The project leads to an unfair scenario for the residents in 27 Station Street West. Below are some of the adverse effects that they will experience when the project is completely finished.
• Loss of natural sunlight and ventilation
• Reduced privacy, as the new building can overlook 27 Station Street apartments
• Increased noise, dust, and disturbance during construction
• More traffic and parking issues in the area. The area is quite congested on Station Street and this will intensify even further.
• Big impact on property value

Updated Anonymous Objection Letter (with corrected address)
Here is the revised version with your exact address: 27 Station Street West, Parramatta NSW 2150.
I have updated every reference for accuracy and consistency.

Resident of 27 Station Street West
Parramatta NSW 2150
[Today’s Date – e.g. 9 April 2026]
Director, State Significant Development Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Email: [email protected]
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-81770462 – Mixed-Use Shop Top Housing Development at 33-43 Marion Street, Parramatta NSW 2150
Dear Director,
I write as a directly affected neighbouring resident to formally object to the above State Significant Development Application (SSDA). I request that my identity be kept confidential to the extent possible under the Department’s submission processes.
I am a resident of 27 Station Street West, Parramatta NSW 2150. My property is located at the south-east corner of the intersection of Station Street West and Peace Lane — immediately opposite the proposed development site on the western side of Station Street West and northern side of Peace Lane.
The architectural plans and drawings provided by the applicant (FUSE-ARCHITECTS, dated April 2025, reference B2.pdf) clearly demonstrate that the proposed high-rise mixed-use building will have a severe and unacceptable impact on my residential amenity. I object on the following grounds:
1 Severe Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access
The proposed tower (shown in the 3D render on the cover sheet and site analysis on Page 4) is significantly taller than my 3-storey building and is located directly across Station Street West and Peace Lane with minimal setback. My corner unit (with windows and balcony facing both Station Street West (west) and Peace Lane (north)) will lose the majority of morning and midday sunlight, particularly during winter months. The preliminary sun-path analysis on Page 4 already indicates major shadow impacts on neighbouring properties at this exact location. Detailed shadow diagrams (listed as SSDA 101 on the cover sheet but not yet provided) are expected to confirm substantial non-compliance with solar access requirements for living areas.
2 Complete Loss of Views and Outlook
The current low-rise context (1–2 storey dwellings) will be replaced by a full-height building wall and balconies directly opposite my property (see Site Plan Page 6, Ground Floor Plan Page 12, and Typical Floor Plans Pages 8–11). My primary outlook to the north and west will be entirely obstructed.
3 Significant Loss of Privacy and Overlooking
The proposed east- and south-facing windows, balconies and communal areas on the new building will allow direct overlooking into my living spaces and bedrooms from higher levels.
4 Construction Impacts
Demolition and construction of a high-rise tower immediately across both streets will result in prolonged noise, dust, vibration, heavy vehicle movements and restricted access on Station Street West and Peace Lane, severely disrupting my day-to-day living for an extended period.
5 Ongoing Amenity and Streetscape Impacts
Increased traffic, deliveries, foot traffic and potential wind effects from the commercial ground-floor uses and new residents will further degrade the quiet residential character I currently enjoy.
The plans show the building is pushed hard against both street boundaries (Pages 6–7), maximising impact on my property while providing no meaningful mitigation for immediate neighbours. This proposal fails to adequately consider the amenity of existing residents and is inconsistent with the objectives of the State Significant Development guidelines and Parramatta Local Environmental Plan.
I respectfully request that the Department:
• Refuse the application in its current form; or
• Require substantial redesign (increased setbacks, reduced height, or alternative massing) to protect solar access, privacy and views for my property and other immediate neighbours; and
• Ensure the forthcoming Environmental Impact Statement includes comprehensive, site-specific shadow diagrams, visual impact assessments and mitigation measures that address the impacts on residents at 27 Station Street West.
I am available to provide further information or a site inspection of my property if required (via the Department if confidentiality is maintained). Please keep me informed of the exhibition of the EIS and any determination timeline.
Thank you for considering my submission. I trust the Department will give full weight to the very real and severe impacts on existing residents at this highly constrained inner-city site.
Yours sincerely,
A Directly Affected Resident
27 Station Street West
Parramatta NSW 2150

I write to object to the proposal for Shop Top Housing at 33-43 Marion Street, Parramatta and Concurrent Rezoning of the site. I have reviewed the plans provided, and as a resident living within 100m of the development site, I have the following concerns regarding the proposal.

