Residential Flat Building at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt

I object to SSD-119545240 for the proposed redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.

My objection is not to redevelopment of the site in principle, but to the excessive scale, height and density of the current proposal and the inadequacy of the supporting assessment.

The proposal would introduce approximately 203 apartments in buildings up to 11 storeys within a predominantly low-rise residential area. It also relies on a concurrent rezoning to facilitate a substantial and permanent increase in development yield.

My key concerns are:
- The Visual Impact Assessment appears to understate the proposal’s true bulk and scale. Some photomontages do not show the full extent of the building, rely heavily on vegetation as screening and characterise significant streetscape change primarily as a loss of “sky view”.
- The Traffic Impact Assessment does not adequately assess the broader road network. It predicts that 69% of development traffic will travel via William Street and Norton Street, yet does not model the key Norton Street–City West Link intersection or the City West Link–James Street intersection.
- The traffic modelling relies on a 2024 base case and does not adequately address future growth, cumulative development, weekend conditions or the full residential traffic profile generated by residents, visitors, deliveries, rideshare, servicing and waste collection.
- The proposal provides only 17 visitor parking spaces for more than 200 apartments, with no comprehensive assessment of overflow parking on William Street, Allen Street, North Street, Hubert Street and surrounding roads.
- The Noise and Vibration Assessment predicts construction noise above applicable criteria, but the mitigation schedule does not fully incorporate the necessary monitoring, respite periods, notification procedures and corrective actions.
- The Mitigation Measures Table classifies almost every impact as “Low”, despite specialist reports identifying significant traffic, noise and visual impacts. In many cases, it simply concludes that impacts are acceptable rather than demonstrating how they will be avoided or reduced.
- The stakeholder engagement process is questionable. Although nearby residents were identified as Tier 1 stakeholders, I received no consultation or notification before the formal exhibition notice.
- Errors and inconsistencies within the supporting reports reduce confidence in the overall quality and reliability of the EIS.

These impacts would be permanent and, particularly in relation to traffic and parking, difficult or impossible to correct once the development is built.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require a substantial reduction in height, bulk and density, together with independent reviews of the traffic, visual and mitigation assessments.

Like many residents, I purchased my home (as a first home buyer) in reliance on the planning controls that applied to the area at the time. While planning controls may change over time, significant departures from those controls should only occur where there is a compelling strategic justification and a demonstrable public benefit. In this instance, I do not consider the proposal has established that balance.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. I respectfully request that the issues raised above, together with the attached technical planning matters, be given careful consideration during the assessment of this application. I am open to being contacted for future consultation as required.

Please refer to my attached detailed submission for the full basis of my objection and supporting examples.

Submission Objecting to SSD-119545240

I am writing to object to the proposed State Significant Development SSD-119545240.

As a local resident, I believe this development is far too large for the area and completely out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. The area is made up predominantly of one and two-storey terraces and low-rise buildings. The existing main building is already very large compared to everything around it, and the addition of a further seven storeys would result in a high-rise building that would dominate the suburb and permanently change its character.

The height of the development is excessive and represents clear overdevelopment of the site. It would completely dwarf neighbouring homes and create a visually intrusive structure that would be visible from many surrounding streets. Rather than complementing the existing character of the area, it would massively overwhelm it.

A building of this height will overshadow surrounding properties, reducing natural light and warmth to homes, gardens and outdoor areas. Access to sunlight is important for residents' wellbeing and quality of life. Reduced sunlight may also increase energy costs as people become more reliant on artificial lighting and heating. The development is also likely to reduce natural airflow and breezes through the area. This will further reduce residential amenity and make surrounding homes less comfortable.

The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for neighbouring residents. Existing homes would be overlooked by apartments positioned high above them, allowing direct views into private backyards and outdoor living areas.

Traffic and parking impacts are another major concern. Local roads are already under pressure and the development will significantly increase the number of vehicles in the area. Increased residential density will inevitably lead to congestion and unacceptable parking pressure on local streets. This will also create road safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, older residents and, with a junior school just a block away, children.

Parking is already difficult in many surrounding streets. The proposal does not appear to provide sufficient parking to accommodate future residents, visitors and service vehicles. As a result, existing residents are likely to experience significant overspill parking in neighbouring streets where they already struggle to park outside or near to their own homes. There appears to be no meaningful protection for existing residents who will bear the impacts.

The construction phase will create years of disruption for local residents. Concerns include:

• Construction traffic and heavy vehicles on residential streets.
• Road closures, blocked streets and reduced road capacity.
• Noise from demolition, excavation, piling and machinery.
• Dust, dirt and air pollution.
• Potential health impacts from prolonged exposure to noise and dust.
• Loss of parking during construction due to work vehicles and site activities.
• General disruption to residents' daily lives.

The expected long construction period could impact residents for many years. This level of disruption should not be accepted in an established residential community.

The proposal will also place additional strain on local infrastructure. Schools, roads, public transport, community facilities, open spaces and local services will all be required to accommodate a significant increase in population. There is little evidence that corresponding infrastructure upgrades will occur. Residents should not have to absorb the consequences of increased density without appropriate investment in services and facilities.

The proposal is inconsistent with the existing heritage and character of the area. Many residents value the community atmosphere and historic character of the neighbourhood. This development risks permanently altering the urban fabric and identity of the suburb. Once a building of this scale is approved, the precedent cannot easily be undone.

Importantly, the site is located a considerable distance from the Parramatta Road Corridor, which has long been recognised as an area in need of regeneration and investment. If additional housing is required, it should be directed towards areas that genuinely need revitalisation and where both government and private investment can help transform underutilised and struggling precincts into vibrant communities. Established low-rise residential neighbourhoods should not be expected to absorb excessive development that is out of scale with their character, particularly where the supporting infrastructure, roads, parking, schools and public services are already under pressure.

I support the need for more affordable housing, but this proposal fails to deliver a meaningful community benefit. With only 5% affordable housing, the public return is minimal while the impacts on existing residents are significant and permanent. The community deserves both a development that is appropriately scaled to its surroundings and a much stronger commitment to affordable housing, rather than being asked to accept an oversized development that delivers neither.

There are clearly more appropriate alternatives that could provide additional housing while respecting the existing character of the area. A lower height development that better integrates with the surrounding neighbourhood, would provide a far more balanced outcome.

Overall, I believe SSD-119545240 is a massive overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would result in unacceptable impacts including excessive height, visual intrusion, loss of neighbourhood character, overshadowing, reduced airflow, loss of privacy, increased traffic congestion, parking shortages, construction disruption, environmental impacts, increased noise and additional pressure on local infrastructure. The extremely limited public benefit does not outweigh these substantial adverse impacts.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSD-119545240 be refused. At the very least, the height, scale and density of the development should be significantly reduced to better reflect the character and capacity of the local area.

