservation area and creates an abrupt transition in scale with the adjoining land uses.
*The school house is heritage listed. It should not be extended or repurposed .What is the point of having heritage listed buildings if developers can simply ignore this as they choose.It shows contempt for the rules and lack of respect.
* Shadowing. At 22 Walker St our sunlight is severely limited. This development makes our meagre amount of sunlight diminish even further as our winter solar access drops from 3:45 Hours to 1:15 Hours. Furthermore, the shadowing has a huge impact on the neighbouring homes, a direct result of the proposed maximum height , bulk and scale of the main tower block.The shadowing diagram also does not take into consideration the other major SSD s currently under consideration.
* The proposal seeks to expand the church and parish building GFA by approximately 902m² and, as such, the removal of 42 (54 existing minus 12) existing church parking spaces which may result in a compounding impact on surrounding on-street parking demand.This is an understatement. The developer has clearly never driven to Lavender Bay as if they had they would understand the severe inadequacy of current street parking.And the "survey" conducted between 6am and 6 pm on a Saturday that shows an 89% occupancy is clever use of making a survey support the objective.If the same survey was undertaken from 9am it would show 100% occupancy.The three entry and exit points on McKenzie Street reduces the street parking by one and will cause dangerous vehicular and pedestrian traffic
* The R4 rezoning will provide residents without a parking access to resident parking permits in Area 6 Zone A.This will make the dire parking issue even worse.It's all too easy for the developer to simply ask for a zoning change.Too bad about existing residents who do not have the luxury of off street parking.
* Traffic.The traffic flow estimates are done in isolation to the other SSD's in the pipeline. This is wrong.Traffic should be looked at holistically.This is a disaster waiting to happen,so due consideration should be given to the broader impact of future developments rather than looking at this SSD in isolation.
*What is the definition of an affordable dwelling? In Lavender Bay this is an oxymoron. And what happens after 15 years?Everyone is chucked out and rents are quadrupled?
In summary,redesign the development.Have the architecture consistent with the heritage nature of the area and reduce the scale of the buildings. Do not assume any on street parking is available and therefore the development should be designed accordingly

Submission for 1-13,17-19 McKenzie St & 211 Blues Point Road
As a resident of Lavender Bay I am not opposed to the building of new apartments but it is the scope of these proposals which will have an adverse impact on the heritage conservation area of Lavender Bay.

My general concerns are as follows:
The NSW Government is not taking into account that there are another fourteen potential developments in various stages taking place in the North Sydney/ Lavender Bay area. The strain on our existing infrastructure including roads & parking will be enormous. Let alone the impact on the local schools (which are already at maximum capacity) & hospital (waiting times have blown out).

It is difficult to fathom how the NSW Government can run roughshod over local councils who introduced a maximum building height of 13 metres under the NSLEP 2013. There is no necessity for a 20 storey building, apart from developer greed, as the apartments looking over the harbour will command very high prices. The applicant should not be allowed to apply for rezoning.

Other issues of major concern, as quoted in the North Sydney Community Strategic Plan 2025-2035:
Ageing assets including water, sewerage, gas, electricity, schools & childcare
Loss of space due to major infrastructure projects
Traffic congestion in an area which has narrow streets & limited road capacity
“There is too little open space for the existing population, let alone the planned massive increases in population density” quote from Zoe Baker the North Sydney mayor
Council’s financial position is not sufficient to fund many of these major upgrades

General concerns over this overdevelopment: as stated in their Key Project Objectives

Engagement: The community engagement was woefully inadequate for residents. As stated in the application - “engagement activities included newsletters, websites, email feedback, telephone feedback, surveys and on-site”. We received one flyer 24 hours beforehand. The applicant seems to be more interested in their parishioners & not the people who actually live nearby.

Delivery of a new publicly accessible through Site link:
No benefit, as there is already an existing publicly accessible link from Mackenzie Street to Blue Street Plaza & the station. There is also access from Mackenzie Street to Blues Point Road.

Deliver New Homes: This project will deliver new homes but certainly not affordable ones. The applicant is removing the existing 42 apartments/retirement living units (many of these being 2 bedrooms) & replacing them with 19 affordable, only one of which is a 2 bedroom unit. Families will have almost no chance of access to affordable housing in this development. 58 co living rooms is certainly no replacement.

Enable the renewal of the existing heritage listed St Francis Xavier Church: Surely this should apply to the School Hall which is also heritage listed. The applicant should not be allowed to build on the back of the hall or make any changes at all. The word ‘Heritage’ seems to mean one thing to developers & another to the residents of Lavender Bay, who cannot change their homes.

Design a built form that is responsive and appropriate to the Site context including heritage conservation area & retained heritage items: What the applicant has proposed should not be allowed & will be an eye sore dominating the heritage overlay in Lavender Bay. It is a 20 storey tower block & not in keeping with our mainly single or double storey heritage listed terraces. A swimming pool overlooking the single storey homes is also a travesty & will cause unnecessary noise over the neighbourhood & loss of privacy. This development is in Lavender Bay not North Sydney.

Maintain solar access to surrounding public open spaces including St Peters Park, Watt Park and Clark Park: Once again there is no thought to the exisiting residents & what this development will do to our solar access & sunlight.

Vehicular Access & Parking: Parking is an ongoing problem for the residents of Lavender Bay for both their visitors & those houses who do not have parking. For the applicant to have three separate vehicular access points on Mackenzie Street is not sustainable. At the moment at weekends, some weekday nights & weekdays we cannot move our car from it’s road parking as we would never get a space on our return & any visitor coming to stay cannot secure a park. This also applies to trades people doing work on the house, who often cannot find parks.This is only going to get worse with all the developments in our area. The View Hotel also gets many deliveries a day with large trucks which have to reverse from McKenzie Street up to the back of the hotel. To increase the traffic on a very small street such as McKenzie is dangerous.

In short this development should not be allowed to proceed in it’s current form. Leave the Heritage School Hall as is & make the tower block only 13 metres. The applicant is not providing a development which integrates sympathetically with its surrounds, which is the heritage listed area of Lavender Bay.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I appreciate the need for additional housing, including affordable and social housing, and I support thoughtful development that strengthens our community. However, I have concerns that the current proposal may have significant unintended consequences for existing residents, visitors and the unique character of Lavender Bay.
• Loss of sunlight and amenity: The proposed towers would create substantial additional overshadowing for neighbouring homes and public spaces, reducing access to natural light and residential amenity in an area already experiencing increasing shadowing from surrounding developments. This is particularly concerning for older residents and others who spend much of their day at home and rely on sunlight for wellbeing and quality of life.
• Traffic, access and parking pressures: Lavender Bay already has limited access via Lavender Street and experiences regular congestion. Additional residents, visitors, servicing vehicles and hotel traffic are likely to worsen traffic flow, noise levels and parking availability.
• Heritage and neighbourhood character: The scale of the proposed towers is not in keeping with the surrounding homes, churches and heritage character of Lavender Bay. The proposal involves significant changes to an important heritage precinct and appears inconsistent with the low-scale built form that makes this area distinctive and valued.
• Impact on public open space and visitors: The proposal would reduce sunlight and openness not only for residents but also for the many people who enjoy the area's parks, harbour foreshore and public spaces. Wendy Whiteley's Secret Garden is one of North Sydney's most treasured community assets and attracts visitors from across Sydney, Australia and internationally. Similarly, the public park on Blues Point Road provides one of the few readily accessible locations where North Sydney workers, residents and visitors can enjoy open views of the harbour and city skyline. These shared community spaces should be carefully protected as there are limited places for workers to sit in North Sydney outside which is a significant well being isuse for companies.
• A more balanced alternative: I would encourage consideration of a lower-scale development, in the range of 6 to 8 storeys, which could still deliver additional housing and community benefits while better respecting heritage values, solar access, neighbourhood character and resident amenity.
• Long-term community benefit: While I strongly support affordable and social housing, I am concerned about the displacement of existing residents and the fact that much of the affordable housing component is only guaranteed for 15 years. Given the scale and permanent impact of the development, the long-term community benefit should be carefully weighed against these costs.
Thank you for considering these comments. I respectfully ask that the heritage implications, public amenity impacts, community disruption and scale of the proposal be carefully reviewed. While I support additional housing and community investment, I believe a lower-scale development would provide a more balanced outcome, preserving the unique character, liveability and treasured public spaces that make Lavender Bay such a special part of Sydney.

To the Assessment Officer,
I am writing to object to the proposed St Francis Xavier Parish Renewal project at 1–19 Mackenzie Street and 211 Blues Point Road, Lavender Bay.

I live in nearby McMahons Point and have spent many years enjoying everything that makes Lavender Bay one of Sydney's most special neighbourhoods. It is part of my everyday life. I regularly walk through Lavender Bay to the harbour foreshore, Blues Point Reserve and North Sydney, and I value the unique character of the area. While it sits beside one of Australia's largest commercial centres, Lavender Bay has retained a village atmosphere that is increasingly rare.

I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to redevelopment, nor am I opposed to the renewal of the St Francis Xavier Parish. The church has been an important part of the local community for generations and I support investment that secures its future. Likewise, I recognise that Sydney needs more housing, particularly affordable housing for key workers and vulnerable members of our community.