Concerns for Station Lane vehicle access
The proposed development includes 6 levels of basement parking, totalling 195 parking spaces, with Station Lane (also known as Peace Lane) used to facilitate vehicle access to the site, both during construction and when the site becomes operational. Station Lane is a narrow, one-way service lane that is inadequate for facilitating access for such a high volume of traffic. The lane is currently a well-used pedestrian route for thoroughfare and for access to residences, however, it is severely lacking in pedestrian infrastructure (refer to attached photo). Tensions between pedestrians and vehicles will only be exacerbated by such a drastic escalation in traffic, and I hold serious concerns for the safety of pedestrians if this proposal were to proceed.

Inadequate community engagement
It is clear throughout the Engagement Report that consultation with the local community regarding this proposal has not been conducted in good faith. While the Report outlines the methods of consultation that were undertaken, it does not specify how many community members in total participated in consultation activities. It is evident from reading the report that only minimal contact occurred between the consultants and the community.
- The Report claims that a letterbox drop of 300 flyers and doorknock was conducted in October 2025, however as a resident within the immediate vicinity of the site I did not receive or see any materials.
- Only 2 responses were collected for their community survey.
- Pop-up sessions were held in a location in Harris Park that did not attract incidental foot traffic.
- The project website is not accessible via a public web search of the street address.
Further community engagement should occur before this proposal progresses.

Lack of open green space
The scale of the proposed development and rezoning is not supported by nearby infrastructure, particularly open green space. The EIS cites Jubilee Park and Rosella Park as local recreation offerings to service the development. However, these are both relatively small open spaces which are already well-used by families that live in the existing high density residences nearby. The drastic increase to density brought about by the proposed rezoning would push these parks beyond their capacity. Further investigation should be conducted into whether the existing local infrastructure can continue to support this neighbourhood in the coming years, with many large residential developments nearby already in their construction phases.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns and I look forward to staying updated with this proposal.

Key concerns include:
Overshadowing: Potential loss of solar access for units and common areas.
Privacy: Increased overlooking from the proposed high-rise structure.
Traffic and Noise: Increased congestion and noise during and after construction. The proposed driveway access via Peach Lane is of particular concern, as it is narrow, has no footpath, and may pose safety risks for pedestrians. The proposed car park capacity of 189 vehicles (excluding motorcycles and bicycles) is also significantly high for the lane’s current capacity.
Visual Amenity: The scale of the project in relation to the existing building.

