Novus on Victoria, Chatswood - Build-to-Rent

I would like to object to this project based on the following reasons.
1. Breach of Clause 4.3 of WLEP 2012 – Podium Height Exceeds 7m
2. Deep Excavation and Geotechnical Risks
3. Metro View Overshadowing and Sunlight Access Failure
4. View Loss and Visual Impact on Metro Towers
5. Landscaping Fails Deep Soil Requirements
6. Waste Truck Access Infeasible at Post Office Lane
7. Construction Pedestrian Management Plan Missing
8. Operational Management Plan (OMP) Not Provided
9. Conflict with E2 Zoning Objectives
10. Non-Compliance with Chatswood CBD Urban Design Strategy
11. Minimum Lot Size and Legal Ambiguity

Please find the details below, thanks.
The development proposes a podium height of 9.2 metres along Victoria Avenue, which exceeds the 7-metre maximum height limit established by Clause 4.3 of the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2012. The developer submitted a Clause 4.6 Variation Request to justify this non-compliance, citing urban design intent and built form integration. However, the additional height causes adverse overshadowing to Victor Street, particularly at 3pm on the winter solstice, and visually dominates the pedestrian scale intended for the street frontage. Granting such a variation without sound planning justification undermines the credibility of statutory controls and sets a concerning precedent for future non-compliant developments.
The project includes excavation works reaching depths of 10 to 12 metres to accommodate three levels of basement. This level of excavation presents significant geotechnical risks including ground movement, vibration, and potential settlement that could affect the structural integrity of neighbouring buildings, particularly given the proximity to high-rise residential towers such as Metro Spire. Additionally, groundwater conditions remain unconfirmed as borehole and monitoring data are incomplete. The proposed use of anchored shoring systems into adjacent lots also requires consent from neighbouring property owners, which has not been confirmed, raising concerns regarding legal liability and physical construction feasibility.
The proposed tower will result in substantial overshadowing of the east-facing apartments in the Metro View residential tower during the winter solstice. Shadow diagrams provided in the EIS show that from 9am to 12pm, a significant number of units on levels 5 to 31 will receive little or no direct sunlight. This directly contravenes Objective 4A-1 of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which requires that 70% of dwellings receive a minimum of two hours of direct sunlight to living rooms and private open spaces between 9am and 3pm during mid-winter. Reduced solar access undermines residential amenity by affecting natural lighting, passive heating, and overall comfort, particularly for east-facing units that rely on morning sun for thermal benefit. No design amendments have been proposed to mitigate this non-compliance.
The height and mass of the 46-storey tower will obstruct district and skyline views currently enjoyed by east-facing apartments in Metro Spire and Metro View, especially those on levels 11 to 20. These views are a key part of residential amenity and market value. The EIS acknowledges view impacts but frames them as acceptable “urban outcomes” in dense centres. However, it fails to consider the cumulative effect on long-standing residents, particularly in terms of psychological space, openness, and perceived density. No transitional design or compensatory planning response is provided.
The proposal does not comply with the recommended 35% deep soil landscaping requirement under the Willoughby DCP. The EIS and landscape report clearly admit that the available area for in-ground planting is severely limited. Instead, the design heavily relies on planter boxes built over slabs, which restrict root depth and eliminate the possibility of planting large canopy trees. This approach significantly compromises urban cooling, biodiversity, and stormwater absorption. It also reduces the environmental quality of the public domain and adjacent footpaths. The absence of mature tree plantings contradicts Council’s objective for greener, cooler, and walkable centres.
The development site relies on Post Office Lane for waste collection, but this narrow laneway does not support the operation of Council’s Heavy Rigid Vehicles (HRVs). The EIS admits that these vehicles cannot access the basement loading area due to geometric constraints. As a result, the project proposes long-term reliance on smaller private SRVs. This workaround is operationally fragile, logistically uncertain, and not aligned with Council’s standard waste service protocols. It also risks frequent traffic conflict with pedestrians and service vehicles, particularly as Post Office Lane already serves other residential and commercial properties.
The EIS fails to include a specific pedestrian traffic management plan during the construction phase. This is a critical omission considering the site’s constrained boundaries and the high pedestrian activity along Post Office Lane. Without detailed staging, fencing, and safe passage protocols, the development poses risks of obstruction, accidents, and unsafe navigation for local residents, including children and elderly pedestrians.
The Operational Management Plan (OMP), which is critical to ensure proper functioning of access, deliveries, refuse collection, and tenant movement post-construction, is not included in the SSDA documentation. The EIS notes that the OMP is “still under development,” which prevents the Department and stakeholders from assessing ongoing community impact and enforceability of management protocols.
The site is zoned E2 – Commercial Centre under the Willoughby LEP 2012. While residential use is permitted under SEPP, the overwhelming dominance of build-to-rent apartments in this project (260 units over 46 storeys) directly undermines the zone’s primary objectives: promoting employment, retail growth, and active economic land uses. By replacing potential office or retail space with high-density housing, the proposal erodes the functional role of Chatswood as a commercial hub in Sydney’s North District.
The tower significantly exceeds height benchmarks and lacks proper podium articulation or public domain activation as outlined in the Chatswood CBD Strategy. The absence of a clearly defined street wall, lack of meaningful street-level engagement, and minimal contribution to landscaping and footpath improvements demonstrate non-compliance with key urban design principles.
The project seeks to bypass the minimum lot size requirements of the LEP by submitting a legal opinion arguing alternate interpretations. This creates legal ambiguity and undermines the consistency of LEP implementation. Approval of such an approach could set an undesirable precedent for other developers to circumvent statutory planning controls by relying on bespoke legal interpretations.

