Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent

First issue - Nicholson St traffic will be an absolute nightmare, as Pacific Highway, a main arterial road, feeds off into Oxley/Nicholson St, which is a narrow road already congested. It's also a blind spot for pedestrians walking up Oxley St, as there are cars utilising the few spots of on-street parking there. One cannot see the traffic coming up Nicholson, turning onto Oxley to get out. There is only one other entrance from Christie into this proposed site, but it's only 1 way in and will inevitably make the other side of Christie St traffic congested as residents/visitors cross Pacific Highway try to access the proposed development from that side. So, still only 1 exit out for more than 1500+ apartments to use along Nicholson St. How is that going work? Also, where are all the visitors going to park for these proposed 500 new units? There's already not enough on-street parking in this area.
Second issue - the wind tunnel created by these giant buildings is so bad. Often, one cannot use their balcony or even grow anything. When it's windy, the wind is so powerful, my balcony doors shake from the pressure created and the noise is awful. It reduces the use of open windows as the wind pressure compounds the shaking. It's quite an unpleasant and well known wind tunnel, no wonder people rarely ever use their balconies, have plants or furniture on them, or utilise outside dining options nearby. It's becoming extremely unpleasant. With a lack of outside access areas, the small joy of having a balcony has been almost lost. A massive building so close will only add to this issue.
Third issue - privacy is becoming a rare commodity around this area. New buildings are placed so close to each other, we can see right into each other's apartments. It feels so invasive for both parties, both visually and audibly. This highrise will be unreasonably restricting any remaining privacy.
Fourth issue - the height restrictions agreed on by council and on the last proposal for this site, have been unreasonably exceeded. This was already agreed on and now it's being ignored. It seems that TODs can rewrite these regulations without any care for existing local residents.
Fifth issue - because of the current limited amount of sunlight, I am encountering mould in my apartment. This was confirmed by a specialist who came to inspect this year. The current sunlight will completely disappear with the developments proposed around my property. I have lived in this area for years and never encountered this in other properties, because they had adequate solar access. The remaining amount of natural light and remainder of sun we get, will simply disappear completely if these buildings are allowed to keep exceeding height restrictions blocking out natural light/sun. I don't wish to live in a dark, mouldy apartment. I'm constantly trying to try to manage this stressful issue with as much ventilation (when possible) and dehumidifiers. Again, I never had this issue previously when living in this area that had a good mix of lower density apartments mixed with higher density. Too many high density buildings packed too tightly close together is causing this. We're living in each other's shadows now, in darker, windier conditions. Taking this away from residents impinges on the enjoyment and wellbeing of local residents. The existing residents in this community invest in its vibrancy, economy, local events and culture. Where is the enjoyment of this area headed? In who's interest is this? It doesn't seem like its ours.

I strongly object to this project due to the following:

1. There is inadequate community consultation. No community flyers had been received by me nor my neighbours despite the developer's claims that they had distributed flyers to over 2,600 properties in the local area and received zero feedback.
Additionally, as they supplied a flyer in their documents on the Department’s website, they did not refer to the immense change of height of the building, nor its impact on existing buildings and infrastructure. This is completely inadequate to fulfil the requirements for community consultation and the proposal should be rejected until there is a proper community consultation on
the building they intend to build.

2. Loss of Views and Amenity
The height of the building and new design significantly worsens solar exposure for surrounding
buildings and views that create a peaceful atmosphere for residents. Additionally, the proposal’s
planned reduced setbacks next to existing narrow streets will create a constricting atmosphere.

3. Traffic and Transport Impact
Existing roads are already insufficient in the area. Adding another high number of residential residences that are not accessed via the Pacific Highway will exacerbate the gridlock.

4. Inadequate Parking Provision
The large number of apartments (541) is not supported by a suitable number of car parks (93 Car parks only!) within the building and is below the survey results of regular work transport (let alone weekend travel) in their own documentation. It also fails to meet the plans outlined in their own social impact scoping study, which uses 4 basement levels, not 3. This will significantly impact
street parking access, which is already impacted by the development’s plans. Other similarly sized developments have far more parking.

5. Overdevelopment Without Open Space or Facility
Other similarly sized developments included significant facilities, public space and parks. This proposal, while adding 541 apartments, fails to provide anything for the local area and fails to meet the Liveable Lane Cove Plans and does nothing to address the shortfall of facilities identified in The St Leonards and Crows Nest Station Precinct Social Infrastructure and Open Space Study
2018.

6. Loss of Trust: Planning Agreement Breach
Residents purchased in reliance on earlier planning controls, including the Lane Cove LEP 2009 and the St Leonards South Masterplan. The project’s scale and massing contradict the previously agreed planning envelope and will clearly provide negative impacts on the feasibility of developments currently in process or planned on the Pacific Highway

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing as a concerned property owner residing at 486 Pacific Hwy to formally object the application for 7 storey and 271 apartment increase at 46 Nicholson St SSDA-88113706.

My objections are based on the following grounds:
A. Lack of Public Consultation
As a local resident, I am deeply disappointed by the insufficient public consultation regarding this major proposal. The rapid progression of the development application without adequate community engagement demonstrates a lack of transparency and disregard for resident input. I strongly urge the Department of Planning / Lane Cove Local Government Area to ensure proper channels for enough open discussion and feedback when reviewing this application.

B. Negative Impact on Living Quality and Amenity
The proposed development’s high-rise, high-density design will have significant adverse effects on the living standards of existing residents. Highly likely consequences include:

- Reduced access to natural sunlight and loss of views, including vistas of the skyline, which are highly valued aspects of our community.
- Diminished privacy for neighbouring properties due to increased height and very close proximity, which may potentially resulted with higher crime rate
- Increased demand on already limited local amenities and public infrastructure, leading to overcrowding and strain on services.
- Negative impact on local property values for existing homeowners, which is not only unfair but will have a long-term adverse impact as the overall character of the area, currently low to medium rise, would be irreversibly changed by such intensive development.

