Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development

I am a local resident and would like to express my support for the overall redevelopment of this site. The proposal will provide additional housing, new retail opportunities and the continuation of a pub, all of which can contribute positively to the local area. I also support the delivery of housing diversity, including affordable housing opportunities where possible, so that younger people, key workers and long-term residents are not priced out of the community.

My concern is not with the redevelopment itself, but with the proposed height of 16 storeys.

A building of this scale is significantly larger than what currently exists in the surrounding area and would appear out of character with the established streetscape. While change is inevitable and necessary as Sydney grows, new development should still respect the existing character and scale of the neighbourhood. In my view, a 16-storey tower represents an overdevelopment of the site and would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the area.

The proposed height would also create substantial visual bulk. Even where planning controls may permit taller buildings, the experience for local residents is determined by what they see and live with every day. A 16-storey building would dominate the streetscape and significantly alter the character of the neighbourhood.

I am also concerned about the impacts of overshadowing. Access to sunlight is important for the amenity of surrounding homes, businesses, public spaces and streets. While some level of impact is inevitable in any redevelopment, the scale of the proposed building increases those impacts considerably.

In addition, the development is likely to generate increased traffic and parking demand. Although residents of new developments may rely more heavily on public transport, many households still own vehicles and visitors will continue to drive to local businesses and the pub. Existing residents already experience traffic and parking pressures, and these issues are likely to worsen if the scale of the development remains unchanged.

I believe there is a more balanced outcome available. A development in the range of 6 to 8 storeys would still deliver a significant number of new homes, support local businesses, provide opportunities for affordable housing, and contribute to urban renewal. At the same time, it would be far more compatible with the surrounding area, reduce visual bulk and overshadowing, and better respect the character of the neighbourhood.

I would therefore ask that the proposal not be approved in its current form. Instead, I encourage the decision-maker to require a substantial reduction in height, together with strong landscaping, tree planting and public domain improvements. These changes would allow the benefits of redevelopment to be realised while ensuring the project remains appropriate for the local community.

Overall, I support redevelopment of the site and recognise the need for additional housing. However, I believe the proposed 16-storey height is excessive and that a lower-scale development would achieve a much better balance between growth, housing supply and neighbourhood character.

I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed 15-to-16-storey mixed-use development at the site of the Narwee Hotel (116 Penshurst Road). While I acknowledge the state’s focus on transit-oriented housing, this particular proposal represents an unacceptable over-development that fundamentally compromises the character and social fabric of the surrounding suburb.

My objection is based on two primary grounds: an inappropriate, outsized building scale, and the profound social harm associated with super-sizing a venue that has aggressively become one of the state's most lucrative gambling locations.

1. Increased Gambling
As detailed by recent reporting (https://www.afr.com/companies/games-and-wagering/sam-arnaout-s-midas-touch-turns-suburban-pubs-into-pokie-gold-mines-20260316-p5oazc), the Narwee Hotel which is a suburban pub/hotel has been transformed by the applicant into to a venue that seeks to aggressively maximise electronic gaming machine (pokies) profits. Narwee Hotel was ranked 181 based on gambling revenue per poker machine in 2021 and is now ranked in the top 50. I am deeply concerned that this redevelopment involves a significant expansion of the venue's gaming and gambling uses with a larger TAB space and VIP gaming room.

This increase in gambling and gaming is the last thing we need for a socio-economically disadvantage local area with incomes lower than the Sydney median and a large proportion of vulnerable and disadvantaged households. Rather than providing a community benefit, this development will actively harm the local community by increasing social harm and disadvantage through increased gambling addiction and anti-social behaviour.

2. Inappropriate and Outsized Scale
The proposed 56-metre building height stands at more than double the permissible height for the site of 27 metres. Introducing a 16-storey tower into this low-density pocket of the suburb sets a highly destructive precedent that completely disregards local zoning intentions. Any development needs to be carefully considered to appropriately transition down towards the nearby low-density residential housing.

This development will funnel hundreds of high-density apartments over six basement levels onto a narrow, consistently congested corridor of Penshurst Road which will severely disrupt the already congested local traffic. The sheer mass of the podium and towers will cause permanent overshadowing, wind tunnel effects, and an irreversible loss of visual amenity for the hundreds of nearby low-density residential lots located directly adjacent including on Kardella Crescent, Penshurst Road and Glendale Avenue.

I strongly urge the Department to reject this proposal and significantly scale back the building height, density, and commercial gaming footprint to better balance the needs of the local residents.

I am a resident and apartment owner at 135-141 Penshurst Road, Narwee (RAY) and am writing to raise concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of 116 Penshurst Road.
I support appropriate redevelopment and additional housing around transport infrastructure. However, given the scale of the proposed development and its proximity to the RAY apartment buidling, Iam particularly concerned about the potential structural and construction impact on our building.

1. Structural risk to RAYfrom deep excavation
My primary concern is the potential impact of the proposed excavation and basement construction on the structural integrity of the existing RAY bulding at 135-141 Penshurst Road. The proposal involves a very substantial basement excavation. Deep excavation adjacent to an existing multi-storey residential buidling has the potential to cause
- ground movement
- lateral ground displacement
- differential settlement
- movement of existing foundation
- cracking to walls, ceilings, floors.
- damage caused by construction vibration,
- damage to underground services and infrastructure
I am particularly concerned that the EIS and approval process must provide sufficient site-specific engineering information to demonstrate that the excavation can be undertaken without adversely affecting RAY.

2. Independent pre-construction dilapidation survey of RAY
Before any demolition, piling or excavation commences, I request that the developer be required to fund and arrange a comprehensive independent dilapidation survey of 135–141 Penshurst Road.
The survey should document, to the extent reasonably practicable:
- the external façade;
- internal common areas;
- basement and car park;
- structural walls and other accessible structural elements;
- floors and ceilings;
- balconies;
- existing cracks and defects;
- retaining walls and other relevant structures; and
- other areas that could reasonably be affected by excavation or vibration.
Existing cracks and defects should be photographed, mapped and, where appropriate, measured so that there is a clear baseline condition before construction begins.
The report should be provided to the RAY Owners Corporation and retained by the Department/consent authority.

3.Independent determination of any construction-related damage
If cracks, movement or other damage occurs during construction, there must be a clear and independent process for determining whether the damage was caused by the development.
I request that the conditions of consent require:
• pre-construction dilapidation reporting;
• appropriate ongoing structural and ground-movement monitoring;
• a post-construction dilapidation inspection;
• comparison of pre- and post-construction conditions;
• investigation by an appropriately qualified independent structural/geotechnical engineer where damage is identified; and
• provision of the findings to the RAY Owners Corporation.
The developer should be responsible for the cost of these required investigations and reports.
There should also be a clear requirement that any damage demonstrated to have resulted from the development is rectified at the developer’s cost.
I note that previous development approval conditions in the immediate area have specifically required post-construction dilapidation reporting for 135–141 Penshurst Road, including an assessment of whether structural damage to adjoining buildings resulted from the approved building work. I request that equivalent, or stronger, protections be incorporated into the conditions for SSD-98417209.