I would like to object to this project based on the following reasons.
1. Breach of Clause 4.3 of WLEP 2012 – Podium Height Exceeds 7m
The development proposes a podium height of 9.2 metres along Victoria Avenue, which exceeds the 7-metre maximum height limit established by Clause 4.3 of the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan (WLEP) 2012. The developer submitted a Clause 4.6 Variation Request to justify this non-compliance, citing urban design intent and built form integration. However, the additional height causes adverse overshadowing to Victor Street, particularly at 3pm on the winter solstice, and visually dominates the pedestrian scale intended for the street frontage. Granting such a variation without sound planning justification undermines the credibility of statutory controls and sets a concerning precedent for future non-compliant developments.
2. Deep Excavation and Geotechnical Risks
The project includes excavation works reaching depths of 10 to 12 metres to accommodate three levels of basement. This level of excavation presents significant geotechnical risks including ground movement, vibration, and potential settlement that could affect the structural integrity of neighbouring buildings, particularly given the proximity to high-rise residential towers such as Metro Spire. Additionally, groundwater conditions remain unconfirmed as borehole and monitoring data are incomplete. The proposed use of anchored shoring systems into adjacent lots also requires consent from neighbouring property owners, which has not been confirmed, raising concerns regarding legal liability and physical construction feasibility.
3. Metro View Overshadowing and Sunlight Access Failure
The proposed tower will result in substantial overshadowing of the east-facing apartments in the Metro View residential tower during the winter solstice. Shadow diagrams provided in the EIS show that from 9am to 12pm, a significant number of units on levels 5 to 31 will receive little or no direct sunlight. This directly contravenes Objective 4A-1 of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which requires that 70% of dwellings receive a minimum of two hours of direct sunlight to living rooms and private open spaces between 9am and 3pm during mid-winter. Reduced solar access undermines residential amenity by affecting natural lighting, passive heating, and overall comfort, particularly for east-facing units that rely on morning sun for thermal benefit. No design amendments have been proposed to mitigate this non-compliance.
4. View Loss and Visual Impact on Metro Towers
The height and mass of the 46-storey tower will obstruct district and skyline views currently enjoyed by east-facing apartments in Metro Spire and Metro View, especially those on levels 11 to 20. These views are a key part of residential amenity and market value. The EIS acknowledges view impacts but frames them as acceptable “urban outcomes” in dense centres. However, it fails to consider the cumulative effect on long-standing residents, particularly in terms of psychological space, openness, and perceived density. No transitional design or compensatory planning response is provided.
5. Landscaping Fails Deep Soil Requirements
The proposal does not comply with the recommended 35% deep soil landscaping requirement under the Willoughby DCP. The EIS and landscape report clearly admit that the available area for in-ground planting is severely limited. Instead, the design heavily relies on planter boxes built over slabs, which restrict root depth and eliminate the possibility of planting large canopy trees. This approach significantly compromises urban cooling, biodiversity, and stormwater absorption. It also reduces the environmental quality of the public domain and adjacent footpaths. The absence of mature tree plantings contradicts Council’s objective for greener, cooler, and walkable centres.
6. Waste Truck Access Infeasible at Post Office Lane
The development site relies on Post Office Lane for waste collection, but this narrow laneway does not support the operation of Council’s Heavy Rigid Vehicles (HRVs). The EIS admits that these vehicles cannot access the basement loading area due to geometric constraints. As a result, the project proposes long-term reliance on smaller private SRVs. This workaround is operationally fragile, logistically uncertain, and not aligned with Council’s standard waste service protocols. It also risks frequent traffic conflict with pedestrians and service vehicles, particularly as Post Office Lane already serves other residential and commercial properties.
7. Construction Pedestrian Management Plan Missing
The EIS fails to include a specific pedestrian traffic management plan during the construction phase. This is a critical omission considering the site’s constrained boundaries and the high pedestrian activity along Post Office Lane. Without detailed staging, fencing, and safe passage protocols, the development poses risks of obstruction, accidents, and unsafe navigation for local residents, including children and elderly pedestrians.
8. Operational Management Plan (OMP) Not Provided
The Operational Management Plan (OMP), which is critical to ensure proper functioning of access, deliveries, refuse collection, and tenant movement post-construction, is not included in the SSDA documentation. The EIS notes that the OMP is “still under development,” which prevents the Department and stakeholders from assessing ongoing community impact and enforceability of management protocols.
9. Conflict with E2 Zoning Objectives
The site is zoned E2 – Commercial Centre under the Willoughby LEP 2012. While residential use is permitted under SEPP, the overwhelming dominance of build-to-rent apartments in this project (260 units over 46 storeys) directly undermines the zone’s primary objectives: promoting employment, retail growth, and active economic land uses. By replacing potential office or retail space with high-density housing, the proposal erodes the functional role of Chatswood as a commercial hub in Sydney’s North District.
10. Non-Compliance with Chatswood CBD Urban Design Strategy
The tower significantly exceeds height benchmarks and lacks proper podium articulation or public domain activation as outlined in the Chatswood CBD Strategy. The absence of a clearly defined street wall, lack of meaningful street-level engagement, and minimal contribution to landscaping and footpath improvements demonstrate non-compliance with key urban design principles.
11. Minimum Lot Size and Legal Ambiguity
The project seeks to bypass the minimum lot size requirements of the LEP by submitting a legal opinion arguing alternate interpretations. This creates legal ambiguity and undermines the consistency of LEP implementation. Approval of such an approach could set an undesirable precedent for other developers to circumvent statutory planning controls by relying on bespoke legal interpretations.
Thank you for your consideration.

