Shop top housing at 275 Alfred St, North Sydney

The proposed building is very high and will create an even larger eyesore on the Eastern side of the Warringah freeway (which is a natural break between North Sydney CBD and low-rise residential neighbourhood).
In addition the much taller structure will create afternoon shadowing to many residents including myself at 54 High Street, who are already starved of midday natural light from the existing high rise residential to the north.

I write in strong support of the proposed 39-storey residential development currently on exhibition in North Sydney.

This development represents an appropriate, forward-looking response to North Sydney’s evolving role as a major employment, transport, and residential centre. With significant public investment already committed to transport and road infrastructure, this proposal aligns well with established strategic planning objectives at both the state and local level.

*Alignment with Transport and Infrastructure Investment

North Sydney is undergoing substantial transformation, most notably with the delivery of the new Sydney Metro station, ongoing upgrades to the Warringah Freeway, and improvements to key arterial roads connecting the area to the Sydney CBD and surrounding regions. Concentrating residential density close to high-capacity public transport is sound planning policy. This development will maximise the return on existing infrastructure investment by placing more residents within walking distance of rapid, reliable public transport, reducing car dependence and supporting more sustainable travel patterns.

**Strategic Location and Appropriate Density**

As a well-established commercial and transport hub, North Sydney is an appropriate location for increased residential density. Taller buildings in strategic centres help accommodate population growth without placing undue pressure on low-density suburban areas. The proposed height and scale are consistent with the area’s emerging skyline and its role as a metropolitan centre, particularly near major transport nodes.

**Economic and Local Business Benefits**

An increased residential population will deliver clear benefits to local businesses. More residents living in the area will support cafés, restaurants, retail outlets, and service providers, contributing to a more active and vibrant precinct beyond standard office hours. This will help strengthen North Sydney’s local economy and support its transition to a more balanced, mixed-use centre.

**Housing Supply and Choice**

Sydney continues to face strong demand for housing, particularly in well-located areas close to jobs and transport. This development will contribute meaningfully to housing supply in a highly accessible location, offering greater choice for residents who wish to live close to the city, employment centres, and essential services.

**Conclusion**

In summary, the proposed development is well located, strategically justified, and supported by existing and planned infrastructure. It will enhance the vitality of North Sydney, support local businesses, and make efficient use of significant public investment in transport and roads. For these reasons, I strongly support the approval of this development.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission and for considering my views.

Although I support the application, as the building is due for remediation and update... I have the following comment about car and loading dock access to the property.
The clients application is making a mis-leading statement about the vehicle access through Little Alfred Street.
It says that the road is TWO WAY traffic... but it IS NOT.
The road is two lanes with one dedicated to parking... so vehicles can NOT pass each other and is a not a passing traffic laneway.
So trying to put a truck loading dock and all traffic car access to the property via Little Alfred Street is a BAD IDEA and traffic nightmare.

Objection – 275 Alfred St (SSD‑86992219)

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 275 Alfred Street (SSD‑86992219). While I acknowledge the need for urban growth, the current proposal raises significant concerns that will negatively affect the surrounding community. My objection focuses on two key issues: excessive building height and anticipated construction noise impacts.

---

1. Excessive Height and Visual Impact
The proposed height substantially exceeds the prevailing built form in the immediate area. This creates several issues:

- Loss of neighbourhood character: The scale is inconsistent with the established streetscape and surrounding medium‑rise buildings.
- Overshadowing: A building of this height will cast extended shadows over nearby residences, public spaces, and pedestrian areas, reducing natural light and affecting amenity.
- View loss: The development’s height will obstruct existing outlooks for neighbouring properties, diminishing residential amenity and potentially affecting property values.
- Precedent risk: Approving a structure of this scale may encourage further height creep, undermining strategic planning controls intended to maintain balanced density.

Given these impacts, the proposed height is neither reasonable nor compatible with the local context.

---

2. Construction Noise and Amenity Impacts

The scale of the project suggests a prolonged and intensive construction period. This raises serious concerns about noise and disruption:

- Extended daily noise exposure from heavy machinery, demolition, excavation, and high‑rise construction activities.
- Impact on residents who work from home, families with young children, shift workers, and vulnerable community members.
- Potential for early‑morning or late‑evening works, which would significantly disrupt sleep and daily routines.
- Cumulative impact when combined with other ongoing developments in the area.

Without strict controls, the construction phase will impose unreasonable and avoidable hardship on the local community.

---

I respectfully request that the consent authority:

1. Require a substantial reduction in building height to ensure compatibility with surrounding development and minimise overshadowing and view loss.
2. Impose strict construction noise conditions, including:
- Limited working hours
- Mandatory noise mitigation measures
- Transparent communication with residents
- Enforcement mechanisms for non‑compliance
3. Undertake a more rigorous assessment of cumulative impacts on local amenity.

---

Conclusion

The development in its current form poses unacceptable impacts on neighbourhood character, residential amenity, and community wellbeing. I urge the assessment panel to require meaningful amendments before granting approval.

Thank you for your understanding.

I am the owner of a terrace on Whaling Road and wish to formally object to SSD-103541730 for the mixed-use redevelopment at 271–273 Alfred Street North. The proposal involves demolition and construction of a commercial and 100-apartment building, as described in the NSW Planning Portal. The Alfred Street Precinct rezoning identifies this site (Building C) for a major height uplift to 28 metres, forming part of a broader intensification across the precinct.

This location is immediately beside the Whaling Road Heritage Conservation Precinct, an area of intact Victorian and Federation terrace housing. A mid-rise tower positioned directly above this precinct is fundamentally incompatible with its heritage character, fine-grain scale, and historical setting. The steep topography between Alfred Street and Whaling Road means the proposed structure would visually dominate heritage properties and permanently alter the established streetscape.
The increased height would also introduce substantial overshadowing of Whaling Road, Neutral Street, and Doris Street, all of which sit at significantly lower elevation. The development’s bulk and massing would remove sky views and significantly change the character of these heritage-linked residential streets. These impacts arise directly from the proposed scale and location, and cannot be reconciled with the surrounding built form.

