Opposition on Planning Proposal – 46 Nicholson Street, St Leonards NSW 2065

To NSW Major Projects,

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed modification for the Build-to-Rent development at 46 Nicholson Street, St Leonards, which seeks to increase the building height from RL 174.95 metres to RL 194.3 metres and raise the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 15:1 to 17.13:1, resulting in a 36-storey tower with 541 apartments.

• The St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan sets a maximum building height of approximately 175 metres and an FSR of 15:1 for this site. The proposed uplift exceeds these limits and undermines the integrity of the strategic planning framework.
• The additional height will cause unacceptable overshadowing of Christie Street Reserve and surrounding residential areas, and obstruct key view corridors identified in previous urban design assessments, increase windy tunnel impact and other future environment damages.
• The increased height will cast longer shadows over Christie Street Reserve, reducing sunlight during peak usage times. This will negatively affect families, children, and elderly residents who rely on this space for recreation and wellbeing.
• The proposal adds hundreds of new residents without clear commitments to upgrade schools, childcare facilities, healthcare services, and community amenities. Lane Cove Public School and local childcare centres are already at capacity.
• Nicholson Street and Christie Street are narrow and already congested. Additional apartments will worsen traffic flow, increase noise, and raise safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly near the new Metro station.
• While the Metro provides improved connectivity, peak-hour trains and buses are already crowded. Adding 541 apartments will exacerbate this issue without proportional investment in transport capacity.
• St Leonards is transitioning into a mixed-use precinct, but excessive height and density will erode its human scale, overshadow heritage elements, and diminish the quality of life of tax payers residents.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposed modification and uphold the existing planning controls under the St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan.

The proposed changes represent overdevelopment and conflict with established planning principles. Maintaining the integrity of strategic planning and the livability of St Leonards requires adherence to the current controls.

Thank you for considering my submission. Please confirm receipt.

Yours sincerely,
Maria Fenelon

The building is way too tall which is going to create even more density issues in this immediate area. Trying to leave Nicholson St is challenging as it is at peak times of the day, adding the extra units for those new levels will make it near impossible. There is no way out of the area except at the intersection of Nicholson St and Pacific Hwy and cars queue here at the lights. There are already a number of buildings in this area with many cars for traffic. In addition this size building is way too tall for streets off highways, it blocks sun light and frankly looks ugly. Please reduce the build back to original height as that will be hard enough for more cars and people!!

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development submission for “Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent” (Application No. SSD-88113706), which seeks approval to add an additional storeys to the existing development. As a nearby resident, I have serious concerns about the significant negative impacts this proposal will have on the surrounding community, neighbourhood amenity, and overall quality of life.

1. Inadequate and Poorly Timed Consultation Period
I am extremely dissatisfied with the short consultation period provided (13 days) —particularly around the holiday season, where relevant stakeholders might be travelling and are not aware of the Exhibition. This timing severely limits the opportunity for stakeholders to review the proposal, seek clarification, and provide feedback. It creates the impression that the consultation window has been intentionally scheduled to suppress stakeholder participation. A project of this scale and impact warrants a fair, transparent, and extended consultation process, which has not been afforded in this instance.

2. Significant Traffic Impact
The addition of storeys will substantially increase population density in the area, resulting in more vehicles, higher parking demand, additional deliveries, and more frequent service and waste trucks. Local roads are already under pressure with existing congestion during peak times. The application does not provide adequate traffic modelling or credible mitigation measures that demonstrate how the surrounding network can safely and efficiently accommodate this increased load. Without genuine planning solutions, this development risks worsening traffic conditions and compromising pedestrian and cyclist safety.

3. Prolonged Construction Period Causing Severe Disruption
The proposed extension will result in an extended construction period, adding years of disruption for nearby residents. I must emphasise that I have serious allergies and am already feeling significant impacts from noise and environmental disruption, even at this early demolition stage. The prospect of prolonged construction—bringing persistent noise, dust, road blockages, and reduced access—is deeply concerning. This poses a genuine risk to my health and wellbeing, as well as the broader quality of life for residents who work from home, have young children, or are otherwise vulnerable. The proposal does not offer sufficient safeguards or mitigation measures to address these impacts.