1. Traffic and congestion in Chatswood CBD
- A 46-storey development will significantly increase traffic on Victor St (which is already congested with visitors using for drop offs and delivery services), Victoria Avenue and surrounding streets.
- The surge in vehicle activity due to residents, visitors, delivery services, ride-shares and waste collection services will worsen existing congestion and may lead to delays and safety risks, particularly during peak hours.
- Large vehicles especially for waste collection is currently not allowed on Victor St and also unsuitable for Post Office Lane where the planned entrance for building services is, due to pedestrian traffic. As small vehicles are only allowed, waste collection would have to be more frequent hence again leading to increased traffic.
- The existing road infrastructure in the Chatswood CBD and especially Victor St and Post Office Lane where it's a one way in and out access is insufficient to support the influx of increased traffic. Although the intention is not to build any private car parks, increase in residents would definitely add to traffic with movers going in and out (since the building is for rent only), ride shares, food delivery vehicles since Victor St is the only road that is accessible. It is also an area with high foot traffic through to Post Office Lane currently and it will pose significant risks to the pedestrians with increased vehicles accessing the street.

2. Inadequate Parking
- This is already currently an issue in Chatswood CBD with visitors and residents alike. Given that this new building has no private parking available, this will flow into the surrounding residential streets, affecting current residents. It would be naive to think that none of the potential residents in a 260 unit block would own private vehicles.

3. Overshadowing and loss of privacy
- The height and scale of the building (and potentially planned future developments) will cast substantial significant shadows over surrounding properties, impacting natural light. This will also place shadows on the walking strip of Victoria Avenue (Chatswood Mall) and take away the "openness" of the mall on Victoria Avenue; making the popular walking street feel claustrophobic.
- The height and orientation may result in overlooking of adjacent homes, raising privacy concerns for current residents

4. Construction impact
- Long-term construction will create noise, dust and disruption for nearby businesses and residents.
- Demolition and excavation works pose safety environmental and vibration concerns for nearby properties especially since this project is in very close proximity to existing business and apartments
- Local families, elderly residents and young children who use frequently walk around Chatswood Mall will be affected by the disruption particularly on weekends and school holidays.

5. Detriment to Chatswood's Cultural & Economic Vibrancy
- The current weekend market which adds vibrancy and brings visitors into Chatswood would be adversely and directly affected for the duration of the construction.
- Construction works, reduced pedestrian access, and potential road closures may deter market visitors and shoppers.
- Although construction may be short terms, many of these vendors are small, independent business owners that do rely on the busy trade of the Chatswood market for their livelihoods and this construction may significantly impact them.
- Proximity of the markets to the train stations has always been a plus point so changing the market locations, albeit temporary, may adversely impact the business of the market stallholders.
- The decline in market activity could lead to a broader economic downturn for local businesses and diminish Chatswood's appearl as a weekend destination.

