Mixed-use development at Pyrmont Bridge/Parramatta Road

I think the development is too big for the location. It would make the traffic very unsafe for pedestrians and vehicles. There is extremely limited parking already on that block and would impact the amenity of the area in a big way. I have young children and am worried that the area will be unsafe during the construction works. I also think the size of the development is too big for the block it's proposed on. The next block down, where the westconnex dive site was, is vacant and would be able to handle a building of this size much easier.

I object to this proposal on the grounds outlined in my attached submission.
Principal among these are that the proposal detracts from local amenity, is of inappropriate scale given its proximity to the aircraft approach path and aircraft noise, and uses unrealistic assumptions on parking requirements which will have a significant impact on surrounding streets and the local area generally.
The EIS does not adequately address these issues, to the point of being misleading.

Objection to Proposed Shop Top Housing Development :
Pyrmont Bridge/Parramatta Road (SSD-84024470 – 122-128, 130 Pyrmont Bridge Road, 206 Parramatta Road, Annandale).

I formally object to the above development application.

I am a resident of The Gantry, the housing development opposite the proposed 22 storey tower. I strongly support build-to-rent and other affordable housing options. I am aware that State Significant Development approvals take into account a range of matters in addition to NSW State Planning legislation and policies- especially the need for lower cost housing close to the city. Further, Parramatta Road is identified for renewal, however the features of this proposed tower on this site will have significant negative effects on the local community, environment, and overall amenity of the area. In addition, I support the objections to this SSD made by Inner West Council, as outlined in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS).


A. Scale and Location
Current housing in Camperdown comprises semi or detached houses, townhouses, units up to 6 storeys and low level industrial/commercial development.

This proposal is for a 22-storey tower, built on a small parcel of land. It would have 281 dwellings, as well as ground floor retail and 44 car spaces.

It lacks integration with current housing and planning in the neighbourhood and is unsympathetic to future area planning. It makes no appropriate transition to the adjoining residential context. Also, it does not contribute meaningfully to the urban and environmental landscape, apart from a few trees around the perimeter, an increased setback, and a pathway along one side that does not connect to any existing path or feature.

The proposal cites the Aria building in the City Quarter and The Joinery as high-rise developments, either built or approved in the area, to support its case. However, there are significant differences between those, and this proposal. Those developments resulted from a planned approach, provide public amenity, and include significant green space.


B. Predicted Car Usage and Transport Assumptions

The predicted shift away from car use would seem to be based on very optimistic assumptions.

The EIS cites 2016 ABS data, indicating that most residents in this surrounding statistical area travelled to work by car (56%). Further, the breakdown of residents’ workplaces was 27% in Sydney CBD and immediate areas, 10% within the Leichhardt – Annandale Statistical Area (living and working in the same area), 5% in Pyrmont – Ultimo, Newtown – Camperdown – Darlington and Surry Hills, with the remaining 58% distributed across Sydney.

Developments of this scale are generally centred on a transport hub. This is not the case here. The EIS’s information on public transport access overstates the ease of access to public transport to destinations other than the CBD.
While a shift to active and public transport is to be encouraged, it is unrealistic to expect that a significant enough number of residents will stop relying on cars for commuting to work. Furthermore, the inclusion of two- and three-bedroom units suggests that many residents will be families who need cars for school drop-offs, essential shopping and other activities.

Demand on public transport will also strongly increase. The EIS notes there are currently 1,948 dwellings either approved or proposed within 400 metres of the proposed site. There are also many developments proposed further to the west along Parramatta Road, Annandale and beyond. The cumulative effects on public transport provision and increased car volume within this small area will be highly significant.


C. Inadequacy of Parking Provision

Parking in the proposed development is based on an assumption that for the 281 units, which are stated to accommodate 605 occupants, only 44 spaces are sufficient. This includes parking for the commercial /retail businesses as well.

The proposed tower is surrounded by a very narrow street network to its side and rear. Vehicle entry and egress from Parramatta or Pyrmont Bridge Roads is only accessible at two points, Mathieson St and Gordon St. There are currently 46 car park spaces on these very narrow streets, all currently fully utilised by residents of the surrounding houses, existing light industry and a school.

