There’s already a high storey project under construction across the road. It would be too crowded if this one was built.

The surrounding roads within our viccinity already crowded with vehicles (especially worse on the weekend) currently visiting Burwood town centre, the proposed project is just going to add to the problem the current residents within the viccinity are facing. The current development at Burwood Place already started to impact existing residents in term of noise and dust and crowd in the near foressable future, this proposed project is just going to add to the pain existing residents are facing.

I live behind the proposed project and support quality buildings like this one.
Very good location and excellent to see good design.
Happy to see better buildings than the previoulsy built in Burwood.

To whom it may concern,

I wish to provide my support for the proposed development in Burwood.

I have worked in and around the Burwood area for numerous years and have seen the ongoing growth, improvement and transformation of the local community.

Having reviewed the plans, I consider the proposal to be an excellent project that will make a meaningful contribution to the area. The design appears well considered and responds to the increasing demand for high-quality housing and mixed-use development in well-connected locations. Projects of this nature are important in supporting population growth, improving housing supply and encouraging investment in the local economy.

In my view, the development will contribute positively to the social and economic growth of Burwood by:

providing additional housing opportunities in a well-serviced location;
supporting local businesses and employment during both construction and operation;
improving the built form and streetscape of the area;
contributing to the ongoing renewal and activation of Burwood; and
supporting the broader strategic planning objectives for growth around major centres and transport hubs.

I believe the project represents a positive outcome for Burwood and the wider community, and I respectfully request that the proposal be supporte

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,


RE: Objection to State Significant Development Application –
17–21 Conder Street, Burwood (SSD-95843710)

I write to formally object to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 17–21 Conder Street, Burwood.

As a local resident, my objection is based on the scale, broader planning implications of this proposal, its inconsistency with the established planning framework, and the precedent it would set if approved.


1. Inconsistency with Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the consent authority is required to consider, amongst other things:

• The provisions of environmental planning instruments (including LEPs)
• Applicable development control plans
• The likely impacts of the development
• The public interest

This proposal raises significant concerns across all of these matters.


2. Extreme Departure from Established Planning Controls: LEP Development Standards

The Burwood Local Environmental Plan 2012 establishes the principal planning framework for land use and built form within the Burwood local government area, including controls relating to building height and floor space ratio.

The proposed increase in building height from the permissible 15 metres to 76 metres, and FSR from approximately 2:1 to 8.52:1, represents an extraordinary and unjustified departure from these controls.

Such a significant scale of uplift cannot reasonably be characterised as a variation. It is, in effect, a wholesale and complete override of the existing planning framework that has guided development in this area.

Approval of this scale of departure would undermine the integrity and purpose of the LEP.


3. Inconsistency with the Burwood Development Control Plan (which supports BLEP2012)

The Burwood Development Control Plan provides detailed guidance to ensure development:

• Responds appropriately to its context
• Maintains a coherent streetscape
• Achieves a high-quality built environment

The proposed development is inconsistent with these objectives, particularly in relation to scale and integration with surrounding development.

A 21-storey building of 76 metres in height on this site cannot reasonably be said to respond to the existing urban context or reinforce the intended built form character of the area.


4. Lack of Strategic Planning Justification

Increases in building height and density of this magnitude should occur through coordinated, strategic planning processes.

This proposal instead represents a site-specific uplift of an extreme nature, without clear alignment to a broader strategic planning outcome. It raises concern that the established controls and planning framework is being circumvented through individual applications rather than applied consistently.


5. Existing Strategic Capacity Already Exceeds Projected Growth

Strategic planning for the Burwood local government area has already identified significant capacity for future housing growth, particularly through the Burwood North Metro Precinct, which is anticipated to accommodate approximately 18,300 additional dwellings over time.

At the same time, population projections for Burwood indicate an increase from approximately 38,500 to 57,550 residents by 2036. Based on typical occupancy rates, this level of growth would require substantially fewer additional dwellings than the capacity already identified through strategic planning processes.

This demonstrates that Burwood already has a considerable pipeline of planned housing supply that is intended to be delivered in a coordinated and infrastructure-aligned manner.

In this context, the subject proposal represents an ad hoc, site-specific intensification that is not required to meet projected housing demand. Rather than contributing to a strategically planned outcome, it risks undermining the coordinated approach to growth by introducing excessive density outside of identified precincts.

This raises significant concerns regarding the necessity and justification of the proposal.