The local road network – Whaling Road, Little Alfred Street, Neutral Street, and Doris Street – is narrow, steep, and in parts one-way. These streets were never designed to absorb the traffic associated with a 100-apartment mixed-use building, nor the servicing needs, delivery vehicles, rideshare activity, and continuous resident turnover associated with a high-density tower. The broader Alfred Street Precinct uplift will compound these pressures across multiple sites, creating cumulative traffic and safety concerns in a residential area that lacks the capacity to support high-rise development.

Residents have also endured five years of significant disruption from the Warringah Freeway Upgrade. Introducing another multi-year demolition and construction program immediately following this period would result in continued heavy vehicle movements, noise, vibration, dust, and access issues for residents on Whaling Road, Neutral Street, Doris Street, and Little Alfred Street. This level of ongoing disruption is unacceptable in a heritage residential precinct.
Rezoning material confirms a coordinated increase in density and building height across several parcels on Alfred Street. Positioning this type of high-rise intensification directly beside the Whaling Road Heritage Conservation Precinct is inappropriate and would irreversibly erode neighbourhood character, amenity, and the historic development pattern unique to this part of North Sydney.

For these reasons, I object to SSD-103541730. A tower-scaled mixed-use development is inherently unsuitable for this sensitive heritage interface, and its impacts on heritage significance, visual character, overshadowing, traffic conditions, and cumulative construction disruption are unavoidable consequences of its location.

Dear Sir or Madam,

We are writing to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-86992219 for the proposed development at 275 Alfred Street.

Our objection is based on the excessive height and scale of the proposed development, the significant and unreasonable construction noise impacts that will be imposed on surrounding residents and the local community as well as the erroneous traffic assessment used to justify the development’s transport impacts and car parking proposal.

**Excessive height and inconsistent character**
The proposed height is excessive for this location and is inconsistent with the established and desired future character of the area. The development would result in an overbearing built form that dominates the streetscape, causes visual bulk, and leads to unacceptable impacts including loss of amenity, reduced outlook, and overshadowing of neighbouring properties.
The scale of the proposal is not appropriately stepped or moderated to respond to its context and sets an undesirable precedent for future development in the area. Buildings of this size and nature should be confined to the western side of the Warringah Freeway – the area surrounding 275 Alfred Street is low rise residential with very narrow streets. Any development should therefore be consistent in height and visual amenity with the current building at 275 Alfred Street.

**Prolonged construction disruption**
In addition, the construction phase of this project is likely to result in prolonged and intrusive noise impacts. Given the scale of the development, extended construction hours, heavy vehicle movements, and use of high-noise machinery will significantly disrupt nearby residents, many of whom already experience cumulative noise impacts from surrounding infrastructure and development, including the extensive and ongoing upgrades to the Warringah Freeway.
The application does not adequately demonstrate how construction noise will be managed to protect residential amenity over what is expected to be a lengthy construction period.

**Flawed traffic survey and erroneous conclusions**
We are also concerned about the reliability and accuracy of the traffic surveys relied upon in the application (Appendix O – TIA). The traffic surveys conclude that the proposal will have no material impact on surrounding roads; however, this conclusion is fundamentally flawed due to the underlying methodology. At the time the surveys were undertaken on 16 September 2025 (App O, p12), several relevant roads were closed or significantly altered due to the Warringah Freeway upgrade works. In particular, Alfred Street North, a critical road supporting any future development, was partially closed on that date between Kurraba Road and Whaling Road intersections, with most traffic diverted via Clark Road, to facilitate the Warringah Freeway works.
As a result, traffic volumes and conditions recorded during the survey period in the morning and evening peaks do not reflect normal operating conditions and likely understate the traffic volumes when the road closures are not in place. Any assessment based on this data is therefore misleading and cannot be relied upon to accurately predict the true traffic, congestion, and safety impacts of the proposed development (either during construction or following completion) once surrounding roads are fully reopened.

For the reasons outlined above, we submit that the proposed development is not in the public interest and fails to adequately address key impacts relating to height, amenity, construction noise, and traffic. We request that this application be refused, or at the very least substantially redesigned to reduce its height and scale, reassess construction impacts, and undertake new traffic studies.

Thank you for considering our submission.

Sincerely,
Owners, 7/13-17 Nook Avenue, Neutral Bay

I formally object to the proposed redevelopment of 275 Alfred Street North (SSD-86992219). My objection is based on the significant and unacceptable impacts the proposal will have on residential amenity, traffic conditions, environmental quality, community wellbeing, heritage equity, and the character of the surrounding area.

1. Excessive Height, Bulk and Visual Impact
The proposed redevelopment represents a gross overdevelopment of the site. More than doubling the size of the existing building will create an imposing structure that is wholly inconsistent with the surrounding low-rise residential environment.
The proposed tower will permanently dominate the local skyline and introduce an intrusive structure that further overwhelms neighboring properties. The scale is excessive and incompatible with the existing urban fabric that would result in an abrupt and visually disruptive transition between high-density development and established residential streets. It would establish an extreme contrast that will permanently alter the visual character of the area and create an unwanted landmark that bears no relationship to the surrounding low-rise residential buildings.
The attached photos were taken from the exterior of my property and clearly demonstrate the imposing impact of the current structure at the site, which would be further exacerbated by the proposed development.

2. Cumulative Construction Impacts Following Warringah Freeway Works
Residents in the immediate area have already endured years of intrusive construction associated with the Warringah Freeway Upgrade. Noise, vibration, night works, heavy vehicle movements, and general disruption have been ongoing and relentless, significantly impacting residents’ wellbeing, sleep, and daily living conditions.
Approving another major demolition and excavation project on this site will compound these impacts and extend construction disruption for several additional years. Planning decisions must consider cumulative impacts rather than assessing projects in isolation.
Subjecting residents to prolonged, consecutive large-scale construction projects is unreasonable and inconsistent with principles of sustainable and community-focused development.

3. Construction Noise, Vibration and Dust Impacts
High-rise construction on this constrained site will inevitably generate sustained periods of excessive noise and vibration, including piling, rock breaking, heavy vehicle movements, crane operations, and mechanical plant activity.
Given the extremely close proximity of surrounding homes, these impacts will directly affect residents’ ability to work from home, rest, maintain normal household routines, and enjoy their properties. Such impacts go well beyond temporary inconvenience and represent a serious degradation of residential amenity.
Demolition and excavation works will also generate significant dust emissions. In narrow streets and confined urban conditions, airborne particulate matter will affect nearby homes, outdoor living areas, and air quality. Combined with ongoing exposure to pollution associated with nearby freeway infrastructure, this creates unacceptable cumulative health and environmental impacts.