ABS data for 2021 indicates that 1.3 cars are owned per household in the area and 56% of people use a car to get to work. While this number ma ybe less for this current development, if the current pattern were applied there would be 321 extra cars parking on local streets. There is no easy access from the proposed site to more distant streets where parking may be available. It will be impossible for residents and visitors to find nearby parking, and this will impact on adjacent neighbourhoods and the surrounding street network.

A parking occupancy survey of the surrounding street network is required, with the applicant needing to demonstrate how a realistic estimated increase in vehicles can be accommodated.


D. Traffic Study Issues

The traffic study in the EIS does not consider all current activities or likely future impacts from the proposed and surrounding developments. Assumptions in the traffic study are based on parking space numbers. As stated above these numbers are inadequate.

Additionally, the previous traffic study for the hospital site (referenced in the current EIS) was done before the Mackillop Education Waranara School existed. It is also highly likely that future development in the Mathieson/Cahill/Water/Cahill Streets- all very narrow - would significantly increase traffic volumes and congestion.

An independent traffic study, looking at current demand and that from likely future development in this essentially enclosed area, should be conducted to ensure that this proposed development does not impair future uses for this area and produce increased hazards at this major intersection of Parramatta and Pyrmont Bridge Roads.

E. Aircraft Noise

Noise level testing used in the EIS is totally non-representative and misleading of usual flight noise patterns. Flights directly over the proposed development are frequent during southerly winds and non existent when winds are from the north. As a result, noise levels vary significantly dependent on the season, and prevailing winds.

Further, planes would be flying quite low above the proposed 22 storey tower. The associated noise and vibration would impact heavily on the comfort and amenity of residents.

F. Visual Amenity and Overshadowing

The proposed tower will detract from visual amenity and overshadow existing buildings as well as shade solar panel infrastructure.

Images in the EIS misleadingly attempt to downplay the proposed development’s impact on residents in surrounding areas. Almost all the images only show the lower floors of the proposed tower, and not its substantial height. Also, photomontages are used to downplay the scale of the development and misleadingly attempt to portray the development as similar in scale to existing nearby buildings. However, no other building is above 6 storeys high, whereas the proposed tower is 22.

Shade diagrams in the EIS reveal that Building A of The Gantry will experience significant shading from the proposed development. Further, they only show the impact of overshadowing till 3pm. However, afternoon sunlight would be impacted for additional hours each day.
Solar panels on townhouses in Australia Street, as well as on neighbouring properties, will also be substantially impacted.

This lends further support to the objection that the land area is too small to support the proposed tower without impacting on other sites.


G. Construction Impacts

While construction plans have not yet been developed, given the scale of the proposed tower and impacts outlined above, the impacts of this phase would be significant.

The proposal mentions the construction crane intruding into airspace. It also acknowledges that parking for construction workers would be problematic and suggests that workers travel by public transport.

Impacts on parking, traffic, access for residents and the school, and pedestrian safety in the surrounding very narrow streets would be substantial. As too, would be the increased noise, vibration and dust. These have not been adequately addressed. Further, it is difficult to see how access to commercial premises in Cahill Street East (a dead-end street) could be maintained during construction.

Conclusion

This proposed 22 storey tower development does not achieve SSD objectives. While it attempts to increase affordable housing close to the city and give increased renewal to Parramatta Road, at the same time, it only succeeds in raising serious doubts about its ability to achieve either.

As outlined above, significant impacts on the comfort and amenity of potential residents arise from the excessive height of the proposed tower, aircraft noise, traffic, transport and parking impacts. Additional impacts on the existing community include visual and environmental amenity, space and design impacts, overshadowing and solar access, and construction issues.

A local planning scheme is urgently needed to guide development, including affordable housing with more appropriate height limits, that is in keeping with the character and capacity of the neighbourhood.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed unit development in this EIS and seek its rejection.




Christine Sheeley
[email protected]

We are writing to formally object to Application Number SSD-84024470, 122-128, 130 Pyrmont Bridge Road, 206 Parramatta Road, Annandale.

We are residents of The Gantry, 12 Denison Street, Camperdown and support an increase in housing supply within the Inner West – we have family members affected by the current shortage and affordability of housing – however we believe this needs to be hand-in-hand with sensible allowance for car ownership, proximity to public transport, traffic movement and public facilities.