4. Independent review of excavation and structural methodology
Given the proximity of RAY and the depth of the proposed basement, I request that the excavation, shoring and retention methodology be subject to an independent peer review by appropriately qualified structural and geotechnical engineers.
The review should specifically consider:
• the existing RAY building;
• its foundation system;
• soil and rock conditions;
• excavation depth;
• excavation proximity to the RAY boundary;
• lateral ground movement;
• settlement;
• groundwater;
• vibration;
• proposed piling and shoring methods; and
• construction sequencing.
The assessment should demonstrate that the proposed construction methodology will not adversely affect neighbouring buildings.

5. Financial protection and responsibility for damage
I am concerned about what would happen if construction-related damage were to occur.
The final conditions should clearly identify who is responsible for the cost of:
• required dilapidation surveys;
• independent structural investigations;
• monitoring;
• emergency engineering assessments; and
• rectification of damage attributable to the development.
I request that the Department consider requiring appropriate financial security and/or insurance arrangements to ensure that sufficient resources are available to address legitimate damage to neighbouring properties caused by the development.
Residents should not be placed in a position where individual apartment owners or the Owners Corporation must bear substantial engineering and legal costs simply to establish whether damage caused by the development should be rectified.

I recognise the importance of providing additional housing and supporting development around public transport.
However, the scale and depth of the proposed development create legitimate concerns for existing residents, particularly those in the RAY building immediately nearby.
My primary concern is not simply the appearance or additional density of the development. It is ensuring that the existing RAY building and the homes within it are adequately protected from excavation, ground movement, settlement and vibration during construction.
I respectfully request that the Department not rely solely on general statements that the development will be structurally safe. The final approval should contain specific, enforceable and independently verifiable protections for neighbouring buildings, together with clear financial responsibility if damage attributable to the development occurs.

1. Introduction
I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD 98417209) at 116 Penshurst Road, Narwee, lodged by Iris Capital Group Pty Ltd. The proposal seeks approval for:
“construction of a sixteen (16) storey shop top housing development comprising… 181 apartments… redevelopment of existing pub… retail uses… 6 levels of basement parking”
This development is excessively large, incompatible with Narwee’s character, and poses significant safety, amenity, and infrastructure risks to the community.
2. Overdevelopment and Loss of Suburb Character
Narwee is a small, low density suburb characterised by quiet streets, modest homes, and a village scale shopping strip. A 16 storey tower with 181 apartments is completely out of scale with the surrounding built form.
The concurrent rezoning proposal seeks to double the height limit from 27m to 56m:
“Amend the height of buildings… from 27m to 56m.”
This is an extreme departure from the Canterbury Bankstown LEP and would permanently alter Narwee’s landscape. Allowing a single tower of this magnitude sets a precedent for further high rise development, eroding the suburb’s peaceful residential character.
3. Traffic Congestion and Road Safety Risks
The proposal includes 6 levels of basement parking, which implies a very large number of vehicles entering and exiting the site daily. Narwee’s road network—particularly Penshurst Road, Kardella Crescent, and the narrow streets surrounding Narwee Station—is already constrained.
Key concerns:
• Increased congestion around the station precinct, which already experiences peak hour bottlenecks.
• Kardella Crescent is a narrow residential street not designed to absorb high volume traffic.
• The proposed “site link between Penshurst and Hannah Roads” will funnel additional vehicles into quiet residential pockets.
This poses significant safety risks, especially for:
• School children walking to Narwee Public School and nearby high schools.
• Commuters accessing Narwee Station.
• Residents navigating already tight intersections.
The DA notice itself acknowledges the scale of the project and its major impacts:
“Demolition… construction of a sixteen storey… 181 apartments… 6 levels of basement parking.”
The traffic burden from such a development is incompatible with Narwee’s existing infrastructure.
4. Noise, Waste, and Amenity Impacts
Large apartment blocks inevitably generate:
• Continuous noise from residents, vehicles, deliveries, and retail operations.
• Increased rubbish, including overflow bins, illegal dumping, and waste related odours.
• Light pollution from a 16 storey tower overlooking low rise homes.
• Loss of privacy for surrounding residents.
Narwee’s current environment is quiet and suburban. Introducing a high density mixed use tower will significantly degrade local amenity.
5. Insufficient Affordable Housing Provision
The proposal includes only 9 affordable housing units out of 181 apartments:
“181 apartments, including 9 affordable housing units.”
This represents just 4.9% of total dwellings—far below what would be considered meaningful community benefit.
Given the scale of the rezoning uplift (height doubled, density massively increased), the public benefit offered is minimal and does not justify the substantial impacts on the community.
A project of this magnitude should deliver significantly higher affordable housing, consistent with NSW Government objectives for equitable housing supply.
6. Loss of a Long Standing Community Landmark
The Narwee Hotel has been a local icon for decades. Its demolition removes:
• A long standing social venue
• A community gathering point
• A heritage like landmark that contributes to Narwee’s identity
While redevelopment of the pub is proposed, its integration into a 16 storey tower fundamentally changes its character and community role.
7. Inadequate Justification for State Significant Development Classification
The DA notice states:
“The Department… has received a State significant development (SSD) application… Submissions from the public are now being sought.”
However, the justification for treating this as SSD—rather than a standard local development—is unclear. The project appears to be a private high rise residential tower rather than critical public infrastructure.
The SSD pathway reduces local council oversight and limits community influence, despite the project’s profound local impacts.
8. Conclusion – Request for Refusal
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to SSD 98417209. The proposal represents:
• Overdevelopment far beyond Narwee’s planning controls
• Severe traffic and safety risks
• Significant amenity loss
• Minimal affordable housing benefit
• Destruction of local character and identity
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application and reject the associated rezoning proposal.
Narwee deserves development that is balanced, appropriate, and respectful of community needs—not a high rise tower that overwhelms the suburb.

The scale of the building is not appropriate for the area. This was a DA of a smaller scale that had so many people objecting to it and was rejected at the council level. Now the developers and now the state government is recommending that it go even higher? This is inappropriate.
The roads will not be able to cope, the shadowing onto residential homes. There are so many issues with this project that have not been addressed. There was a presentation and did not answer or even think about fixng the issues that were raised.