My concern is that this proposal attempts to achieve worthwhile objectives through a development that is simply too large for its location.

The proposal includes more than 180 apartments, over 50 affordable housing dwellings, new parish facilities, a through-site pedestrian link and buildings reaching up to 20 storeys. While these outcomes have merit individually, together they represent a dramatic intensification of development within one of Sydney's most historically significant harbour precincts.

One of the defining qualities of Lavender Bay is that it provides a transition between the commercial skyline of North Sydney and the lower-scale residential neighbourhoods of McMahons Point and Lavender Bay. The area has evolved over many decades without losing its essential identity. Approving buildings of this scale risks permanently changing that balance.

Good planning should not only ask whether additional housing can be accommodated on a site. It should also ask what may be lost in the process.

The site contains heritage buildings, including St Francis Xavier Church and the former school hall, and is located within a heritage-rich setting surrounded by historic residential development. Any redevelopment should reinforce the significance of these buildings rather than allowing them to become visually dominated by much larger structures. The church should remain the defining landmark of the precinct, not become a small heritage element sitting beneath modern residential towers.

I am also concerned about the cumulative impact of development occurring around North Sydney Station.

This proposal should not be considered in isolation. Within a relatively small area there are multiple State Significant Development applications that together propose many hundreds of additional dwellings and several towers significantly exceeding the traditional scale of Lavender Bay. North Sydney Council itself has recognised the importance of considering these proposals as part of broader precinct planning rather than assessing each independently.

When viewed individually, each proposal may appear capable of being managed. However, residents experience the combined impacts.

These include increased traffic, longer construction periods, greater pressure on pedestrian routes, additional demand on parks and public spaces, and a gradual but unmistakable change to the character of the neighbourhood.

Construction impacts are another important consideration. Anyone who lives in or regularly visits this area understands how constrained the local road network already is. Mackenzie Street, Blues Point Road and surrounding local streets serve residents, schools, buses, pedestrians and cyclists in a relatively compact area. A project of this size will inevitably require years of demolition and construction activity. While management plans can reduce some impacts, they cannot eliminate the disruption associated with a project of this scale.

I also have concerns about the weight being given to the affordable housing component of the proposal.

While increasing the supply of affordable housing is an important public objective, I question whether the proposed arrangement delivers a sufficiently enduring community benefit to justify the scale of the development. My understanding is that the affordable housing component would only remain affordable for a period of 15 years. After that time, those dwellings could enter the private market, leaving the community with the permanent impacts of a much larger development but without the long-term affordable housing benefit that helped justify its approval.

This contrasts with approaches adopted in many other countries, where affordable housing is secured in perpetuity or for much longer periods through community housing providers, housing associations or other long-term ownership models. Those approaches create a lasting public asset that continues to benefit future generations rather than providing only a temporary planning outcome.

If a proposal seeks significant planning concessions on the basis of delivering affordable housing, then the public should reasonably expect that benefit to endure. In my view, a 15-year commitment does not provide a sufficiently lasting community return to offset the permanent changes to the scale, character and amenity of Lavender Bay.

As someone who lives nearby, one of the reasons I value this part of Sydney is because it still feels connected to its history. Walking through Lavender Bay, there is a sense of place that has survived despite the growth occurring around it. Visitors, residents and parishioners alike benefit from this distinctive character.

Once buildings of this scale are approved, that character cannot be restored.

My concern is not simply about the view from individual apartments or resistance to change. Cities must evolve. Rather, it is about ensuring that change occurs in a way that respects the qualities that make places worth living in.

I encourage the Department to require a significant redesign of the proposal before considering approval.

In particular, I ask that consideration be given to:

* reducing the overall height and bulk of the development;
* ensuring the heritage church remains the dominant visual element within the site;
* improving the transition in scale between North Sydney and Lavender Bay;
* carefully assessing the cumulative impacts of surrounding State Significant Development proposals;
* minimising construction impacts on the surrounding community; and
* focusing on enduring public benefit and world best standard in providing affordable housing.

I believe there is an opportunity to create a development that renews the parish, provides affordable housing and strengthens the community without fundamentally changing the character of Lavender Bay.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I wish to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-88702457 for the proposed redevelopment of the St Francis Xavier Church precinct at Mackenzie Street, Lavender Bay.
I support appropriate housing development and sensible renewal of underutilised sites. However, I strongly object to this proposal in its current form because its height, bulk, scale and intensity are fundamentally inappropriate for Lavender Bay and would cause substantial and permanent impacts on heritage, residential amenity, solar access, privacy, traffic and parking.
1. Excessive height, bulk and scale
The proposed residential tower is approximately 73.5 metres high and 20 storeys, together with a seven-storey co-living building. This represents an extraordinary increase in built form for this location.
Lavender Bay is characterised by predominantly low- and medium-density development and a fine-grain residential streetscape. The proposed tower would be dramatically out of scale with this existing character.
The proximity of the site to North Sydney CBD does not justify treating Lavender Bay as an extension of the CBD. The railway corridor provides a clear urban distinction between the high-density CBD environment and Lavender Bay's lower-scale residential and heritage character.
The development should be assessed against the character and constraints of Lavender Bay itself, rather than the development potential of North Sydney more broadly.
2. Heritage impacts
The site is within or immediately adjacent to the Lavender Bay Heritage Conservation Area and contains significant heritage buildings, including St Francis Xavier Church and the former School House.
A 20-storey tower immediately adjoining this heritage context would fundamentally alter the visual setting in which these buildings are experienced. Its scale risks overwhelming the church and other heritage elements and would permanently change the established relationship between the buildings, streetscape and surrounding landscape.
Heritage protection must extend beyond retaining individual buildings or facades. Scale, setting, visual relationships and streetscape character are integral to heritage significance.
The proposed partial demolition of the former School House adds to these concerns.
3. Unacceptable precedent and cumulative impact
The proposal must be considered alongside other substantial developments proposed in Lavender Bay and surrounding areas.
Approving a 73.5-metre tower would establish a powerful precedent for further escalation of building heights and density. Each approval progressively changes the planning context and makes further high-rise development easier to justify.
The cumulative effect could permanently transform Lavender Bay from a distinctive lower-scale residential and heritage precinct into an extension of the North Sydney high-rise environment.
4. Overshadowing and loss of solar access
The proposed tower would create substantial additional overshadowing of surrounding properties and public spaces. The assessment considers approximately 97 potentially affected properties, illustrating the geographic extent of the impact.
The relevant issue is not merely whether technical numerical standards are met, but the actual loss of sunlight experienced by neighbouring homes, private open spaces and public areas.
The height and width of the proposed tower should be substantially reduced to minimise these impacts.
5. Privacy and residential amenity
The proposed height and configuration would create significant opportunities for overlooking of neighbouring properties.
Because of Lavender Bay's steep topography, elevated apartments, balconies and communal areas could look down into surrounding homes and private open spaces. This creates a qualitatively different privacy impact from overlooking between buildings of similar scale.
The proposal would therefore cause a permanent reduction in the privacy and residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.
6. Traffic, parking and pedestrian safety
Lavender Bay has a constrained local road network and limited street parking. The proposal would substantially increase the number of residents, visitors, service vehicles and deliveries.
The proposed vehicle access arrangements, including the western driveway connection to Mackenzie Street near Miller Street, require particularly careful assessment because of existing pedestrian and vehicle movements.
The development should demonstrate that additional traffic and servicing can occur without compromising pedestrian safety or creating unacceptable congestion and parking pressure.
These impacts should also be assessed cumulatively with other major developments in the area.
7. Construction impacts
The scale of demolition, excavation and construction would create significant impacts for surrounding residents, potentially over an extended period.
These include construction noise, vibration, dust, heavy vehicle movements, traffic disruption and potential risks to nearby heritage and older buildings.
Given the proposed excavation and the site's constrained location, these impacts require detailed assessment and enforceable mitigation measures before approval.
8. A lower-scale alternative should be required
The fundamental issue is whether the proposed scale is necessary to achieve the site's legitimate objectives.
Sydney needs additional housing, but housing demand does not justify inappropriate development on every site. Additional housing could be delivered through a substantially lower and more contextually appropriate development while reducing impacts on heritage, solar access, privacy, views, traffic and neighbourhood character.
The applicant should therefore be required to properly investigate and demonstrate why a lower-scale alternative cannot provide an appropriate housing outcome.
Conclusion
I strongly object to SSD-88702457 in its current form.
The proposed 20-storey, approximately 73.5-metre tower is fundamentally out of scale with Lavender Bay and would permanently alter the suburb's distinctive character. The proposal would adversely affect the heritage setting, solar access, privacy, traffic, parking and residential amenity of surrounding properties and risks establishing an unacceptable precedent for further high-rise development.
I therefore request that the application be refused.
Alternatively, if development of the site is considered appropriate, I request that the proposal be substantially redesigned to:
significantly reduce the height and bulk of the tower;
provide a genuine transition to surrounding lower-scale development;
protect the Lavender Bay Heritage Conservation Area and heritage buildings;
minimise overshadowing and loss of solar access;
protect neighbouring residential privacy;
address traffic, parking and pedestrian safety;
provide robust construction and heritage protection measures; and
properly assess cumulative impacts from other major developments in Lavender Bay.
Lavender Bay should be able to accommodate appropriate housing without sacrificing the heritage character, residential amenity and distinctive identity that make the area unique.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSD-88702457 be refused in its current form

I object to SSD-88702457 in its current form. I am a resident of 16 Mackenzie Street, directly opposite the proposed development. My objection is not to housing or redevelopment in principle. I support additional housing, including affordable housing, and I support the conservation and continued use of St Francis Xavier Church and the former school building. My objection concerns the excessive height, bulk, density and resulting impacts of this particular proposal.

