Residential flat building with in-fill affordable housing - 93 Bridge Road, Westmead

See attached letter.

The key concerns are:
1. Excessive Height of 27 floors, uncharacteristically high for our area
- causing unacceptable shading of the Monarco park and buildings from 11am for many months in the year. Even if the proposal claims to be complaint for shade on Monarco, there will be several units receiving only 2 hours of sunlight during the winter solstice and the weeks before and after.
2. The Public and Residents of No93 Bridge Rd having access to our park, facilities and our private road.
3. A Public Park of 1000m2 on the Block A side of the site.
This means that the Public can drive onto our private road for about 150m until they trespass on Block A land at the water overflow area. The public could then also wander over the road into the unfenced Monarco park.
4. Impact on traffic, parking and local resources.
The latest plans (with Uplift to 27 floors) have a drastic reduction in on-site parking with 391 parking spaces for 549 housing units.

OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
93 Bridge Road, Westmead - SSDA Proposal (549 Units, 27 Floors)
Date: 9th July 2025
To: NSW Planning Portal
From: Craig Ballinger
Property: Unit 710, 91D Bridge Road, Westmead NSW 2145
Reference: Residential Flat Building Development - 93 Bridge Road, Westmead

FORMAL OBJECTION
I am writing as a directly affected resident and owner of Unit 710, 91D Bridge Road, Westmead, to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development Application for 549 residential units across 27 floors at 93 Bridge Road, Westmead.
This development represents a 30% increase over the already excessive "base" plan and will have severe detrimental impacts on our established residential community.

PRIMARY OBJECTIONS
1. EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND DENSITY
The proposed 27-floor development (89 meters) is:
• Completely out of character for our residential area
• 30% larger than the already problematic base plan of 404 units
• Unacceptably dense with insufficient parking (391 spaces for 549 units)
Severe Impact on Solar Access to My Property: The shadow analysis clearly demonstrates that my unit in Block D will be severely impacted by both the base plan (20 floors) and the proposed 27-floor development. The diagrams show:
(see diagrams in the attachment with my property location in a red circle).
• 12:00 PM Winter Solstice: Significant shadow coverage begins affecting Block D
• 1:00 PM Winter Solstice: Shadow coverage intensifies across my building
• 2:00 PM Winter Solstice: Block C is in complete shade, with Block D heavily impacted
• 3:00 PM Winter Solstice: Extensive shadow coverage continues
My property will lose essential natural light from approximately 11am onwards during winter months, receiving potentially only 2 hours of meaningful sunlight during the winter solstice period. This represents a fundamental breach of reasonable solar access rights and will severely impact the livability and value of my home.

2. TRAFFIC AND PARKING CRISIS
The proposal creates a parking deficit of approximately 158 vehicles that will seek street parking in our already congested area:
• 549 residential units with only 391 parking spaces
• No adequate traffic management plan for the new northern access
• Insufficient infrastructure improvements to Bridge Road
• No consideration of the cumulative impact on local schools and services

3. PRIVACY AND SECURITY VIOLATIONS
The development threatens the security and privacy of our private residential community through:
• Unauthorised public access to our private roads via two fence gaps
• No guarantee that existing easements over our private road will be extinguished
• Public park positioning that encourages trespassing on Monarco property
• Unsafe pedestrian access points that compromise resident security

4. INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
The proposal fails to address:
• School capacity - local schools already have no vacancies
• Aviation safety - no updated aviation report for 9 additional floors near Westmead Hospital helicopter routes
• Emergency services access - inadequate planning for increased population density
• Public transport - misrepresentation of proximity to railway stations

PROPERTY-SPECIFIC IMPACTS TO UNIT 710, BLOCK D
As a resident directly affected by this overdevelopment, I can demonstrate specific impacts to my property:

Shadow Impact Evidence: The shadow analysis diagrams provided by the community association clearly show that my building (Block D) will experience severe shadow impact from the proposed towers. The progression from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM during the winter solstice shows my property losing natural light for the majority of the afternoon, fundamentally altering the livability of my home.