**Attn: The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure**
4 Parramatta Square, 12 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
**SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION**
**Application Name:** Residential Flat Building at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt
**Application Number:** SSD-119545240
**Location:** 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt NSW 2040 (Lot 2 DP 789576)
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to formally declare my strong objection to the State Significant Development application SSD-119545240. As a local resident of the Inner West, I will be directly impacted by the scale, density, and long-term consequences of this massive redevelopment.
While the community supports the principle of the adaptive reuse of industrial heritage and the supply of diverse housing, the current masterplan constitutes a severe overdevelopment of a highly constrained residential pocket.
I urge the Department to refuse this application based on the following critical planning and environmental grounds:
1. Excessive Bulk, Scale, and Visual Amenity Impacts
The transition of this site from low-rise industrial warehouses into five interconnected blocks stepping up to 11 storeys is completely out of character with the surrounding Leichhardt streetscape.
Inappropriate Height:
An 11-storey tower at the corner of William Street represents a radical and unacceptable departure from the prevailing low-to-medium rise character of the neighborhood.
Overshadowing and Privacy:
The 5-storey components fronting the adjacent residential streets will severely overshadow nearby single and double-story homes, causing a permanent loss of solar access and a drastic breach of privacy for direct neighbors.
2. Flouting Local Planning Controls (Leichhardt LEP)
The sheer density of the proposed 203 apartments represents an attempt to bypass the local environmental planning controls that protect Inner West communities. A previous, smaller-scale iteration of this project was rightly refused on environmental planning grounds; doubling down with an even larger footprint shows a disregard for the zoning objectives of the R1 General Residential zone.
3. Stormwater Management and Existing Flood Risks
The subject site is heavily restricted by local flood management planning controls and sits within a known flood overlay zone.
Basement Parking Hazards:
The proposal includes a multi-level basement parking network. Excavatting a site of this scale within a flood zone introduces severe risks of altering local water tables, worsening overland flow, and redirecting flash flooding onto neighboring properties during heavy rain events.
Impervious Surfaces:
Replacing current footprints with subterranean basements heavily compromises natural site absorption, despite the inclusion of a central courtyard.
4. Traffic Congestion and Narrow Street Safety
The traffic impact assessment severely downplays the reality of the Leichhardt road network.
Local Road Inadequacy:
Accessing the site via narrow residential channels like Francis Street, William Street, and North Street to cater to hundreds of new residents and delivery vehicles is highly problematic. These streets are heavily choked with parked cars and cannot absorb the volume generated by 200+ apartments.
Construction Disruptions:
The demolition of four massive industrial buildings will require extensive heavy vehicle haulage over an extended period. This will present immediate safety hazards for families walking to nearby school catchments, including Orange Grove Public School and Sydney Secondary College Leichhardt Campus.
Conclusion
The proposed development does not represent orderly or ecologically sustainable development. The minor social yield of 15 affordable housing units does not justify the immense, irreversible negative externalities that 188 high-density market apartments will inflict on Leichhardt's infrastructure, character, and traffic flow.
I respectfully request that the Department reject SSD-119545240 in its current form. I am concerned that approval of this submission will send a message that judicial decisions made by the Land and Environment Court can be disregarded and bypassed severely undermining the judicial system. Further, it highlights that the criteria around submission of a SSD are at odds with existing planning laws and undermine our current system of governance by deriding the role of the judiciary making it subject to the executive layer and undermining it's independence.
Thank you for considering this submission. I request that my personal details remain confidential on the planning portal.
Sincerely,
*A local resident

The Hon Paul Scully MP
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

Subject: Request to refuse SSD-119545240 and concurrent rezoning — 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt

Dear Minister Scully,
I writing to you as a concerned local Leichhardt resident and ask you and the Department to refuse the proposed redevelopment and concurrent rezoning at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.
I support appropriately located housing, including affordable housing. However, this proposal is excessive for its location on many factors and would permanently change the character and liveability of the surrounding community.
Residents already experience limited street parking, congested local roads and pressure on public transport. The application’s suggestion that another 203 apartments will have only minor impacts is not realistic when considered against daily local conditions.

My principal grounds for refusal are:
1. The Land & Environment Court refused a smaller proposal
In December 2023, the Land and Environment Court dismissed both appeals and refused the previous applications for 181 apartments on this site. The judgment identified issues including excessive floor space, non-compliance with adaptive-reuse requirements and inadequate landscaped area.
(Land and Environment Court judgment, pages 1–4)
The current proposal is larger, comprising:
* 203 apartments;
* five buildings between five and eleven storeys;
* an FSR increase from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1; and
* the demolition of most existing structures.

(EIS, pages 15–17 and 57)
The Department specifically required the applicant to address the Court’s findings. A different State Significant Development and rezoning pathway does not resolve the Court’s underlying concerns about density, scale, adaptive reuse, landscaping and impacts on neighbours.

2. The scale is excessive for the site and community
The proposal would increase the permitted FSR from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1, more than six times the existing control. It would place an 11-storey building beside an established, predominantly low-rise residential community.
This would not be a minor addition to the neighbourhood. It would permanently alter the area’s scale, privacy, visual character, sunlight, traffic patterns and demand for local services.
The application appears to start with the desired yield of 203 apartments and then seek new site-specific controls to permit it. It does not convincingly explain why a substantially smaller development could not deliver housing while responding more appropriately to the surrounding streets.

3. Traffic, parking and public-transport impacts are underestimated
The Traffic Impact Assessment concludes that the proposal would generate only 24 additional morning peak trips and 10 additional evening peak trips after allowing for the site’s existing use, and that no external road improvements are required.
(Transport Impact Assessment, page 37)
As a local resident, I do not consider this a realistic representation of the likely impact of 203 new households. The development will also generate visitors, deliveries, waste vehicles, tradespeople, ride-share vehicles, removal trucks and construction traffic.
Parking is already difficult in the surrounding streets. The proposal’s own documents identify between 237 and 241 parking spaces, yet claim that residents will rely heavily on public transport.
(EIS, pages 16, 27 and 57; Transport Impact Assessment, pages 23–25)
The site is near light rail and bus stops, but proximity to a stop does not establish that services have enough capacity, frequency or suitable routes to support this density. The nearest railway station is approximately 1.7 kilometres away in Petersham.
(Social Impact Assessment, page 13)
An independent transport assessment should consider actual local parking conditions, future growth, school and weekend traffic, public-transport capacity and the combined impact on William, North, Francis and surrounding streets.

4. The Cyclops factory should be genuinely preserved
The former Cyclops factory is an important part of Leichhardt’s industrial history and local identity. Its brick buildings, steel windows, roof structures and historic Cyclops and Raleigh signage should remain substantially intact in their complete three-dimensional form.
The applicant’s heritage report confirms that the proposal would demolish four of the five industrial structures, retain only the tallest building’s street façades and replace much of the original fabric with new development and interpretive features.
(Statement of Heritage Impact, page 39)

This is not meaningful preservation of the factory complex. Retaining limited façades while demolishing the original buildings, roof structures and internal industrial spaces would reduce authentic heritage to decoration around a much larger apartment development.
The same heritage report also states that the site is within the Laneways Sub Area on page 4, but later says it is separated from that area by William Street.
(Statement of Heritage Impact, pages 4 and 39)
Any redevelopment should be designed within and around the existing Cyclops buildings, retaining their full form wherever structurally possible.

Requested action
I respectfully request that you and the Department:
1. Refuse the concurrent rezoning from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1.
2. Refuse SSD-119545240 in its current form.
3. Require an independent review of traffic, parking, public-transport capacity, heritage and overshadowing.
4. Require the Cyclops factory buildings to be substantially retained in their complete form and no higher.
5. Require any materially revised proposal to be publicly re-exhibited.
6. Invite a substantially smaller development with lower height(no higher than existing buildings) and density, better transitions to neighbouring homes and greater permanent public benefit.


As a local resident, I am concerned that the reports treat the impacts as minor or low. Residents will experience them very differently: more vehicles, greater parking pressure, more crowded transport, extended construction disruption, loss of neighbourhood character and greater pressure on local infrastructure.