6. Character of the Area
- A high rise build-to-rent complex does not align with the existing low-to-mid-rise buildings in the Chatswood Mall area and also the residential character of Chatswood's quieter pockets. We currently do not have any high rise buildings past the train stations in the path of Chatswood Mall.
- The visual and social character of Chatswood may be altered as this project will contribute to over-urbanisation and overdevelopment in the Chatswood CBD and will also reduce neighbourhood appeal for long-term residents.

7. Tackling the Housing Crisis
- Chatswood is currently an area that is in high demand and rent can be expensive especially for newer developments. If the same rent rates apply to his development, building in the middle of Chatswood CBD would not help to resolve the housing crisis as most renters who already cannot afford housing in the area will already be priced out of the market. If there is intention to make this affordable housing right in the middle of Chatswood CBD (there is no clear mention on the documents), then it will significantly and adversely impact the residents in the Chatswood area in terms of property value.

In summary, this project is unsuitable for the Chatswood CBD due to its height and scale given the density of the area. The existing road infrastructure in the Chatswood city centre itself would be unable to cope with the proposed site of the project. Another point to consider if that there are insufficient schools in the area to support more high rise developments and residents that would fall in the Chatswood catchment. It would be more beneficial to place this project on another site outside of the centre of Chatswood.

Objection to the redevelopment which is proposed to build the block at the junction of Victor Street and Post Office Lane.

1. The proposal documents do not mention how the redevelopment directly affects the residents of Spire Tower (1 Post Office Lane, Chatswood; 38-storey dwelling from the ground) and View Tower (69 Albert Avenue, Chatswood; 26-storey dwelling from the ground). Why? All apartments of 2 Towers facing east facades will immediately depreciate because 46-storey building would block the views of the Towers and ruin the privacy and cause inconvenience during the construction.

2. Not many people know the current situation: in early morning garbage worker picks up rubbish from the buckets and street wash truck keeps cleanliness on the Chatswood Mall; at the junction of Victor Street and Post Office Lane the high pedestrian flow and U-turn of private cars, reverse driving of garbage trucks and delivery vans to Post Office Lane happen frequently. The last road work of Post Office Lane caused inconvenience for several months is benefit to the residents of Spire Tower because it helps paramedic jobs, firefighters and rescue team access the entrance of Spire Tower directly. During the construction of redevelopment will it stop the traffic there? Do the retired people in the Towers have to detour?

3. Chatswood Mall which attracts buskers and performers, homeless woman with baskets and luggage, knelt-down beggars, people from other suburbs and street food stalls etc is always noisy, busy and congested. If this redevelopment is accepted, more redevelopments around the Chatswood Mall will happen (e.g. Orchard Hotel + Lemon Grove would be replaced). The tall buildings appearing around the Mall seem weird and become awkward. Eateries will suffer the impact of dust, noise and congestion from the first day of construction. Do the street food stalls and performing platform need to relocate?

4. According to the notice from recent federal election of Australian Electoral Commission, the electoral division of Spire Tower and View Tower was changed from North Sydney to Bradfield because of population distribution. That can imply the population of the region around Chatswood Railway Station and Chatswood Mall is saturated. Do we need to gather more renters here?

Please investigate on site before making decision.

Please refer to the attached letter and 10 photos.
Thank you.

The proposed development will increase traffic loads on Victor Street which is already very congested. The site, being so close to the exising resdential building on 31-37 Victor Street, will obstruct views for those north facing flat units in the building and also overshadowing of public and residential area. Properties value is likely to be lowered as the result. The proposed building height of this 46 storey building will also induce an out-of -scale effect to the local streetscape.

I object to the project on Victoria Avenue due to its misfit to the local community. The retail use does not justify a 46-storey tower scale -- it obstructs the views of numerous North-facing properties and overshadows nearby buildings, thus reducing the visual aesthetics of the suburb. Furthermore, lots of elderly and young children live around Chatswood. The construction required to complete such a large building will cause irreversible damage to the environment and deteriorate the air quality around the area.

The area is not suitable for such project. High also not acceptable.

I don’t object to the build to rent project per se, but are very concerned about the impact on public amenity at the location. The height of the proposed project and the resultant overshadowing and potential to increase the existing wind tunnel effect on Victor Street and create one on Victoria Ave, could result in a significant detriment to this currently pleasant community space. A shorter building may be in order.

To Whom It May Concern,

As the owner live in The Grand Residences, located directly opposite the proposed “Novus on Victoria” development at 410–416 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, I strongly oppose the current development application (SSD-63324208).