The site is not vacant or unused. It already contains residential accommodation, including the approximately three-storey Xavier Terrace buildings, together with the Church, former school building and associated facilities. The proposal would replace part of this established low-rise residential setting with a 20-storey tower of approximately 70 metres.

The applicant's own Urban Design Peer Review identifies existing building-height controls across the site of part 8.5 metres and part 12 metres, while the proposal seeks approximately 70 metres (RL120). This is not an incremental increase in height. It is a fundamental transformation of this part of Mackenzie Street and Lavender Bay.

The same material acknowledges that the site sits at the transition between the North Sydney CBD tower cluster and the lower-scale residential neighbourhood of Lavender Bay. The area's topography reinforces this relationship: the CBD occupies the higher ground to the north, while the land descends towards Mackenzie Street and Lavender Bay and the built form substantially reduces in scale. Mackenzie Street currently performs an important transition role. The existing three-storey residential buildings are consistent with that stepping down in scale. A 20-storey tower would instead extend the high-rise edge of North Sydney into Mackenzie Street.

This concern is also supported by the applicant's Visual Impact Assessment. It recognises the heritage sensitivity of the area and assesses the physical absorption capacity of the immediate environment as low at close viewing distances because of the surrounding low-to-mid-rise and heritage character of Lavender Bay. A tower may read against the North Sydney skyline from some distant viewpoints, but that does not mean a 20-storey building is compatible with the lower-scale streetscape in which it would actually be located.

Overshadowing is also a substantial concern. The applicant's Overshadowing Report specifically assesses 16 Mackenzie Street. Its detailed modelling shows multiple assessed main living-area points reducing from approximately 4 hours 30 minutes of winter-solstice solar access under existing conditions to approximately 2 hours 30 minutes with the proposed development, with most of those points falling below the report's three-hour criterion. More broadly, the report finds that additional shadow affects Mackenzie Street throughout the assessed period and that 18 of 97 neighbouring main living areas, approximately 20%, fall below the three-hour solar-access criterion because of the development. Five of 60 assessed private open spaces also fall below that criterion.

The fact that some affected dwellings may still achieve a lower two-hour metropolitan benchmark does not remove the significance of the actual loss caused by the development. Where an existing dwelling receives approximately 4.5 hours of winter sunlight and the proposal reduces this to approximately 2.5 hours, the Department should consider the magnitude of the deterioration in existing amenity and whether that loss is reasonable in circumstances where such a substantial increase in building height is being sought.

Heritage impacts should also be considered beyond the retention of individual buildings. I support the conservation of St Francis Xavier Church and the former school building, but heritage significance in Lavender Bay also arises from setting, streetscape, scale, topography and the relationship between buildings. A tower of approximately 70 metres would fundamentally alter the relationship between the Church, Mackenzie Street and the surrounding conservation area. Heritage success should therefore be assessed in terms of the setting as a whole, not only the retention of individual heritage fabric.

Traffic and parking conditions are already highly constrained. The applicant's own Transport Impact Assessment records maximum on-street parking occupancy of 91% on a weekday and 99% on a Saturday on surrounding streets. At 99% occupancy there is, in practical terms, almost no reliable spare capacity during peak periods. The development proposes 152 on-site parking spaces and three separate vehicle crossings onto Mackenzie Street. The applicant predicts a net increase of 24 vehicle movements per hour in the AM peak and 20 in the PM peak. These figures may appear modest when considered against the broader North Sydney network, but the relevant local impact is that this activity is concentrated on Mackenzie Street. The development will also generate visitors, deliveries, waste collection, maintenance vehicles, removalists, taxis and rideshare activity outside commuter peaks. The Department should assess the street-level impact on Mackenzie Street itself, including pedestrian safety and residential amenity, rather than relying only on regional intersection performance.

Construction impacts will also be prolonged and substantial. The Preliminary Construction Management Plan identifies a Stage 1 duration of 133 weeks, including demolition, excavation for a five-level basement and construction of the tower. Stage 2 is identified as 104 weeks and includes further demolition, excavation, church works and the co-living building. Although stages may overlap, the technical documentation clearly demonstrates a prolonged multi-year construction program involving demolition, deep excavation, rock breaking, heavy vehicles, cranes, concrete works and construction immediately adjacent to existing homes.

The applicant's Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment identifies residences south of the site, across Mackenzie Street, as Receiver Catchment RC2. For these residences, predicted construction noise reaches approximately 75-80 dBA during demolition, excavation/piling and structural works, compared with a Noise Management Level of approximately 57 dBA. This represents an exceedance of up to approximately 23 dBA, and the applicant identifies RC2 as exceeding the "highly noise affected" level during major stages of construction. This should not be characterised as ordinary short-term inconvenience.

The excavation works also raise legitimate vibration concerns. The construction documentation anticipates excavation through medium-to-high-strength sandstone and potential use of hydraulic impact breakers, rock saws and grinders. If any redevelopment is approved, there should be enforceable conditions requiring independent pre-construction dilapidation surveys of immediately affected properties, continuous vibration monitoring, clear trigger levels, immediate investigation of exceedances, and an independent developer-funded process for rectifying construction-related damage.

The public benefits of the proposal should also be weighed proportionately against its permanent impacts. I support affordable housing, but the applicant's documentation identifies 58 co-living dwellings and 19 residential apartments as affordable housing for a period of 15 years, rather than in perpetuity. By contrast, the 20-storey tower, altered skyline, rezoning, additional overshadowing and transformation of Mackenzie Street would be permanent. Affordable housing is an important public benefit, but it should not automatically justify development of any height or scale.

There are also other ways to deliver substantial additional housing close to North Sydney Station without extending CBD-scale development into Lavender Bay. Nearby SSD proposals within the established North Sydney high-rise area include adaptive reuse and conversion of commercial buildings for mixed residential uses. That approach demonstrates that housing growth near the station can be accommodated within existing high-rise built form. Increasing housing supply around North Sydney Station does not require every nearby lower-scale site to adopt CBD-scale development.

The St Francis Xavier site is not a binary choice between remaining unchanged and accommodating a 20-storey tower. There is a substantial range of possible development between those two extremes. A lower-scale redevelopment could conserve and adaptively reuse the heritage buildings, improve existing residential accommodation, make better use of parking areas, improve landscaping and public space, and provide additional housing while maintaining a genuine transition between North Sydney and Lavender Bay.

For these reasons, I request that SSD-88702457 not be approved in its current form. I ask the Department either to refuse the proposal or require a substantial redesign, including a significant reduction in tower height, bulk and density; improved protection of existing solar access; a built form that genuinely steps down from North Sydney into Lavender Bay; reduced traffic impacts on Mackenzie Street; and stringent protections for neighbouring properties throughout construction.

My detailed submission is attached and should be read together with these comments.

Key Objections:
- A temporary affordable-housing commitment cannot justify permanent overdevelopment
- Overshadowing, privacy, noise, wind and residential amenity
- Excessive height, bulk and density in a heritage-sensitive location
- The cumulative impact with SSD-86797708 must be assessed
- Parking and the proposed expansion of resident parking-permit demand (alongside SSD-86797708 - cumulative impact)
- Traffic and road safety (alongside SSD-86797708 - cumulative impact)
- Construction impacts (alongside SSD-86797708 - cumulative impact)

I object to State Significant Development Application SSD-88702457 for the proposed redevelopment of the St Francis Xavier Church site at Mackenzie Street, Lavender Bay. I acknowledge and support the need to increase housing supply across Sydney, including the delivery of genuinely affordable housing. However, increased housing supply must be achieved through development that is demonstrably appropriate to its context, consistent with established planning and heritage controls, and capable of being accommodated without causing disproportionate, unacceptable or irreversible impacts on the surrounding community.

The need for additional housing should not be treated as a blanket justification for development of any height, bulk or density, irrespective of its impact on the surrounding area. Housing growth must be carefully balanced with the responsibility to protect the established character, heritage significance and residential amenity of the communities in which that growth occurs.

The scale, form and density of development must be appropriate to its context and capable of being sustained over the long term. This is particularly important within, and immediately adjacent to, a recognised conservation area, where heritage character, established streetscapes and residential amenity are irreplaceable community assets.

Once these qualities are substantially compromised or lost, they cannot simply be restored. Development decisions must therefore give appropriate weight to their protection and ensure that housing growth occurs in a manner that respects and reinforces the character and amenity of the existing community.

