The proposal for a 200-apartment complex is a massive overdevelopment for a neighborhood defined by low-density, independent housing. Introducing a high-density footprint in this specific location contradicts the established local character.
The monolithic design will dominate the streetscape, failing to provide an appropriate transition between high-density zones and the existing low-density residential context.
The scale of the proposed building will directly degrade the living conditions of adjoining properties. The proposed height and setbacks will cast significant shadows on neighboring homes, while the placement of balconies and windows will permanently destroy their privacy.

Firstly, I support new housing and rejuvenated buildings in the area, however I am extremely concerned about the parking effects this development will have on North Street and the surrounding streets. North Street parking is horrendous at the best of times. It is extremely difficult to park in the street at any time of the day. It is a narrow street and consists of commercial properties and workers parking for extended hours as well as residents who permanently park trailers and trucks on the street using the minimal parking spots as storage spaces! Residents who do have off street parking and garages also park in the street. With this number of units coming into the street the parking will become unbearable for residents. This development MUST provide parking for all units and adequate visitors parking. Alongside this, 2-hour parking restrictions must be put in place down all of North Street and provide the houses in North Street with NO off-street parking a parking permit that allows them to be exempt from the 2-hour time limit (similar to most surrounding streets in Leichhardt). This will prevent workers and residents who have access to off street parking (including from the proposed multi story development) from parking for extended hours in North Street. There is also a school close by which also puts pressure on the already acute parking situation in the area. If parking is not taken into account in the planning stages of this development, then this development will ruin North Street and the surrounding streets and will create a situation where long term residents in the area cannot park anywhere near their own homes.

We have just moved in, so the exhibition letter is the first I've heard of this development proposal. We have been unable to share any feedback during community engagement sessions prior to this.
I have a number of concerns listed below, but generally it's around the extent and scale of the proposal in a residential area. a 6000% increase on the permissible floor space ratio is extremely excessive.

With regards to our property and livabiliy, my concerns are:
Overshadowing into our backyard. We struggle with winter sunlight as it is. I'm not seeing sufficient evidence that this won't happen in the reports.
Privacy. Residents on the top floors of the rear bulding seeing straight into our backyard.

With regards to the general area, my concerns are:
Impact of construction over five years - noise, waste disposle, traffic etc.
Impact on local parking with in excess of 203 new cars plus visitors to surrounding streets
Increased noise with such a large increase of people on the block
Increase in waste disposal noise from such a large development

Overall I feel this development is far too big and is not keeping with the village type character of the area. There will be too much traffic, overshadowing of nearby properties and impact on privacy. This development does not need to be this large.

I own a nearby property in the surrounding streets. In my view, which I believe is shared by other neighbours, this development is not in keeping with the existing residential status of the neighbourhood. 200 apartments will significantly increase pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the area, without consideration to the already narrow and congested streets. The proposed height of the building at 9 storeys is not in keeping with the small, terrace-style housing in surrounding streets and poses problems with shadowing of neighbouring properties. The plan does not seem to indicate incorporation of leisure/public amenities such as cafes, shops etc. which will be needed in view of the exponential boom in population secondary to this development. Whilst there has been some effort made to maintain the cyclops facade, the remainder of the building does not appear to be cohesive with the general appearance and feel of the neighbourhood.