This objection is based on the proposal’s unacceptable impacts on existing residential amenity, including visual obstruction, privacy loss, overshadowing, and excessive bulk and scale. These concerns are particularly acute for upper-level apartments like mine, which were purchased at a premium for their outlook, light access, and open sky views.

1. Severe Loss of Views and Visual Dominance
My apartment currently enjoys expansive, uninterrupted views across the Chatswood skyline and eastern horizon. The proposed 46-storey tower would:

Obstruct existing sky and district views from my living room and balcony.

Introduce a monolithic vertical element that dominates the skyline from my line of sight.

Create a sense of enclosure and spatial compression that is incompatible with the open high-rise environment I invested in.

This visual encroachment will significantly reduce both the enjoyment and value of my property. View loss is not simply aesthetic—it is a major factor in lifestyle and real estate equity.

2. Overshadowing and Loss of Daylight
While the applicant claims solar access to surrounding buildings will not fall below the ADG minimum, this is a bare compliance argument. From my level, I will be directly impacted by:

New shadows cast in the morning hours (east-facing) during winter.

A measurable reduction in internal daylight and solar warmth, particularly on colder days.

Diminished passive heating and increased reliance on artificial lighting and climate control.

Natural light is essential to quality of life, and its loss directly contradicts the intent of planning policies prioritising liveability and environmental sustainability.

3. Loss of Privacy
Despite being on the high floor, the proposed development places numerous windows and balconies at similar heights, some facing directly toward The Grand. This raises serious privacy concerns:

Residents in the new tower will have a direct line of sight into my living and dining spaces.

The proposed separation distances are insufficient for towers of this height and density.

No effective screening or visual mitigation has been proposed to protect existing occupants.

Privacy is a cornerstone of apartment living, and it is unreasonable for long-established residents to bear the consequences of such intrusive proximity.

4. Incompatible Bulk and Scale
The proposed building’s sheer height, massing, and podium scale are out of step with the existing urban grain along Victoria Avenue. For nearby residential towers such as The Grand, this results in:

A visually and functionally disproportionate built form in close quarters.

Loss of visual relief between structures.

Cumulative density impacts including traffic, service congestion, and pressure on local infrastructure.

This scale is inappropriate for a narrow site constrained by laneways and surrounded by residential buildings on all sides.

5. Construction and Operational Impacts
Given my unit’s height and location, I will likely experience:

Prolonged noise disturbance from high-level structural and façade works.

Dust and construction glare at eye level during crane operation phases.

Post-completion traffic congestion and service vehicle noise along Post Office Lane and Victor Street.

These are not minor inconveniences but significant disruptions to daily life over a multi-year timeframe.

Conclusion
The current proposal is incompatible with the rights and expectations of existing high-rise residents like myself. It will:

Degrade visual and acoustic amenity.

Obstruct sunlight and sky access.

Violate spatial privacy.

Reduce the quality of high-density living in Chatswood.

I respectfully urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reject this application in its current form and demand significant design amendments that respect established residential towers, such as The Grand.

Sincerely,
William Lai
The Grand Residences, Chatswood

Dear Planning Officer,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed 46-storey development located near my residence at View Tower, 69 Albert Ave, Chatswood NSW2067, specifically in relation to the building known as Novus on Victoria.

As a resident directly impacted by this project, I wish to raise several concerns:

1. Loss of Sunlight and Natural Light
My apartment is east-facing, and the proposed development, being significantly taller and only 18 metres away, will obstruct direct morning sunlight, particularly during the winter months. The resulting shadowing will drastically reduce natural light in my home, affecting both my wellbeing and quality of life.

2. Loss of Privacy
Given the proximity of just 18 metres between the two buildings, this development would cause a serious loss of privacy. With windows directly facing each other, residents like myself would be forced to keep curtains drawn even during the day, defeating the purpose of having natural light access and significantly reducing our comfort in our own homes.

3.View Obstruction
The high-rise structure will completely block the existing view from my apartment. This not only affects the aesthetic and emotional value of my home, but potentially impacts its market value as well.

4. Excessive Density and Market Saturation
The Chatswood area already has a number of “buy-to-let” developments. Adding another high-rise further intensifies residential density, potentially leading to more transient occupancy, reduced community cohesion, and pressure on local infrastructure.

5. Construction Impacts
The construction phase will likely bring significant disruptions, including noise pollution, air pollution, dust, and traffic congestion. These impacts will disturb the daily lives of residents, especially those who work from home or have young children or elderly family members.