Of equal and serious concern is the fact that this proposal is progressing concurrently with another substantial SSD-86797708. The combined scale and potential impacts of these developments cannot be dismissed as separate or unrelated matters. Their cumulative effects on the character, streetscape, heritage values, traffic, amenity and liveability of the surrounding area must be assessed as a whole. It would be fundamentally inadequate—and potentially result in a seriously flawed planning outcome—to assess these proposals in isolation when their combined impacts may be substantial, enduring and irreversible.

I strongly urge the Department of Planning, to order cumulative impact study in respect to both SSD-88702457 and SSD-86797708.

Transport for NSW and Bicycle NSW should be formally engaged, and consulted as part of any assessment of cumulative transport and active transport impacts arising from these developments – there are already ‘wind tunnels’ in the area with the existing high rise on Alfred and Lavender Streets, in addition to North Sydney.

As a taxpayer and local resident, I am concerned about the apparent disconnect between significant public investment in upgrading bicycle access to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and the potential impacts of SSD-88702457 and SSD-86797708 on the safety, accessibility and functionality of active transport routes in the surrounding area.

It is difficult to reconcile substantial expenditure on improving cycling infrastructure with the approval of developments, that may subsequently compromise the safety and accessibility of that infrastructure for cyclists, and other active transport users. A comprehensive cumulative assessment is therefore essential, to ensure that these developments do not undermine the objectives and benefits of existing and planned investment in active transport infrastructure.

I object to State Significant Development Application SSD-88702457, concerning the proposed redevelopment of the St Francis Xavier Church site at Mackenzie Street, Lavender Bay.

I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply across Sydney, including the provision of genuinely affordable housing. However, the public-interest objective of increasing housing supply does not remove the requirement for individual development proposals to be appropriately located, designed and assessed against the relevant planning, environmental, heritage, transport and amenity considerations.

Housing growth must be delivered in a manner that is proportionate to its context and does not result in unreasonable, disproportionate or unacceptable impacts upon neighbouring properties, the surrounding streetscape or the established character and amenity of the local community.

Key Grounds of Objection:
• A temporary affordable-housing commitment cannot, of itself, justify permanent overdevelopment or inappropriate scale.
• Unacceptable impacts on residential amenity, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, noise and wind impacts.
• Excessive height, bulk, scale and density in a heritage-sensitive location.
• Failure to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of SSD-88702457 and SSD-86797708.
• Inadequate consideration of parking impacts and the likely additional demand for resident parking permits arising from both developments.
• Traffic generation, congestion and road-safety impacts arising from the combined developments.
• Cumulative construction impacts, including noise, vibration, traffic, pedestrian safety and disruption to the surrounding community.
• Potential adverse impacts on active-transport infrastructure and the safety and accessibility of cycling and pedestrian routes.

Requested Outcome:
I respectfully request that the Department of Planning give careful consideration to the scale and cumulative consequences of SSD-88702457 and SSD-86797708.

In particular, I request that the Department require a comprehensive cumulative assessment addressing the combined heritage, built-form, residential-amenity, transport, parking, road-safety, wind, active-transport and construction impacts of the two proposals.
The claimed benefits of additional housing supply, including affordable housing, should be weighed against the demonstrated impacts of the proposal and should not be treated as overriding the need for an appropriately scaled, context-sensitive and sustainable development outcome.

I therefore object to SSD-88702457 in its current form, and respectfully request that the application not be approved unless the identified impacts have been properly assessed, demonstrated to be acceptable and, where necessary, substantially reduced through appropriate amendments and enforceable mitigation measures.

Objection to State Significant Development
SSD-88702457 – St Francis Xavier Church, Mackenzie Street, Lavender Bay

I am a long-term resident of Lavender Bay and wish to object to State Significant Development Application SSD-88702457 for the proposed redevelopment of the St Francis Xavier Church site in Mackenzie Street.

I support additional housing, including genuinely affordable housing. However, the scale and density of this proposal are inappropriate for Lavender Bay and would have significant impacts on the local residential and heritage environment.

The proposed 20-storey tower, together with the substantial seven-storey extension associated with the former school building, is out of scale with this small, constrained and heritage-sensitive neighbourhood. Lavender Bay has a distinct character from the high-rise areas of North Sydney and Milsons Point, and that character should be protected.

Cumulative impact of two major developments

SSD-88702457 must be considered alongside SSD-86797708, the proposed development at 64–66 Lavender Street and 3–7 Middlemiss Street.

These are not isolated developments from the perspective of residents. They are two major projects within the same small precinct. If both proceed, there will be cumulative impacts on traffic, parking, construction activity, noise, overshadowing, pedestrian safety, infrastructure and residential amenity.

The Department should therefore require an independent precinct-wide cumulative assessment addressing:

combined traffic generation;
resident, visitor, delivery, rideshare and service-vehicle movements;
cumulative parking demand;
impacts on Mackenzie Street, Lavender Street, Middlemiss Street, Blues Point Road and Alfred Street;
pedestrian and cyclist safety;
construction traffic and worker parking;
potential overlap between construction periods;
noise, dust and vibration;
road occupation and access;
overshadowing and visual impacts;
heritage impacts; and
cumulative effects on residential amenity.

Assessing each application separately risks understating the overall effect of development across the precinct.

Traffic and access

Traffic is a significant concern given the constrained nature of Mackenzie Street and surrounding roads.

The assessment should consider not only whether intersections remain within technical operational thresholds, but whether additional vehicle movements can be accommodated safely and practically within the existing street network.

The proposal will generate additional resident, visitor, delivery, service and rideshare movements, as well as construction traffic. Vehicle access on Mackenzie Street may also create additional turning and queuing conflicts.

These impacts should be assessed together with those arising from SSD-86797708.

Parking

Parking is already constrained in Lavender Bay, with demand from existing residents, the surrounding North Sydney employment area, church activities and weekend events.

The proposal includes 118 car spaces associated with the tower and 34 spaces beneath the former school house, of which only 12 are allocated to the co-living component despite 58 proposed co-living dwellings.

I am concerned that residents without on-site parking could seek resident parking permits in Area 6 – Zone A. Existing residents should not be expected to absorb additional demand for scarce street parking created by new development.

The assessment should also account for visitors, deliveries, tradespeople, carers, contractors, removalists, service vehicles and rideshare vehicles.

Accessible parking and pedestrian access

Accessible parking and mobility within the precinct require specific consideration.

There is currently only one disability parking space in the surrounding area. The Department should assess whether this provision is adequate and what additional accessible parking and safe pedestrian access will be required as a result of this proposal and SSD-86797708.

People with disabilities should not be disadvantaged by increased competition for kerbside space or by changes to pedestrian access.

Height, heritage and neighbourhood character

The proposed 20-storey tower is substantially out of scale with the established character of this part of Lavender Bay.

The area's character is derived from its lower-scale residential buildings, heritage structures, landscaping and historic streetscapes. A tower of this scale would dominate that setting and diminish the visual prominence of St Francis Xavier Church and the former school building.

Retaining portions of heritage buildings does not, in itself, resolve these concerns. Heritage significance includes setting, scale, context and relationships between buildings.

The proposal should respect the Lavender Bay Conservation Area and ensure that existing heritage buildings remain prominent elements of the neighbourhood rather than being visually dominated by a much larger development.

Overshadowing, privacy, wind and noise

The scale of the proposed tower raises concerns about overshadowing, overlooking, privacy, wind and noise.

The assessment should consider the practical effect of these impacts on surrounding residents rather than relying solely on whether individual numerical thresholds are met.

The proposed pool, retail uses, residential activity, building plant and increased vehicle movements will also increase activity around the site.

Construction impacts

The proposed construction period of approximately two and a half years is a significant concern given Lavender Bay's narrow streets, limited parking and constrained access.

These impacts could be substantially greater if construction of SSD-86797708 occurs concurrently or within a similar period. Residents could face prolonged periods of heavy vehicles, worker parking, deliveries, road occupation, noise, dust and vibration.

The Department should consider the practical feasibility and cumulative effects of construction as part of determining whether the proposal is appropriate, rather than relying solely on construction-management measures to address impacts after approval.

Affordable housing

I support affordable housing, but the affordable-housing component should not be treated as justification for development that is otherwise inappropriate in scale and location.

The proposed affordable housing commitment is time-limited, whereas the physical and planning impacts of a 20-storey tower would be permanent.

Affordable housing should be delivered in a form that is compatible with the site's heritage context, surrounding development and infrastructure capacity.

A more appropriate form of development

I am not opposed to redevelopment of the St Francis Xavier Church site, additional housing or affordable housing. My objection is to the scale and form of this proposal.

A substantially smaller, lower-rise development could provide additional housing while better respecting heritage, residential amenity, traffic, parking and infrastructure constraints.

Request to the Department

I urge the Department to refuse SSD-88702457 in its current form.

Any revised proposal should:

substantially reduce height, bulk and density;
provide a low- to medium-rise form appropriate to Lavender Bay;
protect the setting and prominence of St Francis Xavier Church and the former school building;
respect the Lavender Bay Conservation Area;
provide adequate on-site parking for the demand generated by the development;
not rely on Area 6 – Zone A resident parking permits to accommodate new residents;
provide appropriate visitor, delivery, tradesperson, removalist and service-vehicle arrangements;
specifically assess and improve accessible parking provision;
maintain safe and practical pedestrian access;
avoid worsening congestion on Mackenzie Street, Lavender Street, Middlemiss Street and surrounding roads;
minimise overshadowing, overlooking, wind and noise impacts;
provide detailed and enforceable construction-management measures; and
undertake an independent precinct-wide cumulative assessment of SSD-88702457 and SSD-86797708.