Property Value Impact: This loss of solar access will significantly diminish my property value, representing a direct financial impact from this overdevelopment.

Privacy and Security Concerns: The proposed public frontage area directly faces Block D, creating privacy concerns and potential security risks for residents like myself.

SPECIFIC DEMANDS
Based on the demonstrable impacts to my property and the broader community:
1. Reduce height significantly - even the 20-floor base plan causes excessive shading
2. Remove all easements over Monarco's private roads and facilities
3. Eliminate public access points to our private roads and park
4. Provide adequate on-site parking for all residential units
5. Conduct a proper traffic impact assessment, including the northern access road
6. Update aviation safety reports for the increased height
7. Ensure adequate infrastructure before approving increased density

CONCLUSION
This development, in both its base and expanded forms, represents overdevelopment that will severely impact the amenity, safety, and property values of our established residential community. The 30% increase to 549 units exacerbates every concern raised about the original proposal.
I urge the planning authorities to reject this application or require substantial modifications to address these fundamental flaws.
I request that this objection be formally recorded and considered in the assessment process.

Submitted by:
Craig Ballinger
Owner Unit 710, 91D Bridge Road, Westmead NSW 2145
Email: [email protected]
Phone: ‭+61 (0) 427 488 929‬
Date: 9th July 2025

Note: This submission is made in coordination with the Monarco Community Association's formal response while representing my individual concerns as a directly affected property owner.

In addition to submissions already sent from strata committee I would like to express grave concern on the impact of this development on the local traffic. As already stated by above there is currently one lane of traffic in either direction
As a nurse I have grave concerns for the access of emergency vehicles which use Bridge Rd every day .Traffic now comes to a standstill often and I fear that lives may be lost as a result of this. We have yet to see the impact that the Farmhouse Rd development will have on traffic let alone the capacity for the Westmead Hospital to cope with the population growth.
Already we see hospital employees from both the private and public hospitals parking in the surrounding streets
The access to enter into traffic in either direction onto Bridge Rd from our driveway as well as Wentworth Ave and Lydbrook St onto Darcy Rd is another already bottleneck
There are bus stops at the top of the street which are transporting children during school hours there are no crossings at all which will put the risk of accidents occurring with the impact of increased traffic
Where is the planning to accommodate more children into already bursting schools

Objection to Proposed Development
I am writing as a resident of Block A, Monarco Estate, to formally object to the proposed 27-floor development at 93 Bridge Road.
My primary concern is the severe solar access impact on my west-facing unit. Due to the western orientation of our unit (affecting approximately half of the units in Block A), we will receive minimal sunlight throughout the year, with particularly severe impacts during winter months when sunlight may be reduced to just 2 hours during winter solstice. The proposed 27-floor height will create unacceptable shading for many months of the year.

Additional Concerns
- Excessive building height - 27 floors is uncharacteristically high for our area and will cause extensive shading of Monarco Park and residential units,
- Unauthorized access to our private estate - No firm commitment to remove existing easements over our private road, allowing continued public and No. 93 resident access,
- Inadequate parking provision - Only 391 spaces for 549 units, potentially displacing 160 vehicles to already congested local streets,
- Traffic impact - New northerly access lacks proper traffic management and comprehensive impact assessment,
- Public access through our private areas ,
- Proposed public park and "frontage" design allows public access along our private road,
- Infrastructure capacity - No additional school capacity planned despite significant population increase,
- Safety concerns - Emergency exits from public areas directed through our communal spaces rather than No. 93's areas.

Request
I respectfully request that the planning authority reject this application or require substantial modifications to address these legitimate concerns, particularly the solar access impacts on existing residents.
Regards

Thank you for notifying Sydney Water of SSD-80904224 at 93 Bridge Road, Westmead.
Please see attached response, Growth Data Form, and information sheet for the applicant.
If this response raises any enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact Sydney Water at [email protected].