6. Significant Precedent Implications

Approval of this application would set a highly concerning precedent.

There are several relatively recent developments within the Burwood town centre that were constructed in accordance with existing planning controls. If this proposal is approved, it is highly likely that similar sites will seek comparable increases in height and FSR.

Given this is a State-determined application, such a decision would effectively signal support for substantial departures from local planning controls and could trigger a cascade of similar proposals.

The site also forms part of the transition between the Burwood town centre and surrounding lower-scale residential areas. Approval of a development of this magnitude risks eroding this transition and will create pressure for similar uplifts on adjoining and nearby sites currently subject to significantly lower height and density controls. Over time, this has the potential to result in incremental and uncoordinated intensification beyond the intended extent of the town centre, with associated impacts on local infrastructure capacity and neighbourhood character.

This would undermine the orderly and strategic development of the Burwood town centre.



7. Premature Redevelopment and Sustainability Concerns

The existing buildings on the site are only approximately 15 years old.

Their demolition to facilitate significantly more intensive development raises serious concerns regarding sustainability and long-term planning. It suggests that relatively new developments can be rendered obsolete shortly after construction through subsequent planning uplift, which is inconsistent with principles of orderly and responsible urban planning and development.


8. Erosion of Public Confidence in the Planning System

The Burwood area, specifically the Burwood Town Centre, has already undergone significant transformation under the current planning framework.

Within the community, there is a reasonable expectation that development will occur in accordance with clearly defined and consistently applied planning controls. Revisiting recently developed sites to enable substantially increased uplift introduces uncertainty and creates the impression that developers can continually return to seek more favourable outcomes, regardless of what has previously been approved and built. This approach risks undermining both confidence in, and the credibility of, the planning system.

It also gives rise to a perception that established planning controls can be overridden through opportunistic proposals, rather than being applied as part of a coordinated, controlled, and strategic framework.


Conclusion

The proposal represents an excessive and unjustified intensification of development that is inconsistent with:

• The Burwood Local Environmental Plan 2012
• The Burwood Development Control Plan
• The matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

It would set a damaging precedent, fundamentally undermine the planning framework and its intended transition zones and significantly diminish confidence in the integrity of the planning system.

For these reasons, I strongly object to:

• The proposed increase in building height to 76 metres; and
• The proposed increase in Floor Space Ratio to 8.52:1.


I respectfully request that the application be refused.


Yours sincerely,
A concerned local resident

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to raise a formal concern regarding the ongoing construction/work activities in my area.

The noise levels have become increasingly disruptive due to the very early start times, the long duration of the work, and the growing frequency of night-time construction activities. In addition, work is sometimes carried out on Saturdays, leaving residents with very limited opportunities for uninterrupted rest.

Recently, construction activities have been occurring frequently during weekday evenings and at night. The combination of early morning, late evening, and weekend work has created a constant source of disturbance for nearby residents.

The persistent noise has had a significant impact on my sleep quality, wellbeing, and daily life. Regular disruptions during both the early morning and evening hours make it difficult to maintain a normal sleep schedule and enjoy a reasonable level of peace and quiet at home.

While I understand that construction and maintenance work may be necessary, I respectfully request that the relevant authorities review the current arrangements and consider:

Delaying the start time of noisy activities in the morning;
Reducing the duration of high-noise operations;
Limiting night-time and weekend work wherever possible;
Providing residents with advance notice when out-of-hours work is required; and
Implementing additional noise mitigation measures.

I would appreciate it if this matter could be investigated and appropriate steps taken to minimize the impact on local residents' health, sleep, and quality of life.

Thank you for your attention to this issue. I look forward to your response.

I am writing in support of the proposed development at 17-19 and 21 Conder Street, Burwood.

I work in Burwood and spend a lot of my week in the area. From what I see every day, Burwood is already a busy and active centre. People come here for work, shopping, food, appointments and public transport. It makes sense to have more housing in a place that is already so connected.

I think more residents in the town centre would be good for the area. It means more people using the local cafés, restaurants, shops and services, not just during work hours but after hours as well. That helps keep Burwood active and supports the businesses that make the area what it is.

I also think it is better to put new homes close to the station and shops rather than further away where people need to drive everywhere. Burwood has the transport and services already, so it is a practical place for more housing.

My only comment is that the building should present well to the street and be kept to a good standard, because Burwood is becoming a more important centre and the quality of new buildings does matter.