We are concerned that the proposed development proposal:

1. Seriously underestimates car ownership by the inhabitants of the 281 units and the potential visitor traffic to the four retail premises.

2. Ignores the lack of public transport other than the existing bus services on Parramatta Road.

3. Will create significantly increased traffic congestion in an area already suffering during peak hours, before the impact of additional traffic moving in and out of The Joinery development.

4. Contributes next-to-nothing in regards for open spaces, greenery and pedestrian access.

Specific points:

Underestimation of car ownership

The proposal focuses on the potential for inhabitants to walk, bike or use public transport to move to and from their places of employment.

We support the theory – and in fact are bona fide examples of such, favoring public transport over the day-to-day use of our vehicle.

But we do still own a vehicle and believe that a significant percentage of the 281 unit occupiers will also own a vehicle even if it is rarely used during the working week.

As an example, in The Gantry we estimate 80% of apartments have at least one vehicle. Around 60% of these are used day-to-day.

The proposal includes 43 spaces for residential parking. If only 33% of unit occupiers own vehicles that will be 93 vehicles, a short fall of 50 spaces.

Allowance also needs to be made for visitor and trade vehicles, and for parking spaces for the retail premises. It should be noted that the existing site offers parking spaces for 20 vehicles.

There is little parking available in the streets in the immediate vicinity of the development.

Parking on the southern side of Parramatta Road is already fully utilized by essential workers at RPA, staff and students at the University of Sydney, and staff/parents of the numerous childcare centers.

Public transport

Unlike many of the developments proposed along Parramatta Road, this site is not near a major transport hub or development such as Kings Bay Village.

The public transport buses along Parramatta Road are excellent but already frequently full by the time they arrive in Camperdown. There are only limited cross-city bus services.

Heavy rail is available however, 20 plus minutes from the site, as is light rail.

Traffic congestion

The site offers no direct access for movement to the west.

Drivers will need to drive easterly along Pyrmont Bridge Road to turn right into Missenden Road and then right again into Parramatta Road. Alternatively, they will need to loop left at Booth Street and drive through Annandale Village to reach Johnson Street for a right turn on to Parramatta Road. However right turning at this corner is not allowed during peak hours!!!

Similarly, traffic moving west along Parramatta Road will need to drive past the site to make a left turn into Albury Street, negotiate a U-turn or use the roundabout at Salisbury Road to return to Parramatta Road travelling then in an easterly direction to reach the site.

All these turning points are already choke points during peak hour and this is before any additional traffic from The Joinery development!

Open spaces, greenery and pedestrian access

The proposal makes an insignificant effort to provide open space and greenery for the estimated 400 plus inhabitants. Nor are the narrow pathways on the surrounding streets addressed.

Summary

We believe the proposed development is too large for such a small site, and will lead to unnecessary stress on parking, public transport, traffic movement and public facilities.

Rex and Pauline Holyoake

While I support the redevelopment of the existing industrial sites in this project for housing, I believe the scale of the development is excessive and out of keeping with existing buildings in the surrounding area, which are typically 4-6 storeys for larger residential sites. I understand this height of this project is in keeping with that proposed for the nearby former Westconnex dive site, but that is a much larger block with scope for landscaped and public areas. In contrast, the proposed 18-20 storey tower on this site will take up the majority of the block, which is also much closer to low-rise residential areas that would be dominated by the new building. The current maximum allowed height of 35m for the same site would be a much more suitable scale for this development.

