Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
St. Leonard's
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of the surrounding streets in St Leonards and Crows Nest, and I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to SSD-88113706 for 46-48 Nicholson Street, St Leonards. This proposal seeks to increase the approved building heights and add approximately 270 additional apartments to the plan originally endorsed in 2020/2021.
While I support appropriate development in principle, I object to this specific variation as it constitutes overdevelopment and fails the public interest test on multiple grounds, which are outlined below.
1.Precedent and Strategic Planning Failure
The original master plan was approved following extensive consultation and assessment, setting a carefully considered precedent for density and scale. This new proposal is an ad-hoc, post-approval variation that undermines the strategic planning process.
• Evidence: The original plan represented a holistic agreement between the community, council, and state government. Granting this new proposal signals that such agreements are negotiable after the fact, encouraging a piecemeal approach to planning that erodes community trust and the strategic vision for the area.
2. Overdevelopment, Bulk and Scale
The proposed increase in height and density will result in a building bulk and scale that is grossly out of character with the existing and planned urban fabric.
• Evidence: The existing approval already pushes the boundaries of acceptable density. Adding significant height and 270 more dwellings will create an overwhelmingly dominant structure that looms over the surrounding low-to-mid-rise residential streets, creating a canyon effect and a sense of enclosure incompatible with the area's character.
3. Severe Amenity Impacts: Overshadowing, Loss of Sunlight, and Privacy
The increased height will have direct, measurable, and negative impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
• Overshadowing: The additional floors will cast longer shadows, significantly reducing solar access to our homes and private open spaces. Surrounding areas will be rendered sunless for large parts of the day.
• Loss of Privacy and Views: The elevated vantage points will lead to a direct loss of privacy for hundreds of residents through overlooking. Furthermore, valuable district and city views, which contribute to the livability and economic value of our homes, will be permanently extinguished.
4. Inadequate Infrastructure and Traffic Congestion
The local infrastructure is already operating at or beyond capacity and cannot absorb the additional strain from 270 more households.
• Traffic: Nicholson Street and the intersection with the Pacific Highway are already congested choke points, particularly during peak hours.
• Evidence: The original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the master plan calculated traffic generation for the originally approved number of apartments. This new proposal represents an approximate 100% increase in dwelling yield, which will directly translate to a proportional increase in vehicle trips—a factor not assessed in the original approval. This will lead to unacceptable traffic congestion, longer vehicle queues, and increased commuter frustration.
• Parking: The area already suffers from a severe shortage of on-street parking. An influx of new residents and their visitors will exacerbate this problem, spilling over into surrounding residential streets.
• Public Services: Local schools (e.g., Naremburn School, Cammeraygal High School), medical facilities (Royal North Shore Hospital), and public transport nodes are already under significant pressure. An additional population of several hundred people will further strain these essential services.
5. Economic Impacts on Property Values
The significant loss of views, sunlight, and privacy, coupled with increased traffic, overshadowing, and loss of character, will have a demonstrably negative impact on the value of our properties. This constitutes a tangible financial harm to existing residents who have invested in the area based on the previously agreed planning framework.
Conclusion and Request
This new proposal prioritises developer profit over public interest and good planning. It seeks to extract additional value from the site without providing commensurate community benefit, instead actively degrading the amenity of the very community it should enhance.
I respectfully request that the Department REJECT SSD-88113706 for the following reasons:
1. It undermines the strategic planning process and sets a dangerous precedent.
2. It constitutes overdevelopment and creates an unacceptable bulk and scale.
3. It will cause severe and unreasonable amenity impacts through overshadowing, loss of privacy, and loss of views.
4. It will place an unsustainable burden on already overstretched local infrastructure.
I seek your assurance that the original, approved master plan will be upheld as the final and binding agreement for this site.
Thank you.
While I support appropriate development in principle, I object to this specific variation as it constitutes overdevelopment and fails the public interest test on multiple grounds, which are outlined below.
1.Precedent and Strategic Planning Failure
The original master plan was approved following extensive consultation and assessment, setting a carefully considered precedent for density and scale. This new proposal is an ad-hoc, post-approval variation that undermines the strategic planning process.
• Evidence: The original plan represented a holistic agreement between the community, council, and state government. Granting this new proposal signals that such agreements are negotiable after the fact, encouraging a piecemeal approach to planning that erodes community trust and the strategic vision for the area.
2. Overdevelopment, Bulk and Scale
The proposed increase in height and density will result in a building bulk and scale that is grossly out of character with the existing and planned urban fabric.
• Evidence: The existing approval already pushes the boundaries of acceptable density. Adding significant height and 270 more dwellings will create an overwhelmingly dominant structure that looms over the surrounding low-to-mid-rise residential streets, creating a canyon effect and a sense of enclosure incompatible with the area's character.
3. Severe Amenity Impacts: Overshadowing, Loss of Sunlight, and Privacy
The increased height will have direct, measurable, and negative impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
• Overshadowing: The additional floors will cast longer shadows, significantly reducing solar access to our homes and private open spaces. Surrounding areas will be rendered sunless for large parts of the day.
• Loss of Privacy and Views: The elevated vantage points will lead to a direct loss of privacy for hundreds of residents through overlooking. Furthermore, valuable district and city views, which contribute to the livability and economic value of our homes, will be permanently extinguished.
