I am writing to express my concern as an adjoining owner and local resident.

The proposed late change severely hampers public trust as it is a significant deviation from the original plan.

The new traffic generation report did not address the additional traffic load on Oxley street caused by new developments at Christie Street - St. Leonards Telstra Exchange and the Nicholson Place.

Is the panel satisfy with only Oxley road taking the sole burden to service all increased traffic from neighbouring towers.

P.S. Attached are photos of a driver recklessly turning into Pacific highway from Christie street. This will become common occurrence if the traffic condition is not addressed

Prior to the release of the SSDA, no consultation was held with the community and surrounding residents regarding the proposed significant increase in apartment height and number. This is very unfair to us.
The proposed plan increases the number of apartments to be built from 271 to a staggering 541. Such approval will have serious consequences for most of St Leonard Square apartments (my place), including the loss of apartment amenities (such as further damage to views, natural light and privacy, increased traffic congestion on Nicholson Street (with only one access road, St Lenorads Square already serves other large tower apartment complexes such as Landmark Tower, 88 Christie Street and residences at Lisgo Street and Oxley Street, and increased noise due to extended construction time, as well as a loss of apartment market value.
I chosed to buy the St Lenoards Square because of its beautiful and quiet environment, open view, and spacious interior. Now the government has destroyed our living environment, forcing us to live in high-density areas. This is unacceptable

I am writing to object to the proposed high-rise development adding extra 7 stores directly adjacent to my residence at 500 Pacific Highway, St Leonard’s.

For the past four years, I have made my home at The Landmark, St Leonard’s, drawn to its unique combination of sunlight, open Sydney harbour views, and liveability. These qualities are central to the wellbeing of residents and the character of our community. The proposed development which adds extra 7 stores threatens to block sunlight and iconic Sydney harbour bridge views from my apartment. I have purchased the apartment for the iconic views and this drastic increase in height significantly diminishes the property value and long term liveability of this neighbourhood.


I’m concerned that the overshadowing effect of the proposed building adding extra 7 stores will significantly reduce natural light, impacting health, wellbeing, and sustainability of the neighbourhood.
The surrounding area including St Leonard square, 88 St Leonard (open green space/ public park/ library) was designed as a balanced precinct, with careful attention to community shared spaces, the public park/ amenities provides community with green space and openness. A new high-rise of this magnitude further adding extra 7 storeys disrupts that balance. The proposed development will further add strain to the narrow one way road, further exacerbate the already congested road/ traffic during peak times and with limited parking spaces.
As residents we rely on transparent, sustainable planning decisions. Approving developments that compromise existing community wellbeing erodes confidence in the system and wellbeing risks to the community.

I’m concerned about the sustainability of the area, the blocking of sunlight and adding 541 apartments to overdeveloped area which is contrary to environmental goals. Planning should prioritize the wellbeing of current and future residents, not just density targets.
Existing communities deserve protection from developments that diminish their quality of life.


I urge the Council to reject the proposal to ensure preservation of sunlight and iconic harbour views for existing residents.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to strongly object against the State Significant Development application no. SSD- 88113706 Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent in St Leonards.

This proposal is purely of self-interest for the developer and is of no benefit to the community. The proposal ignores the significant work and great amount of feedback of the community which had already been considered in the years prior for the approve development up to the height of 174.95m.

It is of self-interest as the proposal only focuses on increase height and floorspace which have been key areas which have not been aligned development guidelines for the site and had not been approved in previous applications. This suggests there is disregard from the developer of the input sought previous and to the decision already made by the state.

Furthermore, I have learnt that documents released include statement from the developer that residents living near this site were consulted between Apr-Jul 2025 and no negative responses were received. This is untrue - there were no consultations provided or made known to us.

I would be confident to say this is lie from the developer, and the statement made to cover the fact that community is against this proposal and they would encounter significant objection if a consultation was actually conducted in a genuine manner.
Many living near this site have confirm there was no consultation. The body corporate and management of our building and others we have spoken to also share the view that it is absurd that there would be no negative responses when all nearby sites and body corporates have been against the increase in height and size for the reasons, we all already understand well and documents from prior consultations.

The approach that has been taken by this development with the current proposal (and from past submissions), is unethical and not in the least of benefit for the community. It is clear that the values displayed are not what we deem appropriate in this community, and when this development is complete I have absolutely no confidence there will be any positive outcomes in which this development will be managed.

Straying from agreed planning controls and overloading single sites is unacceptable.

Kind regards,

I believe too many high-rise apartment in this area already built in last 5 years, now there is not enough schools and childcare facilities, not enough hospitals, not enough parking etc, also this building is too high, block my building lights and views which will affecting my current property value, I strongly object to build this building.

To the Assessing Officer,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed 36-storey Build-to-Rent development at 46-52 Nicholson Street, St Leonards.

While I understand the state mandate for housing growth, this specific proposal is an overdevelopment that fundamentally fails to respect the local context. It places an unsustainable load on a street network that is already failing and diminishes the liveability of the existing community.

My objection is based on the following critical grounds:

1. Unsustainable Traffic Impact on Nicholson Street
Nicholson Street is a narrow, constrained road that already functions as a bottleneck for existing residents and commercial traffic. Adding 541 new apartments to this specific point is negligent planning.

The "Dead-End" Effect: The current road infrastructure cannot support the cumulative traffic generation of this proposal combined with the recently completed St Leonards Square and Eighty Eight developments.

Choke Points: The ingress/egress arrangements will create severe congestion during peak hours, blocking access for emergency vehicles and existing residents. The traffic modelling likely relies on "public transport usage" assumptions that do not reflect the reality of service deliveries, ride-shares, and visitors required for a building of this scale.

2. Excessive Bulk and Scale
At 36 storeys, the proposed tower creates an oppressive sense of enclosure.

Visual Dominance: The sheer vertical scale is disproportionate to the street width, creating a "canyon effect" that permanently degrades the streetscape character.

Inappropriate Transition: The proposal fails to provide an adequate transition to the surrounding built form. It prioritizes maximizing yield over the "human-scale" neighbourhood character promised in the St Leonards Crows Nest 2036 Plan.

3. Loss of Solar Access and Overshadowing
The height of this tower will cannibalize the natural light currently enjoyed by neighbouring buildings and the public domain.

Shadow Impact: The overshadowing analysis demonstrates a significant reduction in direct sunlight for adjacent apartments. This contradicts the design excellence requirements to protect the environmental amenity of existing residents.

Public Domain: The tower will cast significant shadows over street-level pedestrian areas, reducing the utility and comfort of the very "plaza" and public domain upgrades the developer is promising.

4. Insufficient Parking Provision
Build-to-Rent (BTR) developments frequently seek reduced parking ratios under the guise of "transit-oriented development."

Spill-over Parking: In reality, residents in BTR developments still own cars. Without adequate on-site parking, these vehicles will flood the surrounding streets, where parking is already nonexistent. This shifts the developer’s private cost onto the public burden.

5. Cumulative Strain on Infrastructure
St Leonards is currently subjected to hyper-densification without a commensurate increase in social infrastructure.

The addition of ~1,000+ new residents (based on 541 units) will overwhelm local parks (Newlands Park is already at capacity), schools, and medical amenities. Approving this density before the delivery of new open space is poor strategic planning.

Conclusion
This proposal benefits the developer at the expense of the community. It attempts to squeeze a massive population into a constrained site with poor vehicular access, resulting in a development that will permanently scar the function and amenity of St Leonards.

I urge the Department and Council to refuse the application in its current form and demand a significant reduction in height and density to match the capacity of Nicholson Street.

Sincerely,