I strongly feel that this proposal is not suited for the chosen site and the construction and operation of a development this scale will not improve, rather negatively impact the amenity of the area.
This dwarfing construction on a small footprint, the disruption resulting from the destruction of the existing buildings, excavation of site and a proposed two year construction will greatly choke up local resources for the under catered, unsuitable and unsafe site. The site at the intersection of an artery and a major road, with narrow supporting streets, with minimal and already at capacity off street parking, will impact the neighbouring businesses and residents on Gordon, Cahill, Water and Mathieson Streets to the detriment of current and future users for the intended purpose. The abovementioned connected supporting roads at best allow passage of one vehicle at a time and are not fit for purpose of increased vehicular activity. Currently, vehicles exiting Mathieson St to turn onto Parramatta Rd block entry to this street area leading to a back up on Parramatta Rd. Similarly, the narrow size of Gordon St sees the same issue with entry and exit to Pyrmont Bridge Rd. Larger vehicles such as trucks and delivery vehicles only further exacerbate this issue. Here also, the lack of pedestrian footpath results in pedestrians also walking on the road and is dangerous and unsuitable.
While it is understood that this area is earmarked for change in the overall scope of PRCUTS, it is vital that consideration be taken for the current usages, the viability, and the suitability of future changes. Given the Gateway site status, the proposal raises several concerning elements with the current most definitely less sympathetic than the original guidelines. The FSR increase to 22 stories is lacking in design excellence, which as a key site, deserves critical attention, consideration and consultation. Compliance is lacking with several of the site- specific requirements including setbacks and building articulation- preferring to go for zero allotment. The public space in the site-specific development control plan has been privatised, leaving poor urban outcomes and loss of deep soil planting. The re alignment of the massing to face the two residential streets maximises potential for overshadowing and overlooking of private property and the newly developed parkland.

There appear to be discrepancies in the amount of affordable housing with one document stating 29 of 228 (10%) and another stating “Construction of a 22-storey mixed-use development and concurrent rezoning consisting of shop top housing for 281 build-to-rent units, 15% affordable housing, ground floor retail premises and associated site works”
The previous development proposition for the Camperdown Modern Hospital had 8 storeys with a rooftop terrace whereby the new proposal is for 22 storeys. I feel this is incongruent with the local streetscape and borders on developer greed rather than amenity. To deliver 15% of the residential floor area for the purpose of affordable housing for 10 years is not offering a long term solution for those workers purportedly being aimed to aid.

Construction and access
The initial access to the site for trucks during construction, an acute left turn from Parramatta Rd onto Mathieson Street is not suited to the volume of traffic and size of vehicles this would bring and this kind of ongoing vehicular movement. This left turn, both entering and exiting Mathieson is challenging at best but with oncoming traffic and parked cars on the western side of Mathieson Street, the breadth of the street is not viable for this kind of carriage and the spoil that would need to be removed. Currently existing businesses are obliged to double park or mount kerbs to allow passage.
Safety
As a resident for over a decade, I have often witnessed the danger of the blind left-hand turn onto Pyrmont Bridge Rd from Parramatta Rd. Road users, Vehicles, including bicycles, unintentionally and perhaps intentionally don’t see the no left turn red light arrow and proceed through onto Pyrmont Bridge Road without slowing down. This area marks the end of the bus lane or “mass transit lane” which recommences on the other side of Parramatta Rd, often leading to confusion and erratic lane changes for vehicles turning onto Pyrmont Bridge Rd. My family and I have been nearly hit on numerous occasions whilst using the pedestrian crossing. Vehicles travelling eastwards on Parramatta Rd at 60km/h onto Pyrmont Bridge Road (which becomes, 40km/h), would have difficulty braking in time if there were hold ups at proposed entrance via Cahill St, or the general confusion arising from vehicles attempting to cross over from the opposite side of Pyrmont Bridge Road. The braking distance and reaction time at this speeds as below show the danger this poses:
Speed Reaction distance Braking distance
60km/h 25m 20m

The buildings and asbestos content poses a concern to those who live and work in the surrounds. The ongoing overshadowing, from such a high building and the operations such as plant noise and other services will negatively impact the houses and businesses opposite and in the surrounding streets.