Overall, I support the proposal. I think it is a good location for more housing and will be a positive addition to Burwood.

I wish to formally object to the proposed development at 17–19 and 21 Conder Street, Burwood, involving the demolition of existing structures and construction of a residential flat building with five basement parking levels.

My concerns are as follows:

Traffic and Parking Impacts

The proposed development is likely to generate a substantial increase in vehicle movements within the local area. The addition of multiple residential units and five basement parking levels may place additional pressure on surrounding streets, increase traffic congestion, and adversely affect pedestrian safety, particularly during peak periods.

Construction Impacts

The demolition of existing structures and excavation of five basement levels will require extensive construction activities over a prolonged period. This is likely to result in significant noise, dust, vibration, and disruption to nearby residents. Deep excavation may also pose risks to neighbouring properties and local infrastructure.

Overshadowing and Loss of Privacy

The scale and height of the proposed building may result in increased overshadowing of neighbouring properties and private open spaces. There is also potential for overlooking and loss of privacy for adjacent residents.

Neighbourhood Character

The proposed development appears to represent a substantial intensification of the site. Consideration should be given to whether the building scale, bulk, and visual appearance are compatible with the existing character of the surrounding residential area.

Environmental and Drainage Concerns

The extensive basement excavation may affect groundwater conditions, stormwater management, and site drainage. A detailed assessment should be undertaken to ensure there are no adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

Cumulative Impacts

Consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of increased population density, traffic generation, pressure on local infrastructure, and demand for community services within the Burwood area.

Given these concerns, I request that Council carefully assess the proposal and require the applicant to demonstrate that the development will not adversely affect neighbouring residents, local infrastructure, or the character of the area. If approved, appropriate conditions should be imposed to minimise construction and operational impacts.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I am a nearby resident and would like to express concerns regarding the proposed development at 17–19 and 21 Conder Street, Burwood.

Firstly, Burwood is already experiencing significant construction activity, including major developments around the Burwood Library and town centre precinct. These projects have already resulted in increased traffic congestion, construction vehicle movements, road disruptions, and reduced accessibility for local residents.

The proposed 21-storey residential tower at Conder Street will add further pressure to the local road network during both the construction and operational phases. Conder Street is a relatively narrow local street and is not designed to accommodate substantial increases in construction traffic, service vehicles, resident vehicles, and visitor traffic. Given the scale of the proposed development, I am concerned that traffic congestion, parking pressure, and pedestrian safety issues will worsen significantly over an extended construction period.

Secondly, I am concerned that the cumulative population growth resulting from multiple high-density developments in Burwood is placing considerable strain on public infrastructure and community services. In particular, local public schools are already experiencing capacity constraints. Temporary classrooms are currently being used to accommodate growing student numbers, indicating that existing educational facilities are struggling to keep pace with population growth.

Before approving further large-scale residential developments, I believe greater consideration should be given to whether supporting infrastructure, including schools, transport networks, community facilities, and public services, can adequately meet the needs of the increasing population.

I respectfully request that the Department carefully assess the cumulative impacts of this development on local traffic conditions, school capacity, and community infrastructure before making a determination.

I am writing to object to the proposed 21-storey residential tower at 17-19, 21 Conder Street. This side of Conder Street is a designated low-to-mid-rise transition zone, and a spot-rezoning here doesn't fit the location. My objection focuses on three points:

1. The developer claims a 21-storey tower works as a transition down from the CBD core. However, the Burwood Grand development directly across the road already established that transition by stepping down to 11 storeys for its Conder Street building. The nearby council building/library, as well as the upcoming Burwood Culture House are all significantly shorter buildings. Putting a 21-storey (76-metre) tower directly opposite an 11-storey building reverses the established streetscape height, and absolutely does not represent a "transitional height".
2. Increasing the building height from 15 metres to 76 metres will cause major overshadowing. Under Section 3B-2 of the Apartment Design Guide, overshadowing of neighbouring properties must be minimised during mid-winter. Because a tower of this scale is positioned on the western side of the street, combined with the existing Burwood Grand buildings to the east, affected apartments will have severely limited solar access during winter.
3. Approving this site-specific amendment will likely lead to a domino effect, slowly push the high-density zone further into the surrounding blocks, permanently erasing the low-rise buffer zone that protects the neighbourhood.

The proposal is clear site overreach. I ask the assessing authorities to reject the requested amendments to the BLEP Height of Buildings and FSR maps.