4. Ongoing Noise and Environmental Impacts After Completion
The completed development will generate permanent increases in environmental impacts through intensified vehicle movements, service deliveries, waste collection, building services plant operation, and higher levels of residential activity.
These impacts will be concentrated on narrow residential streets, particularly Little Alfred Street, resulting in long-term increases in noise levels and air pollution. This will permanently alter the character and livability of the surrounding neighborhood.

5. Traffic Congestion and Access Constraints
The local street network surrounding the site is already heavily constrained by narrow carriageways, steep grades, limited sightlines, and restricted parking availability. These streets function primarily as residential access routes and are not designed to accommodate the traffic volumes associated with a large-scale high-density development.
The proposal will significantly increase vehicle movements, including private vehicles, rideshare services, delivery vehicles, tradespeople, and waste collection trucks. Unlike commercial developments, residential uses generate continuous traffic throughout the day and evening, further intensifying pressure on local roads.
Routing the majority of site access and servicing through Little Alfred Street is particularly problematic. This street lacks the width and capacity to safely manage increased two-way traffic flows and frequent service vehicle movements.
The proposal will worsen congestion, increase conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, and elevate safety risks for residents, visitors, and emergency services.

6. Loss of Residential Amenity: Privacy and Overshadowing
The proposed height and proximity of the development will result in significant overlooking of neighbouring properties, including private gardens, courtyards, balconies, and internal living spaces. This represents a material loss of privacy that cannot be adequately mitigated given the scale of the building.
Increased overshadowing will also reduce solar access to nearby homes and outdoor spaces, particularly during winter months when sunlight is most critical. Reduced access to natural light negatively affects thermal comfort, energy efficiency, outdoor usability, and overall residential wellbeing.
Together, these impacts represent a substantial and permanent erosion of residential amenity.

7. Inequitable Development Outcomes and Heritage Constraints
Surrounding residential properties are subject to heritage conservation controls and strict development limitations that significantly restrict redevelopment potential. Homeowners are required to preserve existing building fabric, adhere to low height limits, and comply with detailed design controls.
In contrast, this proposal seeks extraordinary increases in height and density on a site immediately adjoining heritage-constrained properties. This creates an inequitable planning outcome whereby one landowner is afforded exceptional development rights while neighbouring residents are denied comparable opportunities to develop or adapt their own properties.
Such disparity undermines the fairness and consistency of the planning system and contributes to justified community concern regarding preferential treatment of large-scale development proposals.

8. Impact on Community Wellbeing
The combined impacts of prolonged construction disturbance, increased noise and pollution, traffic congestion, overshadowing, privacy loss, and visual domination will have significant consequences for community wellbeing.
Residents will experience reduced enjoyment of their homes, increased stress, disruption to daily life, and deterioration in overall quality of living conditions. These social and health impacts must be given appropriate weight in the assessment process.

9. Precedent and Future Intensification
Approval of this proposal will set a dangerous precedent for further high-rise development along the edge of residential areas. Once a building of this scale is permitted, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist similar applications on neighbouring sites.
This risks triggering a cumulative overdevelopment that would permanently and irreversibly transform the character of the precinct.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed redevelopment of 275 Alfred Street North is excessive, incompatible with its surroundings, and detrimental to residential amenity, environmental quality, traffic safety, and community wellbeing.
Specifically, the proposal:
• Introduces excessive and unjustified height and bulk
• Compounds years of construction disruption following the Warringah Freeway Upgrade
• Creates unacceptable noise, dust, vibration, and pollution impacts
• Exacerbates traffic congestion and access constraints
• Causes significant privacy loss and increased overshadowing
• Produces inequitable outcomes for heritage-constrained neighbouring residents
• Establishes an imposing and unwanted skyline presence
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse this application in its current form.

Shop top housing at 275 Alfred St, North Sydney.