Suitability
The supporting proposal documentation greatly understates the impact this project will have on the surrounding properties and infrastructure. Vehicular burden to Cahill, Mathieson, Water and Gordon Streets will be long lasting with the inadequate provision of parking of the development. Yes, Parramatta Rd offers frequent bus connections, but this area remains heavily reliant on vehicular use due to the lack of interconnectedness. Stanmore, the nearest train station is 1.3 km or a 21min walk while Newtown 1.5km and 23 minutes on foot. Jubilee Park light rail is 1.7km and 23 minutes walk.
The proposal to remove of 14 parking spots on Mathieson Street and Cahill Streets further demonstrates the importance that this site can not rely on local parking resources and must not undersupply its intended or future usage to the detriment of the existing users
As advised in TfNSW submission dated 26 May 2025, Parramatta Road and Pyrmont Bridge Road are major arterial roads carrying a high volume of traffic, where transport efficiency of through traffic is of great importance. Limiting the number of vehicular conflict points along the arterial road network will help maintain the network efficiency and road safety.
In the long term the strains of this development, which has catered inadequately for its intended purpose, will drain the local resources namely parking in the surrounding streets. As part of the long term plan for the area, Pyrmont Bridge Rd is also proposed to become a one laned, road with a permanent bike path and widened footpaths, which would further put this usage and its suitability into question. Designs for vehicular entry to the shop top development from Cahill St would mean only eastbound traffic could enter from Mathieson St or vehicles would need to enter Pyrmont Bridge Rd, traverse Gordon Street, Water Street and Mathieson then Cahill to circle around. Alternatively, traffic heading westwards along Pyrmont Bridge Road would have to cross over an already busy road to gain entry as well as a bike lane. The boxed in nature of these supporting streets, lacking breadth and interconnectedness and the natural barrier of Johnson’s creek further highlight the unsuitable location.

There is a great need to subject such projects to scrutiny before rushing through to the detriment of existing and future users. Looking at the recently finished constructions known as Abbie’s lane, one sees some limitations of grander constructions of this nature on the unsuitable supporting infrastructure. Abbie’s lane has one vehicular access point , only 42 parking spots, for 42 apartments along and its build has resulted in the removal of local off street parking. Vehicles exiting this site to head eastwards are not permitted to turn left onto Parramatta Rd and must navigate several local streets to do such.
Similarly incongruous local projects permitted with questionable community consultation, such as the Waranara school on Cahill Street, houses only five parking spots and one accessible space, for a school with a capacity of 120 students and 20 teaching staff. It too resulted in the removal of off street parking through its operation.

This project needs to held up to scrutiny as it will no doubt have a flow on effect for future developments and the fabric of this area in years to come.

We own a property at 33-37 Trafalgar Street, townhouse 11 and we are writing to make a submission regarding the State Significant Development application SSD-84024470 for the proposed shop top housing development at 122–128 and 130 Pyrmont Bridge Road and 206 Parramatta Road, Annandale.

After reviewing the exhibition material available on the NSW Planning Portal, as a nearby resident, I am particularly concerned about the transport and traffic implications of the proposal and request that these matters be carefully reassessed prior to determination.

My concerns include the following:

Traffic generation and congestion
Pyrmont Bridge Road and Parramatta Road are already highly constrained and congested arterial roads, particularly during peak periods. The additional vehicle movements generated by the proposed development, including residents, visitors, service vehicles and deliveries, are likely to exacerbate existing congestion and reduce network efficiency.

Access and safety
Proposed vehicular access points may introduce new conflict points along busy road corridors, increasing safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. This is of particular concern given the proximity to signalised intersections, bus routes and existing pedestrian activity.

Public transport capacity
While the site is located on public transport corridors, existing bus services along Parramatta Road and Pyrmont Bridge Road are already heavily utilised during peak times. It is unclear whether sufficient capacity exists to accommodate the increased demand generated by the development without service upgrades. Has there been any consideration given to introducing the light rail down Parramatta Road given the increase in people living int the new development?

Parking and overflow impacts
Any shortfall in on-site parking provision is likely to result in overflow parking into surrounding residential streets, placing pressure on already limited on-street parking and impacting local residents and businesses.

Construction traffic impacts
Construction-related vehicle movements, including heavy vehicles, deliveries and contractor parking, have the potential to significantly disrupt traffic flow and local access unless rigorously managed. A detailed and enforceable construction traffic management plan should be required.

Cumulative impacts
The transport assessment should also consider cumulative impacts in the context of other approved and proposed developments along the Parramatta Road corridor, rather than assessing this project in isolation.

22 stories is so out of proportion for the nearby streets, where our property is located. It is normally 2 to 3 stories maximum.

