Residential development with in-fill affordable housing - Dawes Avenue, Castle Hill

I object to increase the total number of dwellings from 280 to 360 due to :

1. Increase the height/level of building from L 6 to L8 will shade the area even more which reduce nature light for residents and plant growth.

2. Dawes Ave is a narrow street, additional 80 units ( 200 to 240 additional residents ) make huge impact on the quality of living of all the residents in the area also traffic congestion. Giving the fact, there are already approx 200 units to be built on the 23 Dawes Ave from NIC construction.
Retirement village on Hughes Ave is another couple hundreds of units to be added on.
Existing apartment buildings including Oriel on 33 Dawes Ave, Chateau on Middleton Ave & Dawes Ave.

3. Within less than 5 mins walking distance, we have 5 to 7 building blocks coming up from Meriton, another 5 to 7 buildings from Carrington place, existing Decorp buildings on Partridge Avenue and several building blocks next to it is under construction.

Do we actually have adequate infrastructures in place to take on more people to fit into the area.

I oppose to increase from 6 storeys to 8 storeys building height across the site from 16 to 30 Dawes Ave.

OBJECTION TO CLAUSE 4.6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIATION REQUEST
Application Number: SSD-80229956
Development Application: DA672/2023/JP
Site: 16-30 Dawes Ave, 4-8 Hughes Ave & 2-10 Camden Cres, Castle Hill
Applicant: Castle Hill Unit Trust
Council Area: The Hills Shire

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
From: Redacted
Date: 28 August 2025

OBJECTION TO HEIGHT VARIATION REQUEST
I am writing to formally object to the Clause 4.6 Development Standards Variation Request submitted for the above development, which seeks to exceed the maximum building height permitted under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.

I am a resident directly affected by this proposal, living at 33 Dawes Avenue, Castle Hill NSW 2154, directly opposite the development site. I purchased my property in January 2025 with the reasonable expectation that the development would comply with the height limits established by the Land and Environment Court decision dated 17 August 2023, which approved a development of 280 apartments in buildings up to 6 storeys (21m under THLEP, extended to 26.7m under Housing SEPP).

Importantly, I was not personally advised or notified about this development application. I only became aware of it when another unit owner in my building provided me with a copy of the development notice (attached). This lack of direct notification deprived me of the opportunity to engage earlier in the consultation process.

Clause 4.6(3)(a) – Compliance is Not Unreasonable or Unnecessary
The applicant has not demonstrated that compliance with the height standard is unreasonable or unnecessary:
The development’s affordable housing objectives can be achieved without any height variation.
The proposed variation is a discretionary design choice, not a planning necessity.
The applicant explicitly admits that affordable housing could be delivered without exceeding height controls, undermining the justification for non-compliance.
The decision to provide affordable housing is a commercial choice to access floor space bonuses and should not justify additional impacts on existing residents.
Clause 4.6(3)(b) – Insufficient Environmental Planning Grounds
The environmental planning grounds cited do not justify exceeding the height standard:
Height increases of 0.8m to 2.4m across seven buildings are discretionary design elements, not essential planning considerations.
Building services and rooftop communal areas should be accommodated within approved height limits through competent design.
The cost burden of these design choices should not be externalised onto the community via amenity impacts.
Delivering affordable housing is commendable but must comply with existing height restrictions to protect existing residents’ amenity.
Visual Impact and Loss of Amenity
The proposed height variations will be clearly visible and increase building bulk, adversely affecting surrounding properties.
The changes will cause loss of views, increased sense of enclosure, and overlook, negatively impacting property values and neighbourhood character.
Precedent Concerns
Approval would set a precedent allowing developers to seek incremental height increases post-approval, undermining Court-determined limits and the integrity of the planning system.
Specific Technical Objections
The need for height variations indicates inadequate initial design.
Alternative compliant designs have not been sufficiently explored (e.g., reconfigured lift/stair access, alternative rooftop layouts).
The widespread nature of the variation suggests a systemic design issue rather than minor technical adjustments.
PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS (Section 4.15(1)(e) EP&A Act)
Despite recent amendments removing a specific public interest test under Clause 4.6, Section 4.15(1)(e) requires consideration of the public interest. This proposal conflicts with the public interest because it:
Undermines the Land and Environment Court’s carefully balanced height limits.
Contravenes residents’ legitimate expectations based on the Court-approved development.
Erodes community confidence in the planning system by suggesting controls can be easily circumvented.
Attempts to transfer developer costs to the community through reduced resident amenity.
Lacks planning justification since affordable housing can be delivered without height variations.