Housing is needed, but it should not be delivered by approving a larger proposal after the Court refused the earlier smaller development, while the application still contains conflicting housing, parking and traffic information, demolishing an important part of Leichhardt’s industrial history and imposing an excessive development on a community whose roads, parking and transport are already under pressure.
This proposal does not meet that test and should be refused.

Yours sincerely,
Very concerned Resident
North Street, Leichhardt

19th July 2026

I live on the corner of Francis St and William St with my garage facing William St. I am concerned that from the new proposal that the main entrance to the parking area will be directly opposite my garage. I have safety concerns for myself leaving my garage with this new proposal. The original proposal had the main entrance facing Hubert St with a proposed round-about making it safer for all traffic - why the change? With the volume of traffic using William St, this will become difficult for the residents entering and exiting the building. I believe a rethink is needed on where the entrance to the carpark will be to maintain both traffic safety for all who use William St.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to this development application.
The proposal comprises 203 apartments, including:
• 2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
• 50 × 3-bedroom apartments;
• 131 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
• 20 × 1-bedroom apartments.
The application proposes only 220 residential parking spaces. In my view, this is insufficient for a development of this scale and unit mix. Larger apartments, particularly 3- and 4-bedroom dwellings, are likely to accommodate households with multiple vehicles, while many 2-bedroom apartments may also generate demand for more than one vehicle. As a result, the proposed parking provision is likely to fall well short of the actual parking demand.
This shortfall would inevitably increase on-street parking demand, placing significant pressure on surrounding residential streets and reducing parking availability for existing residents and visitors. It would also adversely affect the operation, safety and amenity of the local road network.
While I recognise the importance of increasing housing supply, this should not come at the expense of fundamental residential amenity or by providing infrastructure that is clearly inadequate for the expected level of occupancy. New developments should satisfy minimum planning standards and provide sufficient parking to support their residents without transferring the burden onto the surrounding community.
In addition, I have identified several apparent non-compliances with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which forms part of the applicable planning framework. I am concerned that these matters have not been adequately addressed in the assessment process and respectfully request that the consent authority carefully review these issues before making any determination.
4A Solar access 140 of 203 apartments achieve the criterion 69.0%, below the 70% minimum. At least 143 apartments are required, resulting in a shortfall of 3 apartments. The number receiving no direct midwinter sunlight should also be confirmed against the ADG maximum of 15%.
4D-2 Maximum habitable-room depth 23 apartments are identified as not satisfying the maximum-depth criterion. Apartment D1.01.04 is specifically recorded as having a depth of 9.6 m.
4E-1 Balcony/private open space 37 apartments are identified as not satisfying the minimum balcony/private-open-space area or dimension criterion. This appears to be a repeated apartment-typology issue.
4G-1 Storage Apartment C.03.03 is identified as not satisfying the minimum storage requirement. Compliance with the requirement to provide at least 50% of storage within the apartment should also be checked.
Accordingly, as a resident within the Inner West Council area, I object to this application. I respectfully request that the consent authority either:
• refuse the application in its current form; or
• require the applicant to substantially reduce the development yield or increase the parking provision to an appropriate level before any approval is considered, i.e.,
2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
30 × 3-bedroom apartments;
90 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
20 × 1-bedroom apartments.

Submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Application SSD-119545240 | 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt
Dear Assessment Team,
I object to the proposed development at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt in its current form.
I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site or to additional housing in an appropriate form. My concern is that this proposal is too large for the site and its surroundings, and that the process appears to be focused on finding a planning pathway that allows the development rather than requiring the development to respond to the location.
My three primary concerns are the traffic impact, the proposed change to the planning rules, and the fact that the same fundamental proposal continues to progress despite earlier rejection and repeated requests for refinement that have not resulted in meaningful change.
1. Traffic has not been properly assessed
Traffic is my most immediate and practical concern. The proposal would add approximately 203 apartments and more than 240 parking spaces to an established residential area that already experiences congestion, constrained local roads and limited on-street parking.
The impact is not just the number of cars entering and leaving in the morning and afternoon peaks. It is the permanent addition of resident, visitor, delivery, rideshare, service, waste, trades and removalist movements throughout the day, at night and on weekends.
The Transport Impact Assessment does not support the conclusion that this impact will be negligible. In particular:
• it predicts that 69% of development traffic will travel north via William Street and Norton Street, but the modelling stops at the William Street-Norton Street roundabout;
• it does not model the Norton Street-City West Link intersection, the City West Link-James Street intersection, or the interaction of queues between these known pressure points;
• it relies on a weekday survey from July 2024 without clearly identifying the survey date, whether it was during school holidays, or whether it reflected normal conditions;
• it does not include a representative weekend assessment, future-year traffic, nearby development or cumulative growth;
• it reduces the forecast impact by deducting theoretical traffic from the existing self-storage use, even though a self-storage facility is not comparable with the daily movement profile of more than 200 homes; and
• it provides only 17 visitor spaces for more than 200 apartments and does not include a current, comprehensive parking survey covering weekday evenings and weekends.
There is also a clear contradiction in assuming low car use because the site is near public transport while providing approximately one residential parking space per apartment. Proximity to buses and light rail does not mean residents will not own or use cars, particularly in the larger two, three and four-bedroom apartments.
These impacts cannot be fixed after the development is built. The surrounding streets cannot simply be widened later, and lost parking capacity cannot easily be restored. The traffic impacts must therefore be independently and comprehensively assessed before any approval is given.
At a minimum, the Department should require current weekday and weekend surveys, modelling of the downstream City West Link intersections and queue interaction, future-year and cumulative scenarios, and a realistic assessment of visitor, delivery, servicing and on-street parking demand.
2. The planning rules should not be changed to fit the proposal
The proposal seeks a concurrent rezoning through the Housing Delivery Authority pathway to allow buildings of five to eleven storeys and a density that is far beyond the current planning framework and the predominantly low-rise surrounding neighbourhood.
Planning controls can change, but changing them is not a minor administrative step. Residents, such as me with my young family, have made long-term decisions about where to live based on the controls that apply to the area. A major departure should require a compelling strategic case, a clear and proportionate public benefit, and a proposal that genuinely responds to its setting.
That case has not been made here. The EIS appears to treat the availability of a new approval pathway as justification for the proposed scale. It is not. A pathway for assessment does not establish that an eleven-storey development is appropriate for this site.
The affordable housing component also does not justify the permanent planning uplift. Only 15 of 203 apartments are proposed as affordable housing, representing approximately 5% of gross floor area, and only for a 15-year management period. The increase in height, bulk, density, traffic and development value is permanent. The impacts on the community are also permanent.
A limited and time-bound benefit is not proportionate to the lasting change being sought. If the proposal does not fit the existing controls, the starting point should be to reduce and redesign it - not change the controls to accommodate it.
3. Repeated requests for refinement have not produced meaningful change
I am also concerned by the way this proposal continues to progress despite having been rejected or found unacceptable at multiple levels and despite repeated opportunities for refinement.
Refinement should mean that the applicant responds to the substance of the concerns raised. In this case, the core issues - excessive height, bulk and density, traffic impacts, visual dominance and the relationship with the surrounding neighbourhood - remain substantially unchanged.
Repackaging the proposal, changing the approval pathway or submitting further technical material is not the same as resolving the issues. Reports repeatedly describe impacts as acceptable or low, while the underlying assessments identify serious limitations or moderate-to-severe impacts. The mitigation table largely restates conclusions rather than setting out measures that would actually reduce those impacts.
There must be a point at which the assessment process recognises that a proposal has not been adequately refined. Continuing to ask for further information while allowing the same scale and form to remain effectively intact risks turning the process into a search for a way to approve a predetermined outcome.
The Department should consider the full history of the proposal, the concerns previously raised, what changes were requested, and whether the applicant has genuinely responded. If the fundamental issues remain, the application should not continue unchanged through another pathway.
4. The supporting material understates the impacts
The same pattern is evident in the supporting reports.
• The visual assessment identifies moderate-to-severe or severe impacts from some viewpoints, yet concludes the proposal is acceptable because it is within the height framework the rezoning itself is seeking to create.
• Some photomontages appear cropped or rely on vegetation to reduce the apparent width, bulk and visibility of the buildings. Directly affected homes and open spaces within the Allen Estate are not adequately represented.
• The acoustic assessment predicts construction noise above relevant management levels, including highly noise-affected levels in some cases, while the mitigation schedule classifies the impact as low and omits a number of the consultant's specific monitoring and respite recommendations.
• The acoustic report refers to traffic routes via Atchinson Street and Mitchell Street, which do not relate to this site and appear to have been carried over from another project. This raises a reasonable concern about the quality assurance applied to the supporting documents.
Technical reports should test the proposal objectively. They should not assume that the proposed new controls make the impacts acceptable, rely on future developments to normalise the scale, or treat generic management plans as a substitute for real mitigation.
Requested outcome
I ask the Department to refuse the application in its current form.
If the applicant is permitted to submit a revised proposal, it should be required to:
• substantially reduce the height, bulk and density;
• respond directly to the reasons earlier versions were rejected or required refinement;
• demonstrate what has materially changed, rather than relying on a different planning pathway;
• provide an independent and complete traffic and parking assessment, including downstream intersections and cumulative future conditions;
• provide accurate visual material showing the full development from the Allen Estate and other directly affected residential locations; and
• replace generic mitigation statements with specific, measurable and enforceable commitments.
Conclusion
This is not an objection to housing or to reasonable redevelopment. It is an objection to an overdevelopment that has not adequately responded to its setting, the existing road network, the established planning framework or the concerns repeatedly raised about it.
The community should not be expected to accept permanent traffic, density and amenity impacts because the planning rules can now be changed to enable the proposal. Nor should an application continue substantially unchanged after repeated requests for refinement and rejection at multiple levels.
The proposal should be assessed on whether it is appropriate for this site and this neighbourhood. In its current form, it is not.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,