I strongly object to the proposed Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development in its current form. The scale of this development is excessive. It will have a significant and unfair impact on existing residents. The concerns about building height, overshadowing, privacy and traffic must not be ignored.
The proposed building height is unacceptable. It is out of proportion with the surrounding neighbourhood. It will create an imposing wall of development and change the character of the area. Development should not come at the expense of the people who already live here. There must be reasonable limits.
Overshadowing is another serious concern. Nearby homes will lose valuable natural sunlight. This affects our comfort, enjoyment of our properties and quality of life. Existing residents should not have to sacrifice sunlight and amenity to accommodate an oversized development.
Privacy is equally important. A large, elevated development will create opportunities for overlooking into neighbouring homes and private outdoor spaces. Nobody should have to feel that their own backyard or living room is on display. Our homes are private spaces. That privacy deserves proper protection.
Traffic is a major concern, and the assumption that being near a train station means residents do not need cars is simply unrealistic. Living near a train station does not mean you do not own a car or need one. Many people rely on their vehicles for work, school drop-offs, shopping, caring responsibilities and other daily commitments. Public transport does not meet every need or suit every journey. It is unreasonable to assume that all future residents, visitors and workers will travel by train. The development will generate additional vehicle movements, place more pressure on local roads and potentially worsen congestion and parking demand. Where is the convincing evidence that the surrounding road network can cope with this increase? These impacts must be properly assessed, not dismissed on the basis of proximity to a station.
It is frustrating to see the burden of increased density placed on the existing community without adequate consideration of the consequences. Residents should not be expected to accept reduced sunlight, compromised privacy, excessive building heights and increased traffic simply because a major development is proposed.
The building height must be reconsidered. Overshadowing and privacy impacts must be reduced. Traffic generation, parking demand and road safety must be properly addressed with credible evidence. The concerns of the existing community must be taken seriously, not treated as an inconvenience to development.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject the Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development State Significant Development application in its current form.

Objection to SSD-98417209 – Proposed Penshurst Road Development, Narwee
To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to respectfully express my concerns about the proposed development at Penshurst Road, Narwee, under application SSD-98417209. As a member of the local community, I understand that development is part of a growing city, but I sincerely believe this proposal needs to be reconsidered to protect the character of our neighbourhood and the wellbeing of existing residents.
My main concern is the proposed height of 16 storeys. I respectfully ask why a building of this scale is necessary when an eight-storey development across the road provides an alternative worth considering. A lower building could offer a more balanced approach while reducing the impact on surrounding homes and the wider neighbourhood.
I am particularly concerned about the loss of privacy and sunlight for nearby residents. People should be able to enjoy their homes and gardens without worrying about being overlooked or losing valuable natural light. These are important aspects of everyday life, and I hope they will receive proper consideration before any decision is made.
I am also worried about the additional pressure this development could place on our local streets. More residents, visitors, pub patrons and delivery vehicles could lead to greater street congestion, especially during busy periods. Parking is already an important concern for local residents, and finding a space near home could become even more difficult as demand increases. I ask the Department to carefully assess whether the surrounding roads and parking facilities can accommodate the additional activity without placing an unreasonable burden on the existing community.
Public transport is another issue that deserves attention. Trains travelling towards Narwee can already be crowded by the time they arrive, and further development in surrounding suburbs could add even more passengers to an already busy network. I hope the Department will consider the combined effect of population growth on train capacity and service reliability, rather than assuming existing services will be sufficient.
I also have concerns about the proposed pub expansion, particularly the possibility of extended trading hours and the resulting noise and late-night activity. I would appreciate clear information about the proposed operating hours and the measures that would be put in place to protect nearby residents.
The promise of a supermarket also deserves careful consideration. The development across the road was expected to include a supermarket, but a chemist and medical centre were provided instead. This has understandably made residents cautious about relying on similar promises. I ask that any commitment to provide a supermarket be made clear and enforceable.
I recognise the importance of providing housing and supporting local businesses. However, development should also respect the people who already live in the area. I sincerely hope the Department will consider the combined effects on privacy, sunlight, traffic, parking, public transport and residential amenity before reaching a decision.
I respectfully ask that SSD-98417209 be refused in its current form and that a more appropriate, lower-scale alternative, such as an eight-storey development, be seriously considered.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I hope a decision can be reached that allows Narwee to grow responsibly while protecting the comfort, safety and quality of life of its existing residents.

I am absolutely furious and deeply concerned about the proposed Narwee Pub development, SSD-98417209. I strongly oppose this project and do not want to see it go ahead in its current form.
It feels like the people who already live in Narwee are being forgotten. What about our homes, our privacy, our sunlight and our quality of life? Why should existing residents have to suffer the consequences of a development of this size?
Building Height and Overcrowding
This development is simply too big for the area. A building of this height will change the look and feel of our neighbourhood and put more pressure on streets and services that already have to serve the local community. Adding so many people to one area without properly addressing the impact is extremely concerning. Narwee should not be forced to take on more than its roads, transport and facilities can handle.
Loss of Privacy
I am angry at the thought of people being able to look down into neighbouring homes and backyards. Our homes are our private spaces, and we should not have to live with the feeling that strangers can watch us. We should not need to keep our curtains closed or give up enjoying our own gardens because a new building has been designed without enough consideration for nearby residents.
Loss of Sunlight and Overshadowing
The height of this building could block sunlight from nearby homes and gardens. This is not a small issue. Sunlight makes a real difference to how we enjoy our homes and outdoor spaces. It is unfair to expect residents to accept less sunlight and a worse living environment because of a development that may be far too large for its location.
More Traffic and Parking Problems
Our local streets should not become more crowded and stressful because of this project. More residents, pub customers, workers and delivery vehicles will mean more traffic and greater pressure on parking. I am concerned that residents will struggle to find parking, deal with congestion and face more risks on local roads. These problems need proper answers before any approval is considered.
Train Services at Narwee Station
I am also concerned about the pressure this development could put on train services at Narwee Station. Local people already depend on trains to get to work, school and appointments. Adding more people will increase demand, particularly during busy periods. The Department must examine train frequency, passenger capacity and overcrowding instead of assuming the current services will be enough.
It is unreasonable to keep increasing the number of people living in an area without properly considering whether public transport can cope. Local residents should not be left dealing with packed trains and an even more difficult daily commute.
Enough Is Enough
I am sick of the thought that ordinary residents may have to put up with the loss of privacy, less sunlight, more traffic and greater pressure on local services while a development of this size moves forward.
We live here too. Our concerns matter. We should not be treated as though our homes and quality of life are unimportant.
I demand that the Department properly examine these issues and listen to the people who will have to live with the consequences. If this project cannot be made suitable for the neighbourhood, then it should not be approved.
I strongly urge the Department to REJECT SSD-98417209 in its current form. Narwee does not need a development that places unreasonable pressure on existing residents. We deserve a sensible outcome that respects our homes, our community and our future.
Please do not ignore our concerns and approve this project without properly addressing the damage it could cause to the surrounding neighbourhood.

I am firmly opposed to the proposed Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development because of its excessive building height, loss of privacy, overshadowing and, particularly, the additional traffic congestion and pressure it could place on local transport services. The long-term impact on existing residents appears to be seriously underestimated.