Comments.
1. It would be ideal to have more residential density and retail closer to the Metro. This is a no brainier' and you would of course agree. So for optimum and much more sustainable solution is to provide much needed housing across the road to the Metro by relocating the North Sydney Council chambers and the adjacent library to the existing SBS building and simply repurpose the building whilst the two valuable sites these two amenities took up would then be freed up for shop top housing. Housing closer to the Metro makes more sense and adding shops in those locations could only strengthen the activation of the urban area closer to the Metro. Would you please suggest this idea to the Architects for their comment. Especially keen to hear their thoughts on how sustainable it is to reuse buildings instead of demolishing them. Point them in the direction of the Omnia Residential project in Kings Cross if they need some ideas.
2. The Connecting with country idea of the corner cutouts of the tower near the base adds a bit of detail and interest . But seems so small. Can the cut outs go the whole way up the corners? I know the developer would loose valuable GFA from the upper levels but the resulting plans couldn't be any worse that the lower level layouts.
3. The 'Rezoning Urban Design Justification' part of the Urban Design & Architectural Design Report- The writer of this part of the report must be thinking of a different site and got confused. Because they say the site is surrounded by commercial towers. Recommend this typo in the report is checked by someone and made correct.
4. Same report - Yes, North Sydney Strategic Centre is identified as a focus area for
high-density, mixed-use renewal, but the site isn't. The report is nicely presented and formatting is well thought out but the message is confused. Please ask the Architects for their comment on this.
5. Page 4 of the Urban Design & Architectural Design Report states under the title sustainability "proposal includes reducing reliance on mechanical systems." does this mean no air con? Good luck with that.
6. Urban Design & Architectural Design Report, Principle 2: Built Form and Scale - "Its form provides a graceful
transition from the high-rise core of North Sydney to the lower-scale residential areas to the east."?? Would you please ask the architects for more explanation of graceful transition idea . I would like to hear a comment from a responsible designer, from Fjc studio architects, does a 39 story tower create a graceful transition from an adjacent CBD to a two storey dwelling? Was this a typo? Do they mean a disgraceful transition? Please adjust the typo in the urban design report to correctly read as disgraceful.
7. Urban Design & Architectural Design Report, Principle 2: Built Form and Scale "The building’s proportions have been carefully modelled to balance height and slenderness." This phrase in the report sounds like something Chat GPT would say if the prompt included "reword my idea for a 39 story mega tower sound more feasible and friendlier.
8. Editing suggestion for the urban design report - "a distinct yet complementary element to the skyline." remove the word complimentary completely and change 'distinct' to 'agonizing Landmark That sounds more real and less chatgpt style. (Did the architects use chat gpt to write this report?
9. urban design report - page 4 Principle 1 Context and Neighbourhood has a few lines saying "... Character ties comfortably into the human scale of the street!! " These claims make it sound like the Architect has never walked down this street. I recommend a site visit is urgently organized for the architect. And stand in the street and repeat that line out loud to a local group of residents and maybe a planner too and maybe a qualified urban designer? Please let me if and when this can be organized as I'd like to be there and video it for youtube.
10. I only got as far as page 4 of the 136 page urban design document and cant take any more, but I did look at the final page 136 - are those turning circles? The turning circles look very hopeful. I like optimistic people and enjoy hanging out with them but this is a different type of optimism. Turning circle diagram cuts off at bottom of page. Could a more complete and less optimistic diagram be provided. Thanks.
11. I don't like the apartment layouts.
12. ADG solar compliance - ADG minimum is 70%. After reading the architects design report lines about how the tower is carefully aligned for maximum solar orientation , so i was curious to read what this tower design achieves... 54%! Would you please remind the architect what the ADG minimum is:, minimum 2 hours solar access to 70% of apartments at winter solstice. and that's its easy to achieve when there is not another tower anywhere near the site. Parametric software exists can organize the apartment plans almost magically with one click to exceed the ADG 70% solar access on winter solstice minimum.
13. Cross ventilation achieves only 60% on the first 9 storeys? There's a lot to discuss with the architect here. Why put one bedroom apartments on lower levels where cross ventilation is more difficult then place larger 2 and 3 bedroom units up higher that easily achieve cross ventilation. Don't need parametric software to solve this one. Not even an excel chart. its another 'No Brainer.' I'd be happy to meet with the architect to explain how this could be made to achieve better cross ventilation outcomes for the comfort of tower occupants.
14. Adaptable and livable apartments - no comment.
15. The most basic urban design guidance states entrances are to be 'legible' and clearly visible from the street - on this design the main apartment entry is not visible from the street. It hidden and made even worse by being behind two 'bumps.' I have a book about urban design and happy to lend it to the architects. it explains all these things: Legibility, permeability, accessibility, amenity etc.
16. A residential street in a residential areas is not suitable for intensive development.
17. Could the tower offer more amenity for the surrounding residents - a pocket park, access to a pool or sauna, access to a gym for local residents. The current tower design offers nothing to local people and community. Could this be revisited in the nest submission.
Thank you.

Ground 1 – Damage to heritage character
I live at 17 Neutral Street within the Whaling Road Conservation Area, which is recognised as a largely intact Victorian and Federation precinct of modest one to three‑storey houses on small lots, with sandstone kerbs and low timber fencing. A 39‑storey tower immediately beside this area would visually dominate my street, overwhelm the historic houses and seriously undermine the collective low‑scale character that gives the conservation area its heritage significance.

Ground 2 – Overshadowing and loss of privacy
The proposed tower is almost twice the height of the existing Fivex building and will cast much longer winter and afternoon shadows over my home, garden and neighbours’ properties, reducing solar access and making outdoor areas less usable. With hundreds of apartments and only about a 3 m setback to boundaries instead of the usual 12 m separation, residents in the tower will have direct lines of sight into our rear yards, courtyards and internal rooms, causing an unacceptable loss of privacy and a constant feeling of being overlooked.

Ground 3 – Traffic and parking impacts on local streets
Council has already identified “considerable traffic pressure” on streets around the site, and the developer’s own transport assessment indicates that traffic generation would roughly double or triple if this project proceeds. Using narrow, steep Little Alfred Street—with no footpath on the house side, a blind crest and insufficient width for safe two‑way flow—as the main access for a 39‑storey tower will significantly worsen congestion, safety risks and on‑street parking shortages in Little Alfred, Ormiston Avenue and Neutral Street.

Ground 4 – Non‑compliance with design quality and appropriate scale
In a location immediately adjoining a sensitive, low‑rise heritage conservation area, good planning and SEPP (Housing) design quality principles require adequate building separation, respectful scale transitions and protection of privacy. Instead, this proposal seeks 39 storeys and an FSR of 16:1 (around 11 times the LEP height and 4.5 times the FSR) with only 3 m side setbacks and a very bulky tower form, which is far too large and too close to existing homes to be considered compatible or well‑designed for this site.

Ground 5 – Claimed public benefits do not justify the impacts
The project’s supposed public benefits—extra housing, a time‑limited “affordable housing” component, podium landscaping and a through‑site pedestrian link—are modest, largely private or short‑term and do not outweigh the permanent damage to heritage, amenity and local streets. There are already several similar apartment developments nearby, most landscaping would be on a private podium, the link would be closed at night, and research indicates the discounted rents mainly advantage the developer, so these benefits cannot reasonably justify such an extreme breach of planning controls and the serious impacts on residents like me in Neutral Street.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to formally object to Development Application SSD-86992219 for the proposed residential tower at 275 Alfred Street.
This objection is made having regard to the mandatory matters for consideration under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), and on the basis that the proposal is excessive in scale, poorly sited, and incompatible with the local and heritage context and the reasonable amenity expectations of existing residents.

1. Excessive height, bulk and incompatibility with local character
Under section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act, the consent authority must consider the provisions of applicable environmental planning instruments, including the local environmental plan and development control plan.
The proposed height and bulk represent a clear overdevelopment of the site and are inconsistent with the established built form and character of the immediately surrounding area. The scale of the proposal fails to demonstrate an appropriate response to its context and does not provide a reasonable transition to adjoining lower-scale residential development and nearby heritage areas.
This is inconsistent with fundamental planning principles relating to orderly and economic use of land and compatibility with surrounding development.