Resident, The Allen Estate
Leichhardt NSW 2040

Housing is a basic human right and should not be treated primarily as an investment vehicle. Simply building more homes without addressing property speculation and investor-driven demand will not solve the housing affordability crisis or prevent prices from continuing to rise.

Stronger measures should be considered, such as imposing significant additional taxes on third and subsequent properties, along with other policies that discourage excessive property investment and speculation.

For these reasons, I do not support this project.

The proposal to build a residential block of the scale proposed is going to adversely impact a neighbourhood which is currently at capacity. Any development should not be allowed to exceed the height of the existing building, which even then would be significant in its impact to the number of resident vs the amenities available. This development seems like it would be more appropriately built on Parramatta Rd. I oppose such a development as while it might benefit the developers financially it will surely negatively impact the residents.

RE: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-80704962 — Redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt
To the Assessment Officer,
I am writing as a local resident of [3 Charles Street, Leichhardt] to object to State Significant Development Application SSD-80704962 for the redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt (Lot 2 DP 789576), lodged by Anprisa Pty Ltd.
My objection is confined to two grounds: the failure to justify the proposed car parking ratio against actual local conditions, and the disproportionate scale of the development relative to the surrounding low-to-medium density character of this part of Leichhardt.
Ground 1: The Proposed Car Parking Ratio Is Not Justified Against Actual Local Conditions
Policy minimums and Apartment Design Guide (ADG) benchmarks are a starting point, not a substitute for evidence of what this specific locality can actually absorb. Charles Street and William Street already experience significant on-street parking pressure residents are routinely unable to park near their own homes when sporting fixtures are held on the other side of Leichhardt, and are forced to park several streets away. A parking rate that may be adequate elsewhere in the Inner West is not automatically adequate here.
I ask the Department to require the Applicant to:
Justify the proposed parking ratio with reference to actual, evidenced parking occupancy and availability on Charles Street, William Street and surrounding roads, including at peak/event-day demand, not only against policy minimums.
Demonstrate, with that evidence, that any shortfall between demand and supply will not be displaced onto streets that already have no spare capacity.
Where the Applicant cannot demonstrate this, either increase on-site parking provision or reduce the scale of the development so that supply and evidenced local demand are properly aligned.
A parking ratio that is merely policy-compliant, without being tested against the real conditions of this street network, does not satisfy the intent of the SEARs requirement to demonstrate the development's transport impacts have been properly assessed.
Ground 2: The Scale of the Development Is Disproportionate to the Surrounding Low-to-Medium Density Character
This part of Leichhardt is characterised by low-to-medium density housing. The Built Form and Urban Design requirements in the SEARs require the Applicant to demonstrate how the proposed height, bulk, scale, setbacks and articulation of the development respond to the context, site characteristics and existing and future character of the locality. I do not consider that a development of this scale achieves that outcome.
I ask the Department to require the Applicant to:
Provide a clear, evidence-based comparison of the proposed height, bulk and scale against the existing built form on Charles Street, William Street and the immediately surrounding blocks, rather than against citywide or precinct-wide averages that may not reflect this specific street character.
Justify any reliance on height or floor space bonuses under an applicable EPI by explaining how the resulting built form remains proportionate to, and compatible with, this low-to-medium density streetscape.
Where this justification cannot be adequately demonstrated, reduce the scale of the development to a form genuinely consistent with the surrounding area.
A development that is significantly out of scale with its low-to-medium density surroundings does not represent good design in the sense intended by the design quality and built form requirements applicable to this assessment.
Requested Outcome
I ask that the Department not approve this application unless and until:
The Applicant has justified the proposed parking ratio against real, evidenced local conditions on Charles Street and William Street, not policy minimums alone; and
The Applicant has demonstrated that the scale of the development is genuinely proportionate to the surrounding low-to-medium density character of this part of Leichhardt, with the design reduced in scale if this cannot be shown.
Thank you for considering this submission. I would welcome the opportunity to be kept informed of further exhibition or assessment milestones for this application.

Yours faithfully,
Armin Nehzat
0403 888 777
20 July 2026

I wish to lodge a formal objection to this Development Application and respectfully request that the consent authority undertake a more rigorous assessment before determining this application.

While I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply within the Inner West, this objective should not be achieved at the expense of sound planning principles, adequate infrastructure provision, or residential amenity. In its current form, I do not believe the proposal demonstrates an appropriate balance between development intensity and the capacity of the site and surrounding neighbourhood.

The proposal comprises 203 apartments, including:

* 2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
* 50 × 3-bedroom apartments;
* 131 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
* 20 × 1-bedroom apartments.

Despite the scale and dwelling mix of the proposal, only 220 residential parking spaces are provided. Based on the proposed apartment mix, the parking provision does not appear to adequately accommodate the likely parking demand generated by the development.

More than 89% of the proposed dwellings comprise two or more bedrooms. It is entirely foreseeable that many of these households, particularly those occupying the 3- and 4-bedroom apartments, will own more than one vehicle. A significant proportion of 2-bedroom apartments can also reasonably be expected to generate demand for multiple vehicles. Accordingly, the proposed parking provision appears inconsistent with the likely parking demand arising from the development.