4. Inadequate Infrastructure and Traffic Congestion
The local infrastructure is already operating at or beyond capacity and cannot absorb the additional strain from 270 more households.
• Traffic: Nicholson Street and the intersection with the Pacific Highway are already congested choke points, particularly during peak hours.
• Evidence: The original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the master plan calculated traffic generation for the originally approved number of apartments. This new proposal represents an approximate 100% increase in dwelling yield, which will directly translate to a proportional increase in vehicle trips—a factor not assessed in the original approval. This will lead to unacceptable traffic congestion, longer vehicle queues, and increased commuter frustration.
• Parking: The area already suffers from a severe shortage of on-street parking. An influx of new residents and their visitors will exacerbate this problem, spilling over into surrounding residential streets.
• Public Services: Local schools (e.g., Naremburn School, Cammeraygal High School), medical facilities (Royal North Shore Hospital), and public transport nodes are already under significant pressure. An additional population of several hundred people will further strain these essential services.
5. Economic Impacts on Property Values
The significant loss of views, sunlight, and privacy, coupled with increased traffic, overshadowing, and loss of character, will have a demonstrably negative impact on the value of our properties. This constitutes a tangible financial harm to existing residents who have invested in the area based on the previously agreed planning framework.
Conclusion and Request
This new proposal prioritises developer profit over public interest and good planning. It seeks to extract additional value from the site without providing commensurate community benefit, instead actively degrading the amenity of the very community it should enhance.
I respectfully request that the Department REJECT SSD-88113706 for the following reasons:
1. It undermines the strategic planning process and sets a dangerous precedent.
2. It constitutes overdevelopment and creates an unacceptable bulk and scale.
3. It will cause severe and unreasonable amenity impacts through overshadowing, loss of privacy, and loss of views.
4. It will place an unsustainable burden on already overstretched local infrastructure.
I seek your assurance that the original, approved master plan will be upheld as the final and binding agreement for this site.
Thank you.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
St Leonards
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to lodge a formal and strong objection to the proposed 36-storey, 571-apartment development at 46 Nicholson Street. As a resident living on Level 31 directly facing the site, the proposal would cause significant and unacceptable impacts on my sunlight, views, amenity, traffic conditions and the overall character of the neighbourhood. It represents a drastic and unjustified departure from the previously approved 29-storey, 271-apartment scheme and raises serious concerns about planning integrity, transparency and consistency with the public interest.
1. Severe Traffic Congestion
The traffic situation in this area is already stretched beyond capacity. Pacific Highway and the surrounding feeder roads are heavily congested every single morning and evening, and even minor incidents cause immediate gridlock. Parking availability is already inadequate for current residents and visitors, and the addition of more than 500 new apartments will overwhelm an infrastructure system that is already failing. It is simply not credible to suggest that local roads and parking can absorb such a dramatic population increase without substantial deterioration in safety, mobility and the basic functioning of the neighbourhood.
2. Loss of Sunlight & Overshadowing Impact
The proposed increase to 36 storeys will cause a severe and wholly unacceptable loss of sunlight to my apartment. The natural light is a fundamental component of my home’s amenity, directly affecting comfort, wellbeing, livability and energy use. A tower of this scale positioned directly opposite would significantly reduce natural light for large portions of the day, producing a material and permanent impact on my quality of life. This is not a minor concern—it is a direct and foreseeable result of excessive height.
Importantly, the overshadowing impact extends far beyond my building alone. The excessive height will also cast long and harmful shadows over the broader precinct, including major residential towers such as The Landmark and JQZ 88, which collectively house thousands of residents. It is indefensible that such wide-ranging amenity loss should occur merely to accommodate an oversized development when a lower and more appropriate scheme has already been approved.
3. Loss of View
The proposal will completely block the sea views that my apartment currently enjoys. The loss of this view is not a minor aesthetic concern; it represents a direct reduction in amenity, quality of life and property value. The previously approved 29-storey structure already pushed the boundaries of visual impact. This new oversized proposal goes far beyond what was originally assessed and accepted, making the amenity loss severe and irreversible. It is unreasonable and unfair for existing residents to bear such a disproportionate burden from a developer's choice to maximise yield by shrinking unit sizes and cramming in additional apartments.
4. Overdevelopment & Inadequate Infrastructures
This application constitutes clear and blatant overdevelopment. Doubling the number of apartments—from 271 to 571—on the same parcel of land is a proposal that prioritises developer’s profit above the wellbeing of the community, the capacity of local infrastructure and the established planning framework. There is no legitimate justification for such an extreme and irresponsible density increase, which is entirely incompatible with the scale, character and carrying capacity of this precinct. The applicant’s attempt to force through a development of this magnitude ignores the cumulative pressures already placed on transport, services and public space.
5. Non-Compliance with the 2036 Plan and Height Framework
The proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan, which clearly establishes the maximum permissible height for this site. That plan intentionally creates a height gradient where buildings step down as they extend away from the station, and new development is expected—and required—to adhere to this principle.