The proposed building is out of proportion with the surrounding neighbourhood and will dominate nearby homes. Its height and bulk could reduce sunlight to neighbouring properties and create unacceptable overlooking into bedrooms, living areas and backyards. Existing residents should not have to sacrifice their privacy, sunlight and enjoyment of their homes to accommodate a development of this scale.

My greatest concern is the additional traffic this development will generate. It is unrealistic to assume that people buying apartments will not own cars simply because Narwee Station is nearby. People need cars for work, school drop-offs, taking children to activities, shopping, medical appointments, caring for elderly relatives and travelling to places that are not conveniently accessible by public transport. Families often have different schedules and destinations, making reliance on trains and buses alone impractical.

There is also a real concern that the parking provided with the apartments will not meet residents' needs. If residents own cars but cannot park them within the development, surrounding streets are likely to face additional parking demand. Existing residents could find it increasingly difficult to park near their own homes, while vehicles circulating in search of spaces would add to local traffic. The authorities must establish whether the proposed parking provision is realistic, rather than leaving the surrounding community to deal with the consequences.

Public transport should not be treated as an unlimited solution either. The local bus network has finite capacity, and the available route information includes services such as the 940 and 941, which have historically operated at 30-minute intervals during peak periods in the timetable assessed by Transport for NSW. Residents cannot reasonably be expected to rely on buses as a convenient alternative if services are infrequent or do not connect directly with their destinations.

Narwee Station also relies on all-stops train services rather than an express service that skips intermediate stations. Passengers travelling towards the city must allow for stops along the way, and trains may already be carrying substantial numbers of passengers before reaching Narwee. Adding more residents could increase the number of people waiting on the platform and boarding already busy trains, potentially worsening crowding and making the daily commute less comfortable. The actual capacity of trains, platforms and connecting bus services must be assessed before further demand is added.
It is frustrating that the development could increase pressure on roads, parking and public transport simultaneously, while existing residents are left to bear the consequences. The authorities must examine current traffic conditions, projected vehicle movements, parking availability, bus frequencies and train capacity, including the cumulative effects of future development in the area. These issues must be supported by proper evidence, not optimistic assumptions about everyone using public transport.

I urge the relevant authorities to reject the Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development State Significant Development application in its entirety because of the serious concerns about excessive building height, overshadowing, loss of privacy, traffic congestion, inadequate parking and the potential for further overcrowding on public transport. The existing community deserves to have its quality of life, safety and long-term amenity protected.

I strongly object to the proposed Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development. This proposal is excessive and fails to adequately consider the people who already live in the area. Building height, overshadowing, privacy and traffic are serious concerns. They must not be brushed aside in favour of a development that places an unreasonable burden on the existing community.
The proposed building height is far too great for the surrounding neighbourhood. It will dominate the streetscape and permanently change the character of the area. Development should complement its surroundings, not overwhelm them. Just because a site can accommodate a large building does not mean it should. The scale must be appropriate and respectful of existing homes.
The overshadowing impacts are equally concerning. Nearby residents should not have to sacrifice natural sunlight and the enjoyment of their homes to accommodate excessive development. Sunlight is not a luxury. It is an important part of a healthy and comfortable living environment. These impacts deserve serious consideration, not dismissal.
Privacy is another fundamental issue. A building of this height and scale risks overlooking neighbouring homes, gardens and private outdoor spaces. Residents should not have to feel exposed in their own homes. Protecting residential privacy must be a priority, not an afterthought.
The traffic assumptions are also deeply concerning. Being near a train station does not mean people do not own cars or need them. Residents still need vehicles for work, school drop-offs, shopping, caring responsibilities and daily commitments. Public transport cannot conveniently serve every destination or situation. It is unrealistic to assume that proximity to a station will eliminate car use. Additional residents will generate more vehicle movements and increase pressure on local roads and parking. The community deserves credible evidence that these impacts can be managed safely and effectively.
It is frustrating that existing residents may be expected to accept these consequences simply to accommodate a development of this scale. We are talking about people's homes, privacy, access to sunlight and daily lives. These are not minor inconveniences. They are lasting impacts that deserve genuine weight in the planning decision.
Responsible development must strike a balance between growth and the wellbeing of the existing community. A nearby train station should not be used to justify excessive building height, compromised residential amenity or unrealistic traffic assumptions. The proposal must be suitable for the neighbourhood, not force the neighbourhood to bear the cost of an unsuitable proposal.
I urge the relevant authorities to listen to the concerns of local residents and carefully consider the long-term consequences. Once these impacts occur, the community will have to live with them for years. The development should not proceed simply because it is proposed. It must demonstrate that it is appropriate, acceptable and in the broader public interest.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject the Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development State Significant Development application in its entirety and protect the amenity, privacy and quality of life of the existing community