Importantly, this proposal should not be assessed in isolation. The surrounding streets already experience significant parking pressure, with on-street parking frequently operating at or near capacity. Existing residents and visitors already face considerable difficulty finding available parking, particularly during evenings and weekends. This is an existing constraint of the locality and should form part of Council’s assessment of the proposal.

In these circumstances, any shortfall in on-site parking would not simply create additional inconvenience—it would materially worsen an already constrained parking environment. Approval of the proposal in its current form would effectively transfer the foreseeable parking demand generated by future residents onto the surrounding public road network, further reducing parking availability for existing residents and visitors, increasing traffic circulation as drivers search for parking, and adversely affecting road safety, accessibility and the overall residential amenity of the neighbourhood.

Approving a development that relies upon existing public on-street parking to accommodate foreseeable parking demand effectively transfers the infrastructure burden from the developer to the wider community. In my respectful submission, this is not an appropriate planning outcome and is inconsistent with the principles of orderly and sustainable development.

New developments should be capable of accommodating the infrastructure demands they generate. Where the surrounding road network is already under significant parking pressure, it is particularly important that the development demonstrates that adequate on-site parking has been provided. In my view, the current proposal has not demonstrated this.

In addition to the parking concerns, I have identified several apparent non-compliances with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which forms part of the applicable planning framework. These matters warrant careful consideration as they relate directly to the quality and functionality of the proposed development.

4A – Solar Access

* Only 140 of the 203 apartments (69.0%) satisfy the required solar access criterion, which falls below the ADG minimum requirement of 70%.
* A minimum of 143 compliant apartments is required, resulting in a shortfall of three apartments.
* The consent authority should also verify that the number of apartments receiving no direct midwinter sunlight does not exceed the ADG maximum of 15%.

4D-2 – Maximum Habitable Room Depth

* Twenty-three apartments do not satisfy the maximum habitable room depth requirement.
* Apartment D1.01.04 is specifically identified as having a habitable room depth of 9.6 metres.

4E-1 – Balcony / Private Open Space

* Thirty-seven apartments do not satisfy the minimum balcony or private open space requirements.
* The extent of these non-compliances suggests that this is a recurring apartment typology issue rather than isolated design exceptions.

4G-1 – Storage

* Apartment C.03.03 does not satisfy the minimum storage requirement.
* Compliance with the ADG requirement that at least 50% of storage be located within the apartment should also be confirmed.

More importantly, these are not isolated technical matters. Collectively, they raise legitimate concerns as to whether the proposal achieves the minimum design quality and residential amenity outcomes intended by the Apartment Design Guide.

The cumulative effect of these issues suggests that the proposal may not represent an appropriate planning outcome in its current form. When considered together—including the apparent shortfall in parking provision and the identified departures from the Apartment Design Guide—it is difficult to conclude that the development has been designed to appropriately respond to the site’s constraints while maintaining an acceptable standard of residential amenity for both future occupants and the surrounding community.

Given the scale of the proposed development and the significance of the matters outlined above, I respectfully request that each of these issues be specifically considered and addressed within the Council Officer’s Assessment Report, rather than being treated as minor or isolated matters. A proposal of this scale warrants a thorough assessment to ensure it fully complies with the applicable planning controls and does not create unreasonable impacts on the existing community.

Accordingly, as a resident within the Inner West Council area, I respectfully object to this application and request that the consent authority carefully reconsider the proposal before any determination is made.

I respectfully request that the consent authority either:

* refuse the application in its current form; or
* require the applicant to substantially amend the proposal by reducing the development yield and/or providing an appropriate level of residential parking before any approval is considered.

If the applicant is unable to demonstrate that the proposed development can adequately accommodate the anticipated parking demand while achieving compliance with the relevant planning controls and design standards, the development yield should be substantially reduced to a level that is consistent with the capacity of the site.

By way of example, a development comprising approximately:

* 2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
* 30 × 3-bedroom apartments;
* 90 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
* 20 × 1-bedroom apartments,

would represent a more appropriate scale of development and would better balance housing delivery with infrastructure capacity, planning controls, and the amenity of the existing community.

Building looks nice, seems like a good location given the proximity to the light rail with nearby greenspace with the park. Seems great to me overall, I'd consider renting here given those things, and providing more options to do so sounds like a great idea, based on satalite images it's mostly detached houses (lower dwelling density meaning fewer options, and renters facing higher rents), so more stuff like this is a positive contribution to making it more accessible by increasing overall housing supply in this specific area.

I'm writing today to express concerns about the proposed redevelopment at 40-76 William Street in Leichhardt.

Let me say from the beginning that I'm concerned that I have been denied procedural fairness re this Development Application (DA). The big complex DA document from the Department was dated July 10, for response by July 28 (14days) however, the document did not arrive until July 14.

I believe that the creation of the State Significant Development Housing Body, which overrides all other bodies & previous well thought out & deliberated court decisions, needs to be challenged in the High Court. This body is as an override of the democratic processes, where the power of the State has overridden the individuals rights expected in an Australian democracy.

I recognise the ongoing housing affordability crisis in Sydney and across NSW, however, the proposal for this site will not make homes more affordable, and the current design raises significant concerns which are as follows:

1. Lack of affordable housing

The current proposal only includes provision of 5% so-called affordable dwellings for a limited period of 15 years. The delivery of only 15 units out of 203 new dwellings is unacceptable and won't address the ongoing housing affordability crisis.

2. Inappropriate height and scale

In December 2023, residents took a smaller, 5-storey version of this development to the NSW Land and Environment Court, and it was refused, based on concerns about the inappropriate bulk and height.. The court found it would result in “unacceptable overshadowing of the adjoining properties to the west and south in North Street…”. Additionally, all properties around will loose their privacy from people overlooking their properties from the site. Also, the proposed development is directly under the Sydney airport, western landing strip, flight path.

A development of up to 11 storeys is inappropriate in this low-rise residential location and will have a negative impact on current residents who have invested heavily in their properties. A smaller building envelope should be considered - in line with the findings of the NSW Land and Environment Court.

3. Lack of Public Transport

Residents raised concerns about the lack of public transport options to service a growing population in Leichhardt, with buses and light rail already at capacity. The developer themselves has acknowledged these concerns are valid.

I express concern that the "Service Lane" between Hubert and Charles Streets will have a significant increase in both pedestrian & vehicle traffic as this is the most direct route from the site to Leichhardt North Light Rail station and Darley Road, the major traffic road for the area. Over the years Council and Police have received reports of near misses of pedestrians being hit by vehicles and of vehicles crashing within the narrow Service lane, which is only a garbage truck wide.

The government must not approve this development without first investing in more public transport services for this part of Leichhardt, researching likely pedestrian and traffic movements and potential street parking issues as not all resident & visitor vehicles will be accommodated within the proposed development.

4. Pressure on existing infrastructure

Labor has opened Leichhardt up to significant uplift, with current plans showing the population could double in coming years. The cumulative impact of these developments must be considered to ensure current and future residents have access to green space, sporting infrastructure, schools, hospitals, communications (eg NBN), & essentail services such as Electrical, Water, sewerage & drainage. Currently when it rains moderately the drainage system overflows taking rubbish & the like down the Hubert/Charles Service lane, causing flooding of houses at the Darley Street end of the lane.

Approving major new developments without further investing in essential infrastructure is unacceptable. The government must apply strategic planning principles to ensure key infrastructure is delivered first. A piecemeal approach to planning will undermine liveability for current and future residents.

5. Inadequate community consultation

This significant proposal has only been made available for public comment for 14 days, despite the considerable impact this will have on the community and the precedent it will set for the area. No other building complex will have the bulk and height of this complex for kilometres around.

