I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 37‑storey development on Merrylands Road. I do not want this project to proceed, and I am deeply concerned about the long‑term impact it will have on my family, my home, and the broader community.
My family and I moved to Merrylands only a few months ago. We chose this suburb carefully because we believed it offered a reasonable balance between accessibility and liveability. We believed Merrylands was a place where families could settle, feel safe, enjoy natural light, open views, and a sense of calm. This proposal undermines that expectation entirely.
Loss of Views and Sense of Home
The sheer height of this tower will dramatically change how my home feels. The proposed building will either substantially or completely block my existing city skyline views from 245 Merrylands Road. These views are not a luxury — they are part of my daily wellbeing, the openness I enjoy when I wake up, and a key reason I felt comfortable committing my family to this area.
Once these views are gone, they are gone forever. No amount of justification can give them back. I am asking for a full and honest view loss assessment, including photomontages from multiple levels of my building, so residents can clearly see what we stand to lose.
Loss of Sunlight and Comfort
I am also deeply worried about the loss of sunlight. Afternoon sun is essential to the comfort and health of north‑west facing apartments like mine. The scale and bulk of this tower will cast long shadows over our homes, making them darker, colder, and less liveable.
This is not just a technical planning issue — it affects how warm our homes feel, how much electricity we use, how our children experience their living space, and our overall quality of life. I am requesting further overshadowing studies specific to our property and reassurance that Cumberland DCP 2021 is being genuinely complied with, not just ticked off on paper.
Traffic, Congestion, and Daily Stress
Merrylands Road is already congested. Anyone who lives here knows this. Adding a 37‑storey development with hundreds of new residents, visitors, and commercial users will add daily stress to an already struggling road network.
This is not simply about inconvenience — it affects how long it takes to get to work, to school, to medical appointments, and how emergency services move through the area. I believe the traffic impacts have been underestimated, and I strongly request an independent review that considers the combined pressure of multiple developments in this precinct.
Overdevelopment and Community Wellbeing
I acknowledge the importance of housing supply and affordability. However, this should not come at the expense of existing residents who have already invested their lives and savings into this community.
A building of this height and density feels out of place and overwhelming. It risks turning Merrylands into an overcrowded, over‑pressured area where infrastructure, services, and social cohesion struggle to keep pace. As a resident, I am genuinely worried about the long‑term management, safety, and liveability of an area that absorbs growth at this scale without adequate planning.
Merrylands should not lose its human scale. It should remain a suburb where families feel settled, connected, and safe — not overshadowed and overlooked by towers that dominate the skyline.
Final Request
For all of these reasons, I strongly object to this development. I ask the consent authority to refuse the proposal, or at the very least, require a substantial redesign that significantly reduces its height and impact.
If the project is to be considered any further, independent and transparent reviews of view loss, overshadowing, and traffic impacts must be required. The voices of existing residents — the people who already call this place home — deserve to be heard.
This proposal, as it stands, will permanently change this neighbourhood for the worse. I urge the decision‑makers to protect the liveability and wellbeing of Merrylands and the people who live here.

Please see below reasons why I object with this project:
- Excessive building height and scale that is out of character with the local area
- Loss of skyline views, privacy, and residential amenity
- Overshadowing and reduced access to sunlight and daylight while blocking view to harbour bridge and city skyline
- Increased traffic congestion and pressure on local roads and parking
- Strain on local infrastructure, including schools, transport, and community services
- Potential negative impact on property values and future saleability

I object to the project for the following reasons:
1. Excessive building height and scale that is out of character with the local area
2. Loss of skyline views, privacy, and residential amenity
3. Overshadowing and reduced access to sunlight and daylight
4. Increased traffic congestion and pressure on local roads and parking (Biggest concern as there is already a lack of parking available for the area and the traffic is horrendous during peak hours. I was born and raised in Merrylands so I have personally seen the changes throughout the years)
5. Strain on local infrastructure, including schools, transport, and community services
6. Potential negative impact on property values and future saleability

My name is Amal El Masri and I own and live at E901, 245 Merrylands Road, Merrylands. I am a local resident and submit this objection to the proposed 37‑storey development at 215 and 229–239 Pitt Street, Merrylands. I strongly object to this proposal due to the serious and lasting impacts it will have on my home, my daily living conditions, and the wider Merrylands community.
While I understand that development and housing growth are important, this proposal goes far beyond what is reasonable or appropriate for this location. The scale and intensity of the development will significantly reduce the quality of life for existing residents and permanently alter the character of the area in a negative way.
For the reasons outlined below, I respectfully request that this proposal be rejected or significantly reduced in height and scale.