I am writing to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-98417209 for the proposed Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development at 116 Penshurst Road, Narwee.
I recognise the importance of providing additional housing in Sydney. However, I am concerned that the scale, height, density and combination of residential and commercial uses proposed for this site may create unacceptable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood, local infrastructure, residential amenity and the existing character of Narwee.
I request that the Department carefully assess the following concerns before making a determination.
The proposed 16-storey development represents a substantial change in scale for the locality. Published project information indicates that a concurrent planning proposal seeks to increase the site's maximum building height from 27 metres to 56 metres.
I am concerned that this significant increase in height and density could be inconsistent with the established scale of surrounding development and may create an undesirable precedent for future developments in the area.
The Department should carefully examine the appropriateness of the proposed height, bulk, floor space ratio and overall building form, having regard to the existing and planned character of Narwee. I request that the development be reduced in height and scale unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed built form is appropriate for the site and its surroundings.
The development proposes 181 apartments alongside a pub, retail premises and associated commercial facilities. This combination of uses could generate substantial vehicle movements from residents, visitors, employees, retail customers and pub patrons.
I am concerned about the potential for increased congestion on Penshurst Road and surrounding local streets, particularly during peak periods and busy evening and weekend trading hours.
The assessment should adequately address the likely increase in vehicle movements, the capacity of surrounding intersections, the adequacy of proposed parking, potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, vehicle access, loading, waste collection and servicing arrangements, and the cumulative traffic impacts of other existing and approved developments in the surrounding area.
The Department should require a robust traffic assessment and evidence that the surrounding road network can safely accommodate the additional demand.
The proposal includes a reinstated pub with a bistro, sports bar and TAB facilities, together with additional retail uses and residential accommodation within the same development. The combination of residential apartments and late-trading commercial premises raises concerns about noise from patrons, outdoor activity, music, deliveries, waste collection, mechanical plant and vehicle movements.
These impacts could affect future residents and people living in neighbouring properties. I request a detailed assessment of operational noise, trading hours, patron dispersal, loading activities and acoustic separation between the commercial and residential components. Appropriate enforceable restrictions and mitigation measures should be imposed if the development is approved.
A building of this height and density may create overlooking and privacy impacts for neighbouring homes and private outdoor areas, depending on its orientation, setbacks, window locations and balcony design.
The Department should require a detailed assessment of sightlines, separation distances, balcony locations and the potential for overlooking of adjoining properties. The design should also minimise the visual dominance of the building and protect reasonable levels of privacy and residential amenity for surrounding residents.
The proposed building height and bulk may cause additional overshadowing of nearby homes, private open spaces and public areas. I request that the Department carefully examine the applicant's shadow diagrams, including impacts during winter and at relevant times of day. The assessment should establish whether neighbouring properties and public open spaces would experience unreasonable losses of sunlight or natural light. If unacceptable impacts are identified, the building height, setbacks and overall massing should be amended to reduce them.
An additional 181 apartments, combined with the proposed pub and retail premises, will increase demand for local roads, public transport, pedestrian infrastructure, utilities, waste services and community facilities.
The Department should establish whether existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity to accommodate the development and identify any necessary upgrades, including who will fund and deliver them and when they will be completed. The assessment should also consider cumulative demand from other developments in the Canterbury-Bankstown area rather than assessing this proposal in isolation.
The demolition of existing structures and construction of a large building with six basement levels could create prolonged disruption for the surrounding community. Potential impacts include construction noise, vibration, dust, heavy vehicle movements, road obstructions, construction hours and risks to adjoining properties.
I request that a comprehensive construction environmental management plan be required, supported by enforceable controls, appropriate monitoring, safe construction access and clear procedures for handling complaints.
The scale of the proposal raises questions about whether sufficient space will be provided for meaningful landscaping, mature trees, deep soil planting and usable communal open space.
The assessment should consider the development's visual impact, urban heat, stormwater management, drainage, tree retention and the quality of the proposed pedestrian connection between Penshurst Road and Kardella Crescent Park. Landscaping should provide genuine environmental and amenity benefits rather than simply screening an otherwise excessive building form.
I note the published project information identifies nine affordable dwellings, representing approximately five per cent of the proposed 181 apartments, with management proposed for a 15-year period. Given the scale and density of the development, I request that the Department carefully examine the affordable housing contribution, the proposed duration of affordability, the delivery arrangements and the overall public benefit of the proposal.
The assessment should transparently demonstrate how the development's benefits are balanced against its impacts on the existing community and local infrastructure.
Before the application is determined, I request that the Department critically examine the Environmental Impact Statement and all supporting technical reports, including the traffic, acoustic, visual impact, solar access, stormwater, waste management and construction assessments.
Where the information is incomplete, inconsistent or insufficient to establish that impacts can be acceptably managed, further information should be required from the applicant. Any approval conditions should be specific, enforceable and supported by clear monitoring and compliance arrangements.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD-98417209 in its current form. Alternatively, I request that substantial amendments be made to the building height, density, setbacks and design to better respond to the surrounding neighbourhood.
I further request satisfactory independent assessment of traffic, parking, noise, privacy, overshadowing, infrastructure capacity and cumulative impacts, together with adequate landscaping, usable open space, appropriate affordable housing provisions and effective construction and operational management measures.
I ask that the concerns raised in this submission be given genuine consideration and addressed in the Department's assessment and determination.
Thank you for considering my objection.

I strongly object to the proposed Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development because of its excessive scale and the serious impacts it will have on the surrounding community, particularly in relation to traffic, building height, overshadowing and privacy. The needs of existing residents must not be pushed aside to accommodate a development that could place even greater pressure on an already busy neighbourhood.

Traffic is one of my greatest concerns, both now and in the years ahead, because the impact of this development will not occur in isolation but will add to the existing demands on local roads, intersections and parking. Residents already rely on these roads for their daily travel, and introducing more dwellings, vehicles, deliveries, visitors and service traffic will inevitably place further pressure on the local road network. Even if traffic appears manageable at certain times today, this does not mean the roads can absorb a substantial increase in vehicle movements without creating greater congestion, longer delays and more frustration for the people who use them every day. The authorities must consider what the area will look like after this development is occupied, not simply rely on current conditions or assumptions that may fail to account for future growth.

There also seems to be an unrealistic assumption that being close to a train station means people will not need cars. This is simply not true. Many residents own vehicles because they need them for work, school drop-offs, shopping, family commitments and destinations that are not conveniently served by public transport. A train station does not eliminate car ownership, nor does it guarantee that residents, visitors, workers and service providers will choose public transport for every journey. It is unreasonable to use proximity to a station as justification for approving a development without fully addressing its likely traffic generation and parking demand.

The future impact is particularly concerning because once additional development and traffic are established, existing residents cannot simply reverse the decision or reclaim the road capacity that has been lost to congestion. More vehicles may mean longer queues at intersections, increased delays during peak periods, greater competition for parking and more difficulty accessing local streets. Road safety must also be considered, particularly where pedestrians, children, cyclists and residents must share roads with an increasing volume of traffic. These are not insignificant inconveniences; they affect daily routines, safety, accessibility and the overall liveability of the neighbourhood. I want to know how these cumulative impacts will be managed in the long term and what evidence demonstrates that the surrounding roads can cope with the additional demand.

The proposed building height is another major concern, as the scale of the development appears excessive for its surroundings and risks overwhelming the existing residential character of the area. A development of this size should not be approved without careful consideration of its effect on neighbouring homes, streetscapes and residential amenity. The overshadowing impacts could deprive nearby properties of valuable natural sunlight, while the height and positioning of the building could create unacceptable overlooking into private homes, gardens and outdoor living areas. Existing residents should not be expected to surrender sunlight, privacy and the enjoyment of their properties simply because a larger development is proposed.

What is particularly frustrating is the expectation that the existing community should absorb all these impacts while the development proceeds, even though residents will be left to deal with the consequences long after construction has finished. The planning process must look beyond the immediate proposal and consider the combined effects of population growth, increased vehicle movements, pressure on local infrastructure and the permanent loss of residential amenity. It is not enough to argue that the location is suitable because it is near public transport; the development must also be shown to be appropriate in scale and capable of operating without imposing unreasonable costs on the surrounding community.

I urge the relevant authorities to take these concerns seriously and assess the proposal against the realities of current traffic conditions and the likely demands of the future, rather than relying on optimistic assumptions about public transport use or the capacity of existing roads. The community deserves a development that respects the neighbourhood, protects residents' privacy and access to sunlight, and does not make already challenging traffic conditions even worse. For these reasons, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject the Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development State Significant Development application in its entirety, as the proposed development risks placing an unacceptable and lasting burden on the existing community.