I respectfully request that the Department:
Refuse the Clause 4.6 height variation request in its entirety.
Require the applicant to redesign the proposal to comply fully with the approved height limits.
Uphold the integrity of the Land and Environment Court decision.
The applicant has clearly failed to meet the tests established in Whebe v Pittwater Council and subsequent cases. Most importantly, their admission that affordable housing can be provided within existing height limits negates any claim that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary.

Affordable housing is a legitimate planning objective but must not come at the expense of existing residents’ amenity. The 2023 Court decision struck a careful balance between development rights and community amenity, which should not be disturbed by this application.

I trust these objections will be given full and careful consideration, and that the application will be refused in the interests of sound planning and community wellbeing.

Yours sincerely,
Redacted

Attachments:
Copy of Department of Planning Notice to other owner at Dawes Ave Castle Hill 2154
Current outlook from my property

I am submitting my objection to the increase in building height and increase in number of dwellings from 280 to 360. Once this project is completed even at the original height and dwelling numbers, is going to impose greater stress on traffic in the immediate and surrounding area and cause greater congestion on streets as a result of more street parking that is inevitably going to occur. Traffic visibility is already greatly impaired at intersections due to the additional street parking loads, which will only intensify once these projects reach completion.
I also object on the basis that building heights should be restricted to the height originally approved to maintain the integrity and value of existing properties.

Please refer to the attached letters outlining our concerns.

Objection to Modification – Dawes Avenue, Castle Hill (Increase from 280 to 360 dwellings)

I acknowledge that 15% of the proposed dwellings are allocated as affordable housing, which is an important goal. However, this cannot be used as justification to significantly increase the height and density of an already approved project without addressing the critical shortfall in local infrastructure.

1. Overdevelopment and Height Increase

Adding 80 extra apartments and raising the height by two storeys (to 8 storeys total) goes far beyond the original approval. This overdevelopment will:

Reduce sunlight access and create more overshadowing, negatively impacting both residents and surrounding amenity.

Alter the character of the neighbourhood, with a bulky form that is out of proportion to nearby buildings.

2. Traffic and Parking Pressures

Although more basement parking is included, reality shows that overflow always spills into the street. Street parking in Castle Hill is already limited, and another 80 units will intensify the problem.

The junction at Middleton Avenue and Carrington Road is already gridlocked at peak times. Without any road or traffic upgrades, the increased density will create unsafe and unsustainable congestion.

3. Strain on Community Infrastructure

Castle Hill is becoming increasingly dense without new schools, parks, or health facilities to balance this growth. Affordable housing is only truly sustainable when residents have access to adequate infrastructure. At present, additional dwellings only add strain to an already overstretched network.

4. Planning Approach

If the intention is to deliver more housing choice, this should be achieved through well-planned new precincts with integrated infrastructure upgrades, not by modifying and overloading an already approved development. As it stands, the change feels more like a commercial profit-driven modification than a genuine community benefit.

Conclusion

While affordable housing is valuable, it should not be used as a reason to bypass proper planning and infrastructure delivery. Increasing density without first addressing local traffic, parking, and community service shortfalls risks creating an overcrowded, unsustainable neighbourhood. For these reasons, I object to the modification in its current form.

1. Proposed Overdevelopment & Local Amenity Impacts

The requested increase, from a previously court-approved six-storey development to eight storeys, adding 80 more dwellings is a significant intensification. This expansion may exceed the capacity of local infrastructure and fails to respect the existing residential character of Dawes Avenue and surrounding streets.

The dense addition of 80 apartments (totaling 360 units) could exacerbate traffic congestion, put further pressure on street parking, and degrade overall liveability. The local road network appears insufficient to comfortably and safely handle this increase, particularly during peak hours. A generic mention of traffic impact is not enough, there should be a detailed traffic assessment that accounts for Dawes Avenue’s narrow streets and existing compilation of vehicles.

2. Overshadowing, Reduced Sunlight & Increased Mould Risk

The proposed eight-storey structure is one storey taller than apartments across the street and will cast significant shadow over neighbouring dwellings. This can lead to reduced sunlight, lower solar access to homes, and poorer natural ventilation, potentially promoting dampness and mould—especially problematic on an already damp street.

Applying established guidelines such as the BRE “25-degree” or “45-degree” tests would likely confirm overshadowing impacts. These are valid technical bases for objection in planning deliberations.

3. Infrastructure, Services & Community Amenity

The expanded development must demonstrate it can be supported by sufficient services, local infrastructure, open space, and communal amenities. Without significant contributions beyond those already proposed, the development may burden local services (e.g., schools, open space, waste collection, public transport, local shops).

