I strongly object to this development. Being so close and high, it would essentially block out both light and any view from my apartment, and cause detriment to me and my family's mental wellbeing. It is inappropriate for the department to allow such dense development in such a compact area

As a local resident on Lithgow St, I have significant concerns regarding the traffic impact of this development and other large scale proposed developments in the immediate area. The Oxley St/Pacific Hwy intersection is the only way for residents in cars to exit the area, and this intersection has already become extremely congested in peak periods. Traffic modelling numbers in these studies seem unreasonably low, and fail to consider the cumulative impact of multiple new developments occurring now and over the next few years that will need to all feed through the same intersection to leave the area. Cars are often backed up down Oxley St towards Lithgow St waiting for the traffic lights to change, and with more vehicles feeding into this same road, the issue will become exponentially worse. Given significant pedestrian foot traffic crossing the Pacific Hwy at Oxley St on both sides, cars turning left or right have to wait for pedestrians to cross (many of whom still rush across on red or flashing red pedestrian lights), limiting the number of vehicles that can make it through each set of lights. The street design leading up to the intersection means traffic going straight is often held back as vehicles turning left or right are backed up far down Oxley St.

I believe the solution to this, when considering new developments has to involve the following:
- Fewer car spaces in new developments: there is a huge amount of public transport infrastructure in the area including the metro, train and bus services, so why not make this area a test case for significantly less vehicles in new developments?
- Access to building car parks should be from alternative streets where possible (eg. the Nicholson St/Oxley St development should have access from Nicholson St, not Oxley St)
- A pedestrian crossing needs to be put in place to cross Nicholson St at the intersection of Oxley St - this is already dangerous and with significantly more vehicles it will become more of a hazard for pedestrians - especially the elderly and those taking children to and from the Goodstart childcare centre
- Traffic lights need to allow for a longer window for vehicles to exit Oxley St onto the Pacific Hwy, including dedicated green arrow periods for vehicles turning left and right
- A consideration should be given to opening up the Christie St/Pacific Hwy intersection to two-way traffic: this would significantly easy congestion along Nicholson and Oxley Sts, and provide for far easier access to and from the new developments proposed along Christie St

Thank you for your consideration.

Objection to SSD Rezoning Proposal (46 Nicholson St)
I object to the revised SSD proposal for 46 Nicholson Street. The new scheme increases height from 30 to 40 storeys and expands yield to more than 540 apartments — a scale far beyond what was assessed and approved in the original SSD. This is a fundamentally different proposal and should be treated as a new development.

The increased height and bulk would significantly worsen overshadowing, wind impacts, solar access, and built-form relationships with surrounding residential towers. The proponent’s own documents show the scheme fails key solar access requirements under the Apartment Design Guide, which clearly signals overdevelopment.

The community engagement report is also flawed. Although it claims distribution of 2,600 flyers, none of the five neighbouring residential towers — those most affected — received any communication. Their Strata Committees were never contacted, which is why many residents, including myself, only recently became aware of Coronation’s revised proposal.

Given the major escalation in scale, the non-compliance issues, and the inadequate and misleading community engagement submission, a full reassessment and fresh consultation process is warranted.

Finally, I am concerned that the Community Engagement submission is misleading and invalid. When a developer directly retains a consultant to “engage” the community, it creates an inherent conflict of interest that risks undermining public trust and should not be accepted without independent forensic due diligence by NSW Planning and the SSD Assessment Committee.

The proposed increase in height of the development happening next door to me will have a dramatic influence on my life and anyone in the neighbourhood.