I am writing to object to the proposed development at Penshurst Road, Narwee. I understand that new housing is needed, but I am worried that this project is too large for our area and that the people who already live here will have to deal with the problems it creates.
I ask the Department to please consider our everyday lives before making a decision that will affect our neighbourhood for many years.
I cannot understand why a 16 storey building is needed when an 8 storey building could be a more reasonable option. A building this tall could change the whole feel of our neighbourhood and make nearby homes feel small and crowded. I believe the height should be reduced to better suit the area.
I am also worried about our privacy and sunlight. People living in the new apartments may be able to look into neighbouring homes and backyards. The building could also block sunlight from our homes and gardens. We should not have to close our curtains or lose the enjoyment of our own outdoor spaces because of a new development.
Traffic and parking are another big concern. More residents, pub customers, workers and delivery vehicles will mean more activity on our local streets. Finding a parking space near home could become even harder, and traffic may become more frustrating and dangerous. I ask the Department to look carefully at how the surrounding streets will cope with the extra vehicles.
Public transport is also a serious issue. Trains arriving at Narwee may already be crowded with passengers boarding at stations further away. With more developments happening in surrounding suburbs, even more people will be competing for space on the same trains. I worry that getting to work, school or appointments will become even more difficult. The Department must look at the actual passenger numbers and future demand instead of assuming the existing train services will be enough.
I am concerned about the pub becoming larger and the possibility of longer trading hours. Noise, music, people leaving late at night and increased activity could disturb nearby residents. We deserve to feel safe and be able to sleep peacefully in our own homes. The proposed trading hours and plans to control noise must be made clear.
Construction will also affect people living nearby. Noise, dust, heavy trucks and excavation could cause months or years of disruption. I ask that the impact on neighbouring homes and local streets be properly assessed before approval is considered.
I am also concerned about the promise of a supermarket. The development across the road was expected to include one, but a chemist and medical centre were provided instead. This has made it difficult for residents to trust similar promises. I ask for clear guarantees that the proposed supermarket will actually be delivered.
All these issues must be considered together. More apartments do not just mean more people in a building. They mean more cars, more pressure on trains, more activity around the pub and greater impacts on the people already living nearby. Once this building is completed, any loss of privacy, sunlight and neighbourhood amenity could be very difficult to reverse.
I respectfully ask the Department to reject SSD-98417209 in its current form and seriously consider a lower building of 8 storeys, together with proper measures to protect residents and address traffic, parking and public transport capacity.
We are not asking for our neighbourhood to remain unchanged forever. We are asking for development that is fair, sensible and suitable for the area. Please consider the people who already live here and how this proposal will affect their homes and daily lives.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my objection.

I wish to register my strongest objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-98417209. As an older member of the Narwee community, I am outraged by the scale of this proposal and deeply concerned about its consequences for existing residents. I am equally disturbed by reports of residents feeling intimidated or pressured when attempting to express their objections. No resident should ever feel threatened, silenced or discouraged from exercising their right to participate in the planning process. Our concerns deserve to be heard and treated with respect.
The proposed 16-storey building raises serious questions about whether the interests of the community have been given sufficient consideration. Why is a building of this height necessary when an eight-storey development across the road provides a clear comparison? The Department must explain why such a substantial increase in height and density is justified and whether a significantly smaller development would be more appropriate for the area.
The potential loss of privacy and natural sunlight is unacceptable. Residents should not have to endure overlooking into their homes and gardens or suffer years of overshadowing because of a development that may be excessive for its surroundings. These impacts would permanently alter the amenity of neighbouring properties and diminish the quality of life of people who have established their homes here.
The pressure on local infrastructure is another major concern. Trains travelling towards Narwee may already be crowded by the time they arrive, with passengers boarding at stations further along the line. With further development occurring throughout surrounding suburbs, the Department must examine the cumulative effect on passenger capacity, service reliability and overcrowding. It is irresponsible to assume that existing transport services can accommodate substantial population growth without clear evidence.
I am also deeply concerned about the potential consequences of expanding the pub, including extended trading hours, late-night noise, patron disturbances and increased activity around nearby homes. Residents are entitled to reasonable peace and security in their own neighbourhood. The proposed operating hours and arrangements for managing noise and patron behaviour must be clearly established and rigorously assessed.
Furthermore, the supermarket promised in connection with the development across the road did not eventuate as residents expected, with a chemist and medical centre provided instead. This experience has understandably undermined confidence in assurances made about future developments. The community must not be expected to accept another major proposal on the strength of promises that may never be fulfilled. Any promised supermarket should be supported by clear, enforceable commitments.
I am deeply frustrated by the apparent disregard for the cumulative consequences of overdevelopment. Existing residents should not have to bear the cost through reduced privacy, less sunlight, increased congestion, overcrowded trains and a diminished sense of security in their own neighbourhood. Nor should anyone feel intimidated for raising legitimate planning concerns.
I expect the Department to examine this application impartially, scrutinise the developer's claims and give proper weight to the concerns of the people who will be directly affected. Community consultation must be meaningful, transparent and free from intimidation.
I strongly urge the Department to refuse SSD-98417209 in its current form and require serious reconsideration of the proposed height, including an eight-storey alternative. The scale of this development must be justified by sound planning evidence, not simply by the developer's commercial ambitions.
Narwee is an established community, not an empty site awaiting redevelopment. Its residents deserve dignity, consideration and a genuine say in decisions that will shape their lives for decades. I will not accept the concerns of local residents being dismissed or treated as an inconvenience.
I ask the Department to stand firm in its responsibility to protect residential amenity and the public interest. Please ensure that the voices of Narwee residents are heard and that no approval is granted without a thorough and independent assessment of the impacts outlined above.

I strongly object to the proposed Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development because of its excessive building height, overshadowing, loss of privacy, misleading claims about the proposed supermarket and the negative impacts of the pub on the surrounding residential community.

The proposed building height is excessive and completely out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood. It will dominate the streetscape and permanently change the character of the area. Development should be appropriate for its location and should not come at the expense of existing residents' amenity and quality of life.

The overshadowing caused by this development is another serious concern, as neighbouring homes will lose valuable natural sunlight and the enjoyment of their properties. Existing residents should not be forced to accept darker homes and reduced access to sunlight simply to accommodate an oversized development.

Privacy is equally important. The height and positioning of the proposed building raise serious concerns about overlooking into neighbouring homes, gardens and private outdoor spaces. Residents deserve to feel comfortable in their own homes without worrying about people looking directly into their private areas. These impacts must not be dismissed as minor inconveniences.
I am also concerned about the way the proposed supermarket is being presented as a benefit to the community. If the supermarket is not secured as a genuine and deliverable part of the development, it should not be used to make the proposal appear more attractive or to justify its excessive scale. Residents deserve clear and reliable information about what will actually be delivered, not promises that may never eventuate. Any claimed community benefit must be realistic, enforceable and supported by a clear commitment.

The proposed pub raises further concerns for nearby residents, including potential noise, late-night activity, patron behaviour, litter, parking pressure and increased traffic. These impacts could seriously affect the peace and quiet of surrounding homes, particularly during evenings and weekends. Residents should not have to live with ongoing disruption or worry about noise and antisocial behaviour outside their homes. Appropriate safeguards must be demonstrated, not simply assumed.