If proposals are permitted to disregard the 2036 Plan whenever a developer seeks higher yield, the Plan becomes meaningless. Approval of this application would create a dangerous precedent enabling future landowners to demand increased height limits under claims of “exceptional circumstances,” leading to escalating overdevelopment across this tightly constrained precinct. Such an outcome would have devastating consequences for local residents and would completely undermine the carefully considered planning vision for the area.
6. Serious Concerns Regarding the Reliability of Developer-Funded Impact Reports
I must emphasise that the assessment of impacts associated with this proposal should not rely on developer-funded documents, whether they concern traffic, solar access, overshadowing, view sharing, wind impacts, waste management or other environmental, social or amenity considerations. Any consultancy directly paid by the applicant is not genuinely independent. Their reports routinely minimise adverse impacts in favour of the party that commissions and funds them.
Under the NSW Planning System principles relating to “actual or perceived conflicts of interest,” decision-makers must avoid reliance on materials that may be compromised—whether in fact or in appearance—by financial dependency on the applicant. All developer-funded assessments fall squarely within this risk category. Accordingly, the Department should not treat these documents as authoritative or impartial.
The only credible way to assess the true scale of impacts is for the Department to commission its own independent experts, at arm’s length from the developer, and for decision-makers to personally inspect local conditions. Only through genuinely independent evaluation will the full severity of traffic congestion, overshadowing, view loss and cumulative infrastructure pressures be accurately understood
7. Procedural Concerns: Unfair Exhibition Timing & Misleading Claims
I am also deeply concerned about the way in which this proposal has been exhibited. Reducing the public exhibition period from the typical 28 days to only 14 days, and scheduling it right before Christmas, appears designed to suppress community participation and avoid scrutiny—not to support genuine consultation. This is not respectful engagement—it is a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. This truncated exhibition undermines procedural fairness and prevents meaningful community participation.
On the other hand, the developer’s statement claiming they previously consulted with local residents and received no negative feedback is false. At no point was I, nor any other residents on my floor or nearby apartments, contacted, consulted or informed. This statement is misleading and it raises serious questions about the transparency and integrity of the applicant’s submission.
Conclusion
This proposal will worsen traffic congestion, remove sunlight and views from thousands of residents, overwhelm local infrastructure, violate the 2036 Plan’s height controls and has been advanced through a process that discourages public participation. I therefore request that the Department and the Planning Panel reject this application outright.
I expect that the concerns raised here will be given full and proper consideration.
Sincerely,
Xiao Ling
12/12/2025
I am writing to lodge a formal and strong objection to the proposed 36-storey, 571-apartment development at 46 Nicholson Street. As a resident living on Level 31 directly facing the site, the proposal would cause significant and unacceptable impacts on my sunlight, views, amenity, traffic conditions and the overall character of the neighbourhood. It represents a drastic and unjustified departure from the previously approved 29-storey, 271-apartment scheme and raises serious concerns about planning integrity, transparency and consistency with the public interest.
1. Severe Traffic Congestion
The traffic situation in this area is already stretched beyond capacity. Pacific Highway and the surrounding feeder roads are heavily congested every single morning and evening, and even minor incidents cause immediate gridlock. Parking availability is already inadequate for current residents and visitors, and the addition of more than 500 new apartments will overwhelm an infrastructure system that is already failing. It is simply not credible to suggest that local roads and parking can absorb such a dramatic population increase without substantial deterioration in safety, mobility and the basic functioning of the neighbourhood.
2. Loss of Sunlight & Overshadowing Impact
The proposed increase to 36 storeys will cause a severe and wholly unacceptable loss of sunlight to my apartment. The natural light is a fundamental component of my home’s amenity, directly affecting comfort, wellbeing, livability and energy use. A tower of this scale positioned directly opposite would significantly reduce natural light for large portions of the day, producing a material and permanent impact on my quality of life. This is not a minor concern—it is a direct and foreseeable result of excessive height.
Importantly, the overshadowing impact extends far beyond my building alone. The excessive height will also cast long and harmful shadows over the broader precinct, including major residential towers such as The Landmark and JQZ 88, which collectively house thousands of residents. It is indefensible that such wide-ranging amenity loss should occur merely to accommodate an oversized development when a lower and more appropriate scheme has already been approved.
3. Loss of View
The proposal will completely block the sea views that my apartment currently enjoys. The loss of this view is not a minor aesthetic concern; it represents a direct reduction in amenity, quality of life and property value. The previously approved 29-storey structure already pushed the boundaries of visual impact. This new oversized proposal goes far beyond what was originally assessed and accepted, making the amenity loss severe and irreversible. It is unreasonable and unfair for existing residents to bear such a disproportionate burden from a developer's choice to maximise yield by shrinking unit sizes and cramming in additional apartments.
4. Overdevelopment & Inadequate Infrastructures
This application constitutes clear and blatant overdevelopment. Doubling the number of apartments—from 271 to 571—on the same parcel of land is a proposal that prioritises developer’s profit above the wellbeing of the community, the capacity of local infrastructure and the established planning framework. There is no legitimate justification for such an extreme and irresponsible density increase, which is entirely incompatible with the scale, character and carrying capacity of this precinct. The applicant’s attempt to force through a development of this magnitude ignores the cumulative pressures already placed on transport, services and public space.