Planning decisions for this site will have long-term consequences for Lavender Bay. The Department should consider not only whether the individual development can satisfy technical requirements, but whether its scale and cumulative impacts are appropriate for the neighbourhood.

I therefore strongly urge the Department to reject SSD-88702457 in its current form and require a substantially smaller, lower-rise and heritage-sensitive redevelopment of the site.

Development should respond to the character, capacity and constraints of its location. In this case, the proposed scale is not appropriate for Lavender Bay.

This is a good example of transport orientated development, being close to North Sydney station in an area which already supports many tall buildings and has the necessary infrastructure. There is no impact to near by heritage, it is not involving any demolishment of heritage. Indeed it will enhance the heritage in the area with the creation of an open space where the heritage in the area can be more easily enjoyed.
In the middle of a housing crisis we need many more developments of this kind,.

SSD-88702457 – Mixed-use Development, Mackenzie Street, Lavender Bay

I am a Mackenzie Street resident living directly opposite the proposed development. I recognise the objectives of increasing housing supply, including affordable housing, and renewal of the Church precinct. I do not object to redevelopment of the site in principle. My concerns relate to the scale of the proposal, its impacts on existing residents and Lavender Bay, and whether those impacts have been sufficiently assessed, mitigated and justified.

I have attached five detailed submissions. The key issues are summarised below.

1. Health, Wellbeing and Cumulative Human Impact

The applicant's Social Impact Assessment recognises construction noise, vibration, dust, traffic, disruption and cumulative neighbourhood change over an approximately four-year construction period. Most importantly, it assesses stress, anxiety and uncertainty associated with construction and cumulative activity as HIGH before mitigation and still HIGH after mitigation.

For residents immediately adjacent to and opposite the site, these impacts will be experienced together and repeatedly in their homes. I ask the Department to give particular weight to this HIGH residual impact and consider whether further mitigation, respite, monitoring, staging or construction controls are required.

2. Construction Traffic, Pedestrian Safety and Cumulative Construction Impacts

The preliminary construction documentation anticipates approximately 40 truck arrivals per day during bulk excavation, including 19.6 metre truck-and-dog combinations and occasional 20 metre semi-trailers travelling through local streets including Mackenzie Street.At the same time, the PCTMP states that road safety at key intersections will be assessed once final truck volumes and routes are determined. The SEARs also require cumulative construction traffic impacts to be addressed, while the PCTMP states that a cumulative construction activity assessment cannot presently be undertaken because surrounding construction programs are unknown.I ask the Department to distinguish between construction details that can appropriately be refined later and material road, pedestrian and cumulative safety impacts that should be sufficiently assessed before consent.

3. Heritage, Overshadowing, Height/Bulk and Neighbourhood Character

I am concerned about the relationship between the proposed 20-storey development and Lavender Bay's immediate heritage and residential environment, including visual impact, overshadowing and neighbourhood character.

I also raise a specific concern regarding Appendix O – Visual and View Impact Assessment. Its baseline analysis contains descriptions of an “Aerotropolis precinct”, rural land, grassland/paddocks, a quarry used for brick production, Lawson Road, Martin Road and Badgerys Creek Road. These plainly do not describe the Mackenzie Street/Lavender Bay site.

As this material appears within the baseline visual assessment, I ask the Department to satisfy itself that no assumptions, classifications, ratings or weighting factors from an unrelated assessment affected the Lavender Bay analysis before relying upon Appendix O's conclusions.

I also ask the Department to consider whether the proposed height and bulk provide an appropriate transition between the North Sydney CBD and Lavender Bay's lower-scale residential and heritage environment.

4. Strategic Justification, Planning Uplift and Enduring Public Benefit

The concurrent Planning Proposal seeks to increase existing maximum building heights from 8.5–12 metres to approximately 73.5 metres (RL120).

I recognise the strategic case for additional housing close to North Sydney Station and the genuine public benefits proposed. However, a case for increased density does not necessarily establish why the full 20-storey height is required.

The EIS expressly states that “in recognition of the additional built form uplift being sought” 77 affordable dwellings will be provided for at least 15 years. These comprise 19 apartments and 58 co-living units.

This raises a proportionality question: the additional planning capacity would be permanent, while the affordable-housing commitment expressly linked to that uplift is guaranteed for a minimum of 15 years.

I ask the Department to consider what additional public benefit specifically requires the upper levels of the 20-storey tower, whether materially lower development envelopes could deliver the principal public benefits with reduced impacts, and whether the full permanent planning uplift is necessary, proportionate and in the public interest.

5. Operational Transport, Parking and Residential Street Safety

I recognise that the Transport Impact Assessment concludes that forecast weekday peak-hour traffic can be accommodated. My concern is whether this sufficiently addresses how the completed development will operate within the surrounding residential streets throughout weekdays, evenings and weekends.

The applicant's parking survey recorded maximum weekday occupancy of 91% and maximum Saturday occupancy of 99% (129 of 131 spaces occupied).

The development introduces 107 apartments, 58 co-living rooms, retail and expanded Church facilities. Operational demand will also include visitors, deliveries, rideshare/taxis, tradespeople, servicing and Church activities. The Church/parish floor area increases while existing Church parking is reduced, and the TIA itself acknowledges that this may compound surrounding on-street parking demand.

Despite these matters, the TIA concludes that no vehicle traffic mitigation, pedestrian/bicycle improvements or public transport improvements are necessary.

I ask the Department to consider whether that conclusion remains appropriate when weekend parking, visitors, Church/event demand, servicing, pedestrian interaction and the permanent operation of the development within the local residential street environment are considered together.

Overall

The five attached submissions provide the detailed evidence and references supporting these concerns. I ask the Department to consider them together when determining SSD-88702457 and the concurrent rezoning.

I recognise that development inevitably involves balancing impacts against housing and other public benefits. However, where impacts can reasonably be reduced through changes to height, massing, design, construction methodology, staging, access or enforceable mitigation, I ask that those alternatives be properly considered before the proposed scale and associated impacts are accepted.

Submission Objecting to SSD-88702457 – St Francis Xavier Development, Mackenzie Street, Lavender Bay

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to object to the proposed St Francis Xavier development at Mackenzie Street, Lavender Bay.

I acknowledge the need for additional housing in Sydney and support well-planned development. However, I do not believe this proposal adequately addresses the cumulative impacts on existing residents, infrastructure, parking, traffic and community services. In its current form, the scale and density of the proposal are excessive for the surrounding area and will place further pressure on an already strained local community.

Parking and Traffic Impacts

My greatest concern is the impact this development will have on parking availability and traffic congestion.

The proposal includes 88 market apartments, 19 affordable apartments and 58 co-living dwellings. While parking is proposed for some residents, only 12 spaces are allocated to the co-living component. The proposal also notes that R4 zoning will allow residents without parking spaces to access residential parking permits within Area 6 – Zone A.

Anyone familiar with Lavender Bay, McMahons Point and North Sydney knows that finding on-street parking is already extremely difficult, particularly during evenings, weekends and school drop-off and pick-up periods. Residents regularly spend considerable time searching for parking, and many streets are already operating at capacity.

The assumption that a significant proportion of future residents will not own vehicles is unrealistic. Even where public transport is available, residents still require vehicles for family commitments, childcare, shift work, recreation and travel outside the immediate area. Visitors, carers, tradespeople, delivery services and support workers will also require access to parking.

This development effectively transfers the parking burden from the developer onto existing residents and public streets.

Construction Worker Parking

The proposal anticipates approximately 2.5 years of construction activity.

During this period, hundreds of construction workers, contractors, suppliers and delivery vehicles will require access to the site. The surrounding street network already experiences parking shortages and congestion.

There is little confidence that workers will exclusively use public transport. In practice, many construction workers carry tools, equipment and materials that make driving necessary. The likely result is substantial additional pressure on local streets and further loss of parking availability for residents.

The EIS should provide a detailed and enforceable strategy demonstrating how worker parking and construction traffic will be managed without adversely affecting the surrounding community.

Cumulative Impact of Concurrent Development

This proposal cannot be assessed in isolation.

Residents are already facing the prospect of multiple major developments within North Sydney and Lavender Bay, including the Zurich Building redevelopment, the Fujitsu site and other large-scale projects throughout the precinct.

Each individual development claims its impacts can be managed. However, residents experience the cumulative effect of all developments combined.

The Department should require a comprehensive cumulative assessment addressing:

* Traffic generation
* Parking demand
* Construction impacts
* Public transport capacity
* Solar access
* Community infrastructure requirements
* Public open space demand

Without such an assessment, it is impossible to properly understand the true impact of this proposal.

Community Infrastructure Is Already Under Pressure

As a local parent, I am particularly concerned about the pressure already being experienced by community services.