C. Increased Fire Risk
The region’s readiness to deal with fire emergencies in high-density and high-rise contexts must be seriously questioned. The horrifying fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong, serves as a sobering reminder of the heightened risks in such developments. Given these lessons, it is imperative that Council considers whether our area is suitably equipped for emergencies in high-rise environments before approving such applications.

D. Further Deterioration of Local Traffic
Our community already suffers from quite bad traffic congestion, particularly during peak hours. Adding a high number of additional residences will only exacerbate already problematic traffic conditions, put more pressure on parking, and increase travel delays for all current residents.

E. Disregard for Previous Finalised Planning Assessments
It is particularly concerning that several previous planning assessments for this location were concluded as recently as early 2025 and deemed finalised. Reopening the matter for yet another high-density development proposal so soon after those conclusions appears both inefficient and raises serious questions regarding due process and transparency. Constantly revisiting finalised decisions erodes public confidence in the planning system and suggests the process may be unduly influenced by vested interests.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the Department of Planning / Lane Cove Local Government Area to reject the current development proposal and to facilitate a more inclusive consultation process, ensuring that the concerns of existing residents are given due consideration.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I strongly oppose this planning proposal, especially the increase in building height and the number of dwellings. Nicholson Street is a small road of just around 100 metres length, yet there are already three high-rise entrances on this street, and more will be added in the future - Including the 52 floors residential building at 460 Pacific Highway, which has already received approval from Lane Cove Council. If this BTR project—with its proposed height and increased dwelling yield—is approved, this street will become extremely busy and dangerous. This is particularly concerning for families with young children and will completely destroy the livability of our existing community.

Australia is a country that protects private property. Our apartment is located directly opposite the proposed BTR development. When we purchased our home, we carefully reviewed all surrounding planning conditions to ensure that our view would not be obstructed by future developments. Based on that certainty, we paid additional $2 million just for the view. If this private development (which increases height and dwelling numbers arbitrarily) is allowed to proceed, our view will be obstructed and many neighbours—including myself—will suffer significant property devaluation. This completely contradicts one of Australia’s fundamental principles: the protection of private property rights.

The proposed BTR project is only 24m away from our existing building, seperate only by a narrow street, with extremely close proximity. With the current proposed height and density, the construction phase will create excessive noise and severe traffic congestion, seriously disrupting residents’ daily lives. After construction, residents’ privacy will be severely compromised, natural sunlight hours will be drastically reduced, and the current livability of our building will no longer exist.

Furthermore, the BTR developer has demonstrated highly deceptive behaviour. None of my neighbours received any consultation, yet the report boldly states:
“THE DOCUMENTS RELEASED ALSO INCLUDE A STATEMENT FROM THE DEVELOPER THAT RESIDENTS LIVING NEAR THIS SITE WERE CONSULTED BETWEEN APR–JUL 2025 AND NO NEGATIVE RESPONSES.”
A developer that is this dishonest raises serious doubts about all data and statements presented in their report, particularly those regarding fire safety, sunlight, traffic impact, and noise assessments.

For all the above reasons, we strongly urge the State planning authorities to reject this proposal that arbitrarily increases height and dwelling numbers. This development would benefit only the developer while causing significant and long-lasting harm to the existing hundreds of households in our community.

I am a local resident, and I object to the proposed amendments to the development at 46-52 Nicholson Street St Leonards. Whilst I appreciate the need for more housing, this proposal, while significantly increasing the height and density of the existing approved development, will harm the wellbeing of too many people and I don’t believe it is in the publics best interest.
The reason why I object to this proposal are:
• The additional 270 apartments will cause substantial traffic congestion in Nicholson Street and pedestrian safety in this whole area. The only exit from Nicholson Street is via the intersection of Pacific Hwy and Oxley Street. Nicholson street and this intersection must cope with the traffic the two tall towers of St Leonards Square, The Landmark, 66 Christie Street, and soon the Telstra Exchange and 46-52 Nicholson street, plus many other residents and office workers. The congestion will be dangerous as it is a main thoroughfare for pedestrians accessing the Metro and the train station.
• Consideration for additional services in the area needs to be a high priority. The local high school is already full despite being only 11 years old, the Public primary schools are bursting at the seams, sporting facilities suffer overuse and there just aren't enough open spaces for the current population.
• Emergency services are already stretched and greater population means more wait times in hospitals and also for ambulances etc
• Many residents will suffer a significant reduction in the value of their houses and apartments. Purchasers have relied on information clearly indicating the building would be a height of 174.95RL and approximately half as many apartments. Approving this proposal will be unfair as this materially changes the conditions purchasers relied upon in making significant financial and lifestyle decisions.
• St Leonards and Crowns Nest does not need any more tall apartment buildings. There are already at 10 or so very tall developments under construction since the new Metro went in. These are yet to be completed and occupied.
• Very tall apartment blocks should be built only on the Pacific Highway, not small street such as Nicholson and Christie streets.
• The additional height of this proposal will cause significant overshadowing of neighbouring homes which is not good anyone’s wellbeing. It also reduces the privacy of nearby residents.
• There are already significant wind tunnels in the area. If the proposed height increase is approved it will intensify wind tunnels.
• The Crows Nest area has a beautiful village feel and building of apartments needs to focus on quality. We don't need to be crammed in with tiny apartments built by greedy developers. The original proposal is much more in keeping with the area and these updated plans for this site should be unequivocably rejected.