5. Non-Compliance with the 2036 Plan and Height Framework
The proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan, which clearly establishes the maximum permissible height for this site. That plan intentionally creates a height gradient where buildings step down as they extend away from the station, and new development is expected—and required—to adhere to this principle.
If proposals are permitted to disregard the 2036 Plan whenever a developer seeks higher yield, the Plan becomes meaningless. Approval of this application would create a dangerous precedent enabling future landowners to demand increased height limits under claims of “exceptional circumstances,” leading to escalating overdevelopment across this tightly constrained precinct. Such an outcome would have devastating consequences for local residents and would completely undermine the carefully considered planning vision for the area.
6. Serious Concerns Regarding the Reliability of Developer-Funded Impact Reports
I must emphasise that the assessment of impacts associated with this proposal should not rely on developer-funded documents, whether they concern traffic, solar access, overshadowing, view sharing, wind impacts, waste management or other environmental, social or amenity considerations. Any consultancy directly paid by the applicant is not genuinely independent. Their reports routinely minimise adverse impacts in favour of the party that commissions and funds them.
Under the NSW Planning System principles relating to “actual or perceived conflicts of interest,” decision-makers must avoid reliance on materials that may be compromised—whether in fact or in appearance—by financial dependency on the applicant. All developer-funded assessments fall squarely within this risk category. Accordingly, the Department should not treat these documents as authoritative or impartial.
The only credible way to assess the true scale of impacts is for the Department to commission its own independent experts, at arm’s length from the developer, and for decision-makers to personally inspect local conditions. Only through genuinely independent evaluation will the full severity of traffic congestion, overshadowing, view loss and cumulative infrastructure pressures be accurately understood
7. Procedural Concerns: Unfair Exhibition Timing & Misleading Claims
I am also deeply concerned about the way in which this proposal has been exhibited. Reducing the public exhibition period from the typical 28 days to only 14 days, and scheduling it right before Christmas, appears designed to suppress community participation and avoid scrutiny—not to support genuine consultation. This is not respectful engagement—it is a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. This truncated exhibition undermines procedural fairness and prevents meaningful community participation.
On the other hand, the developer’s statement claiming they previously consulted with local residents and received no negative feedback is false. At no point was I, nor any other residents on my floor or nearby apartments, contacted, consulted or informed. This statement is misleading and it raises serious questions about the transparency and integrity of the applicant’s submission.
Conclusion
This proposal will worsen traffic congestion, remove sunlight and views from thousands of residents, overwhelm local infrastructure, violate the 2036 Plan’s height controls and has been advanced through a process that discourages public participation. I therefore request that the Department and the Planning Panel reject this application outright.
I expect that the concerns raised here will be given full and proper consideration.
Sincerely,
Xiao Ling
12/12/2025
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
St Leonards
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of the surrounding streets in 88 Christie St, and write to lodge my strong objection to the proposed modification to increase building height and yield for the build-to-rent development at 44 Nicolson street
While I support well-planned housing and understand the role of build-to-rent in improving rental supply, this particular proposal represents overdevelopment and fails the public interest test under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 on multiple grounds, outlined below.
⸻
1. Undermining the Strategic Planning Framework and Setting a Poor Precedent
The current approval and applicable planning controls (height, FSR and built form) were the outcome of a comprehensive strategic planning process for the [St Leonards / Crows Nest / local] precinct, including public consultation and detailed technical assessment.
• Allowing a substantial post-approval uplift in height and units for a single site, outside any transparent precinct-wide review, would send a clear signal that:
• Carefully negotiated planning outcomes can be re-opened on a site-by-site, ad-hoc basis; and
• Developers can seek significant additional yield after consent is granted, without going through a proper planning proposal process and without delivering commensurate public benefits.
This would erode confidence in the strategic planning framework, create pressure for similar “uplift” requests by other landowners, and result in piecemeal planning rather than a coordinated, plan-led outcome for the area.
⸻
2. Overdevelopment: Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed additional floors and increased dwelling yield constitute clear overdevelopment of the site.
• The uplift exceeds the intended height and density envelope envisaged for this location, resulting in a building that is visually dominant and out of scale compared with both the existing and planned urban form.
• The increased bulk will compromise the desired graduated transition between higher-density development along [main road/centre] and the surrounding lower-scale residential streets, contrary to good urban design and the local character objectives.
• A taller, bulkier tower will exacerbate the “canyon effect”, creating a sense of enclosure and overshadowing at street level, and diminishing the quality and safety of the public domain.
In my view, this level of intensification is inconsistent with the strategic intent of the precinct and is not supported by any demonstrable design excellence or public benefit that would justify such a variation.
⸻
3. Significant Amenity Impacts – Overshadowing, Loss of Sunlight, Privacy and Wind
The proposed height increase will have direct and unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the surrounding public domain:
• Overshadowing and solar access
• Additional floors will cast longer and deeper shadows over adjoining residential buildings, private open space and nearby streets.
• This risks non-compliance with Apartment Design Guide solar access principles (e.g. minimum 2 hours direct sunlight to living areas and private open space in mid-winter) for both existing and approved neighbouring developments.
• Loss of winter sun will materially and permanently reduce thermal comfort, liveability and energy efficiency for existing residents.