Families in the area face significant waiting periods for childcare with some childcare centres and schools having waitlists of up to 200 children. Schools are operating under increasing demand and local healthcare services are already under pressure.

The addition of hundreds of new residents will inevitably increase demand for these services. However, the proposal does not demonstrate how local infrastructure will be expanded to accommodate population growth.

Development should not proceed on the assumption that existing residents will simply absorb reduced access to essential services.

Impact on Community Character and Amenity

Lavender Bay is valued for its established residential character, heritage significance, village atmosphere and pedestrian-friendly environment.

The proposed 20-storey tower represents a substantial increase in scale and density within a sensitive location. I have serious concerns regarding impacts on solar access, privacy, views, noise and overshadowing.

Residents should not be expected to accept continual erosion of amenity through successive large-scale developments that fundamentally alter the character of the area.

Conclusion

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposal in its current form.

At a minimum, the Department should require further assessment of cumulative impacts, parking demand, construction traffic, infrastructure capacity and community services before any approval is considered.

Housing growth should be accompanied by corresponding investment in roads, parking, schools, childcare facilities, healthcare services and other essential infrastructure. Existing residents should not bear the consequences of inadequate planning through worsening congestion, parking shortages and declining amenity.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Objection to SSD-88702457 – Mackenzie Lavender Bay

I am a Milsons Point resident and I am writing to object to SSD-88702457 in its current form.

I understand that Sydney needs more housing, and I am not opposed to appropriate development or additional housing on this site. My concern is that a 20-storey, approximately 73.5-metre tower is simply too large for this particular location and would permanently change the character of Lavender Bay and the surrounding Milsons Point area.

I live locally and regularly use the streets and public spaces around Lavender Bay. This is a small, established neighbourhood with narrow streets, heritage buildings, parks and a very different character from the high-rise North Sydney CBD. That distinction is part of what makes this area special, and I do not believe development of this scale respects it.

I am particularly concerned about:

* The visual impact and scale. A 20-storey tower would be extremely prominent and would fundamentally change the appearance of this part of Lavender Bay. The transition from the existing lower-scale neighbourhood to a tower of this size is simply too great.
* Heritage. St Francis Xavier Church, the former School House and the surrounding heritage area are an important part of our local character. Retaining the Church is positive, but I am concerned that surrounding it with buildings of 7 and 20 storeys would overwhelm the very heritage setting that is supposed to be protected.
* Traffic and parking. As someone who lives here, I already see how constrained our local streets are. Parking is limited and there is significant pedestrian and vehicle activity throughout Lavender Bay and Milsons Point. Adding more residents, retail activity, deliveries and vehicle movements will inevitably place further pressure on the surrounding streets.
* Pedestrian safety. I am particularly concerned about additional vehicle movements around Mackenzie and Miller Streets. These streets are used by local residents, pedestrians and cyclists, and introducing additional driveway and traffic movements needs very careful consideration.
* Construction. Five levels of basement excavation into sandstone is significant. The prospect of prolonged excavation, construction vehicles, noise and vibration is concerning, particularly given the older and heritage properties in the surrounding area. There are also other major developments proposed nearby, and I am concerned about the cumulative impact on residents if these projects overlap.
* Overshadowing and loss of amenity. A building approximately 73.5 metres high and around 45 metres wide has the potential to create substantial additional shadow across surrounding homes and public spaces. Existing residents should not have to accept a significant deterioration in their amenity simply to accommodate development at this scale.

What concerns me most is what Lavender Bay and the surrounding area could look and feel like if development of this scale becomes increasingly common. Lavender Bay is not an extension of the North Sydney CBD. The railway corridor creates a clear transition into a smaller-scale, predominantly residential and heritage neighbourhood, and I believe that distinction is worth protecting.

I support additional housing and a sensible redevelopment of this site. However, I believe it should be substantially lower in height and bulk, provide an appropriate transition to surrounding buildings, respect the heritage significance of the site and minimise the impact on existing residents and local streets.

This is our local community and these changes, once made, cannot simply be undone. I respectfully ask that the proposal not be approved in its current form and that a significantly reduced and more appropriate development be considered.

I wish to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-88702457 – Mixed-use Development Mackenzie St, Lavender Bay.

I support the provision of additional housing and recognise that Lavender Bay is well located in relation to public transport, North Sydney and the Sydney CBD. However, I strongly object to the scale, height and intensity of the proposed development in its current form. In my view, the proposal represents overdevelopment of a highly constrained and historically significant site and would result in permanent and disproportionate impacts on the character and amenity of Lavender Bay.

1. Excessive height and scale

My primary concern is the sheer scale of the proposed buildings, with development reaching up to 20 storeys.

Lavender Bay is a relatively small and visually sensitive locality, containing a mixture of heritage buildings, lower-rise residential development, established streetscapes and important public open spaces. Introducing buildings of this scale would represent a dramatic change to the established built form rather than a gradual or sympathetic transition.

The fact that taller buildings exist elsewhere in North Sydney should not, by itself, justify introducing towers of similar scale into Lavender Bay. The character, topography, heritage context and relationship to surrounding residential streets are materially different.

The proposal should be assessed according to the characteristics and constraints of its immediate context, rather than simply using the existence of high-rise development in the broader North Sydney area as justification for further height.

2. Impact on the character of Lavender Bay

Lavender Bay has a distinctive character that is fundamentally different from the North Sydney CBD.

The locality contains a strong mix of historic buildings, established residential streets and lower-scale development. The proposed development risks overwhelming this character through excessive building bulk and height.

I am particularly concerned that the development would establish a precedent for progressively increasing building heights throughout Lavender Bay. Once buildings of this scale are approved, it becomes considerably more difficult to argue that subsequent developments should remain at a lower and more appropriate scale.

Development should not simply respond to the tallest buildings already constructed or proposed nearby. Otherwise, each successive development can be used to justify the next increase in height, resulting in the gradual loss of the very character that makes Lavender Bay distinctive.

3. Heritage and visual impact

The site contains the St Francis Xavier Church and former school building, and sits within a broader area containing significant heritage character.

While I acknowledge that the proposal retains and adaptively reuses some of the existing heritage buildings, I do not consider this sufficient to offset the visual impact of placing substantially larger buildings around them.

There is a significant risk that the heritage buildings will become visually subordinate to the new development rather than remaining important elements within the streetscape.

The proposal should demonstrate that the new buildings genuinely respond to the heritage setting rather than simply retaining individual heritage structures while surrounding them with development of an incompatible scale.

4. Overshadowing and loss of sunlight

The height and massing of the proposed buildings also raise significant concerns regarding overshadowing and loss of solar access.

Lavender Bay contains valuable public open spaces and established residential properties where access to natural light is an important component of amenity. Increasing building height substantially increases the potential for shadows to extend into surrounding properties, streets and public spaces.

The impacts should not be considered only on the development site itself. The Department should carefully consider the cumulative effect of this proposal on the surrounding neighbourhood, particularly when assessed alongside other major developments proposed in Lavender Bay and North Sydney.

5. Traffic, pedestrian safety and infrastructure

The surrounding road network is already heavily constrained, particularly around Lavender Street, Blues Point Road, Alfred Street and the approaches to the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

A development of this intensity will introduce a substantial increase in residents, visitors, servicing movements and construction traffic.

I am concerned that the existing road network and pedestrian environment are not capable of accommodating the cumulative increase in activity without worsening congestion and reducing safety.

The assessment should consider the combined impact of this proposal with other major developments in the immediate area, rather than assessing each project independently.

This is particularly important given the proximity of other substantial proposals in Lavender Bay and North Sydney. The cumulative impact on traffic, parking, pedestrian movements, public transport and local infrastructure could be considerably greater than the impact of any individual project considered in isolation.

6. Construction impacts

The construction of buildings of this scale will necessarily involve substantial excavation, demolition, heavy vehicle movements, noise, vibration, dust and prolonged disruption.

Given the constrained nature of the surrounding streets and the proximity of established residential properties, these impacts are likely to be significant for existing residents.

The Department should ensure that construction impacts are assessed realistically, including the cumulative impact if multiple major developments in the Lavender Bay and North Sydney area proceed concurrently.

7. The need for a more appropriate development outcome

I do not object to the site being redeveloped, nor do I object to additional housing being provided in Lavender Bay.

My objection is specifically to the scale and intensity of the proposed outcome.

There is an opportunity to provide additional housing while retaining the essential character of Lavender Bay. A substantially lower-rise development, with a more sympathetic transition between the heritage buildings and surrounding residential areas, would provide a more appropriate planning outcome.

Housing targets are important, but they should not be pursued at the expense of appropriate urban design, heritage character, residential amenity, public safety and the long-term liveability of established communities.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that SSD-88702457 be refused in its current form.

At a minimum, the proposal should be substantially redesigned to:

significantly reduce the maximum building height;
reduce overall building bulk and density;
provide a more appropriate transition to surrounding lower-rise residential development;
better protect the heritage character of Lavender Bay;
minimise overshadowing and loss of solar access;
undertake a comprehensive assessment of cumulative traffic and infrastructure impacts from other major developments in the area; and
ensure that construction impacts on surrounding residents and public infrastructure are appropriately addressed.