I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposed amendment to the development plans, specifically the request for increased height and width, which represents a profound breach of community expectations and an unacceptable escalation of overdevelopment in an area already under immense strain.
I purchased my home in this community with a clear understanding of the State Significant Precinct status and with full awareness of what had already been approved along Nicholson Street. The community accepted those parameters in good faith. What we did not expect was a last-minute, opportunistic expansion of scale that dramatically exceeds what was originally approved. And then for the development request to come in 13 days before Christmas when most people are already on leave is outrageous, unjustified, and fundamentally disrespectful to the residents who have lived here, invested here, raised families here, and endured (so far) years of construction and disruption under the assumption that there were limits - limits you are now asking us to ignore.
Impact on My Home and Wellbeing
This proposal will have a direct and detrimental impact on the liveability of my unit, including loss of natural light, decreased privacy, overshadowing, and ongoing noise and congestion. My wellbeing, and that of my family, has already been affected by continuous development in the area. To now be told that we must absorb even more impact, without meaningful consultation, is beyond frustrating - it is deeply disheartening.
Neighbourhood Already Overdeveloped and Overstretched
This is not an abstract concern. Our neighbourhood is already vastly overdeveloped and simply cannot sustain the additional density you are proposing.
Just one example: the Crows Nest Metro. It is already operating at what feels like full capacity. I encourage anyone involved in this decision to attempt to board any metro train between 6:00–10:00am or again in the afternoon peak. It is impossible. I have had to start driving my daughter to school in North Sydney because she cannot even get on a train. This is not “future pressure” - this is today’s reality.
We also face:
- only one heavily congested road out of the precinct
- two outbound lanes, one a road hazard because drivers routinely attempt tp use the inbound lane as an escape route
- worsening traffic gridlock at peak times
- severe parking shortages
- visible increases in crime
- frequent illegal dumping of rubbish
and absolutely insufficient green space for the population already here
These are not theoretical problems. These are day-to-day burdens borne entirely by the community, with no relief in sight.
Quality of Life Has Already Been Compromised
The state of local green space is a clear indicator of overdevelopment. The tiny patch of grass in front of Landmark is overrun - dogs urinate and defecate there constantly because there is literally nowhere else for people to take them. The grass near Fitness First is unusable. Wadangarri Park has become similarly littered and overburdened. Nothing has been added to support growth, yet you continue to approve developments as though amenities scale automatically. They do not.
This Change Violates What the Community Agreed To
As a community, we agreed to:
- a certain height,
- a certain width,
- certain setbacks,
- and a level of green space and amenity that was meant to offset the high density.

Those commitments mattered. They were the basis on which people accepted years of disruption and the permanent transformation of this suburb.
To disregard them now is not only unfair - it is a betrayal of the community’s trust.
We Were Told Our Objections Would Not Be Considered - Yet They Must Be
Residents have been told that objections “will not change the outcome.” That is unacceptable. At the very least, I am formally lodging this objection so the developer cannot claim that “no one objected.”
People are objecting. In fact, look at the number of recent property sales in the area - people are already leaving because the neighbourhood is becoming unliveable.
In Favour of Development — Not Overdevelopment
Let me be clear: I am not anti-development.
I am pro-thoughtful, planned growth.
But what is being proposed here is neither thoughtful nor justified. It is opportunistic, excessive, and fundamentally incompatible with the real-world capacity of the community, infrastructure, transport, and public spaces.
Demand for Rejection
For all of these reasons, I strongly urge that this application be rejected.
Further expansion of height and width at this site is unreasonable, unsustainable, and contrary to the commitments made to residents.
The community has already absorbed more than its fair share. We cannot, and should not, e expected to shoulder any more.

I live in the Jackson Tower opposite this development. I was supportive of the previously approved development, but object to the proposed significant increase in height and carparking for the following reasons:
- Traffic on Nicholson and Oxley Streets is already gridlocked during peak periods, and adding this amount of additional parking and vehicles to the precinct will cause excessive further congestion.
- Proposed new height is excessive for a building that is not directly on Pacific Highway.
- The loss of visual outlook and amenity to residents in the existing Jackson and Landmark developments will be too significant.
- Overshadowing to other existing local residents will be too severe if the proposed increase in height is approved.
- Lane Cove Council is objecting to the proposal and I trust in their professional planning guidelines and judgment.
- The existing approved development is already very tall considering the size of the site and relative lack of ground level public space and amenity.
Regards
Steve

A building of this height will most likely intensify the wind tunnel effect that is already quite substantial as it stands currently. There are 2 child care centres located on Christie St, having these children walking in such strong wind force is not safe nor convenient at the least, I find myself being blown back on windy days, let alone children.
Having high rise building blocks on Pacific Hwy near the train and metro stations is good use of land, but having too many all clustered together is not good town planning, there needs to be breaks in between and variations in height. Capping the southern end of Christie St at 15 stories or below would serve as a nice open area for all the high rise that are already/going to be on Pacific Hwy.

I object to the proposal and request that the Department refuse the application.

I am an owner/resident at 486 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, with my apartment facing Nicholson Street directly opposite the subject site. The proposal will have immediate and severe impacts on my home and on the safety and amenity of the surrounding streets.

1. Road safety and traffic congestion

Nicholson Street and the surrounding road network are already heavily congested during peak hours. Vehicles queue, undertake risky manoeuvres and compete with pedestrians accessing St Leonards Station and local buildings. The proposal will significantly increase movements from residents, visitors, deliveries, ride-share pick-up/drop-off and servicing vehicles, as well as construction traffic for many years.

Locating loading, servicing and construction access on or via Nicholson Street will further increase conflicts between heavy vehicles, cars and pedestrians. This raises serious safety concerns for residents (including children and elderly people), cyclists and people accessing building entries and the car park entrance opposite the site. The Transport Impact Assessment relies heavily on the very low on-site parking rate to downplay impacts, but it does not properly address real-world kerbside activity, queueing at driveways and pick-up/drop-off behaviour. These safety and congestion issues are unacceptable and have not been convincingly addressed.

2. Loss of sunlight and residential amenity

The proposed uplift in height and bulk, above what has already been approved on this site, will further reduce winter sunlight and natural light to Nicholson-facing apartments and balconies at 486 Pacific Highway and other nearby buildings. This precinct is already high density; any additional overshadowing will materially worsen living conditions, increase reliance on artificial lighting and heating, and diminish the reasonable amenity that existing residents should be able to expect. Additional loss of sunlight beyond the previously approved envelope should not be supported.