• Loss of privacy and outlook
• Higher viewing planes will result in more direct overlooking into neighbouring apartments, balconies and backyards, causing unacceptable privacy impacts for a large number of residents.
• Existing district and city views, which were an important factor in many residents’ decision to live in the area and in the value of their homes, will be further obstructed.
• Wind impacts
• Increased height can worsen down-draft and wind tunnelling at street level and within communal open spaces, discouraging use of the public domain and outdoor areas. Any wind impacts must be fully and transparently assessed for the increased height, not just extrapolated from the original scheme.
These impacts go beyond what was contemplated in the original approval and are not acceptable trade-offs simply to increase yield.
⸻
4. Inadequate Transport, Parking and Social Infrastructure Capacity
The local transport and social infrastructure is already under significant stress and has not been planned for the extra population associated with this uplift.
• Traffic and access
• The original traffic and transport assessment was based on the approved number of dwellings. A substantial uplift in units will result in a material increase in vehicle trips, ride-share activity, delivery vehicles and moving trucks (especially relevant for a build-to-rent building with higher tenant turnover).
• Local streets and key intersections (e.g. Oxley street, the only exit street for several tall buildings) already experience congestion during both peak and off peak periods; additional traffic will worsen queues, delays and safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.
• Parking pressure
• On-street parking in the surrounding residential streets is already heavily constrained.
• Any shortfall in on-site parking – including visitor and service vehicle parking – will spill into nearby streets, causing conflict with existing residents and undermining local parking and traffic management objectives.
• Public transport and community facilities
• Nearby public transport, schools, open spaces and community facilities have finite capacity and were not planned for this additional uplift in population.
• Without concrete commitments to expand social infrastructure, the proposal risks further overloading existing services, contrary to the principles of orderly and economic development under the EP&A Act.
⸻
5. Build-to-Rent Specific Concerns: Management, Amenity and Social Impacts
While build-to-rent can be a positive housing model when properly planned and managed, the proposed uplift raises particular concerns:
• A very large, high-density BTR building concentrates a transient rental population on a single site, increasing demands on building management, security and local services.
• Higher tenant turnover can mean more frequent moves, loading/unloading, deliveries and late-night activity, which, without robust management measures, may lead to noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour affecting surrounding residents.
• The documentation available to the public does not clearly demonstrate that:
• A detailed, enforceable Operational and Management Plan (including security, noise, waste, loading and tenant behaviour) has been secured for the life of the development; and
• The additional height and density will maintain high standards of internal amenity (e.g. natural light, cross-ventilation, acoustic privacy) rather than relying on smaller or poorer-quality units to achieve the uplift.
In the absence of strong, guaranteed management controls, NSW Planning should adopt a precautionary approach and decline further intensification at this site.
⸻
6. Lack of Corresponding Public Benefit or Affordable Housing Outcome
The proposal seeks a significant private uplift in development capacity and value, yet there is no clear, guaranteed public benefit commensurate with that uplift.
• There is no binding commitment to deliver additional affordable housing, community facilities, public open space, or upgrades to local infrastructure that would justify a deviation from the agreed planning framework.
• If such an uplift were ever to be contemplated, it should be considered only through a transparent planning proposal process, with proper strategic testing and clear public benefits, rather than via a modification of the existing consent.
As it stands, the modification appears to prioritise developer yield over community benefit and good planning.
⸻
Conclusion and Request
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposed modification to increase building height and dwelling yield for the build-to-rent development at [site address], on the basis that it:
1. Undermines the established strategic planning framework and sets a poor and inconsistent precedent.
2. Constitutes overdevelopment, resulting in excessive height, bulk and scale that is out of character with the local context.
3. Causes unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain, including overshadowing, loss of solar access, privacy, views and potential wind impacts.
4. Places an unsustainable burden on already constrained transport, parking and social infrastructure.
5. Raises specific build-to-rent management and social impact concerns that have not been adequately addressed, and offers no commensurate public benefit.
I ask that the Department uphold the intent of the original consent and planning controls for this site and ensure that any development proceeds strictly within that framework.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,
Wei
While I support well-planned housing and understand the role of build-to-rent in improving rental supply, this particular proposal represents overdevelopment and fails the public interest test under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 on multiple grounds, outlined below.
⸻
1. Undermining the Strategic Planning Framework and Setting a Poor Precedent
The current approval and applicable planning controls (height, FSR and built form) were the outcome of a comprehensive strategic planning process for the [St Leonards / Crows Nest / local] precinct, including public consultation and detailed technical assessment.
• Allowing a substantial post-approval uplift in height and units for a single site, outside any transparent precinct-wide review, would send a clear signal that:
• Carefully negotiated planning outcomes can be re-opened on a site-by-site, ad-hoc basis; and
• Developers can seek significant additional yield after consent is granted, without going through a proper planning proposal process and without delivering commensurate public benefits.
This would erode confidence in the strategic planning framework, create pressure for similar “uplift” requests by other landowners, and result in piecemeal planning rather than a coordinated, plan-led outcome for the area.
⸻
2. Overdevelopment: Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed additional floors and increased dwelling yield constitute clear overdevelopment of the site.