The project as currently proposed raises significant concerns.

1. The development's proposed allotment for parking will accommodate less than 60% of the proposed capacity.

Australia and Sydney is a very decentralised nation. Many people have family in poorly connected or regional areas, trains from the suburb are poorly connected to other parts of the city (e.g. north, east, southern line), and do not run frequently. The majority of households have cars out of necessity.

The lack of parking will increase traffic congestion, result in incursions on to our land, and cause a lack of parking generally within the suburb.

2. The proposed development will be on a 2 lane road, which is frequently bottlenecked at the bridge. Bridge Road and Darcy Road are also used as main thoroughfares for emergency vehicles.

The addition of more than 500 units to Bridge Road will have a negative impact on traffic congestion and the current road infrastructure simply cannot accommodate the level of increase in population being proposed. It will also interfere with the ability for emergency vehicles to reach the hospital.

3. An impact assessment of the height of the building on helicopter flight paths to the hospital has not be completed and the impact on hospital accessibility hasn't been considered.

4. The level of proposed population increase to the local area will place an exorbitant strain on a public health and public school system that is already over capacity, with excessive hospital wait times and shortage of bulk billing GPs, the mass exodus of mental health professionals from the public health system, and a shortage of nurses and teaching staff.

5. The building height is excessive for the area.

6. The proposed development assumes the ability to develop on and access land which is not actually a part of 93 Bridge Road, particularly in regards to the public park.

7. The proposed location for the public park is on an overflow area which retains water during the rain. It is unclear whether the land itself can actually structurally support the exorbitant height (and resultant weight) of the structure being proposed. When questioned on this during consultation, it was clear that the developers had not made and consideration of this fact.

8. The proposed development is under a strata plan that includes access to Monarco Estate facilities which they do not pay towards the upkeep for.

Our facilities and the costs incurred by the influx of more than 500 apartments is unsustainable and inequitable.

In summary, I oppose the development as it currently stands. It has been poorly thought out and there has not been due consideration to the sociological impact on the suburb, public services, and road infrastructure.

I am in support of a vastly modified development under the following conditions:
- maximum height of the building is significantly reduced to 15 floors
- a new strata plan with no existing entitlement to access Monarco land is established
- the state government invest significant resources into the public school, hospital capacity, and health services of the area
- due consideration is given to the flood patterns of the area particularly in terms of building stability
- parking capacity *in the 93 Bridge Road site* be increased to a minimum of 1:1 for each unit.

There are several serious concerns with this proposal. I strongly object to this due to the following reasons:

2. 3. 4. 5. Excessive Height of 27 floors,
o Uncharacteristically high for our area
o causing unacceptable shading of the Monarco park and buildings from 11am for many
months in the year. Even if the proposal claims to be complaint for shade on Monarco,
there will be several units receiving only 2 hours of sunlight during the winter solstice
and the weeks before and after.
The Public and Residents of No93 Bridge Rd having access to our park, facilities and our
private road.
o There has been no promise made that the existing easement (Right of way) for No93
over our private road will be extinguished, only a verbal promise that the easement for
the Monarco park and facilities is removed by the next owners of No93.
A Public Park of 1000m2 on the Block A side of the site.
o This means that the Public can drive onto our private road for about 150m until they
trespass on Block A land at the water overflow area. The public could then also wander
over the road into the unfenced Monarco park.
o The proposal has a gap in the fence at the public park. Even though many of us insisted
that it would be an emergency exit only. An exit to the south must be there to avoid
entrapment of the public in the park if the main northerly access is blocked. However,
there is no clear reason why an (emergency) exit should be via Monarco’s communal
areas instead of via No93’s communal area.
Impact on traffic, parking and local resources.
o The latest plans (with Uplift to 27 floors) have a drastic reduction in on-site parking with
391 parking spaces for 549 housing units due to the ‘affordable housing’ standards. It is
our view that possibly 160 vehicles would be trying to find parking along Bridge Road or
access Monarco to find parking.
o No plans to increase schools and several schools having no vacancies.
o The new Northerly access road into No93 is likely to add more than the claimed
congestion for cars traveling North on Bridge Rd if cars are trying to access the site
without the benefit of a roundabout. Neither is an extra lane planned on Bridge Road for
cars from the South, trying to enter the new entry and cut across the lane with cars from
the North (Coles side)
A publicly accessible ‘frontage’ which bends around from Bridge Road onto our private
road opposite the north of block D.
o The design will allow the public to walk on our private road for about 50m into the
Monarco estate.
o The design has a communal meeting place on the corner, facing block D.
Some concerns / risks of earlier plans have been reduced in severity:
• The No93 complex will no longer have their main access road via our roundabout and private
road anymore, but via a new access road on the North of the No93 complex.
• The development at No93 will include a new fence between our private road and the No93
towers. However, this new fence still has two gaps and access points onto our private road and
hence can lead to the public and residents of No93 accessing the Monarco park and
trespassing.
• Previous assumptions that free access exist to the green areas and a green “grid” on the North-
East over Block A land no longer features predominantly but is still present and still mentioned
as being compliant with connectivity to the land.
• A verbal commitment that the easements over the park and facilities, which the current owners
of No93 have, will be removed.

I do not doubt that affordable housing is needed, and that removing those low-rise government structures and replacing them is necessary.
However, the submissions for 93 Bridge Road are excessive, out of character for the area, and not supported by current infrastructure. I own an apartment in 91 Bridge Road which I rent out. That is a 9 story building, and I would be fully in support of a building of similar size being constructed.
27 stories is completely excessive. My concerns:
- Excessive height for the area. There are no similar sized structures in the area. Most are <5 story and most 2-3 in the area. 91 Bridge Road is unusual in that it was 9 stories. Making something triple the size is both excessive and out of character with the area.
- Excessive shading of 91 Bridge Road, and other houses. The way the proposed development faces would completely block access for most of the winter daytime to the sun. Residents in 91 Bridge Road had no expectation on purchase that they'd be completely locked out of sun considering that in front of them was low rise government housing and hospital grounds. A smaller structure of 9 stories would have a much mitigated impact.
- Excessive additional traffic. 549 additional apartments, and we must assume a vehicle being used for most if not all. Bridge Road is already a busy road at peak hour. Hundreds of extra vehicles with no additional infrastructure is a recipe for gridlock and issues for new and existing residents.
- Excessive infrastructure demands. Schools, shops and other infrastructure are simply not prepared for such a massive new influx.
- Excessive infringement on private property. The private road in 91 Bridge Road is being treated as public property and is being piggybacked and infringed on by the new development. This is unacceptable for residents who have the private estate road for security and privacy.

The solution is simple; a cut down to 9-ish story development which would still provide affordable housing without such massive issues. With some corrections to the private road - making 93 do their own entrance road - this will be better for everyone.

I object to the project for the following reasons:

# Excessive Building Height & Overshadowing
The proposed 27-storey height (2 buildings) is uncharacteristically tall for the area and creates visual pollution. It will cause unacceptable overshadowing to my unit from 11am onward throughtout the year. My unit will receive only 2 hours of sunlight during the winter solstice, which negatively impacts livability.

# Increased Traffic Congestion
The development significantly underestimates traffic impact, especially for cars turning across Bridge Road which is a already congested road. The proposed development will result in further congestion, with no updated traffic modeling accurately reflecting the situation.

# Inadequate On-site Parking
The proposed development offers only 391 parking spots for 549 units, leaving a deficit of 158+ cars, which will spill into local streets. This will lead to serious parking shortages along Bridge Road and surrounding areas, worsening existing congestion. Residents may illegally access surrounding private spaces or driveways for parking, creating security and access issues.