The consultation on this DA item must be left open for longer to allow meaningful input from residents and the wider community. The local community brings a unique perspective and can help inform governments on what infrastructure is needed to support a growing population, and how planning can be done in a more sustainable way.

It's important that communities are given a voice in the planning process. This will help create more liveable neighbourhoods for current and future residents.

I urge you to adopt a sustainable approach to planning that delivers well-planned density alongside the infrastructure our community needs.

Thank you for considering my submission. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely,
Rob Mansfield. 23 Charles St Leichhardt. 2040

My wife and I object to the proposed redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.
While we support adaptive reuse of significant industrial buildings and additional housing in appropriate locations, we are concerned the proposal does not demonstrate an appropriate balance between housing supply, heritage conservation, neighbourhood amenity and environmental impacts for the site and neighbouring properties.
1. Scale, Height and Built Form
We object to the substantial intensification of the site. The visual impact of approximately 200 apartments, including rooftop additions, is significantly out of place from surrounding streets, parks and neighbouring properties.
2. Heritage
Adaptive reuse is supported provided the heritage significance of the industrial buildings is genuinely retained and not diminished through excessive additions or alterations. A clear example of this is our building, the original Cyclops Toy Factory that is located next to this site at 38 William Street, Leichhardt.
3. Residential Amenity
The proposal does not demonstrate acceptable standards of:
• solar access;
• natural ventilation;
• apartment layout;
• communal open space;
• acoustic performance; and
• privacy.
Existing residents must also be protected from overlooking, loss of privacy and unreasonable overshadowing.
4. Traffic, Parking and Access
William Street, Francis Street and surrounding roads already experience congestion. The traffic assessment should address cumulative impacts, intersection performance, pedestrian and cyclist safety, servicing, waste collection and construction traffic.
A major concern is the proposed vehicle access adjacent to 38 William Street. Continuous vehicle movements, deliveries and waste collection will generate noise, headlights, vibration and late-night disturbance immediately beside residential bedrooms, significantly reducing residential amenity.
The proposal also appears to disregard Inner West Council's previous recommendation that access be provided from the William Street/Hubert Street intersection. This location offers a safer outcome by allowing signalised traffic management while reducing conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. William Street is an important pedestrian route and designated cycleway. The Department should require the applicant to justify why Council's preferred access arrangement has not been adopted and independently assess alternative access options.
5. Infrastructure Capacity
Approximately 200 additional dwellings will increase demand for schools, childcare, parks, health services, public transport and water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure. Population growth should be accompanied by corresponding infrastructure delivery in these areas.
6. Environmental Sustainability
The proposal does not demonstrate higher standards of energy efficiency, urban heat reduction, water-sensitive urban design, stormwater quality, tree retention, biodiversity enhancement and appropriate rooftop landscaping.
7. Aircraft Noise
The site lies beneath a Sydney Airport flight path. The proposal should demonstrate compliance with Australian Standards for aircraft noise attenuation and identify the applicable ANEF and, where relevant, ANEC contours.
The applicant should also clarify whether the site falls within NSW Government housing policy exclusions applying to land affected by significant aircraft noise, including ANEF 25 or ANEC 20 contours.
8. Construction Impacts
Given the proximity to existing residents, consent conditions should include strict controls on construction hours, noise, vibration, dust, traffic management, tree protection, community consultation and complaint management. We are concerned that excavation of this scale next to the Cyclops Toy Factory could have significant structural impacts on it.
9. Planning Merit
Previous redevelopment proposals for this site, involving fewer apartments, were refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and subsequently considered by the Land and Environment Court. While this application follows a different assessment pathway, the Department should carefully consider whether the issues leading to earlier refusals have been adequately addressed.
10. Employment
The EIS places considerable emphasis on construction employment. These jobs are temporary and should be given limited weight. Once complete, the predominantly residential development is unlikely to generate significant ongoing employment beyond routine building management and maintenance.
The proposal also removes land historically supporting industrial and commercial employment. The Department should assess whether long-term employment capacity is being unnecessarily reduced.
11. Groundwater and Geotechnical Issues
The site is located within an area of historically modified drainage corridors that may contain shallow groundwater. Detailed investigations should demonstrate that groundwater, excavation and basement construction will not adversely affect neighbouring properties.
The proposal should also assess cumulative impacts associated with nearby M8 motorway tunnels, including groundwater movement, settlement and ground stability. We are concerned permanent changes to groundwater may affect the stability of our approximately 100-year-old building.
Given these complexities, an independent peer review of the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations should be considered.
12. Previous Court Findings
The Department should carefully consider whether the current application has substantively addressed the planning issues identified by the Land and Environment Court in Anprisa Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1768. Although this proposal proceeds under a different statutory pathway, the Court's findings remain relevant to the planning merits of redevelopment for this site.
13. Community Consultation
Community consultation appears inadequate given the scale of the proposal.
Meaningful engagement should occur before lodgement so local issues can inform the design. The strata committee and the residents in the existing Cyclops Toy Factory were never contacted before this redevelopment was submitted, despite these residents being most affected by traffic, construction, privacy, servicing and amenity impacts.
The proposed driveway adjacent to 38 William Street demonstrates the value of early consultation, which may have identified a safer and less intrusive access arrangement. The absence of structured engagement with immediately affected residents represents a missed opportunity to achieve a better planning outcome.

I am a local resident and wish to formally object to the proposed redevelopment at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.

While I recognise the need for additional housing, I do not believe this proposal represents an appropriate scale or form of development for this location. The proposed 11-storey building is significantly out of character with the surrounding low-rise residential area and will have a substantial impact on the existing streetscape and local community.

My concerns are as follows:

Excessive height and scale
The size and height of this development are excessive for the site and surrounding neighbourhood. Previous proposals for this site were rejected due to concerns regarding inappropriate height, and this significantly larger proposal risks setting an undesirable precedent for future developments in Leichhardt. Development should occur in a way that respects the existing character of the suburb rather than overwhelming it.

Impact on residential amenity
An 11-storey building will have significant impacts on surrounding residents, including increased overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual bulk and a reduced sense of openness. Existing residents should not experience a substantial reduction in their quality of life due to an over-scaled development.

Traffic congestion and parking impacts
The surrounding streets already experience significant congestion and pressure on available parking. Many existing residents rely on limited on-street parking, and there is already insufficient parking capacity for the current population. A development of approximately 200 apartments will place further strain on local streets through increased vehicle movements, visitor parking demand, deliveries and rideshare activity. Even with on-site parking provisions, overflow parking is likely to impact neighbouring streets and make it increasingly difficult for existing residents to park near their homes.

Pressure on local infrastructure
The proposed increase in population density raises concerns about whether existing local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, childcare, parks and community services, has the capacity to support such a significant increase without negatively affecting current residents.

Loss of Leichhardt’s character
Leichhardt has a unique identity, with a mix of heritage buildings, established homes and predominantly low- to mid-rise development. A building of this scale risks changing the character of the suburb and diminishing the qualities that make the area attractive and liveable.

I support appropriate housing growth, but it must be balanced with protecting the amenity of existing residents and ensuring development is suitable for the location. In its current form, I believe this proposal is excessive and incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

I respectfully request that the Department carefully reconsider the scale, height and overall impact of this development and that the proposal be reduced to a form that better responds to the character, infrastructure capacity and needs of the Leichhardt community.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development SSD‑119545240.

As a long‑term local resident, I am deeply concerned that the scale and intensity of this proposal are entirely inappropriate for the area. The development is far too large, out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood, and would permanently alter the suburb in ways that are unacceptable and irreversible.