In conclusion, the proposed development poses a considerable threat to the quality of life, privacy, and environment of current residents. I respectfully urge you to reconsider the approval of this project or, at the very least, take these concerns into serious consideration and consult with affected residents directly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely,
Han Cao

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development SSD-63324208 – “Novus on Victoria,” located at 410–416 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood. As a local resident living in close proximity to the site, I am gravely concerned about the significant adverse impacts this project will impose on the surrounding community. This submission outlines several planning breaches, environmental shortcomings, and residential amenity impacts that render the development unsuitable in its current form.

1. Breach of Willoughby LEP 2012 – Clause 4.3 Podium Height Limit
The proposed podium height of up to 9.2 metres substantially exceeds the 7-metre control set by the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012—a 31% variation. Although the applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 variation request, they concede that this excessive height will lead to additional overshadowing of Victor Street at 3pm during the winter solstice. The breach undermines a key statutory control and sets an unacceptable precedent for future developmentsNovus_Objection_Analysis.

2. Adverse Impact on Neighbouring Residential Towers (Metro Spire and View Apartments)
The 46-storey tower is positioned in uncomfortably close proximity to high-rise residential buildings including Metro Spire and View Apartments:

View Loss: The development will obstruct expansive views currently enjoyed by these buildings, including sky and potential city vistas, reducing both the aesthetic and market value of these dwellings.

Privacy Intrusion: With as little as 18 metres separation at certain points, there is a direct line of sight between residential apartments and the new tower, violating privacy expectations.

Visual Bulk and Overbearing Form: The proposed massing will create a sense of visual oppression for residents, particularly those at lower levels of adjacent buildings.

Sunlight Access: The height and placement of the tower will cast prolonged shadows over surrounding residential buildings during winter months, decreasing internal solar access and affecting living amenity.

The mitigation measures offered by the applicant (e.g., slender tower form) do not sufficiently address these cumulative impacts on existing residents.

3. Unresolved Geotechnical Risks from Deep Excavation
The development proposes excavation to a depth of 10–12 metres for basement construction, raising severe geotechnical concerns:

Risk of structural movement and vibration affecting neighbouring buildings.

Unquantified groundwater inflow, with borehole monitoring still pending.

Use of anchored shoring systems encroaching on adjoining properties requires legal consent that is not yet secured.
These unknowns directly compromise the safety and structural integrity of surrounding properties during and post-constructionNovus_Objection_Analysis.

4. Insufficient Deep Soil Landscaping and Urban Greening
While SSDs are exempt from certain DCP provisions, the applicant admits the project fails to:

Meet the 35% deep soil landscaping target.

Provide meaningful deep soil zones for tree planting—relying instead on above-podium planter boxes.

Deliver canopy trees that offer urban cooling or contribute meaningfully to public amenity.

This outcome contradicts the objectives of the Willoughby DCP 2023 and represents a missed opportunity for environmental performance and climate resilienceNovus_Objection_Analysis.

5. Traffic, Waste and Service Access Failures
The site’s constrained interface with Post Office Lane means:

Council garbage trucks cannot access the basement; smaller private trucks (SRVs) are proposed as a workaround.

This will likely result in congestion, noise, and reduced safety on local streets such as Victor Street and Post Office Lane.

The impact will be particularly severe during peak times and ongoing operation, causing sustained disruption to existing residentsNovus_Objection_Analysis.

Conclusion
The development in its current form:

Violates critical planning controls.

Fails to adequately safeguard residential amenity.

Presents unresolved risks to neighbouring properties.

Does not integrate effectively into the existing built environment.

I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reject this application or require substantial redesign to address the above deficiencies.

I am writing as a long-term resident of Metro Grand, unit 5001, to express my strongest objection to the proposed "Novus on Victoria" Build-to-Rent development at 410–416 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood.

This project represents a significant overdevelopment of the site and poses unacceptable impacts to the local community, amenity, and environment. My concerns are outlined as follows:

Non-Compliance with Statutory Height Controls
The proposed podium height of up to 9.2 meters exceeds the 7-meter maximum set by the Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 (a 31% variation). This breach directly contributes to increased overshadowing on surrounding streets such as Victor Street, especially during critical periods like the winter solstice. This violation undermines public confidence in the planning framework and sets a dangerous precedent for future developmentsNovus_Objection_Analysis.

Excessive Excavation Depth and Associated Risks
The development involves excavation to depths of 10–12 meters, which raises significant geotechnical and hydrogeological concerns. Risks include ground movement, vibration damage to adjacent buildings, and groundwater inflows, which are yet to be fully assessed by on-site monitoring. The use of anchored shoring systems may require access to neighboring properties, affecting owners' rights and safetyNovus_Objection_AnalysisAppendix U - Geotechnic….

Lack of Sufficient Deep Soil Landscaping
The proposal fails to meet the 35% deep soil requirement and instead relies on planter boxes and slab-on-structure planting. This deprives the neighborhood of mature canopy trees and the ecological and cooling benefits they provide. It significantly detracts from the liveability and environmental sustainability of the areaNovus_Objection_Analysis.