3. Privacy and direct overlooking

The proposed tower is directly opposite existing residential apartments at a relatively close separation distance. Increasing the building height and the number of dwellings will substantially intensify direct overlooking into living rooms, bedrooms and balconies of Nicholson-facing apartments. This is not a minor issue: it is an ongoing, permanent impact on privacy and sense of security for hundreds of existing residents. The proposal fails to demonstrate that privacy impacts can be properly avoided (not merely “mitigated” with token screening).

4. Serious concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the proponent’s reporting

The exhibition documents reportedly include a statement from the developer that residents living near the site were consulted between April and July 2025 and that no negative responses were received. This is completely inconsistent with my own experience and with that of my neighbours: neither I, nor any of the neighbours I have spoken to in my building facing Nicholson Street, recall receiving any consultation or being asked for feedback at all.

If this statement about prior consultation is inaccurate or misleading, it raises serious concerns about the reliability and integrity of the proponent’s reporting more broadly, including the data, assumptions and conclusions in its traffic, sunlight, wind and other technical assessments. I strongly request that the Department independently verify the claimed consultation activities (dates, methods, number of people contacted and responses received). If the claim cannot be substantiated, the Department should treat the proponent’s self-reported information and modelling with great caution and seek independent review.

I object to the proposal and request that the Department refuse the application.

I am a resident/owner in the St Leonards Square precinct near Nicholson Street. The subject site is in a location with multiple childcare centres in the immediate area, and the proposal will materially worsen road safety, congestion and health impacts for families and local residents.

1. Road safety risks – childcare precinct and pedestrian safety

This area already experiences heavy vehicle and pedestrian activity, particularly during morning and afternoon peaks when families are travelling to and from childcare, and when commuters are accessing St Leonards Station. The road environment is not suitable for a significant uplift in residential density that will increase vehicle movements, ride-share pick-up/drop-off, deliveries and servicing activity.

With three childcare centres nearby, any increase in traffic volumes, kerbside stopping and turning movements substantially increases the risk of conflicts with pedestrians—especially young children, prams and carers crossing streets or walking along footpaths. Safety must be treated as the primary issue in assessing this proposal.

2. Existing traffic is already saturated

Nicholson Street and surrounding roads are already saturated and frequently gridlocked during peak periods. Congestion is not occasional—it is routine, and it affects access, emergency response times, reliability for residents, and overall amenity. The proposal introduces a large number of additional dwellings and associated activity into a network that is already operating at (or beyond) capacity.

Any traffic assessment that downplays impacts based on low onsite parking does not reflect real-world conditions. Even with limited parking, a development of this scale will generate substantial additional vehicle activity through drop-offs, deliveries, visitors, trades and service vehicles, all of which contribute to congestion and safety risks.

3. Construction impacts – health, dust, noise and vibration

The construction phase will be prolonged and highly disruptive for nearby residents, including families and young children. Demolition, excavation and high-rise construction will generate dust, diesel emissions, noise and vibration, and increased heavy vehicle movements. These impacts are not simply an inconvenience—they are a health concern, particularly for children and residents with respiratory sensitivities.

The proximity of childcare centres makes construction impacts even more concerning, as children are more vulnerable to air quality and noise impacts. If the proposal were to proceed (which it should not), it would require strict, enforceable controls on construction hours, dust suppression, air quality monitoring, truck routes, and vibration/settlement monitoring, with genuine consequences for breaches.

4. Loss of sunlight and loss of amenity

Additional height and bulk will further reduce sunlight access and natural light to surrounding apartments and balconies. Residents should not be forced into a situation where they must keep curtains closed for privacy while also losing daylight due to increased overshadowing. This would materially reduce living quality and is unacceptable in an already dense precinct.

5. Concerns about the proponent’s credibility and accuracy of reporting

The exhibition documents reportedly include a statement that nearby residents were consulted between April and July 2025 and that no negative responses were received. This is inconsistent with my experience and with residents I have spoken to; we do not recall being meaningfully consulted at all. This raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the proponent’s statements and the reliability of the assumptions used in its technical reports.

I request that the Department independently verify the claimed consultation process (who was contacted, how, when, and what responses were received). If the claim cannot be substantiated, the Department should treat the proponent’s reporting with caution and require independent review of key assessments (traffic/safety, construction impacts, and sunlight).

Request

For the reasons above—particularly the childcare safety risks, existing traffic saturation, construction health impacts, loss of sunlight and concerns regarding the proponent’s reporting—I request the Department refuse the proposal.

Firstly, I object to only having 14 days in which to respond to this SSD application, with the volume of documents that need to be reviewed. Previously the NSW State Government allowed 28 days, which gave adequate time to review documentation. 14 days does not allow true consultation or for residents to fully consider the application or to obtain professional advice.

The documentation on exhibition states that 2,600 properties in the local area were distributed a flyer. The reason no surveys were completed was because no residents in St Leonards received this purported flyer. I am the immediate past chairman of the St Leonards Strata Community Group that represents 22 St Leonards Residential Strata Schemes (4021 units & 8930 residents) and none of our members received this purported document. The developer has had no community consultation whatsoever with impacted residents.
“Engagement activities were undertaken to ensure that impacted residents, the local community and local businesses had an opportunity to hear about the proposed development and provide feedback about the proposal to the project team. While a community flyer was distributed to over 2,600 properties in the local area, no surveys were completed and no emails were received regarding the project. No participation in the project by the community may be due to the location of the site within the broader St Leonards context, and indicates that the community is not concerned by the proposal.”


This site already holds planning controls approved by DPHI in February 2025 allowing construction of a 29 level, build to rent building, including 271 apartments by the previous developer. A change of developer and a new SSD application for a further 7 stories increasing the number of units to 541 is totally unreasonable.

This SSD request by the latest developer if approved will have disastrous effects for a large number of owners/residents in the immediate surrounding buildings, namely St Leonards Square (553 units & 1710 residents), Landmark (433 units & 1030 residents) and 88 Christie (647 units & 1710 residents).

I object to the planned proposal as I believe it goes well beyond the Lane Cove local planning requirements, and if approved would have a detrimental effect on all existing residents in the area.