Excessive Height and Overdevelopment

The neighbourhood is characterised by one‑ and two‑storey terraces and low‑rise buildings. The existing structure on the site is already disproportionately large compared to its surroundings. Adding a further seven storeys would create a high‑rise building that would dominate the local skyline, overwhelm nearby homes, and fundamentally change the established character of the suburb.

The proposed height represents clear overdevelopment. It would create a visually intrusive structure visible from numerous surrounding streets, detracting from the cohesive, human‑scale built form that residents value.

Overshadowing, Reduced Airflow and Loss of Amenity

A building of this scale will significantly overshadow neighbouring properties, reducing natural light to homes, gardens and outdoor areas. Sunlight is essential for residents’ wellbeing, comfort and energy efficiency. Reduced sunlight will inevitably increase reliance on artificial lighting and heating, raising household costs.

The height and bulk of the building will also impede natural airflow and breezes, further diminishing residential amenity and making surrounding homes less comfortable.

Loss of Privacy

The proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking. Apartments positioned high above existing homes would have direct views into private backyards and outdoor living spaces, severely compromising residents’ privacy.

Traffic, Parking and Safety Impacts

Traffic and parking impacts are among the most serious concerns. Local roads are already under strain, and the proposed increase in residential density will exacerbate congestion and parking pressure. This will create additional road safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, older residents and—critically—children. With a primary school only one block away, the increased traffic during both construction and operation poses a significant safety concern. My 11‑year‑old walks past this area daily to catch the bus, and the anticipated rise in vehicle movements places him and other school children at heightened risk.

Parking availability is already limited in surrounding streets. The proposal does not appear to provide adequate parking for future residents, visitors or service vehicles. Overspill parking will inevitably spill into neighbouring streets, further disadvantaging existing residents who already struggle to park near their homes.

Construction Impacts

The construction phase will cause years of disruption, including:

• Construction traffic and heavy vehicles on residential streets
• Road closures and reduced road capacity
• Noise from demolition and machinery
• Dust, dirt and air pollution
• Potential health impacts from prolonged exposure to noise and dust
• Loss of parking due to construction vehicles and site operations
• General disruption to daily life for residents


Given the expected duration of construction, these impacts would be felt for many years. Such prolonged disruption is not reasonable in an established residential community.

Pressure on Local Infrastructure

The proposal would place additional strain on schools, roads, public transport, community facilities, open spaces and local services. There is no clear evidence of corresponding infrastructure upgrades. Residents should not be expected to absorb the consequences of increased density without meaningful investment in essential services.

Loss of Heritage and Neighbourhood Character

The development is inconsistent with the heritage, scale and character of the area. Many residents value the historic streetscape and strong community identity. A building of this magnitude would permanently alter the urban fabric and set a precedent for further inappropriate high‑rise development.

Inappropriate Location for High‑Density Development

The site is located well away from the Parramatta Road Corridor, which has long been identified as a priority area for regeneration and higher‑density housing. If additional housing is required, it should be directed to areas genuinely in need of revitalisation, where infrastructure investment is planned and appropriate. Established low‑rise neighbourhoods should not be burdened with excessive development that exceeds their capacity and character.

Minimal Public Benefit

While I support the need for more affordable housing, the proposal delivers only 5% affordable housing—an extremely limited public benefit given the scale of the impacts. Residents are being asked to accept a development that is oversized, out of character, and provides negligible community return.

A more appropriate alternative would be a lower‑height development that respects the existing neighbourhood, integrates sensitively with its surroundings, and provides a more meaningful commitment to affordable housing.

Conclusion

SSD‑119545240 represents a massive overdevelopment of the site. It would result in unacceptable impacts including excessive height, visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of privacy, reduced airflow, traffic congestion, parking shortages, construction disruption, environmental impacts, increased noise and additional pressure on local infrastructure. The minimal public benefit does not justify these significant and permanent adverse effects.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSD‑119545240 be refused. At the very least, the height, scale and density must be substantially reduced to reflect the character and capacity of the local area.

I am writing to formally object to State Significant Development application SSD-119545240 and the accompanying concurrent rezoning proposal to amend the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022, currently on exhibition until 28 July 2026. I make this submission as a directly affected resident/owner in the immediate vicinity of the site at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt.
1. This site has already failed once, on issues this application must be shown to have resolved
A previous stage 1 development application for this site (DA/2021/0437, a 181-unit proposal, capital investment value $51,390,000) was refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel. That refusal was upheld by the Land and Environment Court on 19 December 2023 following a Class 1 appeal, with the Panel’s determination formally confirmed on 1 February 2024. This new application is significantly larger than the version already refused - 203 apartments across five buildings, up to 11 storeys, against a site currently zoned for a floor space ratio of 0.5:1. I ask the Department to publish the Panel’s Statement of Reasons and the Court’s judgment alongside the exhibition material, and to require the applicant to demonstrate, specifically and point by point, how each issue identified in that refusal and judgment has been resolved in this application - not merely to accept that a larger scheme supersedes the earlier finding.
2. The scale of the rezoning request is disproportionate and precedent-setting
The concurrent rezoning proposal seeks to increase the permissible floor space ratio from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1 - more than six times the current control - remove Clause 6.12 protections relating to adaptive reuse of existing buildings for residential dwellings, and strip the site’s Key Sites Map protections relating to landscaping, housing diversity and development control. I object to a site-specific rezoning of this magnitude being progressed via a concurrent SSD rezoning pathway that limits the normal opportunity for considered, site-specific planning controls to be tested through Council’s ordinary planning process.
3. Traffic and parking impacts have not been adequately demonstrated
203 apartments are proposed against 239 basement parking spaces, on a local road network already under pressure, including from traffic displaced by the WestConnex project. I request that the Department require and publicly release detailed, independently reviewed traffic modelling for weekday peak, weekend and construction-period conditions before this application proceeds to determination.
4. Overshadowing and privacy impacts on surrounding low-rise homes
Buildings of up to 11 storeys directly adjoining a predominantly single- and two-storey residential area, including homes on North Street and Francis Street, raise serious overshadowing and privacy concerns, on a site where a materially smaller proposal was previously refused. I request detailed shadow diagrams for the winter solstice and equinox be made available for public comment, and that the Department confirm compliance with the ADG’s solar access requirements.
5. Loss of locally significant industrial heritage
The proposal involves demolition of most of the existing industrial buildings on the site, formerly the Cyclops Toys factory, a locally well-known landmark dating to 1930, retaining only a partial façade. While the site does not appear to carry a formal heritage listing, its historical and streetscape significance to the Leichhardt community is well documented. I request that any heritage or conservation impact assessment be made publicly available, and that the retained façade be treated as a genuine, primary character-defining element rather than a token retention.
6. Cumulative pressure on local infrastructure
An addition of this scale will place further pressure on already-stretched local infrastructure, including public schools, open space and public transport capacity. I ask that the Department require evidence of infrastructure capacity assessment, not just development contributions in principle.
7. Impact estimates are not demonstrated to be based on realistic assumptions
The Traffic Impact Assessment (Appendix 17, prepared by Traffix) estimates the development will generate only 39 vehicle trips in the AM peak and 30 in the PM peak, based on TfNSW “GTIA 2024” trip generation rates for high-density, transit-accessible developments. Applying the EIS’s own occupancy methodology (Table 2) to the proposed unit mix yields an estimated 542 new residents. Against that figure, 39 AM peak trips equates to roughly 0.07 vehicle trips per resident in the peak hour - a ratio the applicant has not explained or tested against actual travel behaviour at comparable occupied buildings in the area. I ask the Department to require the applicant to publicly disclose the underlying calculation, the source document and page reference for the trip rates used, and the assumed proportion of residents travelling by car during the peak hour, rather than accepting a single aggregate trip figure as sufficient evidence of minimal impact.