I respectfully request that the Department puts in place a robust, transparent and conservative traffic and transport assessment, and that appropriate mitigation measures or design amendments (such as reducing the number of stories down from 22) be adopted, to minimise adverse impacts on the surrounding road network and community.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. I ask that these transport-related concerns be given due consideration in the assessment and determination of this application.

I am writing as an individual property owner in Annandale to formally object to the proposed 22-storey mixed-use development at the intersection of Pyrmont Bridge Road and Parramatta Road.
While I support appropriate residential redevelopment of this site in principle, I strongly oppose the excessive scale and intensity of the current proposal for the following reasons:
Disproportionate Population Impact and Growth Pattern Contradiction - The proposed 281-unit development will house approximately 700 additional residents, representing a 7% population increase for Annandale - equivalent to nearly 1 in every 14 current residents. This massive demographic shift fundamentally contradicts our suburb's established growth pattern and community planning expectations.

Census data shows Annandale has maintained stable, sustainable growth with only 36 additional residents between 2016-2021 (9,451 to 9,487) and modest growth to the current 9,933 residents. This represents an average annual growth rate of less than 0.2%, reflecting careful development that respects neighbourhood character and infrastructure capacity.

The proposed development would compress 175 years of natural growth into a single project - an unconscionable breach of the social contract that residents entered when choosing to live in Annandale based on its established character and measured growth trajectory.

Traffic Congestion and Transport Infrastructure - This population explosion will place unbearable strain on Parramatta Road, which is already severely congested during peak hours. The site relies on bus connections along Parramatta Road, yet current services are overcrowded and unreliable. Stanmore Station lies outside the practical walking catchment, forcing most residents to rely on private vehicles or inadequate public transport.

Adding 700 new residents to this intersection will create gridlock and safety hazards. The proposal provides no meaningful solutions to address existing transport deficiencies.

Infrastructure Overwhelm - Our local infrastructure was planned for gradual population increases, not a 7% demographic spike. The area cannot support an additional 700 residents regarding:
- Local roads and parking facilities already at capacity
- Schools, medical facilities, and community services
- Parks and open space serving existing residents
- Water, sewer, and electricity infrastructure
- Emergency services and waste collection
- Inappropriate Scale and Height The proposed 22-storey tower with a floor space ratio of 6.5:1 is completely out of character for Annandale. This unprecedented height will establish a dangerous precedent that fundamentally alters the neighbourhood's established built form and heritage character. Approving this development abandons decades of responsible planning that has maintained Annandale's liveability.

Overshadowing and Visual Impact - A 22-storey tower will cast significant shadows over surrounding residential properties, reducing natural light and amenity for existing residents. The visual dominance will overwhelm the streetscape and destroy the human scale that makes Annandale liveable.

Inadequate Community Benefit - The proposal includes only 29 affordable housing units out of 281 dwellings - a mere 10.3% rather than the meaningful contribution our community deserves. This token gesture does not justify a development of this scale and density. If the government approves such intensive development, the community deserves a significant contribution to affordable housing that reflects the substantial planning concessions being granted.

The discrepancy between the preliminary study's 15% target and the actual 10.3% provision demonstrates how community benefits are being eroded while developer profits are maximised at our neighbourhood's expense.

Neighbourhood Character Destruction - This proposal ignores Annandale's established residential character and fine-grain streetscape. It will disrupt the social fabric of a stable, established community and create unprecedented demand on local services that have evolved to serve our current population over decades.

Cumulative Impact and Precedent Approving - this density will inevitably lead to similar proposals throughout Annandale, potentially doubling or tripling the suburb's population within a few years without corresponding infrastructure investment. This represents a fundamental shift from sustainable community planning to profit-driven overdevelopment.

Parking and Access - The development provides insufficient parking for 281 units plus retail and commercial uses. This will force overflow parking onto already congested residential streets, creating safety issues for local families and cyclists.

I support appropriate residential development that contributes genuine affordable housing, respects our neighbourhood's character, and aligns with Annandale's established growth pattern supported by adequate infrastructure investment. This proposal fails on all counts.

The scale of population impact - equivalent to nearly two centuries of natural growth compressed into a single development - demonstrates why this proposal is fundamentally incompatible with Annandale's established community planning framework.