4. Loss of Sunlight & Increased Shadowing
The additional storeys will dramatically increase the building’s overshadowing footprint. Many neighbouring homes, including mine, will experience a noticeable and prolonged reduction in natural sunlight. Decreased sunlight affects indoor comfort levels, increases reliance on artificial heating and lighting, and reduces the usability and enjoyment of outdoor spaces. These overshadowing impacts are excessive and incompatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

Conclusion
Given the inadequate consultation period, significant traffic concerns, the additional disruption and environmental pollution risk expected from prolonged construction, and the unacceptable shadowing impacts, I strongly oppose the “Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent” proposal in its current form. I respectfully urge the relevant authority to reject Application SSD-88113706 or require substantial amendments that meaningfully and demonstrably address these issues.

If the State chooses to proceed with this application despite community objections, I fully endorse and support the Council’s recommended conditions for the associated Demolition DA, and request that these conditions be adopted in full to ensure maximum protection for nearby residents.

I object to the revised SSD proposal for 46 Nicholson street. The planning for this project has been revised many times. Could a project be so unserious? The newbuilding height increase from 174.95m to RL197m ,and expands yield to more than 541 apartments , this scale is far beyond what was assessed and approved in the original SSD. We need the government's integrity to uphold the original approval of 174.95 meters and 4.5:1 floor space ratio.
This new building is too close to the landmark building(500 pacific highway. and nicholson street is not wide enough. If it is constructed, it will greatly affect the lighting and privacy of landmark building. It's almost as if we could touch the opposite building with our hands. There is absolutely no privacy at all. We simply cannot imagine spending the rest of our lives in an environment where the curtains are always drawn and there is no light at all. It's so sad. If 541 units finished, the traffic will be more crowded. It is unimaginable to live in Sydney without a car.
There are already 4 tall building in Nicholson street, 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.
None of the 5 neighbouring residental towers received any communications and we didn't know the increase height will be 197m until 2 Dec. It's so crezy.
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.
We hope that the NSW government and the LAND COVE COUNCIL can maintain their integrity, keep the plan which is just confirmed on Feb.2025.

Firstly, I object to only having 14 days in which to respond to this SSD application, with the volume of documents that need to be reviewed. Previously the NSW State Government allowed 28 days, which gave adequate time to review documentation. 14 days does not allow true consultation or for residents to fully consider the application or to obtain professional advice.

The documentation on exhibition states that 2,600 properties in the local area were distributed a flyer. The reason no surveys were completed was because no residents in St Leonards received this purported flyer. I am the immediate past chairman of the St Leonards Strata Community Group that represents 22 St Leonards Residential Strata Schemes (4021 units & 8930 residents) and none of our members received this purported document. The developer has had no community consultation whatsoever with impacted residents.
“Engagement activities were undertaken to ensure that impacted residents, the local community and local businesses had an opportunity to hear about the proposed development and provide feedback about the proposal to the project team. While a community flyer was distributed to over 2,600 properties in the local area, no surveys were completed and no emails were received regarding the project. No participation in the project by the community may be due to the location of the site within the broader St Leonards context, and indicates that the community is not concerned by the proposal.”


This site already holds planning controls approved by DPHI in February 2025 allowing construction of a 29 level, build to rent building, including 271 apartments by the previous developer. A change of developer and a new SSD application for a further 7 stories increasing the number of units to 541 is totally unreasonable.

This SSD request by the latest developer if approved will have disastrous effects for a large number of owners/residents in the immediate surrounding buildings, namely St Leonards Square (553 units & 1710 residents), Landmark (433 units & 1030 residents) and 88 Christie (647 units & 1710 residents).

I object to the planned proposal as I believe it goes well beyond the Lane Cove local planning requirements, and if approved would have a detrimental effect on all existing residents in the area.

Population density:
St Leonards is already one of the most densely populated areas in New South Wales. This proposed development does not consider liveability, social cohesion, neighbourhood resilience and provision of public amenities.

Traffic congestion:
The area also suffers from extremely heavy traffic flows, overburdened services, and major construction noise/congestion, due to all the ongoing development. Builders & contractors working on this site and the Telstra site are already taking up all the public parking in the area, which is hindering local residents and businesses alike. Access to our carpark has already been blocked by heavy vehicles operating on the demolition of the existing building.
The NSW State Government or local government have not undertaken a major vehicular traffic study in the North Sydney, Crows Nest & St Leonards areas in many years. The studies referred to in the reports go back to 2013 and do not consider the current vehicular congestion we are experiencing in the St Leonards area. The only detailed studies undertaken relate to cyclists and pedestrians.

The Pacific Highway and side streets in this area are currently extremely congested at peak times with insufficient access to and from existing developments. The study and reports on traffic flows included in the application cannot be considered as relevant. There is currently only one exit from this area via Oxley St which is heavily congested at peak times.