Lavender Bay is an important and distinctive part of Sydney. Development should contribute to the area rather than overwhelm it. I urge the Department to carefully reconsider whether a development of this scale is genuinely appropriate for this particular location.

Thank you for considering my submission.

**Submission regarding SSD-88702457**
**St Francis Xavier Parish Renewal – Lavender Bay**

To the Assessment Officer,

I am writing to object to the proposed St Francis Xavier Parish Renewal project.

As a resident of nearby McMahons Point, I appreciate that cities need to evolve and that Sydney faces a genuine housing shortage. I also recognise the important role that St Francis Xavier Parish has played in the community for many decades, and I support investment that allows the parish to continue serving future generations.

However, I do not believe that this proposal strikes an appropriate balance between delivering community benefits and protecting the unique character of Lavender Bay.

One of the reasons so many people value this part of Sydney is that it has retained a distinctive identity despite its proximity to the North Sydney CBD. Lavender Bay is not simply another redevelopment precinct. It is one of Sydney's most recognisable harbour neighbourhoods, with heritage buildings, mature streetscapes and a scale of development that creates a sense of place which has become increasingly rare.

The proposed development would fundamentally alter that character.

In my view, the issue is not whether redevelopment should occur, but whether the intensity of development being proposed is appropriate for this location. A development of this height and bulk risks overwhelming the heritage church and the surrounding neighbourhood rather than complementing it.

I am particularly concerned about the cumulative effect of this proposal when considered alongside the other major developments proposed within the immediate precinct. Planning decisions should not occur in isolation. Residents experience the combined impacts of multiple developments, including increased traffic, years of construction activity, greater pressure on local infrastructure, increased overshadowing and the gradual erosion of neighbourhood character.

What concerns me most is the way these projects are being justified.

The State Government has identified State Significant Development as one of its principal mechanisms for increasing housing supply. If local planning controls are to be overridden in pursuit of this objective, then it is reasonable that the public should receive the greatest possible long-term benefit in return.

Local residents have effectively seen many of the planning protections that have shaped this neighbourhood for decades set aside because these projects are considered to be of State significance. That represents a significant concession by the community. It follows that the developments themselves should deliver equally significant and enduring public benefits.

I do not believe that standard apartment developments with a relatively modest affordable housing component are sufficient to justify this departure from established planning controls.

If the Government is asking communities to accept substantially larger developments than would otherwise be permitted, then those developments should deliver outcomes that genuinely address the housing crisis over the long term.

In particular, I believe that any approval should require two important commitments.

Firstly, there should be a permanent prohibition on the use of apartments within the development for short-term visitor accommodation, including platforms such as Airbnb and similar services. Housing approved under the banner of addressing Sydney's housing shortage should remain available as homes for permanent residents. Allowing apartments to migrate into the short-term accommodation market would undermine one of the principal justifications for approving a project of this scale.

Secondly, the affordable housing component should provide an enduring community asset rather than a temporary planning benefit.

My understanding is that the affordable housing commitment applies for only fifteen years. After that period, the affordable dwellings may enter the private market, leaving the community with the permanent impacts of a much larger development while the principal public benefit progressively disappears.

Many overseas jurisdictions have demonstrated that affordable housing can be secured for generations through long-term ownership by community housing providers, housing associations or similar not-for-profit organisations. Those models recognise that affordable housing is not a temporary issue but an ongoing community need.

If developments are being granted significant planning concessions because they contribute to housing affordability, then that affordability should also be long-term. The community should not be expected to permanently surrender neighbourhood character in exchange for a public benefit that has an expiry date.

I am also concerned about the precedent that approval of this proposal would establish.

Every approval of an oversized development makes it increasingly difficult to resist the next one. Over time, the cumulative effect is the gradual disappearance of the qualities that attracted residents, visitors and indeed the parish itself to Lavender Bay in the first place.

I believe there is an opportunity to achieve a far better outcome.

A development of more modest scale could still renew the parish, provide new community facilities and deliver affordable housing while respecting the heritage setting and preserving the unique character of Lavender Bay. Good planning is about finding that balance rather than pursuing maximum development simply because it can be justified under the State Significant Development pathway.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department either refuse the proposal in its current form or require substantial redesign before any approval is granted.

Should the proposal proceed, I strongly urge the Department to require:

* a meaningful reduction in the height and bulk of the development;
* permanent restrictions preventing apartments from being used for short-term visitor accommodation;
* affordable housing that remains affordable in perpetuity, or for a substantially longer period than currently proposed;
* careful consideration of the cumulative impacts of surrounding State Significant Developments; and
* a design that better respects the heritage significance and village character of Lavender Bay.

The State Significant Development process should deliver exceptional public outcomes in return for the exceptional planning concessions it provides. In my view, this proposal does not yet achieve that balance.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I am writing as a local resident to strongly object to the proposed redevelopment of the St Francis Xavier site at Mackenzie Street, Lavender Bay. I do not support is using the need for housing as justification for development of virtually any scale, in virtually any location, regardless of the consequences for the people who already live there, the heritage of the area, local infrastructure and the character of the neighbourhood.

This proposal is simply too large for this site and for Lavender Bay.

The current proposal involves a tower of approximately 20 storeys, reaching around 73 metres, where existing height controls are dramatically lower. The Urban Developer reports that the proposal represents roughly a six-fold increase in the applicable height limit, from 8.5–12 metres to around 73 metres. This is not a modest uplift in density. It is an extraordinary change in scale.

That scale is particularly concerning because this is not an isolated CBD site surrounded by comparable towers. The development sits immediately alongside the Lavender Bay Heritage Conservation Area and close to some of the oldest terraces, workers' cottages, churches and historic buildings on the North Shore. North Sydney Council itself has identified the adjoining St Francis Xavier Church, school hall, St Peter's Presbyterian Church and Manse, and more than 30 individual heritage items in this precinct.

A 20-storey tower next to this fine-grain historic neighbourhood would fundamentally alter the relationship between these heritage buildings and their setting. Retaining the sandstone church itself does not solve that problem. Heritage is not simply about preserving the walls of one historic building while constructing a vastly oversized tower immediately behind or beside it. Context, scale, setting, views, streetscape and the relationship between buildings all matter.

As a resident, I am also deeply concerned about overshadowing, loss of natural light, loss of privacy and the overwhelming visual bulk that developments of this scale will create. These concerns become even more serious when the proposal is considered together with the other major developments planned around Blue Street, Middlemiss Street and Lavender Street.

This is exactly why these developments cannot sensibly be assessed one by one.

North Sydney Council has already recognised this problem. Its September 2025 resolution called for the major State Significant Development applications around North Sydney Station and Lavender Bay to be assessed concurrently as part of a holistic precinct plan. Council specifically identified the need to consider height, form, massing, solar access, visual privacy and acoustic privacy across the developments collectively.

That is an entirely reasonable position.

Residents are not facing one construction project or one increase in population. We are facing several enormous projects concentrated within a very small area. The North Sydney Sun reported local concerns that four simultaneous large-scale developments could overwhelm already inadequate infrastructure, while also reducing natural light and privacy for surrounding homes.

The cumulative effect could mean years of construction noise, excavation, heavy vehicles, road disruption and pedestrian impacts, followed by a very substantial increase in residents, vehicles, deliveries, waste collection and demand on public spaces and community services.

The five-storey basement proposed beneath the main tower, containing approximately 118 car spaces, also illustrates the sheer intensity of development contemplated on this relatively constrained site. Proximity to a railway station should support sensible density, but it should not automatically justify development without meaningful limits.

One of the most troubling aspects of this proposal is what happens to the people already living on the site.

The existing Xavier Terrace retirement complex contains 31 homes for seniors and is proposed to be demolished. Mosman Collective reported that elderly residents were told they would need to leave their homes as part of the redevelopment.

For those residents, this is not an abstract planning exercise.

A home occupied for years cannot simply be reduced to a number on a development feasibility spreadsheet. Older residents may have established friendships, routines, medical providers, transport arrangements and community connections in this neighbourhood. Relocation can cause enormous disruption and anxiety, particularly for elderly people.

There is something deeply uncomfortable about a development promoted partly on the basis of social and affordable housing requiring existing elderly residents to lose their homes in order for it to proceed.

Affordable housing should not become a shield against legitimate scrutiny of scale, design and social consequences.

The current proposal reportedly includes 165 homes, with almost half described as affordable, including market apartments, affordable apartments and co-living accommodation. The choice should not be framed as either accepting a 20-storey tower or opposing affordable housing.

There must be a better solution: one that delivers additional housing while substantially reducing the height and bulk, properly protecting neighbouring heritage and residential amenity, and ensuring existing vulnerable residents are treated fairly.

I am also concerned about the process through which developments of this magnitude are being pursued.

Council records describe the State Significant Development pathway as a "fast track" process which overrides local planning controls, and note that residents across Lavender Bay, McMahons Point and Milsons Point have felt overwhelmed and powerless as increasingly large proposals are assessed by the State rather than through the normal local planning framework.

The formal public exhibition period identified by Council for these applications can be as short as 14 days. For a proposal capable of permanently reshaping an entire precinct, that is hardly reassuring.