Excessive Height and Overdevelopment
The proposed 37‑storey building is completely out of proportion with the surrounding area. Merrylands is predominantly made up of low‑ and mid‑rise residential buildings, and a tower of this height would dominate the skyline in an overwhelming and intrusive way.
From the perspective of someone who lives nearby, the proposal feels like overdevelopment of the site for maximum yield, rather than a response to the character or capacity of the area. A building of this height does not sit comfortably within the existing neighbourhood and would permanently change the scale of the area to the detriment of those who already live here.

Loss of Views, Privacy, and Residential Amenity
One of my biggest concerns is the loss of skyline views and residential amenity. Views, outlook, and a sense of openness are important parts of enjoyable and liveable housing. The proposed building will remove these for many nearby residents, including myself.
The height and proximity of the building will also result in increased overlooking, leading to a serious loss of privacy in homes that were never designed to be adjacent to a high‑rise tower. Living under the shadow of such a large building will create a sense of enclosure and visual dominance that will affect residents every single day.

Overshadowing and Reduction of Natural Light
The proposal will cause significant overshadowing, reducing access to natural sunlight for nearby apartments, balconies, and shared spaces. Natural light is essential for comfort, health, and well‑being, particularly in apartment living.
Reduced sunlight will make homes darker and colder, increase reliance on artificial lighting and heating, and reduce the enjoyment of private open space. These are serious impacts that cannot be dismissed as minor or acceptable side effects of development.

Traffic Congestion and Parking Impacts
Traffic and parking are already significant issues in Merrylands. Local roads, including Pitt Street and surrounding streets, experience congestion and limited parking availability, particularly during peak hours.
The addition of a large number of new residents from a 27‑storey development will greatly increase traffic congestion and parking demand. Any shortfall in on‑site parking will push vehicles into nearby streets, making day‑to‑day life more difficult for existing residents and increasing safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.
Public transport and road infrastructure in the area are already under pressure, and I do not believe they can adequately support a development of this scale.

Pressure on Local Infrastructure and Services
Merrylands is already experiencing rapid growth, and local infrastructure is struggling to keep up. Schools, medical services, childcare facilities, transport, and open spaces are under increasing strain.
Adding a development of this size will further overstretch services that residents rely on daily. As someone who lives in the area, I am concerned that infrastructure improvements are always promised but rarely delivered in time to match the scale of new development.
Growth should be managed responsibly, not at the expense of people who already live here.

Impact on Property Values and Neighbourhood Character
The cumulative impacts of this proposal will negatively affect property values and the long‑term desirability of the area. Loss of views, privacy, sunlight, and increased congestion all reduce the appeal of nearby homes.
More importantly, the proposal threatens the character and liveability of Merrylands. A single tower of this height does not create a balanced or cohesive neighbourhood—it creates a stark divide between existing residents and new high‑density development.
Residents should not be forced to absorb permanent impacts that reduce their quality of life for the benefit of an oversized development.

Conclusion
As a local resident, I believe this proposal places excessive burden on the existing community and fails to respect the scale, character, and capacity of Merrylands.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the consent authority to reject this proposal, or at the very least require that it be substantially reduced in height, bulk, and density so it better aligns with the surrounding area and protects the amenity of existing residents.
Thank you for considering my submission.

