Shop top housing development with in-fill affordable housing at 79-81 Queens Road and 2-8 Spencer Street, Five Dock

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed residential development in the Five Dock and Canada Bay corridor, and to raise serious concerns about the cumulative impact of continued high-density approvals in an area that is already critically underserved by public infrastructure.
The scale of development already approved or underway in this precinct is significant. The NSW Government approved Deicorp’s Kings Bay Village in July 2025, overriding objections from both Canada Bay and Inner West Councils, to deliver 1,185 apartments across six towers up to 31 storeys along Parramatta and Queens Roads. A separate $1.5 billion proposal by One Global Capital is seeking to add 750 apartments across five towers near the Five Dock waterfront. TOGA is simultaneously pursuing a further mixed-use masterplan on an 18,500 sqm site in the Kings Bay Precinct. Each of these projects has been assessed in relative isolation. They have not been adequately considered together, and they have not been considered against the infrastructure that currently exists to support them. To approve yet another development on top of this is, in my view, an irresponsible use of planning powers.
Five Dock has no train station. It has no connection to the heavy rail network. A 20-minute car journey from this suburb routinely takes over an hour by public transport, and that is not an exaggeration — it is the lived experience of residents today, before thousands of additional dwellings are added to the area. The road network is already at capacity. Parramatta Road is a well-documented failure as an arterial route and functions more as a barrier through the suburb than a functional transport corridor. The local street network was not designed to accommodate the traffic volumes that even the already-approved developments will generate, let alone further additions.
The Sydney Metro West line, which will include a Five Dock station, has a target opening date of 2032. This is welcome, but it does not resolve the connectivity deficit residents will face in the intervening years, nor does it deliver the network connections the area actually needs. Hunter Street will be the only CBD terminus on the line, with interchange to other services only possible via pedestrian connections to Wynyard and Martin Place. The government deliberately abandoned plans for a Central Station connection in 2019. This means there is no direct link to the T1, T2, T3 or T8 lines, no connection to the Metro City and Southwest line, no access to the airport via public transport, and no meaningful interchange at Strathfield, which is the nearest major connecting hub for regional and intercity services. For a suburb being asked to absorb thousands of new residents, this is an inadequate foundation.
In the interim, the primary public transport solution on offer is the Bridj on-demand bus service. This service operates on weekdays only, between 6:00am and 7:30pm, with no weekend or public holiday services. It requires a pre-booking via a smartphone app and is subject to availability. It is not a turn-up-and-go service. It is not a reliable commuter solution. Residents regularly find it unavailable when needed. For a government to point to this service as evidence that Five Dock is adequately connected to the broader network, while simultaneously approving towers of 30 or more storeys in the same suburb, is difficult to reconcile.
The healthcare situation compounds these concerns. Five Dock residents seeking maternity care are directed to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Camperdown or Canterbury Hospital in Campsie. There is no maternity unit at Concord Repatriation General Hospital, which is the closest major facility to the area. Both RPA and Canterbury are already operating under significant demand pressure. There is no indication that the state government has modelled the health service demand that will result from the population growth already approved in this corridor, let alone what further development will add. For families with children, for elderly residents, and for people in lower-income housing who are more likely to rely on public health services, this gap is not an inconvenience. It is a genuine risk.
This brings me to the question of affordable housing. Several of the approved developments in this corridor include affordable housing components. In principle, increasing affordable housing supply in Sydney is necessary and important. However, affordable housing placed in a suburb with limited weekend public transport, no train station until 2032, no nearby maternity or acute care hospital, and road infrastructure already at capacity is not a solution to housing disadvantage. It relocates disadvantaged residents to a location poorly equipped to support them, while the infrastructure that would make their lives manageable remains unbuilt or underfunded.
The state government has a clear mechanism, through the state significant development pathway, to override local council objections and fast-track approvals. It has used this mechanism repeatedly in this corridor, including against the explicit objections of Canada Bay Council and Inner West Council. What it has not done is use equivalent authority to fast-track the infrastructure investment that should accompany this growth. The $520 million committed nationally for community infrastructure across all priority precincts does not reflect what is needed specifically in the Canada Bay area, and there is no clear commitment to sequencing infrastructure delivery ahead of, or even alongside, residential approvals.
I am not objecting to the idea of growth or to the need for more housing in Sydney. I am objecting to a pattern of decision-making that treats each development as an isolated planning question while ignoring the systemic failure that is accumulating beneath it. Every approval in this area adds to a transport network already past its limits, a health system already stretched, and a community already bearing the consequences of decisions made without adequate regard for what residents actually need.
I urge the decision-maker to refuse this proposal until a genuine infrastructure sequencing plan is in place for the Five Dock and Canada Bay corridor, developed in consultation with Transport for NSW, NSW Health, local councils, and the community, and with binding commitments attached to future development approvals.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I support the project

Please see the attached detailed planning submission and photographs.
Residents are concerned about the increasing density and yields and the lack of strategic review of traffic and parking in the area. There are pre-existing parking and access issues.
The proposed non-compliant scale is not considered reasonable or justifiable and the impact on the area and reduction of the green edge/RE1 land along William Street will undermine outcomes. Amenity issues are raised, objection to lack of meaningful landscaping and also a need to review local flooding given lack of absorptive areas and incoming scales. Thank you for reviewing the details.

I strongly feel that the development is not in keeping with existing local structures. It is far too tall and out of character with Kings Bay area. It beggars belief you can call the development a "village". The area of the development is not large enough to support all the proposed structures.
Parking and traffic flow is going to be a big problem. Traffic studies should be undertaken. Roads in the surrounding are are at times very congested, especially at school drop off and pick up times. The development is right next door to a large school. Queens Road and William Street are particularly busy roads.
The high density proposed will have a great impact on the surrounding area. Transport systems are not yet in place. The Metro is not going to be available until 2032 and is quite a distance from the development.
I am concerned about the proposed rooftop communal space instead of a ground level open space. Is the roof top srea going to be used for drinking and live music? I am opposed to this use as it would be loud and noisy and noise travels.
I would like to see a smaller development on the site with green space and landscaping for residents to enjoy.
I do support affordable housing in principle but it should not be at the cost of the local community, environment and neighbourhood character.
I respectfully request that the application be refused or substantially amended to achieve a scale, design and outcome that is consistent with the planning controls, strategic objectives and expectations for the Kings Bay Area.

Hi,

I object to the project in its current state asI am concerned the development is out of character with
the Kings Bay estate area and is excessively tall and bulky, changing the shape of our area in a negative way.
I am concerned on the impacts of traffic congestion and parking shortages in Queens Road, William Street and
the wider Kings Bay area which are already difficult and it seems many proposed developments will make things worse. There is not enough parking and no parking for retail use, which will put pressure on on-street parking congestion.
I'm concerned with the density and not enough green space and worried about the noise that might come from a rooftop outdoor venue space. I am not at all opposed to affordable housing but also there is a lot of affordable housing close to kings bay estate and it seems it would be better to improve those spaces rather than providing more. What happens then to those houses?

I look forward to hearing your responses. Thanks!

I object to the SSD-78287462 Project as submitted via the Exhibition process.
The Kings Bay Precinct needs well planned, quality development that makes a positive
contribution to the community including the existing and future precinct residents.
Urban renewal in the Precinct needs to be about community building, not just
maximising return for high-density property developers.
SSD-78287462 as proposed will have an adverse impact on the Kings Bay Community.
Please see ATTACHMENT: 1_Submission & Objection to SSD-78287462 emailed to
Michelle Niles