Local planning controls exist for a reason. They represent years of strategic planning about where density should occur, how high buildings should be, what heritage should be protected and what communities and infrastructure can reasonably accommodate.

Proximity to North Sydney Station should certainly be relevant when considering increased housing density. It should not provide an unlimited licence to disregard those principles.

The broader scale of development being directed toward this area must also be acknowledged. Council noted that State Significant Development proposals already declared within the North Sydney LGA could provide more than 3,000 dwellings on only a handful of sites - more than half of the area's five-year housing target of 5,900 dwellings, before other housing policies and existing planning programs are even counted.

That raises a fundamental question: if such a significant proportion of the housing target can already be achieved through a relatively small number of projects, why is it necessary to push individual developments in sensitive heritage areas to such extreme heights?

Good planning requires balance.

Lavender Bay is valuable not because it has resisted all change, but because development has historically occurred within a recognisable urban fabric of terraces, apartments, churches, mature landscaping, narrow streets and harbour-side neighbourhoods. Once that scale is overwhelmed by towers many multiples higher than existing controls, it cannot be recreated.

I ask the Department and decision-makers to reject this proposal in its entirety. I do not support a reduced, modified or redesigned version of this development. In my view, a project of this scale and nature is fundamentally inappropriate for Lavender Bay and should not proceed at all.

The proposal would permanently alter the established character of the area and place unacceptable pressure on local amenity, privacy, traffic, infrastructure and the heritage setting. It would also introduce a substantial increase in density into a neighbourhood that residents currently value for its quiet, stable and safe residential environment.

While affordable housing is an important objective, that does not mean every location is suitable for high-density development. It should not override legitimate concerns about neighbourhood character, heritage, infrastructure capacity, residential amenity and the cumulative impact on existing residents. There are more appropriate locations for housing of this scale without fundamentally changing a sensitive heritage neighbourhood.

The displacement of existing elderly residents is also deeply concerning. It is difficult to justify removing people from their established homes and community in order to facilitate a much larger redevelopment.

The St Francis Xavier proposal must also be considered alongside the other major developments proposed around North Sydney Station and Lavender Bay. Residents will experience the combined effects of increased traffic, construction, density, overshadowing and pressure on local infrastructure, regardless of whether each project is assessed separately.

Lavender Bay should not be treated simply as development capacity because it is close to a railway station. Its heritage, community, amenity and existing residents deserve protection.

Once the character and quality of an area like Lavender Bay is lost, it cannot simply be restored.

I therefore respectfully request that the Mixed-use in Lavender Bay redevelopment be refused in full.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 1–19 Mackenzie Street and 211 Blues Point Road, Lavender Bay (SSD-88702457).

I would like to make clear that my objection is not primarily based on any impact on my own apartment, private outlook or personal interests.

My concern is much broader. I am concerned about the long-term future of Lavender Bay and whether this proposal, particularly when considered together with other major developments in the surrounding area, represents responsible and sustainable planning for this community.

I support appropriate housing development and understand that Sydney needs additional housing. However, I do not believe that housing growth should come at the expense of the heritage, environmental qualities, public spaces and liveability of an established community.

1. The scale and density are inappropriate for Lavender Bay

My greatest concern is the proposed scale of the development, including buildings of up to 20 storeys.

Lavender Bay is a relatively small residential community with a distinctive heritage and environmental character. A development of this scale would represent a significant increase in population and intensity of use within a very limited area.

The impact of density should not be measured simply by counting the number of apartments provided.

Additional population also means additional demand for roads, public transport, parking, schools, recreational areas, public open space, waste services, water, electricity and other infrastructure.

I am concerned that the proposal is being considered primarily in terms of how much additional development can be accommodated on the site, rather than whether the surrounding community and infrastructure can sustainably absorb the resulting increase in population and activity.

2. The cumulative impact must be considered

I am particularly concerned that this proposal is being assessed as an individual development rather than as part of a much larger transformation occurring around Lavender Bay and North Sydney.

The NSW Government’s own assessment material identifies this site as part of the broader North Sydney Station Precinct and refers to adjoining development sites, including 5 Blue Street and 15 Blue Street. The Government has also identified the need for integration between these sites. (Major Projects)

In my view, the Department should undertake a genuine precinct-wide assessment of the cumulative impact of these developments before allowing individual projects to proceed.

The cumulative increase in population, traffic, construction activity, building height and pressure on public spaces could be substantially greater than the impact of any single project considered separately.

Once these developments are individually approved, it may be impossible to reverse the cumulative change to Lavender Bay.

3. Heritage character must be protected

I am deeply concerned about the impact of this proposal on the heritage character of Lavender Bay.

The site contains St Francis Xavier Church and the former school building, and the surrounding area forms part of a significant heritage context.

Heritage is not simply about preserving individual buildings.

The setting, scale, streetscape and relationship between heritage buildings and their surroundings are also important parts of heritage significance.

A development involving buildings of up to 20 storeys would fundamentally alter the scale and context of this historic site.

I am concerned that retaining the Church while surrounding it with substantially larger modern buildings could diminish rather than protect its role and significance within Lavender Bay.

The Department should assess the heritage impact of the entire development and its cumulative relationship with other developments in the surrounding heritage conservation area.

4. Protection of the natural environment and public open space

Lavender Bay is already located within a highly urbanised part of North Sydney.

For this reason, the remaining open spaces, vegetation, harbour setting and natural elements of the neighbourhood are particularly valuable.

As urban density continues to increase, these spaces become more important—not less.

I am concerned that continued intensification will gradually erode the environmental and recreational qualities of the area.

The environmental impact of development should not be assessed only in terms of the individual development footprint. The Department should also consider the cumulative effect of increased population, construction, traffic, waste, energy use and infrastructure demand across the entire precinct.

There should be a clear limit to how much additional development an established community and its environment can reasonably absorb.

5. Impact on children, families and community facilities

I am also concerned about the impact of increasing population density on children and families.

Children need safe, accessible and adequate places to play, exercise, socialise and spend time outdoors.

Schools and community facilities also have finite capacity.

When population increases significantly without a corresponding increase in recreational land, school capacity and community infrastructure, existing spaces inevitably become more heavily used.

This is particularly important in a highly urbanised area such as North Sydney, where opportunities to create new open space are limited.

Planning should therefore consider not only how many additional homes can be created, but also whether the resulting community will have sufficient space and infrastructure for children, families and existing residents.

6. Traffic, congestion and pedestrian safety

North Sydney already experiences substantial traffic and pedestrian activity because of its established commercial, business and residential functions.

Lavender Bay’s local streets are relatively constrained and form part of a much larger network serving North Sydney, Milsons Point, McMahons Point and surrounding areas.

Adding substantial numbers of new residents, visitors, deliveries and service vehicles will place additional pressure on this network.

I am concerned that the traffic impact should be assessed cumulatively, taking into account other major developments proposed in the surrounding area.

The safety and convenience of pedestrians, cyclists, school children and existing residents should be given greater priority than simply maximising development capacity.

7. Pressure on existing infrastructure and public services

I am concerned that the existing infrastructure of the area may not be capable of absorbing the cumulative population increase associated with multiple major developments.

This includes:

* schools and educational facilities;
* childcare and family services;
* health services;
* public transport;
* roads and pedestrian infrastructure;
* public open space and recreational facilities;
* water, sewerage and other utilities; and
* waste collection and servicing.

The community should not be expected to absorb substantial population growth first and wait for infrastructure to catch up later.

Infrastructure capacity should be demonstrated before such a significant increase in density is approved.

8. Construction impacts and cumulative disruption

The proposed development will also involve substantial demolition, excavation and construction.

For an established residential and heritage neighbourhood, a major construction project can have significant effects through noise, vibration, dust, heavy vehicles, road disruption and pressure on surrounding streets.

These impacts become even more significant when multiple major projects are being undertaken in the same precinct at approximately the same time.

I therefore ask the Department to consider not only the construction impacts of this project in isolation, but also the possibility of years of overlapping construction activity across Lavender Bay and North Sydney.

9. Public benefit should be measured against permanent community impact

I recognise that the proposal may provide additional housing and other claimed public benefits.

However, public benefit should not be measured simply by the number of additional dwellings created.

The Department should also consider the permanent public costs associated with:

* increased population density;
* increased traffic and congestion;
* pressure on schools and community facilities;
* loss of environmental and open-space qualities;
* increased infrastructure demand;
* construction disruption; and
* erosion of heritage character.

Once the built form of Lavender Bay is permanently changed, these impacts cannot easily be reversed.

10. A more balanced development should be pursued

I am not asking for Lavender Bay to remain completely unchanged.

I accept that development and additional housing are necessary.

What I am asking for is responsible growth.

A revised proposal should provide additional housing while respecting the physical capacity and established character of Lavender Bay.

In particular, I believe the Department should require:

* substantially reduced height and building bulk;
* a more appropriate transition to surrounding residential areas;
* stronger protection of the heritage setting;
* proper assessment of cumulative population growth;
* a precinct-wide traffic and infrastructure assessment;
* protection of public open space and recreational areas;
* consideration of the needs of children and families; and
* a coordinated approach to all major developments within the Lavender Bay precinct.