No new developments for the area should be approved by the NSW State Government until such time as a detailed study is undertaken by the State Government concerning the current vehicular traffic congestion, traffic flows, construction congestion and parking.

Building Height:
The proposed building height of 197 meters is excessive and approximately 22 meters above the sites current approved level. The overall size of this proposed development and the effect of shadowing to our building is of major concern. In close proximity to this proposed development, we currently experience major wind tunnelling issues, and this proposed development will only add to this. This proposed development takes no consideration of any of these issues. We note that the wind tunnelling and shadowing reports provided were all completed prior to the completion of the St Leonards Square development, Landmark & 88 Christie St developments. The reports on wind and shadowing, included in the application cannot be considered as relevant.

Lacking Greenspace: St Leonards is lacking in greenspace, overall nature, public amenities and recreational precincts, particularly when compared to most of its neighbouring suburbs. Our residents have to live in the area and put up with the increased population density and increased height in these SSD developments approved by the State Government, that go totally against Local Council, local planning, livability and residents’ values and wishes.

Shadowing:
The loss of sunlight and shadowing that will occur due to the proposed increased height of this proposed development is major. Research provided by the developers was completed prior to the completion of the St Leonards Square development, Landmark & 88 Christie St developments and cannot be considered as relevant. This development will seriously affect our harbour views and ultimately the value of our properties.

Liveability:
All new developments should have substantial separation between buildings and have to include green space and a recreational precinct. What is proposed in the development does not consider liveability for impacted residents living nearby.

Construction Congestion:
I am extremely concerned by the amount of development approved at any one time in the North Sydney, Crows Nest, St Leonards area, as this is causing major congestion, increased heavy traffic, road closures, construction noise and dust issues. There currently does not appear to be any co-ordination between the Councils & State Government, resulting in ongoing construction congestion in the area.
With no co-ordination between the Councils & State Government, what happens to St Leonards, if developers all start construction within similar time frames? At the current time there are 15 new developments taking place within in a 1-kilometre radius of this proposed development in St Leonards.

The developers have not consulted impacted residents, and I believe this proposed development for a building of 197m in height, would have a detrimental impact on all existing residents and believe the State Government should not support or approve it.

I object to the proposal and request that the Department refuse the application.

I am a resident/owner in the St Leonards Square precinct near Nicholson Street. The subject site is in a location with multiple childcare centres in the immediate area, and the proposal will materially worsen road safety, congestion and health impacts for families and local residents.

1. Road safety risks – childcare precinct and pedestrian safety

This area already experiences heavy vehicle and pedestrian activity, particularly during morning and afternoon peaks when families are travelling to and from childcare, and when commuters are accessing St Leonards Station. The road environment is not suitable for a significant uplift in residential density that will increase vehicle movements, ride-share pick-up/drop-off, deliveries and servicing activity.

With three childcare centres nearby, any increase in traffic volumes, kerbside stopping and turning movements substantially increases the risk of conflicts with pedestrians—especially young children, prams and carers crossing streets or walking along footpaths. Safety must be treated as the primary issue in assessing this proposal.

2. Existing traffic is already saturated

Nicholson Street and surrounding roads are already saturated and frequently gridlocked during peak periods. Congestion is not occasional—it is routine, and it affects access, emergency response times, reliability for residents, and overall amenity. The proposal introduces a large number of additional dwellings and associated activity into a network that is already operating at (or beyond) capacity.

Any traffic assessment that downplays impacts based on low onsite parking does not reflect real-world conditions. Even with limited parking, a development of this scale will generate substantial additional vehicle activity through drop-offs, deliveries, visitors, trades and service vehicles, all of which contribute to congestion and safety risks.

3. Construction impacts – health, dust, noise and vibration

The construction phase will be prolonged and highly disruptive for nearby residents, including families and young children. Demolition, excavation and high-rise construction will generate dust, diesel emissions, noise and vibration, and increased heavy vehicle movements. These impacts are not simply an inconvenience—they are a health concern, particularly for children and residents with respiratory sensitivities.

The proximity of childcare centres makes construction impacts even more concerning, as children are more vulnerable to air quality and noise impacts. If the proposal were to proceed (which it should not), it would require strict, enforceable controls on construction hours, dust suppression, air quality monitoring, truck routes, and vibration/settlement monitoring, with genuine consequences for breaches.