RE: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-80704962 — Redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt
To the Assessment Officer,
I am writing as a local resident of [3 Charles Street, Leichhardt] to object to State Significant Development Application SSD-80704962 for the redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt (Lot 2 DP 789576), lodged by Anprisa Pty Ltd.
My objection is confined to two grounds: the failure to justify the proposed car parking ratio against actual local conditions, and the disproportionate scale of the development relative to the surrounding low-to-medium density character of this part of Leichhardt.
Ground 1: The Proposed Car Parking Ratio Is Not Justified Against Actual Local Conditions
Policy minimums and Apartment Design Guide (ADG) benchmarks are a starting point, not a substitute for evidence of what this specific locality can actually absorb. Charles Street and William Street already experience significant on-street parking pressure residents are routinely unable to park near their own homes when sporting fixtures are held on the other side of Leichhardt, and are forced to park several streets away. A parking rate that may be adequate elsewhere in the Inner West is not automatically adequate here.
I ask the Department to require the Applicant to:
Justify the proposed parking ratio with reference to actual, evidenced parking occupancy and availability on Charles Street, William Street and surrounding roads, including at peak/event-day demand, not only against policy minimums.
Demonstrate, with that evidence, that any shortfall between demand and supply will not be displaced onto streets that already have no spare capacity.
Where the Applicant cannot demonstrate this, either increase on-site parking provision or reduce the scale of the development so that supply and evidenced local demand are properly aligned.
A parking ratio that is merely policy-compliant, without being tested against the real conditions of this street network, does not satisfy the intent of the SEARs requirement to demonstrate the development's transport impacts have been properly assessed.
Ground 2: The Scale of the Development Is Disproportionate to the Surrounding Low-to-Medium Density Character
This part of Leichhardt is characterised by low-to-medium density housing. The Built Form and Urban Design requirements in the SEARs require the Applicant to demonstrate how the proposed height, bulk, scale, setbacks and articulation of the development respond to the context, site characteristics and existing and future character of the locality. I do not consider that a development of this scale achieves that outcome.
I ask the Department to require the Applicant to:
Provide a clear, evidence-based comparison of the proposed height, bulk and scale against the existing built form on Charles Street, William Street and the immediately surrounding blocks, rather than against citywide or precinct-wide averages that may not reflect this specific street character.
Justify any reliance on height or floor space bonuses under an applicable EPI by explaining how the resulting built form remains proportionate to, and compatible with, this low-to-medium density streetscape.
Where this justification cannot be adequately demonstrated, reduce the scale of the development to a form genuinely consistent with the surrounding area.
A development that is significantly out of scale with its low-to-medium density surroundings does not represent good design in the sense intended by the design quality and built form requirements applicable to this assessment.
Requested Outcome
I ask that the Department not approve this application unless and until:
The Applicant has justified the proposed parking ratio against real, evidenced local conditions on Charles Street and William Street, not policy minimums alone; and
The Applicant has demonstrated that the scale of the development is genuinely proportionate to the surrounding low-to-medium density character of this part of Leichhardt, with the design reduced in scale if this cannot be shown.
Thank you for considering this submission. I would welcome the opportunity to be kept informed of further exhibition or assessment milestones for this application.

Yours faithfully,
Armin Nehzat
0403 888 777
20 July 2026

The proposal to build a residential block of the scale proposed is going to adversely impact a neighbourhood which is currently at capacity. Any development should not be allowed to exceed the height of the existing building, which even then would be significant in its impact to the number of resident vs the amenities available. This development seems like it would be more appropriately built on Parramatta Rd. I oppose such a development as while it might benefit the developers financially it will surely negatively impact the residents.

Housing is a basic human right and should not be treated primarily as an investment vehicle. Simply building more homes without addressing property speculation and investor-driven demand will not solve the housing affordability crisis or prevent prices from continuing to rise.

Stronger measures should be considered, such as imposing significant additional taxes on third and subsequent properties, along with other policies that discourage excessive property investment and speculation.

For these reasons, I do not support this project.

Submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Application SSD-119545240 | 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt
Dear Assessment Team,
I object to the proposed development at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt in its current form.
I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site or to additional housing in an appropriate form. My concern is that this proposal is too large for the site and its surroundings, and that the process appears to be focused on finding a planning pathway that allows the development rather than requiring the development to respond to the location.
My three primary concerns are the traffic impact, the proposed change to the planning rules, and the fact that the same fundamental proposal continues to progress despite earlier rejection and repeated requests for refinement that have not resulted in meaningful change.
1. Traffic has not been properly assessed
Traffic is my most immediate and practical concern. The proposal would add approximately 203 apartments and more than 240 parking spaces to an established residential area that already experiences congestion, constrained local roads and limited on-street parking.
The impact is not just the number of cars entering and leaving in the morning and afternoon peaks. It is the permanent addition of resident, visitor, delivery, rideshare, service, waste, trades and removalist movements throughout the day, at night and on weekends.
The Transport Impact Assessment does not support the conclusion that this impact will be negligible. In particular:
• it predicts that 69% of development traffic will travel north via William Street and Norton Street, but the modelling stops at the William Street-Norton Street roundabout;
• it does not model the Norton Street-City West Link intersection, the City West Link-James Street intersection, or the interaction of queues between these known pressure points;
• it relies on a weekday survey from July 2024 without clearly identifying the survey date, whether it was during school holidays, or whether it reflected normal conditions;
• it does not include a representative weekend assessment, future-year traffic, nearby development or cumulative growth;
• it reduces the forecast impact by deducting theoretical traffic from the existing self-storage use, even though a self-storage facility is not comparable with the daily movement profile of more than 200 homes; and
• it provides only 17 visitor spaces for more than 200 apartments and does not include a current, comprehensive parking survey covering weekday evenings and weekends.
There is also a clear contradiction in assuming low car use because the site is near public transport while providing approximately one residential parking space per apartment. Proximity to buses and light rail does not mean residents will not own or use cars, particularly in the larger two, three and four-bedroom apartments.
These impacts cannot be fixed after the development is built. The surrounding streets cannot simply be widened later, and lost parking capacity cannot easily be restored. The traffic impacts must therefore be independently and comprehensively assessed before any approval is given.
At a minimum, the Department should require current weekday and weekend surveys, modelling of the downstream City West Link intersections and queue interaction, future-year and cumulative scenarios, and a realistic assessment of visitor, delivery, servicing and on-street parking demand.
2. The planning rules should not be changed to fit the proposal
The proposal seeks a concurrent rezoning through the Housing Delivery Authority pathway to allow buildings of five to eleven storeys and a density that is far beyond the current planning framework and the predominantly low-rise surrounding neighbourhood.
Planning controls can change, but changing them is not a minor administrative step. Residents, such as me with my young family, have made long-term decisions about where to live based on the controls that apply to the area. A major departure should require a compelling strategic case, a clear and proportionate public benefit, and a proposal that genuinely responds to its setting.
That case has not been made here. The EIS appears to treat the availability of a new approval pathway as justification for the proposed scale. It is not. A pathway for assessment does not establish that an eleven-storey development is appropriate for this site.
The affordable housing component also does not justify the permanent planning uplift. Only 15 of 203 apartments are proposed as affordable housing, representing approximately 5% of gross floor area, and only for a 15-year management period. The increase in height, bulk, density, traffic and development value is permanent. The impacts on the community are also permanent.
A limited and time-bound benefit is not proportionate to the lasting change being sought. If the proposal does not fit the existing controls, the starting point should be to reduce and redesign it - not change the controls to accommodate it.
3. Repeated requests for refinement have not produced meaningful change
I am also concerned by the way this proposal continues to progress despite having been rejected or found unacceptable at multiple levels and despite repeated opportunities for refinement.
Refinement should mean that the applicant responds to the substance of the concerns raised. In this case, the core issues - excessive height, bulk and density, traffic impacts, visual dominance and the relationship with the surrounding neighbourhood - remain substantially unchanged.
Repackaging the proposal, changing the approval pathway or submitting further technical material is not the same as resolving the issues. Reports repeatedly describe impacts as acceptable or low, while the underlying assessments identify serious limitations or moderate-to-severe impacts. The mitigation table largely restates conclusions rather than setting out measures that would actually reduce those impacts.
There must be a point at which the assessment process recognises that a proposal has not been adequately refined. Continuing to ask for further information while allowing the same scale and form to remain effectively intact risks turning the process into a search for a way to approve a predetermined outcome.
The Department should consider the full history of the proposal, the concerns previously raised, what changes were requested, and whether the applicant has genuinely responded. If the fundamental issues remain, the application should not continue unchanged through another pathway.
4. The supporting material understates the impacts
The same pattern is evident in the supporting reports.
• The visual assessment identifies moderate-to-severe or severe impacts from some viewpoints, yet concludes the proposal is acceptable because it is within the height framework the rezoning itself is seeking to create.
• Some photomontages appear cropped or rely on vegetation to reduce the apparent width, bulk and visibility of the buildings. Directly affected homes and open spaces within the Allen Estate are not adequately represented.
• The acoustic assessment predicts construction noise above relevant management levels, including highly noise-affected levels in some cases, while the mitigation schedule classifies the impact as low and omits a number of the consultant's specific monitoring and respite recommendations.
• The acoustic report refers to traffic routes via Atchinson Street and Mitchell Street, which do not relate to this site and appear to have been carried over from another project. This raises a reasonable concern about the quality assurance applied to the supporting documents.
Technical reports should test the proposal objectively. They should not assume that the proposed new controls make the impacts acceptable, rely on future developments to normalise the scale, or treat generic management plans as a substitute for real mitigation.
Requested outcome
I ask the Department to refuse the application in its current form.
If the applicant is permitted to submit a revised proposal, it should be required to:
• substantially reduce the height, bulk and density;
• respond directly to the reasons earlier versions were rejected or required refinement;
• demonstrate what has materially changed, rather than relying on a different planning pathway;
• provide an independent and complete traffic and parking assessment, including downstream intersections and cumulative future conditions;
• provide accurate visual material showing the full development from the Allen Estate and other directly affected residential locations; and
• replace generic mitigation statements with specific, measurable and enforceable commitments.
Conclusion
This is not an objection to housing or to reasonable redevelopment. It is an objection to an overdevelopment that has not adequately responded to its setting, the existing road network, the established planning framework or the concerns repeatedly raised about it.
The community should not be expected to accept permanent traffic, density and amenity impacts because the planning rules can now be changed to enable the proposal. Nor should an application continue substantially unchanged after repeated requests for refinement and rejection at multiple levels.
The proposal should be assessed on whether it is appropriate for this site and this neighbourhood. In its current form, it is not.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,