The key items are:

1. Traffic, roads in the neighbourhood, are not prepared to accommodate more cars; moreover, there is no possibility of increasing the number of lanes. Moreover, the intersections cannot be upgraded due to the same reason - the current building density is already too high.
2. There is already a huge issue with wind tunnelling in the neighbourhood; the addition of an additional building, taller than expected, will only make it worse, with serious concerns regarding the ability of the neighbouring buildings and their facade buildup to even take such winds with no damage to their glazings and other elements of the facade. This cross-relates to Items 4 and 5, street heat buildup and urban heat island, which both lead to local-scale and large-scale updrafts.
3. Additional stories will shadow our building, removing the view and even basic access to sunlight.
4. With increased height, the reflective effect is increasing as well, leading to higher temperatures between the buildings, which relates to both Items 2 and 5.
5. The higher the building and the more external area, the higher the effect of the urban heat island. We can already experience it, and it will only become worse.

Please stop this from happening.

I object to the extra added floors and rooftop pool.
Also there needs careful consideration of traffic flow in this tight area.
Please see attached letter.

To the Assessment Officer,

I am the owner of Unit 3305 at 486 Pacific Highway. My home is located on Level 33, facing North-West, directly opposite the proposed development.

I am writing to formally object to this proposal. While I acknowledge the need for housing, this specific application relies on false traffic assumptions, creates unacceptable geotechnical risks to my building’s foundations, and introduces a transient "on-demand" business model that threatens the safety of our residential precinct.

My objection is based on the following grounds, supported by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act):

1. UNJUSTIFIABLE HEIGHT & PLANNING VIOLATION
The proposal seeks to construct a tower of approximately 31-36 storeys. This represents a gross deviation from the initial planning controls for this site, which envisaged a maximum height context of 24 storeys to ensure a transition down from the Pacific Highway ridge.
Lack of Strategic Merit: Under Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, the Department must consider whether the proposal has "strategic merit." There is no merit in approving a height increase that creates a monolithic wall just 24 meters from existing high-rise windows.
Procedural Unfairness: As an owner, I purchased Unit 3305 with the reasonable expectation that planning controls (the 24-storey limit) would be upheld. Granting a variation of this magnitude to a developer merely for economic yield is procedurally unfair to existing residents who relied on the established height limits.

2. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARD: RISK OF SOIL COLLAPSE (SEPP RESILIENCE)
The site is situated in a high-risk geotechnical zone directly above or adjacent to the Sydney Metro tunnels (deep underground) and the existing heavy loads of 486 Pacific Highway.
Soil Instability: The proposed deep basement excavation (6 levels) creates a foreseeable risk of ground settlement. The removal of this volume of rock/soil alters the stress distribution on the foundations of my building (486 Pacific Highway).
Risk of Collapsing: My building is already exhibiting documented structural stress. Any further ground movement caused by excavation within the "Zone of Influence" poses a catastrophic risk of foundation subsidence.
Legal Requirement: Under State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021, the consent authority must be satisfied the land is suitable for the purpose. The Proponent has relied on standard assumptions rather than a site-specific "Vulnerability Study" that accounts for the cumulative stress of the Metro tunnels and existing towers.

3. FALSE TRAFFIC ASSUMPTIONS & THE "5,000 RESIDENT" REALITY
The Traffic Impact Assessment submitted by the developer is fundamentally flawed and misleading. It relies on the presence of the Metro to justify a "zero car" assumption, ignoring the logistics reality of the site.
Misrepresentation of Density: The report fails to acknowledge that Nicholson Street is the sole access point for over 5,000 existing residents (St Leonards Square, The Landmark, 88 Christie, etc.).
Single Point of Failure: Nicholson Street is a narrow secondary road. It is statistically impossible to add 541 new households to this single ingress point without causing total network failure.
The "On-Demand" Logistics Load: Build-to-Rent (BTR) assets generate exponential service traffic: instant couriers, food delivery scooters, and Uber/Ride-share pickups. The developer's report fails to model this commercial-grade traffic, which constitutes "misleading information" regarding the environmental impact.