I write to lodge an objection and formal submission in relation to the proposed development at 215 and 229–239 Pitt Street, Merrylands.
I am a nearby owner of a unit. I am concerned about the very significant impacts of this monstrosity on surrounding residents, the local streetscape and the broader Merrylands community.
The NSW Planning Portal currently describes the proposal as the site preparation and construction of a 37-storey mixed-use development, comprising 238 affordable housing apartments, three levels of commercial and retail uses, four basement levels, landscaping and public domain works. The project is identified as SSD-79844224 and is on public exhibition from 10 April 2026 to 24 April 2026.
However, one of the supporting documents exhibited for the same address, titled “Amended Clause 4.6 Variation to Floor Space Ratio”, describes a materially different proposal. That document refers instead to a 24-storey mixed-use building comprising 88 Residential Aged Care Facility beds, 98 Independent Living Units, ground floor and podium commercial space, and three basement levels. It also states that the proposal exceeds the permitted residential floor space ratio by 1,648.72 square metres, being an 11.6% variation. That is not a small variation.
This inconsistency is itself a serious concern. Public exhibition material should be clear, coherent and transparent so that affected residents can properly understand what is actually proposed and make informed submissions. At present, the exhibited material appears to refer to materially different versions of the development, including significant differences in height, land use and scale. That creates uncertainty and undermines the community’s ability to meaningfully assess the proposal.
Regardless of which proposal is the correct proposal, both forms are objected to. The introduction of such high density living, in a pocket of Merrylands that is already so heavily saturated will have no benefit to the locality. It will only be detrimental. The streets are already congested (both in pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic) with no proper infrastructure or amenities to accommodate the already very high population in the locality.
A concern is fire safety, particularly if any version of the proposal includes elderly, frail, disabled or mobility-impaired residents. The Clause 4.6 document confirms that the earlier scheme included 88 residential aged care beds and contemplated staffing to support those residents. In a multi-storey building, this raises an obvious and important question: how would residents who are unable to evacuate independently be moved to safety during a fire, smoke event or other emergency? Where in Merrylands would they safely go?
Even where a building may satisfy technical code requirements, the practical reality of evacuating vulnerable residents from upper levels remains a matter of substantial public interest.
In the event that it is intended to be a 37 storey residential/affordable housing structure, the complaint is exacerbated because of the accommodation of substantially more civilians.
I am also concerned about the height, bulk and scale of the proposal. The current exhibited scheme is described as 37 storeys, which is substantially larger than the 24-storey scheme described in the Clause 4.6 material for the same site. My concern is that a tower of this scale appears excessive in the context of Merrylands and risks overwhelming the surrounding built environment. It also sets a precedent for height of future buildings. Merrylands is not a city centre. It is a small suburb. Parramatta is a short distance away. It has amenities and facilities to cope with structures of this size. Merrylands is not so equipped. It does not have the same allocation of funding as Parramatta. It should not be treated as a city centre. Developments of this size should not be encouraged for this small suburb.
A development of this size has the potential to create significant impacts in relation to visual bulk, overshadowing, privacy, wind effects, loss of amenity and cumulative pressure on local roads, services and infrastructure. These are not minor matters for nearby residents. A proposal of this scale should be held to a high standard of justification, with clear and consistent documentation so that the community can properly understand the real impacts.
I also request that careful consideration be given to the cumulative local effects of the development, including:
overshadowing and loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties and public areas;
privacy and overlooking impacts on nearby dwellings;
wind impacts and pedestrian amenity at street level;
increased traffic, servicing and parking pressures;
the suitability of the building’s height and bulk within the Merrylands town centre context;
impact on existing residential dwellings.
For these reasons, I wholly object to the proposal, whether in its current form, or in a modified version. Merrylands already proffers so much residential space that to add an additional 37-storeys is going to create financial and economic pressure that the suburb is not equipped to deal with.
In summary, I respectfully request that the Department give close attention to:

the inconsistency between the currently exhibited 37-storey proposal and the 24-storey aged care / independent living scheme described in the Clause 4.6 document;
the adequacy and transparency of the fire safety and evacuation strategy for any vulnerable or mobility-impaired occupants;
the excessive height, bulk and visual dominance of the proposed tower in the Merrylands context; and
the resulting impacts on amenity, safety and local infrastructure.

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to lodge an objection and formal submission in relation to the proposed development at 215 and 229–239 Pitt Street, Merrylands.

I am a resident of 2101/245 Merrylands Road, Merrylands, and I am concerned about the likely impacts of this proposal on surrounding residents, the local streetscape, and the broader Merrylands community.

The NSW Planning Portal currently describes the proposal as the site preparation and construction of a 37-storey mixed-use development, comprising 238 affordable housing apartments, three levels of commercial and retail uses, four basement levels, landscaping, and public domain works. The project is identified as SSD-79844224 and is on public exhibition from 10 April 2026 to 24 April 2026.