• The uplift exceeds the intended height and density envelope envisaged for this location, resulting in a building that is visually dominant and out of scale compared with both the existing and planned urban form.
• The increased bulk will compromise the desired graduated transition between higher-density development along [main road/centre] and the surrounding lower-scale residential streets, contrary to good urban design and the local character objectives.
• A taller, bulkier tower will exacerbate the “canyon effect”, creating a sense of enclosure and overshadowing at street level, and diminishing the quality and safety of the public domain.
In my view, this level of intensification is inconsistent with the strategic intent of the precinct and is not supported by any demonstrable design excellence or public benefit that would justify such a variation.
⸻
3. Significant Amenity Impacts – Overshadowing, Loss of Sunlight, Privacy and Wind
The proposed height increase will have direct and unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the surrounding public domain:
• Overshadowing and solar access
• Additional floors will cast longer and deeper shadows over adjoining residential buildings, private open space and nearby streets.
• This risks non-compliance with Apartment Design Guide solar access principles (e.g. minimum 2 hours direct sunlight to living areas and private open space in mid-winter) for both existing and approved neighbouring developments.
• Loss of winter sun will materially and permanently reduce thermal comfort, liveability and energy efficiency for existing residents.
• Loss of privacy and outlook
• Higher viewing planes will result in more direct overlooking into neighbouring apartments, balconies and backyards, causing unacceptable privacy impacts for a large number of residents.
• Existing district and city views, which were an important factor in many residents’ decision to live in the area and in the value of their homes, will be further obstructed.
• Wind impacts
• Increased height can worsen down-draft and wind tunnelling at street level and within communal open spaces, discouraging use of the public domain and outdoor areas. Any wind impacts must be fully and transparently assessed for the increased height, not just extrapolated from the original scheme.
These impacts go beyond what was contemplated in the original approval and are not acceptable trade-offs simply to increase yield.
⸻
4. Inadequate Transport, Parking and Social Infrastructure Capacity
The local transport and social infrastructure is already under significant stress and has not been planned for the extra population associated with this uplift.
• Traffic and access
• The original traffic and transport assessment was based on the approved number of dwellings. A substantial uplift in units will result in a material increase in vehicle trips, ride-share activity, delivery vehicles and moving trucks (especially relevant for a build-to-rent building with higher tenant turnover).
• Local streets and key intersections (e.g. Oxley street, the only exit street for several tall buildings) already experience congestion during both peak and off peak periods; additional traffic will worsen queues, delays and safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.
• Parking pressure
• On-street parking in the surrounding residential streets is already heavily constrained.
• Any shortfall in on-site parking – including visitor and service vehicle parking – will spill into nearby streets, causing conflict with existing residents and undermining local parking and traffic management objectives.
• Public transport and community facilities
• Nearby public transport, schools, open spaces and community facilities have finite capacity and were not planned for this additional uplift in population.
• Without concrete commitments to expand social infrastructure, the proposal risks further overloading existing services, contrary to the principles of orderly and economic development under the EP&A Act.
⸻
5. Build-to-Rent Specific Concerns: Management, Amenity and Social Impacts
While build-to-rent can be a positive housing model when properly planned and managed, the proposed uplift raises particular concerns:
• A very large, high-density BTR building concentrates a transient rental population on a single site, increasing demands on building management, security and local services.
• Higher tenant turnover can mean more frequent moves, loading/unloading, deliveries and late-night activity, which, without robust management measures, may lead to noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour affecting surrounding residents.
• The documentation available to the public does not clearly demonstrate that:
• A detailed, enforceable Operational and Management Plan (including security, noise, waste, loading and tenant behaviour) has been secured for the life of the development; and
• The additional height and density will maintain high standards of internal amenity (e.g. natural light, cross-ventilation, acoustic privacy) rather than relying on smaller or poorer-quality units to achieve the uplift.
In the absence of strong, guaranteed management controls, NSW Planning should adopt a precautionary approach and decline further intensification at this site.
⸻
6. Lack of Corresponding Public Benefit or Affordable Housing Outcome
The proposal seeks a significant private uplift in development capacity and value, yet there is no clear, guaranteed public benefit commensurate with that uplift.
• There is no binding commitment to deliver additional affordable housing, community facilities, public open space, or upgrades to local infrastructure that would justify a deviation from the agreed planning framework.
• If such an uplift were ever to be contemplated, it should be considered only through a transparent planning proposal process, with proper strategic testing and clear public benefits, rather than via a modification of the existing consent.
As it stands, the modification appears to prioritise developer yield over community benefit and good planning.
⸻
Conclusion and Request
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposed modification to increase building height and dwelling yield for the build-to-rent development at [site address], on the basis that it:
1. Undermines the established strategic planning framework and sets a poor and inconsistent precedent.
2. Constitutes overdevelopment, resulting in excessive height, bulk and scale that is out of character with the local context.
3. Causes unacceptable amenity impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain, including overshadowing, loss of solar access, privacy, views and potential wind impacts.
4. Places an unsustainable burden on already constrained transport, parking and social infrastructure.
5. Raises specific build-to-rent management and social impact concerns that have not been adequately addressed, and offers no commensurate public benefit.