Taken together, these concerns raise serious questions about whether this development is suitable for the location. The excessive height, loss of sunlight and privacy, uncertainty surrounding the supermarket and potential impacts of the pub would place an unreasonable burden on the existing community.

I urge the relevant authorities to prioritise the wellbeing of local residents and reject the Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development State Significant Development application in its entirety.

I strongly object to the proposed height and scale of the Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development because of the significant and potentially lasting impacts on surrounding residential properties. The proposal must be assessed not only in terms of how many dwellings can be built, but also in terms of the consequences for the people who already live nearby.

The proposed building will introduce substantial bulk into the neighbourhood and risks overwhelming existing homes and changing the area's residential character. Its height and proximity to neighbouring properties raise serious concerns about visual dominance, reduced sunlight and loss of privacy. Existing residents should not be expected to accept a significant reduction in their living amenity simply to accommodate a development of this scale.

The overshadowing impacts require particular scrutiny. A building of this height can cast shadows over neighbouring homes, gardens and outdoor living areas, potentially reducing access to natural light during important parts of the day. I request that the submitted shadow diagrams be carefully examined to establish exactly which properties will be affected, at what times and for how long, particularly during winter when sunlight is already limited. Any substantial loss of sunlight must be properly considered before this application is approved.

Privacy is another serious concern. Elevated windows and balconies may create direct sightlines into neighbouring bedrooms, living areas, backyards and private outdoor spaces. Residents should not have to accept a loss of privacy in their own homes because of a new building that towers over their properties. The applicant must demonstrate how these impacts will be prevented through appropriate setbacks, building design, window placement and effective screening.
I urge the planning authorities to examine the actual building height in metres and storeys, the setbacks from neighbouring boundaries, and the distances between the proposed building and existing homes. These details are essential to understanding the true impact of the development, rather than relying on architectural images that may not adequately convey its scale from a neighbour's perspective. The assessment should also consider the combined effects of height, bulk, overshadowing and overlooking on each affected property.

If the submitted plans demonstrate unacceptable impacts on neighbouring homes, the response should not simply be to expect residents to tolerate them. The building height and massing should be substantially reduced, with greater setbacks and appropriate design changes to protect residential amenity. If these impacts cannot be adequately resolved, the development should not proceed.

I urge the relevant authorities to prioritise the long-term wellbeing of the existing community over excessive building scale and to reject the Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development State Significant Development application if its impacts on neighbouring properties cannot be made acceptable.

I strongly oppose the proposed Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development. This proposal is excessive and shows little regard for the people who already live in the area. Existing residents should not be forced to put up with the negative consequences of a development of this scale. Our concerns about height, overshadowing, privacy and traffic cannot simply be brushed aside.
The proposed building height is completely out of proportion with the surrounding neighbourhood. It is unreasonable to expect residents to accept such a massive structure in their area. This is not responsible development. It is overdevelopment. There must be a limit to how much can be built at the expense of the local community.

The overshadowing caused by this development is deeply concerning. Nearby residents should not have to lose sunlight because a developer wants to maximise the size of a project. Natural light is an important part of a comfortable home. Losing it affects our daily lives and enjoyment of our properties. Why should existing residents be expected to make these sacrifices?

The privacy impacts are just as unacceptable. A development of this height and scale creates serious concerns about people looking directly into neighbouring homes and backyards. Our homes are not public viewing areas. We have a right to enjoy our own properties without feeling exposed or watched. This impact must not be dismissed as a minor inconvenience.

The traffic implications also appear to be seriously underestimated. Being close to a train station does not mean people do not own cars. It certainly does not mean they can simply give them up. People need cars for work, school drop-offs, family commitments, shopping and many other everyday activities. Public transport is useful, but it does not replace a car for every person or every journey. It is absurd to assume that proximity to a station will eliminate traffic impacts. More residents mean more potential vehicle movements, greater pressure on local roads and increased competition for parking. Has the capacity of the surrounding road network been properly assessed? Have the cumulative traffic impacts been fully considered? Residents deserve clear answers supported by evidence, not assumptions.

Quite frankly, it is frustrating that the existing community may be left to deal with the consequences of a development that appears far too large for its surroundings. We are the people who live here. We are the ones who will experience the loss of sunlight, reduced privacy, increased congestion and changes to the character of our neighbourhood. These impacts are real, and they must carry genuine weight in the planning decision.

Development must be balanced, sensible and appropriate for the area. A nearby train station should not be used as an excuse to justify excessive height, unacceptable impacts on neighbouring homes or unrealistic assumptions about car use. The proposal must demonstrate that it can fit into the existing community without placing an unreasonable burden on residents.

I urge the relevant authorities to carefully consider these concerns and give proper weight to the rights and wellbeing of the people already living in Penshurst. Once the damage to residential amenity is done, residents will have to live with the consequences for years to come. That is not a fair outcome, and it is not good planning.

The community deserves better than a development that prioritises excessive density over residential amenity. For all these reasons, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject the Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development State Significant Development application in its entirety.

As an older resident, I am absolutely disgusted and deeply upset about this proposed development and the way residents feel they are being treated. After spending years living in our community, it is heartbreaking to see such a massive development proposed with so little consideration for the people who already call Narwee home.
What angers me even more is that residents should be able to raise concerns without feeling intimidated or pressured into staying silent. Everyone has the right to express their views about a development that could affect their home and daily life. If people are afraid to speak up because they feel they may face intimidation, that is extremely concerning. Our voices matter, and we should be treated with respect.
I cannot understand why a 16-storey building is being proposed when an 8-storey building across the road provides a clear point of comparison. Why must this development be so large? The people who live here will have to deal with the consequences long after the developer has moved on.
I am deeply concerned about losing privacy in my own home, having sunlight blocked by a towering building, and facing more traffic and parking problems. These are not minor inconveniences. They affect our comfort, independence and quality of life, particularly for older residents who value the peace and security of their homes.
Public transport is another serious concern. Trains can already be crowded by the time they reach Narwee, and more developments in surrounding suburbs will place even greater pressure on services. Has anyone properly considered how existing residents will cope when even more people rely on the same trains?
I am also worried about the expansion of the pub, possible longer trading hours, late-night noise and disturbances. Residents deserve to feel safe and enjoy a peaceful night's sleep without worrying about increased activity outside their homes.
We have also seen the disappointment surrounding the promised supermarket at the development across the road, which instead provided a chemist and medical centre. This has understandably damaged residents' trust. Why should we accept further promises without clear guarantees that they will actually be delivered?
I am angry that ordinary residents are left worrying about their homes, their privacy and their future while a development of this scale is being pursued. We should not have to fight so hard just to have our concerns heard, and nobody should feel intimidated for exercising their right to object.
I ask the Department to take residents' concerns seriously, ensure that everyone can participate in the planning process without fear or pressure, and carefully assess the full impact of this proposal.
I strongly urge the Department to reject SSD-98417209 in its current form and seriously consider a lower, more suitable development of 8 storeys.
Please remember that Narwee is a community of real people, including elderly residents who deserve respect, peace and security in their own homes. We should not be made to feel powerless in decisions that will affect us for years to come. Please listen to us and protect our community.