I urge the Department of Planning to reject this application and require the proponent to submit a proposal that reflects appropriate scale, meaningful community benefit, and respect for Annandale's measured growth trajectory and established character.

I object to the development due to it size ( height & number of units). The previous proposed development was around 12 levels ( of medical use) now this development has increased this to 21 levels which has dramatically increased the height of the development and has increased the number of residents with minimal car parking. As a near by resident this will greatly increase the traffic and unit renters ( and their visitors) looking to park their vehicles in nearby streets such as Cardigan Steet which already suffers from large street parking volumes from non residents. Also the actual height of the proposed development is not in character with any such building on Parramatta Road. There is no building of this height along Paramatta Road in Camperdown, Stanmore, Petersham and Leichhardt most residential unit buildings are 5 - 8 stories high . The development is way over the top and with the proposed building proposed on the near by former tunnel access site will result in grid lock and traffic congestion in this location and impact all residents in the surrounding area.

The lack of carparking provided in the scheme will adversely affect the surrounding area.
Many residents in heritage properties do not have off-street parking, so it is at a premium.
44 cars for approx. 300 units plus commercial plus visitors will cause problems.
I suggest raising the height limit to enable above ground carparking. This carparking will be cheaper to construct.
This will then occupy the undesirable lower levels of the building facing the busy Parramatta Road, whilst enabling the same number of units. The difference of 80 to 90m in height would not be appreciable.

1. It will block and/or change the view from my apartment.
2. I have witnessed a few traffic accidents around this junction area and it is not suitable to have this proposed project here.

Please ensure trees are planted along parramatta and parking bridge road to improve walk ability, provide shade and improve the aesthetic of the local area.

I support the project

I am objecting to the height of proposal for the following reasons:
- the proposed subject building height to 80 metres will affect substantially the sun light from northerly which is currently enjoyed from the existing property. (see the attached)

Hi there.

i strongly object to this proposal. i am a resident living in nearby water street and we already struggle with inadequate parking. The scale of the development is grossly oversized will significantly and detrimentally impact the amenity of the local area. the proposed number of car parking is completely inadequate and the proposed access routes to the development off parramatta road will create major traffic hazards at an intersection that is already extremely dangerous (in particular during construction phase). we have young children and i can attest to traffic in the area being unsafe and this development will not improve matters. We are currently regularly unable to find parking on our street and with so few parking spots provided for such a large development, i believe that our street (Water Street) will become completely congested with visitors and residents looking for parking.

This is strictly the belief of the Owners Corporation and its Owners.

I wish to formally object to the proposed shop top housing development at Pyrmont Bridge/Parramatta Road (SSD-84024470 – 122-128, 130 Pyrmont Bridge Road, 206 Parramatta Road, Annandale).
As a resident of The Gantry, Camperdown, I have substantial concerns regarding the potential impacts this development may have on the local community, the environment, and the overall amenity of the area.

Character of Camperdown and Local Planning
Camperdown predominantly comprises detached homes, townhouses, and buildings not exceeding six storeys, together with low-rise industrial and commercial developments. The area’s typical Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is 4.1, with a maximum building height of 35 metres.
The Council has demonstrated a balanced approach between apartment development and community amenities, including public spaces and walkways. For instance, The Gantry apartment complex has received recognition for its exemplary architectural design, indicative of considered urban planning in Camperdown.
I respectfully request that Inner West Council planning controls be upheld, focusing on mid-rise rather than high-rise developments, to preserve Camperdown’s distinct character and prevent it from undergoing excessive densification akin to areas such as Zetland.

Height and Density Concerns
The proposed building’s height is excessive and will result in significant overshadowing of the courtyard adjacent to my apartment. I recommend reducing the height of the development to mitigate these concerns, as the proposed scale may create wind tunnels, reduce community cohesion, and potentially contribute to heat island effects.
A height limitation of no more than ten storeys would be more appropriate for this location.
While the proposal cites existing high-rise buildings such as the Aria and Joinery developments, there are important distinctions. Those projects were conceived through comprehensive planning processes, contributed substantial public amenity, and included green spaces. For example, the Joinery maintains an FSR of 4.9, and City Quarter is recognised for both its amenities and extensive landscaping.
By contrast, the current proposal features a slender, 22-storey tower that is inconsistent with surrounding developments and does not adequately support sustainable growth. It offers limited greenery, set-back increases, and a disconnected pathway, none of which integrate meaningfully with the neighbourhood’s established infrastructure.

