Hi - I'm a mid-30s woman and I live in Milsons Point (in a 10-floor apartment building) with my husband. I've been a renter here for over 4 years now and I love living in this area.

While I've lived here, my rent has soared by 30% in 4 years and my apartment is among the more affordable ones. I routinely see 1 bedders advertised for 800-900 a week and a recent apartment sale of a 3 bedder in our building was 3.25m. We cannot see our way to buying an apartment in this area or anywhere on the lower north shore while these prices continue, and we will very likely have to move out of the area if we decide to even rent a larger space. To me this says something is broken in the housing market, and that is very much the supply of housing.

I would welcome new apartment buildings in this area that make it possible for myself and others like me to keep living near the city and near amenities. Every large European city has only high-density living within a 10km radius of the city and 'houses' only appear outside this radius - Sydney is unique in that houses and low-density buildings even exist this close to the city.

I suspect most younger people feel this way and we need to look to the future for the current and future generations rather than clinging to a past of village-like inner-city living, which inevitably requires that young people are pushed to areas 2 hours from the city so they can buy a house.

I would strongly urge you to approve this building and any other similar projects to come. Thank you.

I am concerned that a project that would support close to 500 students in one area will negatively impact the value of my investment property as well as the ability to rent at a reasonable return if a complex housing close to 500 students is based in the area.

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.'

I would however like to see the number of units and storeys significantly increased.

We are local residents who are supportive of addressing housing supply for Australians.
We would be supportive of the co-living development project subject to the applicant making a few changes that would address the detrimental impacts to nearby residents and the wider street / council area if plans progress in the current form. Please see attached for details of the areas of concerns and recommended solutions.

I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 35-51 Nicholson Street. While I acknowledge the state’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) targets, the complete absence of on-site parking for 449 rooms creates severe, adverse cumulative impacts on the traffic flow, safety, and operational infrastructure of the immediate Shirley Road and Nicholson Street intersection.
I request that the Department refuse consent or require major structural amendments based on the following material planning considerations:

1. Severe Traffic, Intersection Saturation, and Public Safety Risks
The proposal includes zero on-site car parking spaces for 449 residents. The applicant’s traffic report relies on flawed assumptions that a student cohort will not generate vehicle movements. In reality, this design will cause severe street parking overflow and drop-off congestion at the Nicholson Street and Shirley Road bottleneck.
* The Shirley Road Bottleneck: The intersection of Shirley Road and Nicholson Street is already a critical peak-hour choke point. Adding the concentrated vehicle movements of nearly 450 transient residents, delivery couriers, grocery delivery trucks, and rideshares onto a narrow street footprint will cripple local traffic flow.
* Cumulative Traffic Failure: This development sits directly across the road from the approved 12-storey development at 8-24 Nicholson Street (78 apartments). The combined traffic impact of both massive towers operating concurrently has not been safely modelled or mitigated for the Shirley Road interface.

2. Adverse Operational Impact on the Crows Nest Fire Station emergency route
Crows Nest Fire Station (99 Shirley Road) relies on clear, un-congested local corridors to meet its strict, legally mandated emergency response time targets.
* Impeding Emergency Services: Because Nicholson Street acts as a direct feeder onto Shirley Road, the localised gridlock caused by courier deliveries, moving vans, and rideshare drop-offs outside this zero-parking facility will directly impede the rapid transit and operational deployment of emergency vehicles exiting the Fire Station just 280 metres away. The Department must not approve a high-density footprint that compromises local emergency response networks.

3. Loss of Civic Amenity and Parking Accessibility for Crows Nest Uniting Church
The Crows Nest Uniting Church (122 Shirley Road) is a vital local community and spiritual hub that relies heavily on accessible street parking and safe drop-off zones for elderly, disabled, and mobility-impaired visitors.
* Displacement of Community Infrastructure: Because this 12-storey tower provides zero resident parking, it will inevitably cause severe parking overflow down the length of Nicholson Street and onto the Shirley Road intersection. This over-saturation of public street spaces strips away the essential drop-off capacity required for weekly services, weddings, funerals, and community gatherings, severely harming the public utility of this local asset.

The proposed development represents a significant overdevelopment of a highly sensitive transition zone. The complete absence of parking, combined with the severe operational risks to local emergency services and civic institutions, demonstrates that this design is inappropriate for the site. I urge the Department to reject the application in its current form.