2. Overshadowing and loss of solar access
Under section 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act, the likely impacts of the development, including impacts on the natural and built environment and the social environment, must be considered.
The proposal will result in unacceptable overshadowing of neighbouring heritage properties, leading to a material loss of sunlight and solar access for existing residents. These impacts are ongoing and structural, not minor or temporary.
In addition, the proposal fails to demonstrate consistency with the Apartment Design Guide, which establishes minimum solar access standards for residential amenity. The scale and placement of the proposed tower undermine these principles and erode reasonable expectations of amenity for surrounding dwellings.

3. Impacts on heritage conservation areas
Under section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act, the consent authority must consider heritage provisions within the applicable local environmental planning framework.
The development will adversely affect nearby heritage conservation areas through visual dominance, loss of setting, and overshadowing. The proposal does not demonstrate an appropriate response to heritage context, nor does it provide a sensitive transition in height and scale as required by established heritage planning principles.
The cumulative visual and amenity impacts undermine the objectives of heritage conservation and diminish the integrity of the heritage area.

4. Construction noise, disruption and cumulative impacts
Under section 4.15(1)(b), the cumulative impacts of development must be considered.
Local residents have already experienced approximately three years of significant construction noise and disruption associated with the Warringah freeway and Western Harbour Tunnel works. Approving a further large-scale, multi-year construction project immediately following this period would impose an unreasonable cumulative and continuing burden on the community.
The proposal fails to adequately address the compounded impacts of prolonged construction noise, vibration, traffic disruption and loss of amenity, particularly in light of existing fatigue and stress within the local community.

5. Inadequate site access and parking
Under section 4.15(1)(b) and (c) of the EP&A Act, the suitability of the site for the development must be considered.
The site’s limited access arrangements are unsuitable for a residential tower of the proposed scale and raise serious concerns regarding construction logistics, traffic safety, servicing, emergency access and ongoing congestion.
Further, the proposed parking provision appears inadequate given the scale of the development and the existing pressures on surrounding streets, increasing the likelihood of spill-over parking and adverse impacts on local residents.

6. Council refusal history and lack of planning merit
It is a matter of record that North Sydney Council has previously refused several development applications for this site on multiple occasions. These refusals reflect consistent findings that the various proposals have been unsuitable for the site, with the current proposal excessive in height and scale and giving rise to unacceptable amenity and heritage impacts.
While the application is now being considered as State Significant Development, the repeated refusal by the local planning authority is a strong indicator that the proposal fails to address fundamental planning issues. It also demonstrates a clear lack of strategic and community support for the development in its current form.
Proceeding with the application despite this history suggests an attempt to override established planning judgement rather than resolve the inherent incompatibility of the proposal with its site and surroundings.

7. Prolonged planning process and unreasonable community impact
Under section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act, the public interest must be considered.
This proposal has been subject to a prolonged, multi-year planning process, resulting in ongoing uncertainty, consultation fatigue and significant stress for local residents. For a development that has repeatedly been found inappropriate in scale and siting, the cumulative psychological and social impacts on the community are unreasonable and contrary to the public interest.
This is particularly concerning given the recent history of major infrastructure disruption in the area.

Having regard to the matters for consideration under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is not in the public interest. The excessive height and bulk, unacceptable overshadowing, adverse heritage impacts, construction disruption, inadequate access and parking, North Sydney Council’s repeated refusal of related proposals, and the cumulative stress imposed on the community demonstrate that Development Application SSD-86992219 should be refused.

Thank you for considering this submission.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to formally object to Development Application SSD-86992219 for the proposed residential tower at 275 Alfred Street.
This objection is made having regard to the mandatory matters for consideration under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), and on the basis that the proposal is excessive in scale, poorly sited, and incompatible with the local and heritage context and the reasonable amenity expectations of existing residents.

1. Excessive height, bulk and incompatibility with local character
Under section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act, the consent authority must consider the provisions of applicable environmental planning instruments, including the local environmental plan and development control plan.
The proposed height and bulk represent a clear overdevelopment of the site and are inconsistent with the established built form and character of the surrounding area. The scale of the proposal fails to demonstrate an appropriate response to its context and does not provide a reasonable transition to adjoining lower-scale residential development and nearby heritage areas.
This is inconsistent with fundamental planning principles relating to orderly and economic use of land and compatibility with surrounding development.

2. Overshadowing and loss of solar access
Under section 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act, the likely impacts of the development, including impacts on the natural and built environment and the social environment, must be considered.
The proposal will result in unacceptable overshadowing of neighbouring heritage properties, leading to a material loss of sunlight and solar access for existing residents. These impacts are ongoing and structural, not minor or temporary.
In addition, the proposal fails to demonstrate consistency with the Apartment Design Guide, which establishes minimum solar access standards for residential amenity. The scale and placement of the tower undermine these principles and erode reasonable expectations of amenity for surrounding dwellings.

3. Impacts on heritage conservation areas
Under section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act, the consent authority must consider heritage provisions within the applicable local environmental planning framework.
The development will adversely affect nearby heritage conservation areas through visual dominance, loss of setting, and overshadowing. The proposal does not demonstrate an appropriate response to heritage context, nor does it provide a sensitive transition in height and scale as required by established heritage planning principles.
The cumulative visual and amenity impacts undermine the objectives of heritage conservation and diminish the integrity of the heritage area.

4. Construction noise, disruption and cumulative impacts
Under section 4.15(1)(b), the cumulative impacts of development must be considered.
Local residents have already experienced approximately three years of significant construction noise and disruption associated with the freeway works. Approving a further large-scale, multi-year construction project immediately following this period would impose an unreasonable cumulative burden on the community.
The proposal fails to adequately address the compounded impacts of prolonged construction noise, vibration, traffic disruption and loss of amenity, particularly in light of existing fatigue and stress within the local community.

5. Inadequate site access and parking
Under section 4.15(1)(b) and (c) of the EP&A Act, the suitability of the site for the development must be considered.
The site’s limited access arrangements are unsuitable for a residential tower of the proposed scale and raise serious concerns regarding construction logistics, traffic safety, servicing, emergency access and ongoing congestion.
Further, the proposed parking provision appears inadequate given the scale of the development and the existing pressures on surrounding streets, increasing the likelihood of spill-over parking and adverse impacts on local residents.