Population density:
St Leonards is already one of the most densely populated areas in New South Wales. This proposed development does not consider liveability, social cohesion, neighbourhood resilience and provision of public amenities.

Traffic congestion:
The area also suffers from extremely heavy traffic flows, overburdened services, and major construction noise/congestion, due to all the ongoing development. Builders & contractors working on this site and the Telstra site are already taking up all the public parking in the area, which is hindering local residents and businesses alike. Access to our carpark has already been blocked by heavy vehicles operating on the demolition of the existing building.
The NSW State Government or local government have not undertaken a major vehicular traffic study in the North Sydney, Crows Nest & St Leonards areas in many years. The studies referred to in the reports go back to 2013 and do not consider the current vehicular congestion we are experiencing in the St Leonards area. The only detailed studies undertaken relate to cyclists and pedestrians.

The Pacific Highway and side streets in this area are currently extremely congested at peak times with insufficient access to and from existing developments. The study and reports on traffic flows included in the application cannot be considered as relevant. There is currently only one exit from this area via Oxley St which is heavily congested at peak times.

No new developments for the area should be approved by the NSW State Government until such time as a detailed study is undertaken by the State Government concerning the current vehicular traffic congestion, traffic flows, construction congestion and parking.

Building Height:
The proposed building height of 197 meters is excessive and approximately 22 meters above the sites current approved level. The overall size of this proposed development and the effect of shadowing to our building is of major concern. In close proximity to this proposed development, we currently experience major wind tunnelling issues, and this proposed development will only add to this. This proposed development takes no consideration of any of these issues. We note that the wind tunnelling and shadowing reports provided were all completed prior to the completion of the St Leonards Square development, Landmark & 88 Christie St developments. The reports on wind and shadowing, included in the application cannot be considered as relevant.

Lacking Greenspace: St Leonards is lacking in greenspace, overall nature, public amenities and recreational precincts, particularly when compared to most of its neighbouring suburbs. Our residents have to live in the area and put up with the increased population density and increased height in these SSD developments approved by the State Government, that go totally against Local Council, local planning, livability and residents’ values and wishes.

Shadowing:
The loss of sunlight and shadowing that will occur due to the proposed increased height of this proposed development is major. Research provided by the developers was completed prior to the completion of the St Leonards Square development, Landmark & 88 Christie St developments and cannot be considered as relevant. This development will seriously affect our harbour views and ultimately the value of our properties.

Liveability:
All new developments should have substantial separation between buildings and have to include green space and a recreational precinct. What is proposed in the development does not consider liveability for impacted residents living nearby.

Construction Congestion:
I am extremely concerned by the amount of development approved at any one time in the North Sydney, Crows Nest, St Leonards area, as this is causing major congestion, increased heavy traffic, road closures, construction noise and dust issues. There currently does not appear to be any co-ordination between the Councils & State Government, resulting in ongoing construction congestion in the area.
With no co-ordination between the Councils & State Government, what happens to St Leonards, if developers all start construction within similar time frames? At the current time there are 15 new developments taking place within in a 1-kilometre radius of this proposed development in St Leonards.

The developers have not consulted impacted residents, and I believe this proposed development for a building of 197m in height, would have a detrimental impact on all existing residents and believe the State Government should not support or approve it.

I object to the revised SSD proposal for 46 Nicholson street. The planning for this project has been revised many times. Could a project be so unserious? The newbuilding height increase from 174.95m to RL197m ,and expands yield to more than 541 apartments , this scale is far beyond what was assessed and approved in the original SSD. We need the government's integrity to uphold the original approval of 174.95 meters and 4.5:1 floor space ratio.
This new building is too close to the landmark building(500 pacific highway. and nicholson street is not wide enough. If it is constructed, it will greatly affect the lighting and privacy of landmark building. It's almost as if we could touch the opposite building with our hands. There is absolutely no privacy at all. We simply cannot imagine spending the rest of our lives in an environment where the curtains are always drawn and there is no light at all. It's so sad. If 541 units finished, the traffic will be more crowded. It is unimaginable to live in Sydney without a car.
There are already 4 tall building in Nicholson street, the increased height and bulk would significantly worsen overshadowing, wind impacts, solar access, and built-form relationships with surrounding residential towers. The proponent’s own documents show the scheme fails key solar access requirements under the Apartment Design Guide, which clearly signals overdevelopment.
None of the 5 neighbouring residental towers received any communications and we didn't know the increase height will be 197m until 2 Dec. It's so crezy.
Given the major escalation in scale, the non-compliance issues, and the inadequate and misleading community engagement submission, a full reassessment and fresh consultation process is warranted.
We hope that the NSW government and the LAND COVE COUNCIL can maintain their integrity, keep the plan which is just confirmed on Feb.2025.

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development submission for “Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent” (Application No. SSD-88113706), which seeks approval to add an additional storeys to the existing development. As a nearby resident, I have serious concerns about the significant negative impacts this proposal will have on the surrounding community, neighbourhood amenity, and overall quality of life.

1. Inadequate and Poorly Timed Consultation Period
I am extremely dissatisfied with the short consultation period provided (13 days) —particularly around the holiday season, where relevant stakeholders might be travelling and are not aware of the Exhibition. This timing severely limits the opportunity for stakeholders to review the proposal, seek clarification, and provide feedback. It creates the impression that the consultation window has been intentionally scheduled to suppress stakeholder participation. A project of this scale and impact warrants a fair, transparent, and extended consultation process, which has not been afforded in this instance.

2. Significant Traffic Impact
The addition of storeys will substantially increase population density in the area, resulting in more vehicles, higher parking demand, additional deliveries, and more frequent service and waste trucks. Local roads are already under pressure with existing congestion during peak times. The application does not provide adequate traffic modelling or credible mitigation measures that demonstrate how the surrounding network can safely and efficiently accommodate this increased load. Without genuine planning solutions, this development risks worsening traffic conditions and compromising pedestrian and cyclist safety.