# Strain on Local Infrastructure
Schools in the area are already at or over capacity. There are no plans to increase local school capacity, despite hundreds of new residents. There is also no clear provisioning for upgrades to water, power, waste, or public transport facilities.

# Pressure on Public Transport
Already overcrowded train services at Westmead and Wentworthville will be further strained with 2000+ new residents. No plans for increased bus or rail capacity have been planned.

# Waste Management Pressure
No detailed plan shown for increased garbage and recycling loads for over 549 new units. Potential overflow or illegal dumping in neighboring property or streets.

# Emergency Services Access
Increased density will strain local emergency services, particularly ambulance and fire response. Ambulance and fire vehicle access through congested Bridge Road could cause delays.

# Overdevelopment
The increase of 549 units, with minimal adjustment to infrastructure or amenities. Represents density overreach for the Westmead area, turning a residential zone into an overcrowded urban pocket. Quality of life for existing residents in the area will deteriorate due to overpopulation.

# No Public Benefit Offset
This development dose not bring any clear benefit to the local community .

# Environmental Impact
Loss of urban tree canopy and vegetation on the site, which contributes to heat island effect and reduces biodiversity. This will result increase in ambient temperature and decrease in green cover due to excessive hard surfaces (concrete/glass). Also, likely disruption to local bird and wildlife habitats, which currently use surrounding vegetation for shelter.

# Public Safety & Anti-Social Behaviour
The open public park with unclear boundaries invites loitering and anti-social behaviour.

# Wind Tunnel and Microclimate Issues
A high-rise structure of 27 floors could create dangerous wind tunnel effects in the vicinity, especially between buildings. Downwash winds from tall buildings can make public areas and walkways hazardous.

# Aviation Safety Concerns
No updated aviation impact study. This may interfere with helicopter flight paths to Westmead Hospital, which poses a risk in medical emergencies.

# Community Character Violation
The proposed towers clash with the low- to mid-rise character of Westmead and Wentworthville. This sets a dangerous precedent for future overdevelopment in a primarily residential suburb.

# Inaccurate and Misleading Documentation
The development references incorrect proximity to train stations (Westmead and Wentworthville), likely overstating convenience. Claims of “compliant” solar access are misleading, based on flawed or superficial analysis.

I object to the project

The scale and the location are the source of by objection
2x 28 story building s on Bridge road 1. are out of character for its location.
They would fit well in Paramatta CBD but not in this location.
2. Bridge road even with the ongoing widening of the road over rail bridge. is hampered by the Monaco Towers Roundabout . the increase use of this to accommodate the additional 480 units and there traffic will render the only access from South Westmead to North Westmead useless. Given the Government lack of an western orbital link for Paramatta CBD. The traffic study . treats this situation with numbers that are just a formula devised not for the situation as built.

The scale of twin towers that the guidelines allow is creating a monster for no other reason that The trust can by default maximize profits at expense of the residents of suburb of Westmead .
So.
3. So broader impact from this level of development will be to move the helicopters flying into Westmead precinct to other spaces in Westmead that are already impacted. Aeronautical hazard as the RL is substantial relative to the Helipads

If you're going to build this, then please consider a better pedestrian/bike path to the train station

In my opinion, if the entry and Exit to the property is from Bridge road which is a single lane road with parked cars on both sides of the road, it would be a nightmare for the already congested traffic on Bridge road during morning and afternoon hours. Secondly it would pose a serious risk to children from nearly schools using the eastern side walk during school time zones. Even if the access to the property is from Darcy road via the Hospital quarters, the number of dwellings on that site needs to be drastically reduced to probably well under 100 dwellings.

Though I support the project, the other sites on this road which are R4 but with so less allowable height and limited FSR needs to be corrected and allowed to go higher particularly 160, 162 & 164 Bridge road properties, as they are independent houses with old houses on it,which could help alleviate the housing crisis.

Please refer to the attached documents.