However, one of the supporting documents exhibited for the same address, titled Amended Clause 4.6 Variation to Floor Space Ratio, describes a materially different proposal. That document instead refers to a 24-storey mixed-use building comprising 88 Residential Aged Care Facility beds, 98 Independent Living Units, ground floor and podium commercial space, and three basement levels. It also states that the proposal exceeds the permitted residential floor space ratio by 1,648.72 square metres, being an 11.6% variation.

This inconsistency is itself a serious concern. Public exhibition material should be clear, coherent, and transparent so that affected residents can properly understand what is proposed and make informed submissions. At present, the exhibited material appears to refer to materially different versions of the development, including significant differences in height, land use, and scale. That creates uncertainty and undermines the community’s ability to meaningfully assess the proposal.

My principal concern is fire safety, particularly if any version of the proposal includes elderly, frail, disabled, or mobility-impaired residents. The Clause 4.6 document confirms that the earlier scheme included 88 residential aged care beds and contemplated staffing to support those residents. In a multi-storey building, this raises an obvious and important question: how would residents who are unable to evacuate independently be moved to safety during a fire, smoke event, or other emergency?

Even where a building may satisfy technical code requirements, the practical reality of evacuating vulnerable residents from upper levels remains a matter of substantial public interest. I respectfully request that the consent authority carefully assess and clearly explain the fire and emergency evacuation strategy for any elderly or mobility-impaired occupants, including whether evacuation would depend on fire stairs, staff-assisted evacuation, smoke compartmentation, refuge areas, evacuation lifts, or any performance-based fire engineering solution.

I am also concerned about the height, bulk, and scale of the proposal. The current exhibited scheme is described as 37 storeys, which is substantially larger than the 24-storey scheme described in the Clause 4.6 material for the same site. A tower of this scale appears excessive in the context of Merrylands and risks overwhelming the surrounding built environment.

A development of this size has the potential to create significant impacts in relation to visual bulk, overshadowing, privacy, wind effects, loss of amenity, and cumulative pressure on local roads, services, and infrastructure. These are not minor matters for nearby residents.

In addition, I request careful consideration be given to the following further impacts:
• Increased traffic congestion on already busy local roads, particularly Pitt Street and Merrylands Road;
• Strain on existing parking availability for residents, visitors, and nearby businesses;
• Additional pressure on public transport services, schools, medical centres, and community facilities;
• Construction noise, dust, vibration, and prolonged disruption for nearby residents over several years;
• Potential reduction in neighbouring property values due to overdevelopment and loss of amenity;
• Overcrowding of the area without matching infrastructure upgrades;
• Loss of neighbourhood character and an imbalance between rapid development and community needs;
• Increased stormwater runoff and drainage pressure during heavy rain events;
• Waste management concerns from a high-density development of this size;
• Safety concerns caused by increased pedestrian and vehicle activity around already busy intersections.

I also request that careful consideration be given to the cumulative local effects of the development, including:
• Overshadowing and loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties and public areas;
• Privacy and overlooking impacts on nearby dwellings;
• Wind impacts and pedestrian amenity at street level;
• Increased traffic, servicing, and parking pressures;
• The suitability of the building’s height and bulk within the Merrylands town centre context.

For these reasons, I object to the proposal in its current form unless and until the inconsistencies in the exhibition material are clarified and the issues outlined above, particularly those relating to fire safety, excessive scale, traffic, and infrastructure impacts, are properly addressed.

In summary, I respectfully request that the Department give close attention to:
• The inconsistency between the currently exhibited 37-storey proposal and the 24-storey aged care / independent living scheme described in the Clause 4.6 document;
• The adequacy and transparency of the fire safety and evacuation strategy for any vulnerable or mobility-impaired occupants;
• The excessive height, bulk, and visual dominance of the proposed tower in the Merrylands context;
• Traffic congestion, parking shortages, and pressure on public infrastructure;
• Overshadowing, privacy loss, and reduced amenity for surrounding residents; and
• Whether the scale of this development is appropriate for the existing character and capacity of the area.

Thank you for considering this submission

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to lodge an objection and formal submission in relation to the proposed development at 215 and 229–239 Pitt Street, Merrylands.

I am a nearby resident of 245 Merrylands Road, Merrylands, and I am concerned about the likely impacts of this proposal on surrounding residents, the local streetscape and the broader Merrylands community.