As someone who has lived in this area, I am genuinely angry about the direction Narwee is heading. It feels like our neighbourhood is being changed without enough thought for the people who call it home. I worry that once these developments are built, we will be the ones left dealing with the problems.
One thing I cannot understand is why a 16-storey building is necessary here. The building across the road is 8 storeys, so why can't this proposal follow a similar scale? Bigger is not always better, especially when nearby residents have to live with the impact every day. I believe the height needs to be reconsidered before such a permanent change is made to our area.
I am concerned that the development could leave neighbouring homes with less sunlight and far less privacy. Nobody should have to worry about people looking into their backyard or losing natural light because a building towers over their property. These are basic things that make a home comfortable, and they should not be treated as unimportant.
Transport is another issue that seems to be overlooked. Trains travelling towards Narwee can already be crowded with passengers boarding at stations further along the line. With more housing developments planned across surrounding suburbs, the number of passengers will continue to grow. Has anyone properly worked out whether there will be enough space for everyone? It is frustrating to see population growth being encouraged without clear answers about how people will get to work and school.
There is also the question of what a larger pub will mean for the people living nearby. Longer opening hours could mean more noise, more people on the streets late at night and less peace for nearby households. I want to know exactly what is being proposed and how residents will be protected from these impacts.
Then there is the supermarket issue. We have already experienced a supermarket being promised for the development across the road, only for a chemist and medical centre to appear instead. That experience makes it difficult to take another promise at face value. Why should residents be expected to trust that this time will be different without a clear guarantee?
I am tired of seeing the burden placed on the local community while the long-term consequences receive so much less attention. We need honest answers about the height, transport capacity, privacy, sunlight and pub operations before any decision is made.
I ask the Department to seriously reconsider this proposal and refuse it in its current form. An 8-storey limit would be a more reasonable alternative to investigate and could help reduce the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.
Please remember that the people affected by this decision are not just numbers in a planning report. We are residents who have to live with the outcome every single day. I want Narwee to grow in a way that makes sense for the community, not at the expense of it.

Dear Planning Assessment Team,
I wish to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-98417209 for the proposed Penshurst Road Mixed Use Development at 116 Penshurst Road, Narwee, which includes the redevelopment of the Narwee Hotel site.
I have significant concerns about the proposed 16-storey building, particularly its excessive height and scale, loss of privacy, overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties, and the additional traffic and parking pressures it may create.
I request that these concerns be carefully considered as part of the assessment and that the application be refused in its current form unless the significant impacts on surrounding residents can be satisfactorily addressed.
1. Excessive Building Height and Scale
The proposed 16-storey development raises serious concerns about its compatibility with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. A building of this height and scale has the potential to dominate the local streetscape, create an imposing built form and adversely affect the amenity of existing homes.
The proposed increase in building height and density should be carefully scrutinised against the existing character of Narwee, the applicable planning controls and the capacity of local infrastructure.
I am concerned that the scale of the proposal may be excessive for the site and may create an inappropriate transition between the development and surrounding residential properties.
I request that the Department reassess the proposed height, setbacks and building envelope and require a substantial reduction in height and bulk where necessary to achieve a more appropriate development outcome.
2. Loss of Privacy and Overlooking
The height of the proposed development creates serious concerns about overlooking into neighbouring homes, backyards, bedrooms, living areas and private outdoor spaces.
Elevated apartments, windows, balconies and communal areas may create direct lines of sight into properties that currently enjoy reasonable privacy. This could permanently compromise the comfort and enjoyment of residents in their own homes.
Privacy impacts must be assessed from the actual locations and elevations of windows, balconies and communal areas, rather than relying solely on general screening measures.
I request that the Department require effective privacy protections, including increased setbacks, appropriate window orientation, permanent screening and redesign of balconies and other elevated areas where necessary.
3. Overshadowing and Loss of Natural Sunlight
The proposed building height raises significant concerns about overshadowing and the loss of natural sunlight to neighbouring properties.
A 16-storey building may cast extensive shadows over surrounding homes, gardens and private open spaces, potentially reducing access to sunlight during important morning and afternoon periods.
The Department should require detailed and independently reviewed shadow diagrams demonstrating the extent and duration of additional overshadowing, particularly during the winter solstice.
The assessment should clearly identify impacts on neighbouring residential properties and demonstrate whether reasonable access to sunlight can be maintained. If unacceptable overshadowing is identified, the height, setbacks and overall building design should be amended accordingly.
4. Increased Traffic, Congestion and Parking Pressure
The proposed development is likely to increase vehicle movements associated with residents, pub patrons, retail customers, staff, deliveries and other visitors.
I am concerned that the additional traffic could place pressure on local roads, increase congestion, create parking difficulties for existing residents and raise safety concerns for pedestrians and other road users.
The Department should require a comprehensive traffic and transport assessment that considers existing traffic conditions, projected vehicle movements, peak-hour demand, access arrangements, parking availability, delivery vehicles and cumulative impacts from other nearby developments.
The assessment must demonstrate that the surrounding road network can safely accommodate the additional demand without creating unreasonable impacts on the local community.
If these impacts cannot be adequately managed, the proposed development should be reduced or redesigned.
5. Cumulative Impacts on the Narwee Community
The combined impacts of excessive height, overlooking, overshadowing and increased traffic must be considered together.
These issues have the potential to significantly reduce residential amenity and alter the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The scale of the proposal should not be considered in isolation from the existing homes, local roads and infrastructure that support the Narwee community.
I request that the Department undertake a thorough assessment of the cumulative impacts and ensure that the interests of existing residents are properly protected.
6. Requested Outcome
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department:
Refuse SSD-98417209 in its current form if the adverse impacts cannot be satisfactorily resolved.
Require a reduction in the proposed building height, bulk and scale.
Require appropriate setbacks and effective measures to prevent overlooking and protect residential privacy.
Require comprehensive overshadowing assessments and design changes to minimise the loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties.
Require a robust traffic, parking and road safety assessment that addresses existing conditions and cumulative impacts.
Ensure that all relevant planning controls, residential amenity considerations and infrastructure constraints are properly assessed before any determination is made.
If the application is considered for approval, I request that substantial design changes and enforceable conditions be imposed to minimise adverse impacts on surrounding residents.
Conclusion
I strongly object to State Significant Development Application SSD-98417209 in its current form.
The proposed development raises substantial concerns regarding building height, privacy, overshadowing and traffic impacts. These matters have the potential to cause long-term and unreasonable impacts on neighbouring residents and the established Narwee community.
I respectfully ask the Department to give this objection full consideration and to prioritise an appropriate planning outcome that protects residential amenity, neighbourhood character, privacy, sunlight and road safety.