I ask that the Department uphold the intent of the original consent and planning controls for this site and ensure that any development proceeds strictly within that framework.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,
Wei
Hengdao Yin
Object
Hengdao Yin
Object
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident who resides near the 46-52 Nicholson Street and 59-67 Christie Street, St Leonards. The site mentioned above is opposite to my building‘s car park. And this project is clearly visible from my balcony. Please see attached Word or Pdf file of my Submission In Opposition to the project.
Thank you!
I am a resident who resides near the 46-52 Nicholson Street and 59-67 Christie Street, St Leonards. The site mentioned above is opposite to my building‘s car park. And this project is clearly visible from my balcony. Please see attached Word or Pdf file of my Submission In Opposition to the project.
Thank you!
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
Hi,
I am writing to oppose the new proposed height for the Nicholson Street Build to Rent project. There are current issues regarding the surrounding area, such as traffic during peak hour, sunlight and wind issues. With the additional height of the building, it only adds additional strain on the surrounding areas, not just for the residents surrounding the building, but also other patrons for surrounding shops (e.g grocery stores, restaurants and such)
The major issue for surrounding residents is the traffic issue during peak hours, such as afternoons and weekends. Currently, on Nicholson Street, the only exit is through Oxley Street. With the Metro providing pedestrian crossings across Pacific Highway, it is already a major bottleneck during busy periods, taking up to 20 minutes just to get on to Pacific Highway. With the additional height it will add to the bottleneck in the current traffic conditions.
We, as the residents, have objected to this additional height before and agree with Lane Cove Council that the additional height is an unreasonable request from the developers.
Thanks
I am writing to oppose the new proposed height for the Nicholson Street Build to Rent project. There are current issues regarding the surrounding area, such as traffic during peak hour, sunlight and wind issues. With the additional height of the building, it only adds additional strain on the surrounding areas, not just for the residents surrounding the building, but also other patrons for surrounding shops (e.g grocery stores, restaurants and such)
The major issue for surrounding residents is the traffic issue during peak hours, such as afternoons and weekends. Currently, on Nicholson Street, the only exit is through Oxley Street. With the Metro providing pedestrian crossings across Pacific Highway, it is already a major bottleneck during busy periods, taking up to 20 minutes just to get on to Pacific Highway. With the additional height it will add to the bottleneck in the current traffic conditions.
We, as the residents, have objected to this additional height before and agree with Lane Cove Council that the additional height is an unreasonable request from the developers.
Thanks
Michael Sperling
Support
Michael Sperling
Support
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
I support this project. However current & future traffic management in St Leonards needs amending as more large residential buildings are constructed. Access to Nicholson st is ONE WAY via Christie st. This is creating a serious traffic bottleneck. Two changes need to be made to assist cars entering & leaving Nicholson st.
1. Christie st intersection with Pacific Hwy must be made two way. Therefore cars can enter & exit Nicholson st via Christie st and access Pacific Hwy.
2. Nicholson st is blocked off at Oxley st by a small pocket park. This pocket park must be removed to allow option for cars to exit Nicholson st via River road whilst also being able to exit Nicholson st via Oxley st (as per current traffic arrangements).
In short, I support new highrise/build to rent in St Leonards. But cars need additional (and easy to implement) entry & exit options to and from Nicholson st.
1. Christie st intersection with Pacific Hwy must be made two way. Therefore cars can enter & exit Nicholson st via Christie st and access Pacific Hwy.
2. Nicholson st is blocked off at Oxley st by a small pocket park. This pocket park must be removed to allow option for cars to exit Nicholson st via River road whilst also being able to exit Nicholson st via Oxley st (as per current traffic arrangements).
In short, I support new highrise/build to rent in St Leonards. But cars need additional (and easy to implement) entry & exit options to and from Nicholson st.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ST LEONARDS
,
New South Wales
Message
I. Introduction and Summary of Objection
This submission formally objects to the proposed building development currently under consideration by the NSW Government. The objection is grounded in substantial procedural, legal, and community impact concerns, which are detailed below. We respectfully request that the proposal be rejected pending a comprehensive and independent review.
II. Procedural Irregularities and Governance Concerns
There are significant questions regarding the transparency and integrity of the planning process. The developer’s approach—submitting initial plans that appeared acceptable, then subsequently seeking approval for a substantially larger structure—raises the specter of procedural manipulation. The revised plans were not made available to residents in a timely manner, undermining the community’s right to be properly consulted. Should this proposal proceed, it may necessitate an inquiry into the governance of the planning process, as the actions observed could erode public trust in both the developer and the NSW Government’s oversight mechanisms.
III. Market Saturation and Lack of Demonstrable Need
The St Leonards area has experienced a marked increase in residential construction in recent years, resulting in a surplus of unsold and unoccupied dwellings. The addition of further residential units is not supported by current market demand and risks overwhelming local amenities. The absence of a clear, evidence-based need for additional dwellings renders the proposal unjustifiable.
IV. Adverse Impact on Local Character and Amenity
The scale and design of the revised development are incongruent with the established character of the neighbourhood. The proposed structure’s disproportionate size threatens to overshadow existing properties and irreversibly alter the area’s visual and social fabric. Such a departure from local planning expectations is neither reasonable nor consistent with community interests.