Dear NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed rezoning of 33–43 Marion Street, Parramatta. As a concerned local resident, I believe this proposal fails to adequately consider the impact on sunlight access, residential amenity, infrastructure, safety, and heritage. I respectfully request that the Department reconsider the proposal or require amendments to address these significant issues.
1. Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight Access
The proposed rezoning would facilitate a large increase in building height and density on the site. This would result in substantial overshadowing of neighbouring properties, particularly during winter months. Under Clause 4.3 of the Parramatta LEP 2011, the protection of sunlight access is critical to ensuring that development does not unduly reduce residential amenity.
According to Parramatta DCP 2011, Part 3 - General Controls, solar access (referred to in DCP as "sunlight") to primary living spaces and private open spaces is essential, particularly during the key hours of 9am to 3pm in winter. The proposed development risks failing to meet these guidelines, which would result in diminished sunlight access for existing properties, affecting the quality of life for current residents.
2. Impact on Mental Health and Wellbeing
Natural sunlight plays a key role in supporting physical and mental health. Research has shown that a lack of sunlight can lead to conditions such as Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), general depression, and other mood disorders. As referenced in Parramatta DCP 2011, Part 3 - General Controls, maintaining sunlight access is crucial not just for physical comfort, but for community wellbeing. The proposed development, which would block sunlight from key areas of surrounding residential properties, could exacerbate mental health concerns, particularly in an already dense urban environment.
3. Increased Living Costs
The loss of natural light would result in increased reliance on artificial lighting and heating, leading to higher energy costs for residents. Given the current economic climate and the ongoing increase in cost-of-living pressures, the potential for higher utility bills is a significant concern. The Parramatta DCP 2011, Part 3 - General Controls, highlights the importance of energy-efficient design to reduce household expenditure, yet this proposal disregards these principles by blocking natural light, thereby forcing existing residents to increase their reliance on artificial sources of energy.
4. Traffic Congestion and Infrastructure Strain
The rezoning proposal, which allows for nearly 300 additional apartment units on the site, raises concerns about the capacity of existing infrastructure. According to Clause 7.2 of the Parramatta LEP 2011 (Traffic, Transport, and Parking), new developments should ensure that local roads, pedestrian paths, and public transport systems can accommodate increased demand.
The addition of 300 new units will generate a significant increase in vehicle traffic, exacerbating congestion and pressure on an already strained infrastructure network. Without sufficient upgrades to roads and transport systems, this development will likely compromise the safety and convenience of both current and future residents.
5. Safety Concerns Due to Narrow Access Lanes
The development's design raises concerns about the adequacy of access for emergency services and daily traffic. Parramatta DCP 2011, Part 4 - Site Planning and Design, emphasizes that adequate vehicular access and circulation, especially for emergency vehicles, is critical to ensuring safety in new developments. The proposed development's reliance on narrow access lanes presents a clear risk to safety, as these lanes may not be suitable for accommodating increased traffic volumes or emergency vehicles, which could delay response times and increase safety risks for residents.
6. Impact on Heritage and Local Character
Parramatta is home to a rich cultural and architectural heritage. According to Clause 5.10 of the Parramatta LEP 2011, the preservation of heritage items and conservation areas is a primary consideration in any development application. The proposed rezoning risks undermining the heritage value of surrounding areas, particularly in terms of visual amenity and the preservation of Parramatta’s distinctive architectural character.
There is a need to balance development with the protection of the local heritage fabric to maintain the identity and sense of place that residents and visitors value.
________________________________________
Conclusion
In light of the significant overshadowing, the loss of sunlight, the mental and physical health impacts, the strain on local infrastructure, and the risk to heritage, I strongly urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reconsider the proposed rezoning of 33–43 Marion Street, Parramatta.
I respectfully ask that the Department require amendments to the proposal to:
• Address the overshadowing and sunlight access issues as per the Parramatta LEP and DCP guidelines.
• Include adequate infrastructure upgrades to support increased traffic and ensure safety.
• Preserve the heritage values of the surrounding area.
Thank you for considering my submission. I trust that these concerns will be given full consideration as part of the assessment process.
Yours sincerely,
Krutartha and Ishita Patel
Owners of Unit 15. 27 Station Street West, Harris Park, NSW 2762