Resident, The Allen Estate
Leichhardt NSW 2040

I wish to lodge a formal objection to this development application.
The proposal comprises 203 apartments, including:
• 2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
• 50 × 3-bedroom apartments;
• 131 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
• 20 × 1-bedroom apartments.
The application proposes only 220 residential parking spaces. In my view, this is insufficient for a development of this scale and unit mix. Larger apartments, particularly 3- and 4-bedroom dwellings, are likely to accommodate households with multiple vehicles, while many 2-bedroom apartments may also generate demand for more than one vehicle. As a result, the proposed parking provision is likely to fall well short of the actual parking demand.
This shortfall would inevitably increase on-street parking demand, placing significant pressure on surrounding residential streets and reducing parking availability for existing residents and visitors. It would also adversely affect the operation, safety and amenity of the local road network.
While I recognise the importance of increasing housing supply, this should not come at the expense of fundamental residential amenity or by providing infrastructure that is clearly inadequate for the expected level of occupancy. New developments should satisfy minimum planning standards and provide sufficient parking to support their residents without transferring the burden onto the surrounding community.
In addition, I have identified several apparent non-compliances with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which forms part of the applicable planning framework. I am concerned that these matters have not been adequately addressed in the assessment process and respectfully request that the consent authority carefully review these issues before making any determination.
4A Solar access 140 of 203 apartments achieve the criterion 69.0%, below the 70% minimum. At least 143 apartments are required, resulting in a shortfall of 3 apartments. The number receiving no direct midwinter sunlight should also be confirmed against the ADG maximum of 15%.
4D-2 Maximum habitable-room depth 23 apartments are identified as not satisfying the maximum-depth criterion. Apartment D1.01.04 is specifically recorded as having a depth of 9.6 m.
4E-1 Balcony/private open space 37 apartments are identified as not satisfying the minimum balcony/private-open-space area or dimension criterion. This appears to be a repeated apartment-typology issue.
4G-1 Storage Apartment C.03.03 is identified as not satisfying the minimum storage requirement. Compliance with the requirement to provide at least 50% of storage within the apartment should also be checked.
Accordingly, as a resident within the Inner West Council area, I object to this application. I respectfully request that the consent authority either:
• refuse the application in its current form; or
• require the applicant to substantially reduce the development yield or increase the parking provision to an appropriate level before any approval is considered, i.e.,
2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
30 × 3-bedroom apartments;
90 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
20 × 1-bedroom apartments.

I live on the corner of Francis St and William St with my garage facing William St. I am concerned that from the new proposal that the main entrance to the parking area will be directly opposite my garage. I have safety concerns for myself leaving my garage with this new proposal. The original proposal had the main entrance facing Hubert St with a proposed round-about making it safer for all traffic - why the change? With the volume of traffic using William St, this will become difficult for the residents entering and exiting the building. I believe a rethink is needed on where the entrance to the carpark will be to maintain both traffic safety for all who use William St.