3. Prolonged Construction Period Causing Severe Disruption
The proposed extension will result in an extended construction period, adding years of disruption for nearby residents. I must emphasise that I have serious allergies and am already feeling significant impacts from noise and environmental disruption, even at this early demolition stage. The prospect of prolonged construction—bringing persistent noise, dust, road blockages, and reduced access—is deeply concerning. This poses a genuine risk to my health and wellbeing, as well as the broader quality of life for residents who work from home, have young children, or are otherwise vulnerable. The proposal does not offer sufficient safeguards or mitigation measures to address these impacts.

4. Loss of Sunlight & Increased Shadowing
The additional storeys will dramatically increase the building’s overshadowing footprint. Many neighbouring homes, including mine, will experience a noticeable and prolonged reduction in natural sunlight. Decreased sunlight affects indoor comfort levels, increases reliance on artificial heating and lighting, and reduces the usability and enjoyment of outdoor spaces. These overshadowing impacts are excessive and incompatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

Conclusion
Given the inadequate consultation period, significant traffic concerns, the additional disruption and environmental pollution risk expected from prolonged construction, and the unacceptable shadowing impacts, I strongly oppose the “Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent” proposal in its current form. I respectfully urge the relevant authority to reject Application SSD-88113706 or require substantial amendments that meaningfully and demonstrably address these issues.

If the State chooses to proceed with this application despite community objections, I fully endorse and support the Council’s recommended conditions for the associated Demolition DA, and request that these conditions be adopted in full to ensure maximum protection for nearby residents.

The building is way too tall which is going to create even more density issues in this immediate area. Trying to leave Nicholson St is challenging as it is at peak times of the day, adding the extra units for those new levels will make it near impossible. There is no way out of the area except at the intersection of Nicholson St and Pacific Hwy and cars queue here at the lights. There are already a number of buildings in this area with many cars for traffic. In addition this size building is way too tall for streets off highways, it blocks sun light and frankly looks ugly. Please reduce the build back to original height as that will be hard enough for more cars and people!!

Opposition on Planning Proposal – 46 Nicholson Street, St Leonards NSW 2065

To NSW Major Projects,

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed modification for the Build-to-Rent development at 46 Nicholson Street, St Leonards, which seeks to increase the building height from RL 174.95 metres to RL 194.3 metres and raise the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 15:1 to 17.13:1, resulting in a 36-storey tower with 541 apartments.

• The St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan sets a maximum building height of approximately 175 metres and an FSR of 15:1 for this site. The proposed uplift exceeds these limits and undermines the integrity of the strategic planning framework.
• The additional height will cause unacceptable overshadowing of Christie Street Reserve and surrounding residential areas, and obstruct key view corridors identified in previous urban design assessments, increase windy tunnel impact and other future environment damages.
• The increased height will cast longer shadows over Christie Street Reserve, reducing sunlight during peak usage times. This will negatively affect families, children, and elderly residents who rely on this space for recreation and wellbeing.
• The proposal adds hundreds of new residents without clear commitments to upgrade schools, childcare facilities, healthcare services, and community amenities. Lane Cove Public School and local childcare centres are already at capacity.
• Nicholson Street and Christie Street are narrow and already congested. Additional apartments will worsen traffic flow, increase noise, and raise safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly near the new Metro station.
• While the Metro provides improved connectivity, peak-hour trains and buses are already crowded. Adding 541 apartments will exacerbate this issue without proportional investment in transport capacity.
• St Leonards is transitioning into a mixed-use precinct, but excessive height and density will erode its human scale, overshadow heritage elements, and diminish the quality of life of tax payers residents.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposed modification and uphold the existing planning controls under the St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan.

The proposed changes represent overdevelopment and conflict with established planning principles. Maintaining the integrity of strategic planning and the livability of St Leonards requires adherence to the current controls.

Thank you for considering my submission. Please confirm receipt.

Yours sincerely,
Maria Fenelon

I am a resident of surrounding streets in St Leonards and Crows Nest, and I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to SSD-88113706 for 46-48 Nicholson Street St Leonards. This proposal seeks to increase the approved building heights and add approximately 270 additional apartments to the plan originally endorsed in 2020/2021.
While I support appropriate development in principle, I object to this specific variation as this constitutes overdevelopment and fails the public interest test on multiple grounds, which are outlined below.
1. Precedent and strategic planning failure
The original masterplan was approved following extensive consultation and assessment, setting a carefully considered precedent for density and scale. This new proposal is an ad hoc, post-approval variation which undermines the strategic planning process.
Evidence: The original plan represented a holistic agreement between the community, council and state government. Granting this new proposal signals that such agreements are negotiable after the fact, encouraging a piecemeal approach to planning that erodes community trust and the strategic vision for the area.
2. Overdevelopment, bulk and scale
The proposed increase in height and density will result in a building bulk and scale that is grossly out of character with the existing and planned urban fabric.
Evidence: The existing approval already pushes the boundaries of acceptable density. Adding significant height and 270 more dwellings will create an overwhelming dominant structure that looms over the surrounding low to midrise residential streets, creating a canyon effect and a sense of encloure incompatible with the area's character.
3. Severe amenity impacts: overshadowing, loss of sunlight and privacy
The increased height will have direct measurable and negative impacts of the amenities of neighbouring properties.
Overshadowing: The additional floors will cast longer shadows, significantly reducing solar access to our homes and private open spaces. Surrounding areas will be rendered sunless for large parts of the day.
Loss of privacy and views: The elevated vantage points will lead to a direct loss of privacy for hundreds of residents due to the overlooking floors of the building. Furthermore, the loss of valuable district and city views which contribute to the livability and economic value of our homes which will be extinguished.
4. Inadequate infrastructure and traffic congestion
The local infrastructure is already operating at or beyond capacity and cannot absorb the additional strain from 270 more households.
Traffic: Nicholson Street and the intersection with the Pacific Highway are already congested chokepoints, particularly during peak hours.
Evidence: The original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the masterplan calculated traffic generation for the originally approved number of apartments. This new proposal represents an approximate 100% increase in dwelling yield, which will directly translate to a proportional increase in vehicle trips -- a factor not assessed in the original approval. This will lead to unacceptable traffic congestion, longer vehicle queues, and increased commuter frustration.
Parking: The area already suffers from a severe shortage of on-street parking. An influx of new residents and their visitors will exacerbate this problem, spilling over into surrounding residential streets.
Public services: Local schools (E.g. Naremburn School, Cammeraygal High School), medical facilities (Royal North Shore Hospital), and public transport nodes are already under significant pressure. An additional population of several hundred people will further strain these essential services.
5. Economic impact on property values
The significant loss of views, sunlight and privacy, coupled with increased traffic, overshadowing and loss of character will have a demonstrably negative impact on the value of our properties. This constitutes a tangible financial harm to existing residents who have invested in the area based on the previously agreed planning framework.