Poor Waste Collection and Traffic Integration
Due to design constraints, Council’s heavy waste trucks cannot access the proposed basement loading dock. The reliance on smaller private trucks is not a viable long-term solution and will result in increased congestion, noise, and pedestrian safety risks on narrow streets like Post Office Lane and Victor StreetNovus_Objection_AnalysisAppendix P - Transport ….

Impact on Residential Amenity and Safety
As a high-level resident directly overlooking the development site, I am deeply concerned about long-term construction noise, dust, and safety issues, as well as loss of privacy, view corridors, and sunlight. These issues are not adequately mitigated or compensated for in the application documentsAppendix T - Noise and ….

Unjustified Planning Variation (Clause 4.6)
The developer’s justification under Clause 4.6 to override the height standard is unconvincing and insufficient. Community benefit does not outweigh the significant harm to surrounding properties and the broader Chatswood center characterAppendix Q - Clause 4.6….

In conclusion, this project is fundamentally inappropriate for the site and must be rejected outright. The scale, non-compliances, and adverse impacts on infrastructure, amenity, and safety are not justified by any public benefit. I urge the Department of Planning and all responsible authorities to uphold the planning framework and protect the interests of existing residents by refusing this development application.

The reasons are:
Out of scale with Local Streetscape;
Increased traffic congestion;
Overshadowing of Public and Residential areas;
Disruption to community character;
Retail use doesn't justify Tower Scale;
Obstructed views from north -facing properties; and
Potential decrease in property values

I object to the project because it could increase traffic congestion, out of scale with local streetscape, overshadowing of public and residential area, and rental use doesn’t justify tower scale.

I am the owner and resident of Apartment 3206 in Metro Grand (438 Victoria Avenue), writing to express my strongest objection to the proposed Build-to-Rent (BTR) development at 410–418 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood.

This project represents a serious threat to the comfort, privacy, and quality of life for residents like myself—people who have made Chatswood their long-term home and community. As someone living on a mid-level floor, I will be directly impacted in ways that are both intolerable and unacceptable.

1. Severe Loss of Natural Light and Views
Although Metro Grand is further from the DA site compared to Spire or View, my apartment on level 32 currently enjoys a rare combination of open outlook and morning sunlight—benefits that are already limited in high-density Chatswood.

With the proposed 46-storey tower placed so close and built with no western boundary setback, it will create a wall-like visual barrier, diminishing our skyline openness and reducing natural light during critical parts of the day. The experience of living in a bright, airy home will be replaced with a sense of crowding and enclosure.

2. Unacceptable Construction Impact
As a resident who lives and works from home, I am alarmed by the level of long-term construction disruption this development would bring. Dust, noise, and vibrations over multiple years will directly affect my daily life and health. The proposed vehicle access and loading from Post Office Lane—so close to Metro Grand’s connection to the train station—will only increase traffic and pedestrian conflict.

3. Degradation of Residential Amenity and Community Feel
The Metro towers were designed with a balance between height, spacing, and shared amenity. This new proposal disregards that planning integrity. It crams another high-rise into an already dense block, with no regard for how it affects existing residents.

I fear that this type of over-intensification will not only damage property values but destroy the sense of community we have worked hard to build in the Metro Residences.

4. Lack of Proper Management Plans
It is alarming that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) refers to an Operational Management Plan (OMP) that has not even been provided. How can neighbouring residents have confidence in how this new building will be managed long term—especially given the potential for high tenant turnover in a BTR scheme?

Conclusion
This project does not belong in this location. It is too tall, too dense, and too close to our existing homes. It will diminish the daily living experience for hundreds of people while benefiting none of us.

As the owner of Grand 3206, I am firmly opposed to the approval of this development and urge the consent authority to reject the application in its entirety.

See attachment.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally lodge an objection to the Development Application (DA) for the proposed Build-to-Rent residential tower at 410–418 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, located at the intersection of Victoria Avenue and Victor Street. I am a resident/owner of a unit in Metro View (SP 88677), situated directly above the Chatswood Train and Metro Station.
Having reviewed the DA and its potential impacts, I wish to raise the following serious concerns:
1. Loss of Sunlight to Metro View
The proposed 46-storey development will significantly affect the sunlight access to Metro View, particularly for east-facing apartments between levels 5 to 31. Analysis indicates that during the winter solstice, these units will not receive the minimum required two hours of direct sunlight, violating established planning standards. This will directly impact the living quality and energy efficiency of numerous households.
Request: A redesign or amendment to reduce overshadowing on Metro View should be considered.
2. Obstruction of Views
The development will lead to partial or complete loss of existing views from apartments in Metro View and Metro Spire, particularly low- to mid-level east-facing units (levels 11–20). Residents who purchased these properties with specific outlooks will be negatively impacted both in lifestyle and property value.
Request: The impact on view corridors should be properly assessed and mitigated in revised plans.
3. Construction Impacts on Pedestrian Access, Noise and Vibration
The proposed construction access via Post Office Lane poses potential safety hazards and disruptions for pedestrians. Moreover, prolonged construction will likely result in excessive noise and vibration affecting hundreds of nearby residential units.
Request: A Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan must be submitted and enforced, along with robust noise and vibration control measures during construction.