4. SOCIAL IMPACT: SAFETY RISKS OF "ON-DEMAND" HOUSING
St Leonards is a safe, professional residential precinct. The proposed "On-Demand" service model changes the character of the site from "Residential" to "Transient/Commercial."
Crime & Security Risks: High-turnover tenancies erode community safety. Unlike owner-occupiers, transient tenants have no investment in the security of the building.
CPTED Violation: The proposal fails to address Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Introducing hundreds of unknown, short-term occupants and delivery drivers into a residential cul-de-sac creates foreseeable risks of tailgating, theft, and antisocial behaviour that local police resources cannot manage.

5. DIRECT AMENITY LOSS TO UNIT 3305 (SEPP 65 BREACH)
As the owner of a North-West facing unit on Level 33, I will suffer direct, material harm that violates SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).
24-Meter "Canyon": A separation of only 24 meters is grossly inadequate for a tower of this height. It will block my primary outlook, creating a "fishbowl" effect where I am overlooked by hundreds of transient tenants.
Loss of Natural Light: The new tower will block my North-West solar access, plunging my home into darkness and violating the ADG’s solar access objectives.
Fire Safety (Evacuation): In a precinct-wide emergency, evacuating 5,000+ residents via a single road (Nicholson St) is impossible. Adding 1,000+ new people to this bottleneck creates a "Limit of Safety" violation.

6. FAILURE TO CONSULT
The Proponent has failed to engage with the owners of 486 Pacific Highway. Despite sharing a boundary and being the most affected party, we have not been consulted regarding construction management or privacy screening. This violates the objectives of the Department’s Community Participation Plan.

This proposal is based on false traffic reports, ignores the geotechnical risks to the Metro corridor and my building, and threatens the safety of St Leonards with an unmanaged transient population.
It is not fair to double the density (from the original 24-storey plan) at the expense of our safety and property rights. I urge the Department to object to the application.

Many thanks,
Huilian Ma

To the Assessment Officer,

I object to the proposed development at 46-52 Nicholson Street. While I support the need for housing supply, this specific proposal represents a gross overdevelopment that sacrifices the health, amenity, and property rights of existing residents to achieve excessive yield.

This proposal violates the core principles of the St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan and SEPP 65. It does not deliver "housing"; it delivers a future slum by creating a dark, congested, and noisy canyon.

My objection relies on the following five grounds:

1. VIOLATION OF "HEIGHT TRANSITION" PRINCIPLES
The site is located on a narrow secondary street, yet the proposal attempts to carry the bulk and scale of a Pacific Highway tower.
Planning Breach: The St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan explicitly calls for a "transition in height, bulk, and scale" stepping down from the highway to protect off-site amenity.

The Impact: By forcing a 36-storey tower into this confined pocket, the developer is ignoring the required transition. This creates an abrupt, oppressive wall that dominates the skyline and destroys the intended urban form of the precinct.

2. SEVERE HEALTH RISKS: MOULD & SOLAR DEPRIVATION
The proposal fails the "Amenity" test of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The close proximity (24m) and excessive height will cast a permanent shadow over 486 Pacific Highway.
Mental & Physical Health: The resulting loss of natural light is not just an "amenity" issue; it is a health issue. Residents on the southern and adjacent facades will face darker, damper conditions, significantly increasing the risk of mould growth and associated respiratory illnesses (CIRS).
Solar Access Failure: The proposal creates a "dark canyon" environment. Denying existing residents their access to direct sunlight during winter months to fuel the profits of a BTR developer is an unacceptable planning outcome that creates a mental health crisis for neighbours.

3. OPERATIONAL PARALYSIS (5,000+ RESIDENTS ON ONE ROAD)
The proposal ignores the cumulative reality of the precinct. Nicholson Street is the sole artery for approximately 4,970 existing residents from St Leonards Square, The Landmark, Eighty Eight and the nearby residential cluster.
This road is already functionally failing. It cannot support the addition of 541 high-turnover rental units.
Unlike owner-occupiers, BTR tenants rely heavily on "on-demand" services. The influx of courier vans, food delivery scooters, and ride-share vehicles for 541 new households will turn Nicholson Street into a permanent car park, blocking access for emergency services and existing residents.