Conclusion and request:
This new proposal priorities developer profit over public interest and good planning. It seeks to extract additional value from the sites without providing commensurate community benefit, instead actively degrading the amenity of the very community it should enhance.
I respectively request that the Department REJECT SSD-88113706 for the following reasons:
1. It undermines the strategic planning process and sets a dangerous precedent
2. It constitutes overdevelopment and creates an unacceptable bulk and scale
3. It will cause severe and unreasonable amenity impacts through overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of views
4. It will place an unsustainable burden on already overstretched local infrastructure

I seek your assurance that the original, approved masterplan will be upheld as the final and binding agreement for this site. Thank you!

I am a resident of the surrounding streets in St Leonards and Crows Nest, my name is Shawna Chen, my address is U3507, 88A Christie street, St Leonards NSW 2065 and I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to SSD-88113706 for 46-48 Nicholson Street, St Leonards. This proposal seeks to increase the approved building heights and add approximately 270 additional apartments to the plan originally endorsed in 2020/2021.

While I support appropriate development in principle, I object to this specific variation as it constitutes overdevelopment and fails the public interest test on multiple grounds, which are outlined below.

1.Precedent and Strategic Planning Failure
The original master plan was approved following extensive consultation and assessment, setting a carefully considered precedent for density and scale. This new proposal is an ad-hoc, post-approval variation that undermines the strategic planning process.
• Evidence: The original plan represented a holistic agreement between the community, council, and state government. Granting this new proposal signals that such agreements are negotiable after the fact, encouraging a piecemeal approach to planning that erodes community trust and the strategic vision for the area.

2. Overdevelopment, Bulk and Scale
The proposed increase in height and density will result in a building bulk and scale that is grossly out of character with the existing and planned urban fabric.
• Evidence: The existing approval already pushes the boundaries of acceptable density. Adding significant height and 270 more dwellings will create an overwhelmingly dominant structure that looms over the surrounding low-to-mid-rise residential streets, creating a canyon effect and a sense of enclosure incompatible with the area's character.

3. Severe Amenity Impacts: Overshadowing, Loss of Sunlight, and Privacy
The increased height will have direct, measurable, and negative impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
• Overshadowing: The additional floors will cast longer shadows, significantly reducing solar access to our homes and private open spaces. Surrounding areas will be rendered sunless for large parts of the day.
• Loss of Privacy and Views: The elevated vantage points will lead to a direct loss of privacy for hundreds of residents through overlooking. Furthermore, valuable district and city views, which contribute to the livability and economic value of our homes, will be permanently extinguished.

4. Inadequate Infrastructure and Traffic Congestion
The local infrastructure is already operating at or beyond capacity and cannot absorb the additional strain from 270 more households.
• Traffic: Nicholson Street and the intersection with the Pacific Highway are already congested choke points, particularly during peak hours.
• Evidence: The original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the master plan calculated traffic generation for the originally approved number of apartments. This new proposal represents an approximate 100% increase in dwelling yield, which will directly translate to a proportional increase in vehicle trips—a factor not assessed in the original approval. This will lead to unacceptable traffic congestion, longer vehicle queues, and increased commuter frustration.
• Parking: The area already suffers from a severe shortage of on-street parking. An influx of new residents and their visitors will exacerbate this problem, spilling over into surrounding residential streets.
• Public Services: Local schools (e.g., Naremburn School, Cammeraygal High School), medical facilities (Royal North Shore Hospital), and public transport nodes are already under significant pressure. An additional population of several hundred people will further strain these essential services.

5. Economic Impacts on Property Values
The significant loss of views, sunlight, and privacy, coupled with increased traffic, overshadowing, and loss of character, will have a demonstrably negative impact on the value of our properties. This constitutes a tangible financial harm to existing residents who have invested in the area based on the previously agreed planning framework.

Conclusion and Request
This new proposal prioritises developer profit over public interest and good planning. It seeks to extract additional value from the site without providing commensurate community benefit, instead actively degrading the amenity of the very community it should enhance.
I respectfully request that the Department REJECT SSD-88113706 for the following reasons:

1. It undermines the strategic planning process and sets a dangerous precedent.
2. It constitutes overdevelopment and creates an unacceptable bulk and scale.
3. It will cause severe and unreasonable amenity impacts through overshadowing, loss of privacy, and loss of views.
4. It will place an unsustainable burden on already overstretched local infrastructure.

I seek your assurance that the original, approved master plan will be upheld as the final and binding agreement for this site.
Thank you.

I am a resident of St Leonards Square and I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development at 46–52 Nicholson St and 59–67 Christie St, which now seeks an unprecedented uplift to 36 storeys, RL 194.30, and 541 build-to-rent units. This represents seven extra floors and approximately 270 more units than what residents were told to expect under previous planning controls.

This proposal goes far beyond the 2036 Plan assumptions, the 2021 LEP amendments, and what the State Government assured the community would occur in this precinct. It will have severe and irreversible amenity impacts on existing homes directly opposite the site—including mine, located 20 metres away across a narrow suburban street.

1. Excessive Height and Bulk That Contradicts Strategic Planning Intent
The approved LEP height for this site is RL 174.95. The new proposal now seeks RL 194.30—an uplift of ~20 metres.