The NSW Planning Portal currently describes the proposal as the site preparation and construction of a 37-storey mixed-use development, comprising 238 affordable housing apartments, three levels of commercial and retail uses, four basement levels, landscaping and public domain works. The project is identified as SSD-79844224 and is on public exhibition from 10 April 2026 to 24 April 2026.

However, one of the supporting documents exhibited for the same address, titled “Amended Clause 4.6 Variation to Floor Space Ratio”, describes a materially different proposal. That document refers instead to a 24-storey mixed-use building comprising 88 Residential Aged Care Facility beds, 98 Independent Living Units, ground floor and podium commercial space, and three basement levels. It also states that the proposal exceeds the permitted residential floor space ratio by 1,648.72 square metres, being an 11.6% variation.

This inconsistency is itself a serious concern. Public exhibition material should be clear, coherent and transparent so that affected residents can properly understand what is actually proposed and make informed submissions. At present, the exhibited material appears to refer to materially different versions of the development, including significant differences in height, land use and scale. That creates uncertainty and undermines the community’s ability to meaningfully assess the proposal.

My principal concern is fire safety, particularly if any version of the proposal includes elderly, frail, disabled or mobility-impaired residents. The Clause 4.6 document confirms that the earlier scheme included 88 residential aged care beds and contemplated staffing to support those residents. In a multi-storey building, this raises an obvious and important question: how would residents who are unable to evacuate independently be moved to safety during a fire, smoke event or other emergency?

Even where a building may satisfy technical code requirements, the practical reality of evacuating vulnerable residents from upper levels remains a matter of substantial public interest. I respectfully request that the consent authority carefully assess and clearly explain the fire and emergency evacuation strategy for any elderly or mobility-impaired occupants, including whether evacuation would depend on fire stairs, staff-assisted evacuation, smoke compartmentation, refuge areas, evacuation lifts, or any performance-based fire engineering solution. In my view, this issue should be fully resolved and clearly documented before any approval is considered.

I am also concerned about the height, bulk and scale of the proposal. The current exhibited scheme is described as 37 storeys, which is substantially larger than the 24-storey scheme described in the Clause 4.6 material for the same site. My concern is that a tower of this scale appears excessive in the context of Merrylands and risks overwhelming the surrounding built environment.

A development of this size has the potential to create significant impacts in relation to visual bulk, overshadowing, privacy, wind effects, loss of amenity and cumulative pressure on local roads, services and infrastructure. These are not minor matters for nearby residents. A proposal of this scale should be held to a high standard of justification, with clear and consistent documentation so that the community can properly understand the real impacts.

I also request that careful consideration be given to the cumulative local effects of the development, including:

overshadowing and loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties and public areas;
privacy and overlooking impacts on nearby dwellings;
wind impacts and pedestrian amenity at street level;
increased traffic, servicing and parking pressures;
the suitability of the building’s height and bulk within the Merrylands town centre context.

For these reasons, I object to the proposal in its current form unless and until the inconsistencies in the exhibition material are clarified and the issues outlined above, particularly those relating to fire safety and evacuation, are properly addressed.

In summary, I respectfully request that the Department give close attention to:

the inconsistency between the currently exhibited 37-storey proposal and the 24-storey aged care / independent living scheme described in the Clause 4.6 document;
the adequacy and transparency of the fire safety and evacuation strategy for any vulnerable or mobility-impaired occupants;
the excessive height, bulk and visual dominance of the proposed tower in the Merrylands context; and
the resulting impacts on amenity, safety and local infrastructure.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours faithfully,
Shane Tellini
1706 245 Merrylands Road, Merrylands, NSW
mob: 0404 243 053

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 215 and 229–239 Pitt Street, Merrylands, on the grounds of its significant adverse impact on surrounding residential properties, particularly those located at 245 Merrylands Road.

Over recent years, the transformation of Merrylands has been notably influenced by modern developments such as Mason & Main, which have introduced a contemporary urban lifestyle, enhanced the suburb’s appeal, and redefined residential expectations. These developments have been carefully integrated into the existing landscape, offering residents improved amenity, increased natural light, and, importantly, access to valued district and city skyline views. For many residents, these views are not merely aesthetic but are a defining feature of the living experience and a key contributor to property value.