6. Council refusal history and lack of planning merit
It is a matter of record that Council has previously refused several development applications for this site on multiple occasions. These refusals reflect consistent findings that the various proposals have been unsuitable for the site, with the current proposal excessive in height and scale and giving rise to unacceptable amenity and heritage impacts.
While the application is now being considered as State Significant Development, the repeated refusal by the local planning authority is a strong indicator that the proposal fails to address fundamental planning issues. It also demonstrates a clear lack of strategic and community support for the development in its current form.
Proceeding with the application despite this history suggests an attempt to override established planning judgement rather than resolve the inherent incompatibility of the proposal with its site and surroundings.

7. Prolonged planning process and unreasonable community impact
Under section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act, the public interest must be considered.
This proposal has been subject to a prolonged, multi-year planning process, resulting in ongoing uncertainty, consultation fatigue and significant stress for local residents. For a development that has repeatedly been found inappropriate in scale and siting, the cumulative psychological and social impacts on the community are unreasonable and contrary to the public interest.
This is particularly concerning given the recent history of major infrastructure disruption in the area.

Having regard to the matters for consideration under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is not in the public interest. The excessive height and bulk, unacceptable overshadowing, adverse heritage impacts, construction disruption, inadequate access and parking, Council’s repeated refusal of related proposals, and the cumulative stress imposed on the community demonstrate that Development Application SSD-86992219 should be refused.

Thank you for considering this submission.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney (SSD-86992219), which seeks approval for the demolition of an existing office building and the construction of a 39-storey shop-top housing development comprising 184 apartments, 10 basement levels and retail uses.

My objection is based on the following key planning, environmental and amenity concerns.

1. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 39-storey development represents a scale and height that is excessive for the site and inconsistent with the established and desired future character of the area. The building’s height and massing would result in significant visual dominance, contributing to cumulative overdevelopment along Alfred Street and the broader North Sydney skyline.
The proposal fails to demonstrate an appropriate transition in scale to surrounding buildings and risks setting an undesirable precedent for further height exceedances in the locality.

2. Construction Impacts and Noise Amenity
The scale of excavation and construction associated with **10 basement levels** will result in prolonged construction impacts, including excessive noise, vibration, dust, heavy vehicle movements and disruption to pedestrian safety.
These impacts are likely to extend over several years, significantly affecting nearby residents, workers and local businesses. The proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate how construction noise and disruption will be minimised or managed to an acceptable standard over the duration of works.

3. Demolition and Sustainability Concerns
The wholesale demolition of a structurally sound office building raises serious sustainability concerns. Demolition represents a substantial loss of embodied carbon and construction materials, directly contradicting contemporary best practice in sustainable development.
The proposal prioritises demolition and rebuild rather than adaptive reuse or partial retention, missing an opportunity to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction.

4. Failure to Align with Circular City Principles
While sustainability claims may be made in relation to operational performance, the development does not adequately address circular city principles, including material reuse, waste minimisation and life-cycle thinking.
A genuinely circular approach would prioritise retention of existing structures, reuse of materials on site, and a reduction in resource-intensive excavation and construction. The proposal, as submitted, reflects a linear “demolish and rebuild” model that is inconsistent with NSW, metropolitan and local sustainability objectives.

5. Traffic, Car Parking and Transport Impacts
The provision of 172 car parking spaces across 10 basement levels appears inconsistent with transport-oriented development principles in a highly accessible, public-transport-rich location.
The scale of basement parking will exacerbate construction impacts and encourages private vehicle use, undermining broader strategic goals to reduce car dependency, emissions and congestion.

6. Insufficient Public Benefit to Justify the Impacts
Given the magnitude of height, demolition, construction impacts and environmental cost, the proposal does not demonstrate a commensurate public benefit. The provision of additional housing alone does not adequately justify the significant adverse impacts on amenity, sustainability outcomes and urban character.

7. Affordable Housing Policy Misalignment
The North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 explicitly recognises affordable housing as a planning objective, requiring new developments to contribute to an appropriately diverse residential population and provide dwellings that remain affordable and well-designed for lower-income households.

At the state level, the Housing SEPP reinforces the need to facilitate and retain affordable housing across NSW, including mechanisms such as affordable housing contributions and bonus provisions that incentivise meaningful affordability outcomes when a proportion of floor space is dedicated accordingly.

The current proposal for 275 Alfred Street does not demonstrate alignment with these local or state policy objectives, this fails to ensure housing growth benefits a wide range of households.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development is excessive in height and scale, inadequately addresses construction impacts, and fails to align with contemporary sustainability and circular city principles. I respectfully request that the application be refused, or at minimum, substantially redesigned to reduce height, retain existing structures where feasible, and meaningfully improve environmental and community outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.
Kind regards,
Sarah Rhodes

I am a local business owner in North Sydney and I’m writing to express my support for the proposed shop-top housing development at 275 Alfred Street (SSD-86992219).

North Sydney, like the rest of Sydney, is dealing with an ongoing housing shortage that is affecting both affordability and availability. This is particularly challenging for younger people trying to enter the housing market, as well as older residents who want to downsize without leaving the area they know and rely on.

A key part of the problem is that housing supply has not kept pace with population growth for many years. One of the most effective ways to address this is by increasing housing in well-located centres such as North Sydney’s CBD. These areas already have strong public transport connections, access to jobs, shops and services, and are designed to support higher-density living. Building homes close to these amenities reduces travel times and car dependence and makes better use of existing infrastructure.

The proposed development is well suited to its location and will provide additional housing in an area that can clearly support it. The site is centrally located and within walking distance of transport, employment, retail and community facilities. Directing growth to established CBD locations is a practical and sustainable approach that helps protect surrounding lower-density residential areas while still accommodating population growth. The development also creates opportunities for people at different life stages — including older residents looking to downsize locally and younger households wanting to live closer to work and services.

I also strongly support the delivery of 15 per cent affordable housing as part of the proposal. Affordable housing is limited across North Sydney and the wider North Shore, and this component will help broaden housing choice and support key workers and others who wish to remain in the area but are currently under pressure from rising costs.