Similarly, while the LEP allows FSR 15:1, the application escalates this to 17.13:1, pushing density far beyond what the site or the street can reasonably support.

This contradicts the stated intention in the St Leonards & Crows Nest 2036 Plan that heights should transition down towards low-rise residential areas, especially south of the Pacific Highway. Instead, this proposal creates a wall-effect super-tower only 20 metres from existing homes.

This is not a “transition”; it is overdevelopment.

2. Extreme Density: How Can 541 Apartments Fit on a 2,300 sqm Site?
The Housing SEPP assessment confirms 541 units in a single tower on a 2,300 sqm block.

This is far beyond what any resident could reasonably expect when purchasing a home opposite this site. It almost doubles the dwelling yield originally contemplated when the 2036 Plan was exhibited.

Even the developer appears to struggle to meet basic design standards with this many units—only 34% of units achieve the minimum ADG solar access requirement of 2 hours (the ADG requires 70%).

The proponent justifies this shortfall by citing “communal areas”, which only reinforces the fact that the massing is far too large for the site.

If the tower cannot meet basic internal amenity standards for its own future tenants, it should not be made even larger at the expense of the neighbouring community.

3. Severe Loss of Views, Privacy and Sunlight for Existing Residents
The tower directly faces St Leonards Square at a narrow 20-metre separation, well below the 40-metre separation recommended for towers above 18 storeys (as per the original urban design work during the 2036 Plan process).

The increase of seven additional floors will:

block established district and city views for hundreds of homes

significantly reduce natural daylight

create direct overlooking into living rooms and bedrooms

create a canyon-like aftermath where two super-towers stand mere metres apart

The proponent’s own documents openly acknowledge that many units in the new tower will receive no solar access and rely instead on “significant views of the city and harbour” to compensate.

Those are the very views now being removed from existing residents.

4. Traffic, Congestion and Infrastructure Stress
Nicholson Street and Christie Street are already constrained one-way or dead-end streets with limited vehicular capacity. The addition of 541 units, multiple amenity floors, six basement levels and loading dock operations introduces risks of:

gridlock at peak times

unsafe conflicts between pedestrians and service vehicles

spill-over traffic into Oxley Street and Lithgow Street

cumulative congestion from multiple approved or in-assessment towers in the immediate area

The Scoping Report confirms that the precinct is already experiencing significant cumulative impacts and rapid development.

Yet this proposal adds one of the largest towers in the entire area—with no meaningful mitigation.

5. Lack of Genuine Public Benefit
Despite seeking enormous bonuses in height and floor space, the public benefits are minimal.

Affordable housing is capped at the base 3% contribution, even though the proposal is aggressively pursuing uplift through a concurrent rezoning request.

There is no new park, no meaningful public domain contribution beyond landscaping internal to the site, and no infrastructure upgrades to offset the strain on local streets and services.

This proposal delivers a private commercial benefit but leaves the surrounding community worse off.

6. Absence of Fair Community Consultation
Residents were never consulted on this new uplift. The 2036 Plan uplift in 2020 already shocked the community, and now, another major increase—even larger than the first—is being pushed through without any neighbourhood engagement.

Residents acted in good faith based on the 2020–2021 LEP amendments and the Concept SSDA, which capped height at RL 174.95. The sudden introduction of an even larger tower undermines trust in the planning process.

Conclusion and Request
Given the issues identified above, I respectfully request that the Department:

1. Reject the proposed uplift in height and FSR
The proposal is already beyond what the site, street and neighbourhood can support.

2. Require substantial reduction in height, yield and bulk
A maximum height consistent with the LEP (RL 174.95) and a yield closer to previous expectations (~250–300 units) is appropriate.

3. Require proper view loss, privacy, solar access and wind assessments
These should be conducted by independent consultants and publicly exhibited.

4. Require meaningful community consultation before any rezoning
Given the dramatic scale of changes sought.

This proposal represents an excessive and unreasonable overdevelopment that will permanently diminish the amenity, liveability and character of Nicholson Street, Christie Street, and the broader St Leonards Square community. I strongly urge the Department to refuse the application in its current form.

Submission — Resident Objection to SSD Proposal (46 Nicholson St)

I am a resident at 88A Christie Street, St Leonard’s. living in close proximity to the proposed development at 46 Nicholson Street. I am not opposed to a Build-to-Rent project on this site. The previously approved 30-storey, 270-unit design was acceptable to the community.

The new 36-storey, ~540-unit proposal is fundamentally different and should require a fresh assessment, not a modification pathway.

1. Invalid Community Engagement Process

Despite claiming flyer distribution to 2,600 properties, none of the surrounding five residential towers received any notification. No Strata Committees or Strata Managers were contacted.
As a result, residents learned of the proposal only due to a Lane Cove Council briefing, not through the developer.

This invalidates the claim of “low community concern”.

2. Scale Escalation and Planning Integrity

The new proposal doubles density and significantly worsens:

overshadowing

solar access (fails ADG minimums)

wind effects

privacy loss

noise and amenity impacts

The revised height and bulk contradict the St Leonards Crows Nest 2036 Plan and undermine trust in planning instruments that residents relied on when purchasing.

3. Value Transfer Without Consent

This proposal confers large, unearned uplift to the developer while imposing uncompensated losses on existing residents — including diminished amenity, reduced privacy, and impaired asset value.
This is not fair planning; it is value transfer.

Request

I request the Panel:

Reject or require major amendment to the proposal

Direct the proponent to undertake genuine, independently verified community engagement

Ensure any future design reflects reasonable compromise between developer and community.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed increase in building height from RL 174.95 metres to RL 197 metres. The proposal represents a significant height uplift of over 22 metres, which raises several concerns:
• overshadowing of adjacent properties and public spaces
• increased overshadowing during daylight hours
• reduced privacy due to higher-level floors overlooking into neighbouring properties
• exacerbate wind tunnel effects at ground level
• additional residents will increase traffic congestion in the area which is already heavily congested in peak time.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the proposal to raise the building height to RL 197 m be refused, and that the allowable height remain at RL 174.95 m.