The proposed development at Pitt Street, however, presents a stark contrast in scale and planning sensitivity. Due to its excessive height and bulk, it will result in the near-total obstruction of existing city skyline views currently enjoyed by residents of 245 Merrylands Road. This loss of outlook represents a substantial reduction in residential amenity and will inevitably have a negative impact on property values within the building.

Furthermore, the proposed structure sets an undesirable precedent for overdevelopment in the area. Its scale has the potential to dominate the surrounding streetscape and effectively limit future developments along Merrylands Road from achieving similar outlooks or design quality. This undermines the balanced and progressive urban planning approach that has thus far contributed to Merrylands’ growth and desirability.

In addition to visual obstruction, developments of this magnitude often raise broader concerns including overshadowing, reduced natural ventilation, increased traffic congestion, and added strain on local infrastructure and services. These factors collectively diminish the quality of life for existing residents and should be carefully considered in any planning determination.

In light of the above, I strongly urge the relevant planning authorities to reconsider or significantly amend the proposed development to ensure it aligns with the character, scale, and long-term vision of Merrylands. Protecting existing residential amenity, preserving key view corridors, and maintaining equitable development outcomes should remain central to any approval process.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission.

I am submitting this objection because I do not support the construction of the proposed 37‑storey building near my home. I am deeply concerned that a development of this size will create serious problems for the wider community, not just for my building.
My family and I chose to live in this area because we believed it offered a reasonable quality of life. This proposal threatens that, and I feel strongly that it has not adequately considered the long‑term impacts on existing residents.
Community Safety and Liveability
Merrylands already faces challenges related to safety, amenity, and infrastructure pressure. Introducing a very large number of new residents into a small area — while multiple construction projects are happening at the same time — raises serious concerns.
I am worried about how the council plans to ensure the ongoing safety, management, and wellbeing of the community once such a high‑density development is completed. When population density increases too quickly, without sufficient supporting services and public spaces, residents can feel unsafe and unsettled. I do not want my family or my neighbours to experience declining safety or growing social tension as a result of overdevelopment.
Impact on Children and Families
Children need safe, open spaces to play and grow. Bringing a large number of people into an already busy area will make the neighbourhood more crowded and stressful for families.
Parents may feel increasingly anxious about letting their children go to parks or public spaces if these areas become overcrowded or poorly supervised. A healthy community must prioritise space, safety, and wellbeing for children, not just building height and population numbers.
Air Quality and Environmental Concerns
There are already many construction projects happening in this area. Continued large‑scale development will worsen air quality, noise, and environmental conditions.
Poor air quality and extended construction activity negatively affect health, particularly for children, elderly residents, and people with existing medical conditions. I am concerned that this development will add to pollution levels and reduce the overall cleanliness and comfort of the neighbourhood.
Transport and Road Capacity
The streets around this area are narrow and already under pressure. Traffic congestion is a daily issue for residents.
I do not believe the current road network can realistically support the increased number of pedestrians, vehicles, and service access that a 37‑storey building would generate. This will impact daily travel, emergency vehicle access, and overall mobility in the area.
Thank you for listening to us.
Loss of Views, Sunlight, and Property Value
I am particularly concerned about losing the views from my apartment. I purchased my home specifically because of the existing city views. A high‑rise building of this scale will block those views, permanently changing the character and enjoyment of my home.
This loss of outlook also affects the aesthetic value of surrounding apartments and may reduce long‑term property value and investment potential for current owners.
Additionally, the building will block sunlight, affecting natural light, comfort, and the solar efficiency of my apartment and neighbouring buildings. Reduced sunlight impacts energy use, mental wellbeing, and liveability.
Final Statement
Taking all of these issues into consideration — safety, overcrowding, children’s wellbeing, pollution, transport limitations, and permanent loss of views and sunlight — I firmly believe that constructing a 37‑storey building in this location is not appropriate.
I strongly request that this proposal not be approved. Please do not force my family, or other long‑term residents, to consider relocating due to development that significantly reduces our quality of life.
I urge the council to prioritise sensible, human‑scale planning that protects existing communities rather than overwhelming them.