V. Traffic and Infrastructure Strain
Nicholson Street and its environs are already experiencing significant traffic congestion, exacerbated by recent developments and increased patronage of local amenities such as the supermarket. The projected traffic volumes associated with the new proposal far exceed those outlined in the original plans, posing risks to safety and the effective functioning of local infrastructure. The lack of adequate community consultation on these changes further compounds the issue.
VI. Builder Conduct and Ethical Considerations
The conduct of the developer warrants scrutiny. Assertions that no objections were received until recently are misleading, given that residents were not afforded a genuine opportunity to review the revised plans. The pattern of engagement suggests an intent to circumvent meaningful community input, raising concerns about the developer’s ethical standards and compliance with the spirit of planning regulations. For a specific example, see attached, a screenshot from the developer's Environmental Impact Statement. It is a diagram of the proposed new structure in relation to surrounding buildings. The builder has chosen to suppply an outdated plan to which completely misrepresents the surrounding buildings. "The Landmark" and "88" are NOT shown on this diagram, thus misleading anyone looking at the EIS into thinking there are minimal existing buildings in htis area and therefore minimal impact to other dwellings - to the contraty there are several buildings which will be severely impacted and overshadowed by this new proposal and the developer has intentianally chosen to omit these from the EIS in order to divert the true impact of the proposal. See attached.
VII. Environmental and Health Considerations – Noise Pollution
Prior developments in the vicinity have demonstrated the adverse impact of rooftop machinery and building services on local noise levels. It is imperative that any new development be subject to rigorous noise impact assessments from the outset, with enforceable conditions to prevent excessive noise from mechanical equipment. It remains unclear whether a specific noise study has been conducted for this proposal.
VIII. Conclusion and Relief Sought
For the reasons set out above, we urge the NSW Government to reject the current proposal. We further request that all associated processes be subjected to independent review to ensure compliance with statutory obligations and the protection of community interests.
This submission formally objects to the proposed building development currently under consideration by the NSW Government. The objection is grounded in substantial procedural, legal, and community impact concerns, which are detailed below. We respectfully request that the proposal be rejected pending a comprehensive and independent review.
II. Procedural Irregularities and Governance Concerns
There are significant questions regarding the transparency and integrity of the planning process. The developer’s approach—submitting initial plans that appeared acceptable, then subsequently seeking approval for a substantially larger structure—raises the specter of procedural manipulation. The revised plans were not made available to residents in a timely manner, undermining the community’s right to be properly consulted. Should this proposal proceed, it may necessitate an inquiry into the governance of the planning process, as the actions observed could erode public trust in both the developer and the NSW Government’s oversight mechanisms.
III. Market Saturation and Lack of Demonstrable Need
The St Leonards area has experienced a marked increase in residential construction in recent years, resulting in a surplus of unsold and unoccupied dwellings. The addition of further residential units is not supported by current market demand and risks overwhelming local amenities. The absence of a clear, evidence-based need for additional dwellings renders the proposal unjustifiable.
IV. Adverse Impact on Local Character and Amenity
The scale and design of the revised development are incongruent with the established character of the neighbourhood. The proposed structure’s disproportionate size threatens to overshadow existing properties and irreversibly alter the area’s visual and social fabric. Such a departure from local planning expectations is neither reasonable nor consistent with community interests.
V. Traffic and Infrastructure Strain
Nicholson Street and its environs are already experiencing significant traffic congestion, exacerbated by recent developments and increased patronage of local amenities such as the supermarket. The projected traffic volumes associated with the new proposal far exceed those outlined in the original plans, posing risks to safety and the effective functioning of local infrastructure. The lack of adequate community consultation on these changes further compounds the issue.
VI. Builder Conduct and Ethical Considerations
The conduct of the developer warrants scrutiny. Assertions that no objections were received until recently are misleading, given that residents were not afforded a genuine opportunity to review the revised plans. The pattern of engagement suggests an intent to circumvent meaningful community input, raising concerns about the developer’s ethical standards and compliance with the spirit of planning regulations. For a specific example, see attached, a screenshot from the developer's Environmental Impact Statement. It is a diagram of the proposed new structure in relation to surrounding buildings. The builder has chosen to suppply an outdated plan to which completely misrepresents the surrounding buildings. "The Landmark" and "88" are NOT shown on this diagram, thus misleading anyone looking at the EIS into thinking there are minimal existing buildings in htis area and therefore minimal impact to other dwellings - to the contraty there are several buildings which will be severely impacted and overshadowed by this new proposal and the developer has intentianally chosen to omit these from the EIS in order to divert the true impact of the proposal. See attached.
VII. Environmental and Health Considerations – Noise Pollution
Prior developments in the vicinity have demonstrated the adverse impact of rooftop machinery and building services on local noise levels. It is imperative that any new development be subject to rigorous noise impact assessments from the outset, with enforceable conditions to prevent excessive noise from mechanical equipment. It remains unclear whether a specific noise study has been conducted for this proposal.
VIII. Conclusion and Relief Sought
For the reasons set out above, we urge the NSW Government to reject the current proposal. We further request that all associated processes be subjected to independent review to ensure compliance with statutory obligations and the protection of community interests.