Based on the information provided during exhibition, the proposal appears to be well designed and supported by thorough technical assessments. These studies indicate that potential impacts have been carefully considered and can be appropriately managed.

Overall, I see this development as a sensible and positive response to North Sydney’s housing needs and believe it deserves approval.

My partner and I are the owners of one of the heritage terraces at the western end of Whaling Road, North Sydney.

This is our family home. We have lived in North Sydney since 2001, and the character and heritage protections for the Whaling Road conservation area were important factors in our decision to buy here in 2023, intending it to be a multi-generational “forever home”.

Since our purchase, we have invested significantly in maintenance and repairs intended to preserve this beautiful old building (including roofing, subfloor and damp-proofing work). Damp is a major threat to the building, so we have installed a new sub-floor ventilation system and we constantly run dehumidifiers to try to combat the damp.

We object to the proposed development because:

(1) As shown by the shadow diagrams in the proposal, it will block almost all of the winter afternoon sunlight presently received by our house. This is a significant detriment, because:
(a) Preservation of heritage building: We are very concerned that losing the winter afternoon sunlight will make the building’s damp problems worse, causing damage that we cannot practically prevent or repair.
(b) Impact on living: The rooms/spaces most impacted are our living room with front patio and our master bedroom with balcony, which are high-use areas where we go for our winter sun. There is very little other sunlight directly into our house due to its orientation and window placement.

(2) Adding 184 dwellings (of up to 4 bedrooms) will create a large amount of additional traffic at all hours of the day in the area where Whaling Road intersects with Alfred Street and Little Alfred Street. To our observation, this is an area of moderately high (and increasing) pedestrian use by residents of Whaling Road and its off-streets, and by other local residents walking through the area to and from the North Sydney CBD. Even in the limited time the new Alfred Street exit from the Warringah Freeway has been open, it has become apparent that increased vehicle numbers can create a snarl of traffic trying to get out of Whaling Road.

(3) The additional 184 dwellings (plus retail) with 172 car spaces will add to parking problems. Many existing residences do not have off-street parking or (like us) have single car spaces. One nearby terrace comprises 5 apartments with a single car space. There are often already difficulties with tradesperson and visitor parking. If street parking is not available in the “dead-end” of Whaling Road and its off-streets, there are no easy options to park nearby for those with young families, mobility issues, or heavy tools/equipment or shopping. The closest streets (High Street, Clark Road, Kurraba Road) have limited parking and/or require negotiating steep slopes or lots of stairs. The impact of the proposed development is likely to be severe for many residents.

(4) The proposed height of the development is excessive and entirely out of proportion to all of the other buildings in its immediate area. Leaving aside the proponents’ debatable assertions about mitigating effects of the proposed design and landscaping, the reality is that no beauties of design can counteract the jarringly disproportionate height of the proposed building.

We do not object to rezoning the relevant site as residential, or to a redevelopment of the same size as the existing building, as long as there are suitable requirements to address traffic and parking issues.

I object to the scale of this project, the impact of height of the building, overshadowing, over surrounding properties. I also object to the impact of construction - noise, dust, disruption to residents - we have already suffered enough from the warringah freeway project over the past 3 years. Also the addition of this number of new residences will have an adverse impact on traffic, local parking and our schools are already full. This development should be rejected.

I object to a 35 storey building in this location left of the freeway. This building will be a an eyesore on the landscape let alone a total disruption to the houses behind and around the area. This size complex should not be allowed in this location and should never have been allowed to be built in the first place. Keep all very tall buildings in the North Sydney CBD to the right of the freeway. The developer is only using the loophole in the recent changes too push this through his proposal which has been knocked back many times by North Sydney council.

I object to the proposed development at 275 Alfred St (SSD-86992219) on the grounds of excessive height and construction noise.

The proposed development's height is inconsistent with the local character and will negatively impact the amenity of nearby residents. Additionally, the construction process will generate significant noise, in a neighbourhood that’s already been impacted for years with the freeway construction works.
This side of the freeway needs to retain its charm and a building twice the size of the current one would be detrimental to this.
I request that the development be redesigned to address these concerns.

I am a resident of the local area living within 100m of the proposed site. I am very concerned about this proposal for the following reasons:
1. Pedestrian access around Whaling Road particularly for disabled - the proposed height of 39 storeys plus min setback of 3m from boundary to increase FSR will impact comfort and safety of pedestrians, including those with a disability. I have recently moved from an apartment with 15-20 storeys and the corner acceleration is hard to manage .
2. Topography – walking and car movement is narrow and steep. The gradient between Alfred St North, Little Alfred Street, Ormiston Ave, Neutral Street and Whaling Road can be large and tight to get around.
3. Local Parking– parking is limited on-street to 30 or 60 minutes a day Mon-Fri (unless resident permit) but this would need to be extended to every day given the large number of proposed residents. On-street parking is possible off-peak – this would be eroded significantly if over 170 new residents moved in.
4. Why continue and extend bad planning - The rationale for originally putting an office tower on the east side of the freeway separate from all other office buildings in North Sydney, west of Warringah Freeway. I understand that developers want to re-zone from current office (17 storeys) to multi-use / residential (39 storeys) - however even the original office tower is out of place to the rest of the community it sits within. The Planning Panels and NSW Department of Planning in 2016 review of a 2015 proposal to develop the site said: existing building was "already out of context, discordant and inharmonious with the height and scale of the surrounding neighbouring buildings and the Whaling Road Conservation Area items".
5. Proposed height - I strongly object to a residential tower that is 39 storeys when the rest of the area is low-rise - houses of 2-3 storeys and low residential of 8 storeys. This is beyond the current LEP.
6. Conversion of other North Sydney office towers to residential - given the need for additional housing, and the opening of Victoria Cross Metro, wouldn't it be better to convert existing 39 storey office buildings in North Sydney CBD - west side of Freeway (given higher vacancy rate of 21-23% as of late 2025 in this area) than increase height on east side? They would be closer to amenities - environmental and other social impacts may already be largely met.
7. Continued major disruption - the residents nearby have already had major disruption from Warringah Freeway Upgrade with weekend, night construction as well as poor traffic management into Whaling Road into our area. The demolition and construction of this project will continue major disruptions to health (sleep deprivation, vermin control) for some years.