⸻
4. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety During and After Construction
The development proposes vehicle access via Post Office Lane, which is already a narrow and heavily used pedestrian area. Increased vehicle movements during construction and in future operation present a clear risk to public safety.
Request: The developer must be required to submit and implement an Operation Management Plan (OMP) to ensure safe and regulated vehicle access, with a clear plan to minimize conflicts with pedestrian use.

5. Request for Submission and Review of Operation Management Plan
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) references a future Operation Management Plan, but this document has not yet been submitted for review.
Request: The OMP should be provided for public consultation prior to DA approval, to ensure transparency and proper risk assessment.
In addition to this objection, I strongly recommend the Council to give greater weight to individual submissions from affected residents. Many units in the Metro buildings will experience direct impacts due to this development, and personal submissions reflecting those specific concerns should be carefully considered.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. I trust that Council will give due consideration to the concerns of the existing community before approving this development.

I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed 46-storey mixed-use development near my residence.
While I understand the need for urban growth and revitalization, the scale of this project is deeply concerning. The proposed height—46 storeys—is dramatically out of proportion with the existing built environment and will significantly overshadow nearby properties, and compromise the privacy and access to sunlight for surrounding residents.

Moreover, the development is located in an area already experiencing high population density and congestion. Adding a large-scale shop-top housing complex which will accommodate retail premises, 260 building-to-rent apartments, amenity spaces, and basement parking will only increase traffic volume, strain public infrastructure, and place further pressure on existing population density.
I strongly urge the council to reconsider the scale and intensity of this proposal and to prioritize a development that minimizes the pressure on existing residents.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this submission.

I am writing as the owner and resident of Apartment 5001 in the Metro Spire tower (1 Post Office Lane, SP 88678) to express my strong and unwavering opposition to the proposed Build-to-Rent (BTR) development at 410–418 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood.

As someone who chose to live in Metro Spire for its open views, privacy, natural sunlight, and relative peace in an already dense urban centre, I find this proposed project to be completely unacceptable. It threatens the very qualities that define the livability of my home and our community.

1. Loss of Privacy and Visual Amenity
My apartment faces directly toward the proposed development site. If this 46-storey tower is approved, it will block my current open outlook, replacing it with a concrete wall of windows directly overlooking my living space. The level of visual intrusion this will create is simply intolerable. I did not purchase a high-rise apartment to have a massive structure imposed just meters away from my windows.

2. Loss of Sunlight and Natural Light
As shown in the developer’s own shadow diagrams, the eastern-facing units of Metro Spire—including mine—will suffer early-morning overshadowing, particularly during winter. Natural morning light is essential for health, mental wellbeing, and comfort, especially in high-rise living. The loss of this sunlight is more than an inconvenience—it is a fundamental deterioration of my quality of life.

3. Overcrowding and Overdevelopment
Chatswood is already facing significant density pressures. This project, which squeezes a towering building into a constrained site with limited setbacks, is a clear case of overdevelopment. It disregards the balance between development and livability, and sacrifices existing residents’ rights for investor-led profits.

4. Construction Disruption and Safety
With vehicular access proposed via Post Office Lane—already a narrow and heavily trafficked laneway—this development will introduce significant construction noise, dust, traffic congestion, and pedestrian risks, right outside our entrance. It will severely affect our day-to-day lives for years. No assurance in the EIS can compensate for that disruption.

5. Lack of Trust in Long-Term Management
The proposed development lacks a disclosed Operational Management Plan, yet it relies on this as a mitigation strategy for future issues like tenant behaviour and building maintenance. Without transparency or accountability in place, there is no guarantee that future impacts will be managed in a way that protects neighbouring residents.

Conclusion
As a long-term owner and resident of Metro Spire, I find this proposal deeply damaging, intrusive, and entirely inappropriate for the location. It offers no real benefit to the community and comes at a substantial cost to existing residents like myself.

I strongly urge the consent authority to reject this development application in full. The community deserves a built environment that respects existing homes—not one that encroaches on them.