4. ACOUSTIC ASSAULT: ROOFTOP PLANT VS. IN-UNIT AC
The design includes a large-scale, open-air rooftop plant for air conditioning, rather than the in-apartment systems used by neighbouring buildings (The Landmark, St Leonards Square).
Placing industrial-scale cooling towers at a level lower than the surrounding high-rise apartments guarantees that residents in St Leonards Square and 486 Pacific Highway will be subjected to 24/7 mechanical drone.
This is a cost-cutting measure by the developer that permanently degrades the acoustic environment for hundreds of neighbours.

5. UNJUSTIFIED REDUCTION OF VIEW CORRIDORS
The proposal appears to reduce previously established view corridors, potentially from 16.5m down to 12m.
There is no planning justification for narrowing these corridors other than to increase the developer's lettable floor area. This reduction restricts air flow, concentrates wind tunnels, and destroys the "view sharing" principles that existing owners relied upon when purchasing their homes.

6. CONSTRUCTION HEALTH HAZARDS
Given the proximity to our windows, the demolition and excavation phases pose a direct respiratory threat.
The excavation of 6 basement levels through sandstone will generate silica dust. Without a sealed enclosure (which is not proposed), this dust will enter the homes of 486 Pacific Highway residents, posing severe long-term health risks.

This application prioritises the financial yield of a single developer over the health, safety, and functionality of an entire precinct. It creates a traffic bottleneck that endangers 5,000 people, casts a "mould-inducing" shadow over neighbours, and violates the strategic planning controls intended to protect this area.

We are not anti-development; we are anti-slum. This proposal, in its current form, degrades St Leonards into a high-density failure. I urge the Department to REFUSE the application.

Best regards,
Yingci

To the Assessment Officer,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Build-to-Rent (BTR) development at 46-52 Nicholson Street (SSD-88113706). As an owner at the directly adjacent property, 486 Pacific Highway, I submit that the Scoping Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rely on methodologically flawed data that fails to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), SEPP 65, and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

The proposal attempts to retrofit a massive density increase onto a site constrained by fragile neighbouring structures and a road network that has already failed. Furthermore, the Proponent has completely failed to consult with the neighbours most affected by this development.

My objection is based on the following six critical grounds:
1. TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE FAILURE: 5,000+ RESIDENTS ON A SINGLE ROAD
The Traffic Impact Assessment is fatally flawed because it assesses the new tower in isolation, ignoring the cumulative reality of the immediate precinct. Nicholson Street is no longer a quiet side street; it has effectively become the sole arterial feed for a population the size of a regional town, all funnelled through a single failing intersection.
The "4,000 Resident" Reality: The Scoping Report ignores that Nicholson Street/Christie Street is the primary vehicular access point for approximately 4,970 existing residents from recently completed major developments, including:
- St Leonards Square: ~527 units (approx. 1,100 residents)
- The Landmark: ~432 units (approx. 1,030 residents)
- Eighty Eight Christie: ~637 units (approx. 1,710 residents)
Single Point of Failure: This entire population relies on the Nicholson Street / Pacific Highway intersection for ingress and egress. This intersection is already functionally failing during peak periods.
Invalid BTR Modelling: Adding 541 new high-turnover rental units to this bottleneck is negligent. Unlike private strata, BTR assets generate exponential service traffic (maintenance vans, removalists, daily grocery/Amazon deliveries, and ride-share pick-ups). The traffic report fails to model this specific "commercial-residential" logistics load, which will cause total gridlock.