4. Loss of sunlight and loss of amenity

Additional height and bulk will further reduce sunlight access and natural light to surrounding apartments and balconies. Residents should not be forced into a situation where they must keep curtains closed for privacy while also losing daylight due to increased overshadowing. This would materially reduce living quality and is unacceptable in an already dense precinct.

5. Concerns about the proponent’s credibility and accuracy of reporting

The exhibition documents reportedly include a statement that nearby residents were consulted between April and July 2025 and that no negative responses were received. This is inconsistent with my experience and with residents I have spoken to; we do not recall being meaningfully consulted at all. This raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the proponent’s statements and the reliability of the assumptions used in its technical reports.

I request that the Department independently verify the claimed consultation process (who was contacted, how, when, and what responses were received). If the claim cannot be substantiated, the Department should treat the proponent’s reporting with caution and require independent review of key assessments (traffic/safety, construction impacts, and sunlight).

Request

For the reasons above—particularly the childcare safety risks, existing traffic saturation, construction health impacts, loss of sunlight and concerns regarding the proponent’s reporting—I request the Department refuse the proposal.

I object to the proposal and request that the Department refuse the application.

I am an owner/resident at 486 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, with my apartment facing Nicholson Street directly opposite the subject site. The proposal will have immediate and severe impacts on my home and on the safety and amenity of the surrounding streets.

1. Road safety and traffic congestion

Nicholson Street and the surrounding road network are already heavily congested during peak hours. Vehicles queue, undertake risky manoeuvres and compete with pedestrians accessing St Leonards Station and local buildings. The proposal will significantly increase movements from residents, visitors, deliveries, ride-share pick-up/drop-off and servicing vehicles, as well as construction traffic for many years.

Locating loading, servicing and construction access on or via Nicholson Street will further increase conflicts between heavy vehicles, cars and pedestrians. This raises serious safety concerns for residents (including children and elderly people), cyclists and people accessing building entries and the car park entrance opposite the site. The Transport Impact Assessment relies heavily on the very low on-site parking rate to downplay impacts, but it does not properly address real-world kerbside activity, queueing at driveways and pick-up/drop-off behaviour. These safety and congestion issues are unacceptable and have not been convincingly addressed.

2. Loss of sunlight and residential amenity

The proposed uplift in height and bulk, above what has already been approved on this site, will further reduce winter sunlight and natural light to Nicholson-facing apartments and balconies at 486 Pacific Highway and other nearby buildings. This precinct is already high density; any additional overshadowing will materially worsen living conditions, increase reliance on artificial lighting and heating, and diminish the reasonable amenity that existing residents should be able to expect. Additional loss of sunlight beyond the previously approved envelope should not be supported.

3. Privacy and direct overlooking

The proposed tower is directly opposite existing residential apartments at a relatively close separation distance. Increasing the building height and the number of dwellings will substantially intensify direct overlooking into living rooms, bedrooms and balconies of Nicholson-facing apartments. This is not a minor issue: it is an ongoing, permanent impact on privacy and sense of security for hundreds of existing residents. The proposal fails to demonstrate that privacy impacts can be properly avoided (not merely “mitigated” with token screening).

4. Serious concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the proponent’s reporting

The exhibition documents reportedly include a statement from the developer that residents living near the site were consulted between April and July 2025 and that no negative responses were received. This is completely inconsistent with my own experience and with that of my neighbours: neither I, nor any of the neighbours I have spoken to in my building facing Nicholson Street, recall receiving any consultation or being asked for feedback at all.

If this statement about prior consultation is inaccurate or misleading, it raises serious concerns about the reliability and integrity of the proponent’s reporting more broadly, including the data, assumptions and conclusions in its traffic, sunlight, wind and other technical assessments. I strongly request that the Department independently verify the claimed consultation activities (dates, methods, number of people contacted and responses received). If the claim cannot be substantiated, the Department should treat the proponent’s self-reported information and modelling with great caution and seek independent review.

A building of this height will most likely intensify the wind tunnel effect that is already quite substantial as it stands currently. There are 2 child care centres located on Christie St, having these children walking in such strong wind force is not safe nor convenient at the least, I find myself being blown back on windy days, let alone children.
Having high rise building blocks on Pacific Hwy near the train and metro stations is good use of land, but having too many all clustered together is not good town planning, there needs to be breaks in between and variations in height. Capping the southern end of Christie St at 15 stories or below would serve as a nice open area for all the high rise that are already/going to be on Pacific Hwy.