While the proposal references communal areas (BBQs, playgrounds), these may not compensate for the scale of additional demand, especially given the increase in unit density.

4. Transport & Parking Pressures

There must be a credible strategy to manage additional traffic, including increased car trips, servicing vehicles, drop-offs, and noise. The proposal needs a robust Transport Assessment (TA) covering local junction capacities, queuing, pedestrian safety, school zones, and potential pinch points.

Street parking in Dawes Avenue is already under strain. The proposal must justify its parking supply relative to demand and local standards. If the development under-provides parking, residents and visitors will overspill into already congested residential streets, worsening parking stress and compromising emergency vehicle access.

5. Consistency with Previous Planning Decisions & Strategic Directions

In 2017, Council rejected a planning proposal for 16-26 Chapman Avenue and 17-27 Dawes Avenue due to unacceptable impacts including overshadowing, streetscape dominance, inadequate infrastructure contributions, and premature development relative to the Showground Station precinct planning process.

The Hills Corridor Strategy, Showground Priority Precinct planning, and local strategic planning statements emphasise balanced growth and infrastructure alignment. Exceeding anticipated yield and height may conflict with these strategic aims.

6. Discussion of Affordable Housing Offsets

While the inclusion of affordable housing (approximately 13% of GFA or 48 apartments) is commendable, it does not in itself justify overwhelming increases in bulk or density. Affordable housing must not come at the cost of undermining local amenity or services.

Conclusion

For all the reasons above, especially the risks of overshadowing, amplified traffic and parking issues, strain on local amenities, and inconsistency with prior strategic decisions, I respectfully object to the proposed intensification of the DA 672/2023 scheme. The development, in its current form, prioritises density over liveability and infrastructure capacity.

Questionable to affordable housing as it may impact the safety of the residents in the suburb.
I do not support the building to be 8 stories high as it potentially be blocking natural light for the existing buildings

The roads nearby have already been very crowded now. People park their cars on the streets to walk to Metro. Can’t imagine more population here to block the roads.

I strongly object to this project. There are already significant infrastructure issues in this area, particularly concerning the roads. During peak times, long queues often block the roundabout, creating serious traffic congestion.

It is concerning that the NSW government approves developments without ensuring sufficient supporting infrastructure. Many developments in this area were originally based on houses, but most of these have now been converted into units, with no corresponding upgrades to roads or other infrastructure.

This project is another example of poor planning. Therefore, I object to it and urge that additional infrastructure be built before any further development is approved.

I object to the proposal to increase the number of dwellings set out in SSD-80229956.

Issues and concerns:
1. Impact on Local Infrastructure and Services
Adding more affordable housing and increasing building height can significantly increase population density in a given area. This often places greater strain on already stretched infrastructure. For example our roads in this area is not designed to such increase in population density, not to mention the water supply, and sewage systems as well as essential services like schools, hospitals, and emergency services.
Without prior investment in these systems, the quality of life for existing and future residents will decline.
2. Castle Hill Unit Trust (the applicant) originally submitted 6 story building plan. There is no benefit mentioned in the application to the area and existing owners living in the area. Having sufficient sunlight is a challenge especially during winter. Rooftop open area is prone to noises and we already have a lot of noise complaints in this area which create noise disturbances for residents living in the area. This can lead to conflict within the community, further discouraging use or leading to restrictive rules that make the space impractical.
3. Potential for overcrowding and increase in noise
The addition will result in denser housing may lead to issues in overcrowding, increased noise, or a change in the neighbourhood socioeconomic makeup. This is a threat to exisiting owner’s investment and quality of life.
4. Benefits are for primarily for investors
The realistic situation is that adding two storeys will not solve the housing crisis - it’s the government policy that needs to be updated. Seeing the increase in apartments around the area is resulting in the apartments being used as air BnBs and not for the benefit of those that need affordable housing. It drastically change the Castle Hill neighbourhood and socioeconomic make up.
5. Parking and Traffic Concerns
Increased density typically leads to more vehicles, it’s not clear in the proposal by Castle Hill Trust (the applicant) how additional parking spaces will be created and how fairly distributed it will be (becomes something for developers to attach more money to the apartment when they sell, in which case the benefit is with the developer). Without adequate planning, this can result in an already very congested streets! So many dangerous and insufficient parking already on our roads given the lack of planning and leads to frustration for both new residents and existing ones.
6. Risk of Poor-Quality Development
There is a concern that pressure to deliver affordable housing and higher buildings quickly could lead to lower construction standards or aesthetically unappealing structures. If not carefully regulated, this could result in long-term maintenance issues or negatively impact neighborhood cohesion and safety.
7. Tokenism in Affordable Housing Quotas
In practice, increasing building heights to accommodate more affordable housing doesn't always lead to genuinely inclusive outcomes. Developers might meet minimum affordable housing quotas while still prioritising profitability, leading to segregation within developments or minimal long-term affordability benefits.