We are local residents whose home (on Little Alfred Street) is located approximately 50 metres from 275 Alfred Street, commonly known as the ‘SBS’ building, and we write to formally object to the proposed development SSD8699219.
This application is substantially similar to the proposal lodged in 2015, which was assessed by Council and the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP). At that time, the JRPP advised that any redevelopment should encompass the entire surrounding commercial zoned precinct. The 2015 proposal did not meet that requirement and was rejected by both Council and the Department of Planning and Environment. The current proposal (SSD86992219) once again fails to address the precinct’s comprehensive redevelopment as previously recommended but now proposes an even taller and more intrusive building.

Excessive Building Height
The proposed height is excessive, unjustified, and fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding low-rise residential context. The site sits far outside the CBD and directly adjoins a low-scale residential Conservation Area, where a tower of this magnitude would be an even more discordant anomaly than the existing structure.
Multiple planning reviews have already highlighted the unsuitability of excessive scale on this site:
- 2016 review: The Department found the proposal “fails to achieve the desirable separation distances between residential buildings and adversely affects the development potential of adjacent sites.”
- 2021 review: The Department required that “The ADG building separation controls be applied to ensure the proposal is compliant with the distances required for the heights proposed.”
Contextual Relationship with Surrounding Buildings
The development has an extremely poor relationship with the surrounding low-rise residential neighbourhood. The existing building already forms an intrusive element due to its height, bulk, and character. The proposed 39-storey tower would be directly across Little Alfred Street from one- and two- story homes and immediately beside the Whaling Road Conservation Area, creating an overwhelming and inappropriate visual impact.

Traffic Safety, Street Capacity, and Parking Constraints
Little Alfred Street is already hazardous for pedestrians, particularly those on the east side where no footpath exists. The street is extremely narrow, with parking narrowing it further, and includes a blind crest where drivers frequently exceed the 20 km/h limit. Alternative access routes are also unsafe and narrow.
Parking shortages are significant. Little Alfred Street has only few on street spaces with one hour limits, and many nearby homes lack off-street parking. Increased residential density planned under this proposal do not sufficiently address these issues and would serve to greatly worsen congestion, parking pressure, and safety risks.

Loss of Privacy and Over-Shadowing
The proposal provides no meaningful analysis of overlooking, despite placing a 39- story tower across from low-rise homes in a heritage area. Severe overlooking into private living spaces and backyards would result. Further, shadow diagrams indicate significantly increased afternoon overshadowing, despite claims of no change before midday. However there is substantial overshadowing in the afternoon which will negatively impact the experience for those living in the area.


Given the strong parallels to the previously rejected 2015 proposal and the significantly amplified impacts of the current scheme, we respectfully request that the application be reconsidered or appropriately amended. The proposal is excessive in scale, non-compliant with established planning expectations, and materially flawed in its assessment of impacts. Moreover, it does not appear to provide any genuine or lasting public benefit, including those claimed in relation to Little Alfred Street or the Whaling Road Conservation Area.

Subject: Objection to SSD-86992219 – Non-compliance with Planning Controls and Strategic Planning Objectives

To whom it may concern,
I formally object to SSD-86992219, which proposes the demolition of the existing commercial building and its replacement with a 39-storey mixed-use tower at 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney.

While I acknowledge the NSW Government’s objective to increase housing supply, unfettered planning as a means to an end is not a substitute for sound, merit-based assessment. Development of this scale cannot be considered in isolation from the capacity of the surrounding area to support increased density. When planning controls are overridden without adequate justification, cumulative impact analysis, or infrastructure alignment, public confidence in the planning system is eroded and perceptions arise that outcomes are driven by developer interests rather than the public good.

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the North Sydney LEP and DCP, the NSW Design Quality principles, and the SSD assessment framework under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, for the following reasons:

Excessive height, bulk and scale:
The proposed height and massing are grossly disproportionate to the site and its immediate context, resulting in an overdevelopment that fails to achieve an appropriate transition to surrounding residential streets and heritage areas. The proposal exceeds established height, setback, and built-form controls and is inconsistent with the desired future character of the precinct.

Amenity impacts – overshadowing, privacy and visual dominance:
The application does not adequately demonstrate compliance with solar access, privacy, and visual impact provisions of the DCP. Shadow analysis is insufficient to establish that acceptable solar access will be maintained to Alfred Street North Park and the Whaling Road Heritage Conservation Area, particularly during the critical mid-winter period. The scale of the building will result in unacceptable loss of privacy and residential amenity to adjoining properties.

Heritage and environmental impacts:
The proposal fails to respond sensitively to the adjoining Heritage Conservation Area and its interface with public open space. The scale and form of the tower would diminish the heritage significance, setting, and environmental quality of this sensitive location, contrary to LEP heritage objectives.

Traffic, access and infrastructure constraints:
The reliance on Little Alfred Street as the sole vehicular access point is fundamentally flawed. This narrow street already experiences congestion, unsafe traffic conditions, and illegal parking associated with the existing development. The proposal does not demonstrate that the local road network can safely or efficiently accommodate the increased traffic, servicing, and construction impacts, contrary to DCP and RMS/Transport for NSW requirements.

Site unsuitability and cumulative impacts:
The site’s physical constraints, surrounding heritage context, limited street capacity, and proximity to sensitive residential uses render it unsuitable for development of the proposed height and density. The limited provision of affordable housing does not offset these impacts nor justify a departure from established planning controls.

Lack of genuine community consultation:
Claims of consistent community consultation are not supported. As a directly affected neighbour, I have not been consulted on this or previous proposals. The absence of meaningful engagement is inconsistent with best-practice strategic planning and undermines confidence in the assessment process.

In summary, the proposal represents an excessive, poorly sited overdevelopment that prioritises yield over strategic planning outcomes. It fails to demonstrate environmental, social, or infrastructure sustainability and does not achieve the orderly and economic use of land as required under the EP&A Act. Approving development of this scale without regard to local capacity and cumulative impacts undermines the integrity of the planning system and public trust in its independence.
For these reasons, SSD-86992219 should be refused.