I live in the Jackson Tower opposite this development. I was supportive of the previously approved development, but object to the proposed significant increase in height and carparking for the following reasons:
- Traffic on Nicholson and Oxley Streets is already gridlocked during peak periods, and adding this amount of additional parking and vehicles to the precinct will cause excessive further congestion.
- Proposed new height is excessive for a building that is not directly on Pacific Highway.
- The loss of visual outlook and amenity to residents in the existing Jackson and Landmark developments will be too significant.
- Overshadowing to other existing local residents will be too severe if the proposed increase in height is approved.
- Lane Cove Council is objecting to the proposal and I trust in their professional planning guidelines and judgment.
- The existing approved development is already very tall considering the size of the site and relative lack of ground level public space and amenity.
Regards
Steve

I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposed amendment to the development plans, specifically the request for increased height and width, which represents a profound breach of community expectations and an unacceptable escalation of overdevelopment in an area already under immense strain.
I purchased my home in this community with a clear understanding of the State Significant Precinct status and with full awareness of what had already been approved along Nicholson Street. The community accepted those parameters in good faith. What we did not expect was a last-minute, opportunistic expansion of scale that dramatically exceeds what was originally approved. And then for the development request to come in 13 days before Christmas when most people are already on leave is outrageous, unjustified, and fundamentally disrespectful to the residents who have lived here, invested here, raised families here, and endured (so far) years of construction and disruption under the assumption that there were limits - limits you are now asking us to ignore.
Impact on My Home and Wellbeing
This proposal will have a direct and detrimental impact on the liveability of my unit, including loss of natural light, decreased privacy, overshadowing, and ongoing noise and congestion. My wellbeing, and that of my family, has already been affected by continuous development in the area. To now be told that we must absorb even more impact, without meaningful consultation, is beyond frustrating - it is deeply disheartening.
Neighbourhood Already Overdeveloped and Overstretched
This is not an abstract concern. Our neighbourhood is already vastly overdeveloped and simply cannot sustain the additional density you are proposing.
Just one example: the Crows Nest Metro. It is already operating at what feels like full capacity. I encourage anyone involved in this decision to attempt to board any metro train between 6:00–10:00am or again in the afternoon peak. It is impossible. I have had to start driving my daughter to school in North Sydney because she cannot even get on a train. This is not “future pressure” - this is today’s reality.
We also face:
- only one heavily congested road out of the precinct
- two outbound lanes, one a road hazard because drivers routinely attempt tp use the inbound lane as an escape route
- worsening traffic gridlock at peak times
- severe parking shortages
- visible increases in crime
- frequent illegal dumping of rubbish
and absolutely insufficient green space for the population already here
These are not theoretical problems. These are day-to-day burdens borne entirely by the community, with no relief in sight.
Quality of Life Has Already Been Compromised
The state of local green space is a clear indicator of overdevelopment. The tiny patch of grass in front of Landmark is overrun - dogs urinate and defecate there constantly because there is literally nowhere else for people to take them. The grass near Fitness First is unusable. Wadangarri Park has become similarly littered and overburdened. Nothing has been added to support growth, yet you continue to approve developments as though amenities scale automatically. They do not.
This Change Violates What the Community Agreed To
As a community, we agreed to:
- a certain height,
- a certain width,
- certain setbacks,
- and a level of green space and amenity that was meant to offset the high density.

Those commitments mattered. They were the basis on which people accepted years of disruption and the permanent transformation of this suburb.
To disregard them now is not only unfair - it is a betrayal of the community’s trust.
We Were Told Our Objections Would Not Be Considered - Yet They Must Be
Residents have been told that objections “will not change the outcome.” That is unacceptable. At the very least, I am formally lodging this objection so the developer cannot claim that “no one objected.”
People are objecting. In fact, look at the number of recent property sales in the area - people are already leaving because the neighbourhood is becoming unliveable.
In Favour of Development — Not Overdevelopment
Let me be clear: I am not anti-development.
I am pro-thoughtful, planned growth.
But what is being proposed here is neither thoughtful nor justified. It is opportunistic, excessive, and fundamentally incompatible with the real-world capacity of the community, infrastructure, transport, and public spaces.
Demand for Rejection
For all of these reasons, I strongly urge that this application be rejected.
Further expansion of height and width at this site is unreasonable, unsustainable, and contrary to the commitments made to residents.
The community has already absorbed more than its fair share. We cannot, and should not, e expected to shoulder any more.