I wish to lodge an object to: SSD-111419988
TOD - 35-51 Nicholson Street, Wollstonecraft

As a resident of a currently quiet street the proposal is not acceptable for a number of reasons:
1. Bins
Currently the street has the main bin day once a week.
Given lack of street access to a number of properties ( a number are located below street level), the bins are manually moved from the footpath either up to the road or out to Oxley St by URM waste collection employees. The general waste red lidded bins are all bumped & rolled up & down stairs & along the paths at approximately 4am every Thursday morning & is then repeated at 7am for the yellow recycling bins. This is very noisy & compounding this is the fact that this street is a cul de sac. This means a 5-10 point turn for the truck to get out of the street. This is noisy & takes time & is disruptive to sleep & peace & enjoyment. The noise bounces up to the apartments all along the street when the truck in doing its manoeuvres..

The current URM collection also has an alternating green waste/oversized household waste every Monday. This is all racked & stacked at the end of the cul de sac & it takes the URM truck significant time to action these collections.

Noted that the proposal is going to ADD to this with a private contractor an extra 3 times a week. This is too much in a cul de sac. There are safety issues & health issues as the cul de sac is a frequently used council green space with seating. These extra trucks are too disruptive in this small space by way of noise and pedestrian safety. North Sydney council is promoting Nicholson St as an access point for residents in Wollstonecraft to walk to the metro in safety. The Council is adding additional pedestrian crossings at Hume & Nicholson & also in Sinclair Streets. Both of which are to facilitate pedestrian access to the metro & Corw nest as such the proposal to a significant number of trucks in a small street needs to be reviewed urgently as it seems to be in conflict with the Council’s current plan.

Further, the bins for 35-51 need to in a basement off street level. To store them in waste rooms on Nicholson is an eye sore & sets the street up for a cacophony of noise & smell.

Why is this development not moving the bins to Oxley street where the trucks can more easily & safely action the waste collection? There should be a drive in / out waste collection point for this development especially given that it is going to house significantly MORE residents than any other current or proposed development in the street.

2. Neon or Bright Signs
This is an R4 residential street. Where was the assessment in the EIS checking how much impact these signs will have on other residents in the street? Impact to both existing & proposed developments? I cannot find any reference to this being assessed?
If this development was on the Pacific Highway the signage would not be so out of place but this is a quiet cul de sac. Surely it is not proposed to have these lights on all night? Not acceptable, the impact to other residents in the street is not reasonable.

3. Noise from the roof
What noise controls can practically be applied via Strata Management when this proposal is not Strata Managed? This does not make sense and does not adequately address the reality that noise travels at night & the target market for this development is student accommodation. Who is going to shut this down every night? And what framework is in place for non-compliance? Strata rules can’t be enforced as it is not Strata.

What happens to the school kids who have to go to school in the apartments opposite & further down the street? Bedtime is 7 or 8 pm. It seems that 7 days a week/365 days a year till 10pm there is unrestricted noise permitted from an open roof top area. This is not reasonable to other residents in the street. Sunday nights when other residents in the street want to go to bed before the start of the working week they’ll now have to wait till the parties, gatherings etc get closed down.

4. Extra storey at 3m set back?
Why is this proposal including 4 storeys all with a 3 m setback? This will make the street have a “solid wall like look” which is what the planning controls are meant to be avoiding. This will be even more impactful given that this development is on the high side of the street. That means the lower side of the street will be looking up at this solid wall which is not in line with what was proposed in the TOD plans and controls.

Additionally, the proposed design will serve to further make this development on Nicholson feel like it’s the utilitarian/ services side of the building. It seems the building has bin rooms, plant room etc etc all sorts of solid wall type structures. Nicholson Street is a leafy quiet cul de sac & going ahead with this current design loses the residential feel that was meant to be maintained under the TOD planning controls. This is not addressed in the EIS to show that residents in the apartments opposite will end up looking on what feels a service lane rather than a charming street in Wollstonecraft.



5. Noise from level 2 machines
It looks like there is a significant amount machinery proposed for level 2. I cannot find any noise assessment information that shows that this will not impact on residents in other building especially at night? Again noting the location on the high side of the street which increases the impact as there are no natural barriers to contain the noise. As such this development should have to makes some sort of noise assessment review & then show how the noise will be contained.