Submission – Objection to Proposed Mixed-Use Development

215, 229–239 Pitt Street, Merrylands

I Harley Ravaillion, Acting chairperson of strata committee 245 merrylands rd do so formally object to the proposed mixed-use development, including the affordable housing component, at 215, 229–239 Pitt Street, Merrylands.

My objection is based on clear concerns regarding excessive building height, overshadowing, loss of sunlight (including impacts on solar panels), increased traffic congestion, strain on infrastructure, and pressure on already limited street parking. The proposal will also result in loss of valuable views, including Harbour Bridge and city views, reduced amenity for existing residents, a likely loss of property values for affected owners, and increased traffic waiting times when travelling towards Parramatta or the city.

While I acknowledge the applicable planning controls may permit a building of a certain height, I do not support a development of the scale proposed. In my view, a building limited to approximately six storeys (including ground level) would represent a more appropriate outcome for the site and surrounding context, supporting community protection by minimising impacts on traffic, residential amenity, and local infrastructure.

This objection is supported by over 60 signatures from local property owners only, with additional signatures continuing to be collected attached to this current submission as an attachment. This demonstrates clear and growing community concern and direct impact on existing residents.

Planning Grounds of Objection

1. Non-Compliance with Height and Built Form Controls

The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site due to its excessive height, bulk, and scale. It is inconsistent with Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

The proposal fails to demonstrate that any variation to the height standard is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3, particularly in relation to:

Minimising visual impact

Protecting solar access

Maintaining compatibility with the existing and desired future character

The resulting built form is incompatible with the surrounding area and constitutes an unacceptable planning outcome.

2. Inadequate Justification for Variation (Clause 4.6)

To the extent that the proposal seeks to exceed development standards, it has not demonstrated that:

Compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation

The proposal fails to adequately justify the exceedance and does not achieve the underlying objectives of the control.

3. Failure to Satisfy Development Control Plan Requirements

The proposal does not adequately comply with the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 in relation to:

Building massing and scale

Streetscape integration

Amenity impacts on adjoining properties

The development fails to achieve the objectives of the DCP, which are intended to ensure appropriate built form and protect residential amenity.

4. Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access

The height and bulk of the development will result in unreasonable and excessive overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

This will:

Reduce natural light to existing apartments and balconies

Impact the efficiency and functionality of solar panel systems

The proposal is inconsistent with the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 and the Apartment Design Guide, which require adequate solar access and protection of neighbouring amenity.

5. Loss of Views and Residential Amenity

The development will obstruct established views of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney CBD skyline, and reduce sunlight access to surrounding apartments.

While private views are not strictly protected, the extent of impact contributes to a broader and unacceptable loss of residential amenity when considered cumulatively with other impacts.

6. Traffic, Parking and Cumulative Impacts

The proposal fails to adequately address traffic generation and cumulative impacts.

Existing congestion—particularly from vehicles exiting the nearby shopping centre—already causes delays and extended waiting times when travelling towards Parramatta and the city. The increased density will materially worsen these conditions, resulting in further delays and reduced efficiency of the local road network.

Street parking in the area is already constrained. The development will significantly increase demand for on-street parking, resulting in:

Increased congestion

Reduced accessibility

Safety risks for residents and visitors

The cumulative impact of height, traffic, parking demand, and overshadowing results in an unacceptable planning outcome.

7. Inadequate Infrastructure Capacity

The proposal introduces additional population density without demonstrating that local infrastructure can support the increase.

This places further strain on:

Local road networks

Public transport

Community services

The proposal fails to adequately respond to these constraints and is not supported by sufficient infrastructure planning.

8. Public Interest

The proposal is not in the public interest.

It imposes unreasonable impacts on existing residents, including loss of amenity, increased congestion, and infrastructure strain, without delivering a balanced or appropriately mitigated outcome.

Conclusion

The proposed development is an overdevelopment that fails to adequately address height, bulk, traffic, parking, infrastructure, and amenity impacts.

It is inconsistent with the objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, and relevant State planning policies.

I strongly object to the proposal and request that it be refused unless it is substantially amended to:

Deliver a reduced scale outcome (approximately six storeys including ground level) to support community protection by minimising impacts on traffic, residential amenity, and local infrastructure

Demonstrate consistency with the objectives of Clause 4.3

Provide a valid and justified response to Clause 4.6 (if applicable)

Deliver genuine mitigation of traffic, parking, and amenity impacts