Requested outcome: That the application be refused in its current form; or, at minimum, that the Department require the applicant to substantially reduce the scale and height to a level consistent with the site’s current zoning and low-rise character, and demonstrate point by point how each issue underlying the Planning Panel’s refusal and the Court’s judgment on DA/2021/0437 has been resolved.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I’ve lived locally for over a decade and have always wished they would do something about the dead buildings on William St but an 11 storey apartment is a major development and not appropriate for this oarea. 5 storey max would make sense but no more than this.

We know a smaller five storey proposal at this site was rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court in 2023 due to inappropriate bulk and height so why are we proposing to double this?

We need to invest in essential infrastructure including more transport, and increased capacity for schools, hospitals and local sporting facilities first.

Submission regarding DA for Redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt (SSD-119545240)

I live in the building immediately next door to the Property. I strongly object to the proposed development for the reasons below.

1. Excessive Height and Scale
I support the adaptive reuse of significant industrial buildings - the building in which we live is an excellent example of this (38 William Street, Leichhardt). However, the proposed development represents a significant intensification of the site. The size and scale is extreme when viewed against the surrounding area which is entirely a low and medium-density residential neighbourhood. It is totally out of character with the surrounding area.

I am in favour of redevelopment of the site for housing but the absolute maximum of the tallest building in the development should be is no more than 6 storeys, not 10 or 11 as is currently proposed. The remaining buildings should be within the range of 5 or 4 storeys or less.

2. Response to the Findings of Anprisa Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1768
Previous redevelopment proposals for this site were refused following consideration by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and subsequent court proceedings. The issues that contributed to previous refusals have not been comprehensively addressed in the current proposal.

The previous proposals were for a significantly smaller development. The current State Significant Development application has not substantively addressed the planning issues identified by the Land and Environment Court in Anprisa Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1768. The Court’s detailed findings remain highly relevant in assessing the planning merits of redevelopment of this site.

3. Heritage and Adaptive Reuse
We support the adaptive reuse of the Property but reliance on this should not be used as justification for a massive increase in FSR. Retaining a couple of the facade walls does not amount to an “adaptive reuse”. This development is masquerading as such clearly with the intention of circumventing the FSR requirements which would apply if it were submitted as a new development.

An adaptive reuse logically requires a substantial part of the existing building envelope to be retained, which is not the case here. One of the striking features of the Property is the saw tooth roofs, but none are being retained. Preserving part of the William Street facade and nothing else in order to construct a brand new apartment building behind the facade is surely not what is intended by “adaptive reuse” and makes a mockery of this concept. Integrating a metal framed “saw tooth” design in the open common area does not compensate for the demolition of the original roof.

4. Traffic, Parking and Transport
William Street, Francis Street and surrounding local roads already experience congestion during peak periods.
I am particularly concerned that the main vehicle access driveway on William Street is immediately adjacent to the driveway entrance for the residential building at 38 William Street. This proposed access will see a huge volume of vehicle movements over a 24-hour period, including residents’ vehicles, visitors, deliveries, waste collection vehicles and Council service vehicles. Our driveway exit is already quite challenging at times with traffic approaching from both directions, and there is a high risk of accidents, with other vehicles as well as with pedestrians. I am very concerned that the risk of accidents will be greatly exacerbated if the current design is accepted.


In addition, the location of the proposed driveway is directly beside the bedrooms of neighbouring apartments and is likely to result in unreasonable impacts from vehicle noise, headlights, engine idling, reversing alarms, braking, acceleration, vibration and late-night activity. These will occur day and night occur throughout the day and night and will adversely affect the residential amenity of existing occupants. The Applicant has not demonstrated how these impacts can be effectively mitigated and why this location represents the best planning outcome.


The proposal also disregards recommendations previously made by Inner West Council that vehicle access should instead be provided from the corner of William Street and Hubert Street. That location offers a substantially safer outcome because it provides the opportunity for a signalised intersection to manage vehicle movements while improving pedestrian and cyclist safety along William Street.
William Street is an important local route for pedestrians and cyclists and is regularly used by residents, school children and people accessing nearby parks, public transport and local businesses. It is also specifically identified as a cycleway by transport for NSW and as part of the City of Sydney bike network. Introducing a high-volume driveway at a mid-block location immediately adjacent to an existing driveway creates additional conflict points between vehicles and vulnerable road users and has the potential to reduce safety.

5. Flooding concerns
I am very concerned about the construction of a 2 floor basement carpark in the development. Furthermore, my understanding is that the William Street roadway is designated a flood affected area.

During the extreme weather conditions in 2022 when Sydney endured months of incessant rain, we saw firsthand the amount of water that flows down William Street.  As residents of the building adjoining the proposed development, our street level garage was incredibly humid and damp during all this period. The water table is directly beneath us and I am extremely concerned at the prospect of the proposed development excavating down 2 levels.  What assurances do adjoining residents have that the construction of a huge development with two floors of underground parking will not expose adjoining residents to flooding or lead to damage to our building’s foundations in the case of extreme weather events?

I am also concerned about the cumulative effects of existing underground infrastructure in the surrounding area, including the M8 motorway tunnels located approximately 150 metres north of the site, and the effect that this infrastructure has had on the movement of groundwater.

6. Community Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement
The level of community consultation undertaken by the Applicant has been inadequate, particularly given the scale of the proposed redevelopment and its potential impacts on neighbouring residential properties. There is no indication in the EIS that the views and concerns of the community have been taken into account in formulating the design of the proposed development.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

We strongly object to the proposed development. The proposal is totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhood with its height and mass and will have a detrimental impact upon those living in the streets nearby. This type of development has already been rejected by Local Government which has a good understanding of the character, needs and issues of the surrounding area. This brings high rise to an old character residential area and is totally inconsistent with its surroundings.
Homes in this area are typically on approximately 200sqm and were built about 100 years ago and are without any off street parking. The side street to the proposal, North Street, is very narrow and with parking on both sides of the street only one car can pass. Parking in the street is already at a premium and there has been cases when we cannot get a park at 2pm on a Tuesday afternoon. It is noted that the Butcher in North Street closed recently because of a lack of parking for his customers and has moved to Majors Bay Road, Concord.
The impact of this development on people living in the side streets and attending the primary school in Elswick Street will be dramatic as no parking will be available for residents and visitors. The parking will be taken up by persons in second and third cars from the development and visitors/ tradespersons etc. Existing residents will not be able to park in the vicinity of their own homes to transport shopping, babies and children. To suggest that residents and visitors to the proposed development will not take parking in the streets around the proposal is sheer fantasy and does not represent reality.
Also, we are totally opposed to any amendment to the Environmental Plan 2022. This established standards to protect the local area for good reason and should be retained. The proposal wants to change the rules to suit this development and this is not appropriate or justified.
In relation to the consultation process, to provide two weeks for a matter that has taken months/years to prepare, makes a mockery of the process. Such a matter should have had discussion groups, open forums and a process of genuine consultation. It is merely a Government obsession to build more houses at any cost, especially to the living standards of existing residents.
Rhonda & Rod Morrison
43/25 Market Street, Breakfast Point NSW 2137
Owners 606/22B George St, Leichhardt NSW 2040