2. SEVERE PRIVACY INTRUSION & INADEQUATE SEPARATION
The proposal relies on a separation distance of only 24 meters between the proposed tower and my building at 486 Pacific Highway. While this may technically meet minimum ADG guidance for lower density, it is functionally disastrous for a tower of this extreme height.
The "Fishbowl" Effect: A 24-meter separation creates a "canyon" where hundreds of new BTR units will have direct lines of sight into the bedrooms and living areas of 486 Pacific Highway.
Total Loss of Amenity: The sheer volume of 541 new tenancies facing our building guarantees a total loss of visual privacy. Existing residents will be forced to keep curtains closed permanently, destroying residential amenity and causing mental health impacts.
Acoustic Privacy: 24 meters is insufficient to mitigate the noise transfer from hundreds of balconies and high-turnover tenancies directly opposite our sleeping quarters.

3. PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS: FAILURE TO CONSULT
There has been a complete failure of process regarding community engagement.
No Engagement: The Proponent has failed to conduct genuine consultation with the Strata Committee or owners of 486 Pacific Highway. We have received no briefings regarding construction management, vibration mitigation, or privacy screening.
Violation of Participation Principles: Submitting a Scoping Report for a project of this magnitude without first establishing a dialogue with the most affected neighbours (who share a boundary) violates the intent of the Department’s Community Participation Plan.

4. CRITICAL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY & WIND LOAD
My building at 486 Pacific Highway is already exhibiting documented structural distress, including ceiling cracking and facade deterioration due to existing environmental loads.
The "Venturi" Risk: The narrow separation between the towers will accelerate wind velocity (the Venturi Effect), creating negative pressure zones capable of ripping windows from frames and exacerbating existing concrete fractures.
Inadequate Testing: The Scoping Report only commits to a "Pedestrian Comfort" study. This is insufficient.
DEMAND: The Department must issue a Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirement (SEARs) for a "Lateral Wind Load Interference Study" to model the structural stress on 486 Pacific Highway, not just pedestrian comfort.

5. FIRE SAFETY: THE "CANYON EFFECT"
In light of the Wang Fuk Court tragedy (Nov 2025), the Department must apply the Precautionary Principle.
Wind-Driven Fire Spread: The narrow 24-meter separation creates a "Canyon Effect" where high-velocity winds can drive fire externally from one facade to another, bypassing internal suppression systems.
Evacuation Risk: Evacuating 1,000+ new residents onto the already gridlocked Nicholson Street during an emergency creates a foreseeable "mass casualty" risk. The infrastructure simply cannot support an area-wide evacuation.

6. GEOTECHNICAL RISK & VIBRATION
The proposed 6-level basement excavation falls within the "Zone of Influence" of our footings.
Vibration Damage: Standard vibration monitoring is inadequate for a building with existing defects.
DEMAND: We require a "Vibration Vulnerability Assessment" be conducted prior to approval, with the developer accepting strict liability for any propagation of existing cracks in 486 Pacific Highway.

This proposal creates a dangerous density cluster on a road network that has already failed. It compromises the privacy, safety, and structural integrity of 486 Pacific Highway and relies on traffic data that ignores the 4,000+ residents already trapping us in gridlock.

I urge the Department to take serious consideration and prioritise the current residents' health and safety by REFUSING the application in its current form.

The Department must not gamble with people's safety in exchange for economic development. While addressing housing supply is critical, approving high-risk, infrastructure-poor developments is not the way to solve the housing crisis. We need housing, but not at the cost of foreseeable structural failure, gridlock, and compromised safety.

Yours faithfully,
Yingyi

Latest architectural drawings show major shadowing affecting Landmark.
To build up to 30 seems too much and then another 7 is excessive.
When the Landmark was build the apartments were redesigned to allow the owners more natural light. This caused a delay to the build.
Now there will be no light for these same apartments
Clearly the councils have and idea .
We purchased this apartment on the understanding that the buildings 48 to 52 Nicholson would be commercial with a maximum height of 15 levels.
As the traffic situation is currently exceeding bad mornings and evenings for the life of me I can not understand the stupidity of adding so much more traffics to this street.
One would have thought that the planning committee in this NSW government were qualified to do simple calculations.