I am writing as a concerned resident in the Showground Road precinct, In particular as a resident of Dawes Ave living directly opposite the proposed development.
1. On purchasing my apartment I was aware of the possibility of a development opposite but was assured that this would be at a decreasing height as it was further from the station.
2. Having been one of the first apartment residents to the area I have increasingly experienced the congestion that is now taking place with the added occupancy and the inability to widen the streets that feed in and out.
3. Adding another 80 apartments to what is already an unacceptable increase to the traffic is totally unacceptable.
4. The reduction in light that added height will bring about is both injurious to plant and human life.
5. Keeping in mind the age of the residents that will occupy the retirement development further up Hughes street, their safety is in jeopardy.

I strongly oppose the concept of adding height and depth to the Dawes/Hughes/Cadman development and request that the Castle Hill Unit Trust remove their submission and carry on as originally planned.

Nerelle Roy
Resident Oriel Building

Dawes Avenue is a very narrow street and it cannot accomodate too many residents unless the roads are wider. Even at this stage with the current state where there is usually car kerbside parked on both side. It is difficult and not realistic for two way traffic in most situations. With further development for two more level and increase in population density it was not be good idea with current urban development.

I am writing in support of this project. Sydney needs more housing, and high density housing near a Metro stop like this is the most environmentally conscious and socially responsible way to do it. Castle Hill's schools are below cap, showing the area can still easily take more people.

The surrounding streets are already so busy, especially the corner of Middleton avenue and Fishburn Crescent. I have seen many near crashes and pedestrians almost getting hit. More apartments than already approved would bring too much traffic to the area.

Hills showground already has a lot of projects going on. There are already Meriton's Castle Grange, Decop's showground village, Carrington place, Argo and more. We do not need that many apartments. Certainly don't need additional 15% on Dawes Avenue. Which the Avenue is already full of cars in the morning. Metro is always full of people with thousands more people moving into the suburb. It will only gets worse.

I object to the project due to the following points:

The project build appears to be in excess of the height restriction for the area. We had another project in the area (Meriton) also request to have an additional two storeys be proposed and this was rejected by the Local Planning Authority. I believe this should also be rejected due to the same premise.

By approving the project, this will add increased traffic in the area. The area and surrounding streets cannot accommodate additional traffic. At the moment, the mornings in particular, we are seeing traffic due to construction workers and metro commuters parking on the street. The streets are not designed to accommodate this much traffic as they are narrow and by adding additional two storeys will exacerbate the problem.

Noise and pollution. There is already considerable building works underway in the area. We only have a quiet day on Sundays and so cannot enjoy peace and quiet which I think is a right for home ownership. Alot of the residents in the area are sick of constant noise and pollution. In addition, construction workers are continually littering on the streets.

Security. We have seen an increase in number of robberies in the area as a result of apartment buildings being built. Their is not much lighting on the streets so at night, I am concerned for the safe being of people walking the streets at night

The area is already oversaturated with apartments, the roads in and out are not wide enough, there is not enough parking provided by each developer therefore street parking is an issue, there are not enough schools and in general the infrastructure in the area is nowhere near sufficient for the already approved developments let alone new ones

I reside in the apartment building directly opposite the proposed build. I agree with the need for more affordable housing and development in the area however I object to the increased height of the build from the original 4 storeys up to a maximum 8 storeys. I believe this is excessive for the immediate area and will restrict the amenity of existing residents and access to natural light. When we purchased our apartment off/the-plan as one of the first buildings, part of the appeal of the location was that the next planned builds were sloped in maximum heights as you moved further away from the Metro station. The proposed increased number of units will also directly impact traffic flow and on-street parking which is already difficult at times. I consider that a maximum of 6 storeys height instead would be appropriate for the area. Thankyou for providing the opportunity to give feedback

I live in the Oriel, which was one of the first buildings completed in this precinct. Never in my wildest dreams did I enter into this purchase believing I would be surrounded by units to the magnitude that I am experiencing now. To even consider adding more stories to an already existing extremely large building is beyond ludicrous. Please consider the residents who bought into these homes in good faith and not accept this proposal. Castle Hill is already developed beyond recognition and we the town does not have the infrastructure in place to cope with the enormous amount of people residing in the area. Stop the greed by these large building corporations.