Parking and Traffic Concerns
Development of this density and height is generally more appropriate in proximity to train stations, rather than in the centre of Camperdown where public transport is limited to already overcrowded bus services. At present, there is neither light rail nor metro planned nearby.
Parking availability in neighbouring streets is already constrained and primarily utilised by residents and existing businesses. Cahill Street, which terminates in a dead end, further restricts vehicular access. Parking options within walking distance are insufficient and often subject to time restrictions. These limitations will make it difficult for residents and visitors to secure parking, increase local traffic congestion, and heighten risks to pedestrians, particularly children, older adults, and school users. Additionally, the increased traffic will place further strain on the Parramatta Road/Pyrmont Bridge Road intersection.

Impact on Local Services
Continued urban expansion in this area will further burden New South Wales Government health and mental health services. Has consideration been given to the significant impact that the proposed development, coupled with the Joinery development on the access to state funded health and mental health care with this extensive increase in population in the Camperdown area.

We would like to object to the proposed development on the grounds that the scale and height of the project are excessive and inappropriate for the surrounding area.
The proposed development is significantly larger in height, bulk, and overall footprint than neighbouring buildings, and as such represents an overdevelopment of the site. Its scale is out of character with the existing streetscape and would fundamentally alter the visual and spatial qualities of the area, to the detriment of local amenity.
The size of the development would result in adverse impacts including, but not limited to, loss of outlook, increased overshadowing, and a sense of visual dominance over adjacent properties. These impacts are not adequately mitigated by the current design and would negatively affect the reasonable enjoyment of nearby homes.
Furthermore, the intensity of development appears disproportionate to the capacity of local infrastructure. The scale of the proposal is likely to exacerbate existing pressures on traffic, overcrowding on already stressed public transport, parking, public services, and pedestrian safety, without sufficient evidence that these impacts can be effectively managed.
Planning policy should seek to ensure that new development respects local character, is appropriately scaled, and integrates sensitively into its context. In our view, this proposal fails to meet those objectives due to its excessive scale and massing. Annandale is an historic suburb with a rich heritage of architecture and a strong link to our past. In an area full of low-rise heritage buildings and other appropriately scaled development, the proposal simply does not fit.
Notwithstanding the proposals commitment to affordable housing, the quantity of such is minimal and there is no guarantee that the remainder of the development will not be purely commercial. While we have no objection to the concept of affordable housing options in the area, it is the wildly inappropriate scale which needs to be reconsidered.
For these reasons, we request that the application be refused, or at minimum substantially reduced in scale to better align with the character, amenity, and infrastructure capacity of the surrounding area.

I have reviewed a number of the documents submitted as part of the public exhibition for the proposed development and wish to formally raise several concerns regarding both the consultation process and the potential impacts on our school.

MacKillop Education – Warranara School is located at 11 Matthieson Street, directly opposite the proposed development site. Following a review of the consultant reports submitted in support of the application, it is concerning that the potential impacts on our school do not appear to have been identified or assessed in some of these documents. In addition, we are unaware that MacKillop Education was engaged through the Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 consultation processes referenced within the documentation.

MacKillop Education operates Warranara as an Independent Special Assistance School supporting vulnerable young people in Years 9–12 who have disengaged, or are at risk of disengaging, from education. The school provides trauma informed, differentiated, and targeted educational support and has a capacity of up to 100 students.

Given the nature of our cohort and the proximity of the proposed development, any changes to traffic conditions, access, noise, or site safety present a significant risk and require careful consideration.

As the school was not engaged by the consultants during the preparation of the application, we now formally request that additional consultation and discussions be undertaken to ensure that the safety and ongoing operation of the site are appropriately addressed. In particular, we will require a detailed review of the Traffic Management Plan, with a clear assessment of risks specific to the school environment.

We would appreciate confirmation of how these matters will be addressed as part of the planning process and the opportunity to engage directly to resolve these concerns.

My submission is attached