I support the project

Rasp Lead/Zinc /silver project modification 13
My objection to the project is that the disturbance surface historical chemical and mineral dumps during these operations
My concerns are prior to 2007 Broken hill lead levels children had a twelve-year decline in lead levels then in 2007/2008 the children lead levels increased since the granting of the license for the rasp mine CML7 Lease Broken Hill operations lead levels have increased in the community living there especially family's living around the line load now 2026 and the lead levels are still climbing.
My concern is that the Broken Hill mines environmental monitoring 12559 license is under reporting the true levels as oxidized lead (and minerals) are not required to be monitored by their currant license conditions. As it states in broken hill operations 26th May 2010 report there was NO Site-specific PM2.5 monitoring data were available for the Broken hill region and there were no analytical samples were collected during this audit to verify any former or current monitoring programs in place or data collected
the audit report does not, and dose not purport to give any legal advice on the actual or potential liabilities of the operation.
The impact assessment for this fraction will be restricted to the consideration of the incremental concentration due to the project
MY Concerns to the Application
1. the transport and processing stock piling 100.000 tons of ore from the pinnacles mine to rasp mine cml7 Broken Hill Operations in the center of the Broken Hill community
2.The Block 16 express ladder way
My concerns are what environmental impact from shifting the historical chemical and mineral dumps to erect ladder way is going to have on the community and schools in that area line load. What human risk assessment for this project and sampling material has been done to maximize the environmental health impacts from this projects and the currant license monitoring air and water from the site does not meet the criteria for materials being mined and disturbed and transported for the Rasp Mine site CML7 Minning Lease to protect the health of the community living in Broken Hill.
The license for the rasp mine 12559 state surface works only have to stop if winds get to 60klm hour and yet past government reports state winds of 30klm the dust from the line load dumps blows all over the town, unstable skimp dumps along line load consisting of slag heaps waste dumps tailings dumps open cuts and other generally disturbed ground are a likely source of ongoing contamination of the environment.
Limited environmental monitoring data suggest that the lead is apparently continually re-enter into the air and hence is moving around Broken Hill and contributing to ongoing environmental contamination. Major concerns at the exclusion Biologically soluble Lead from monitoring this report was commissioned by EPA who gave the environmental license to Rasp mine CML7 Lease and yet EPA excluded this from the 12559 license so basically under reporting true levels.
What environmental license conditions for MP07-0018-Mod-13 applicant Broken Hill Operations will be imposed to this application as previous environmental license does not meet the criteria for this particular site as previous audits site rasp mine July 2010 state who takes responsibility for the contamination and poisoning of the community and schools preschools during the surface mobilize of dust generated from this site due to the surface movement and stock pile ore from pinnacles mine on site for processing. once the ore from pinnacles mine is exposed to air weather it becomes oxidized ore (soluble minerals lead cadmium arsenic thallium beryllium ores etc.
What precautions monitoring and how do they intend on containing dust from site as the retardant (green) spayed on site does not work as it breaks down and becomes air born and water down dose work to some degree in colder months Broken Hill has low rain fall are its arid and reaches temperatures 50 degrees on those dumps mine area so water just evaporates as quickly as it is disperse
If the levels of lead manganese cadmium arsenic hexavalent chromium cyanide keep increasing will the mining company Broken Hill operations Rasp mine and Planning department relocate all the family's living around the line load who will be affected poisoned from this site and its operations. And compensate them for their homes and contents
What contribution to the community and schools is going to be made by Broken Hill Operations CML7 and planning department and EPA department for the ongoing decontamination of the community of Broken Hill and Broken hill City Council if the application is granted.
What human risk assessment has been completed for this application for mod13 Broken Hill Operations
What was the criteria for the human risk assessment
Thank you for your time
Look forward to your reply to my concerns regarding this application project modification 13 Broken hill operations PTY LTD MP07-0018-mod-13 minister for planning and public spaces
Regards
Jenny Rowbotham
Concerned grandmother of children living in Broken Hill and general concern for community health and schools and public spaces

I am an owner in a neighbouring property directly impacted by the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road. I strongly object to this application in its current form.
The proposed height (7–15 storeys) and overall bulk significantly exceed existing planning controls and are inappropriate for this location. This is an overdevelopment that is out of scale with the area and will materially reduce the amenity of surrounding properties.
I understand the need for additional housing in Sydney. However, this proposal represents a reckless approach to development—one that prioritises density at any cost, while eroding both the value of existing properties and the liveability of the surrounding community.
Beyond overshadowing, I raise the following concerns:
• Privacy: Increased overlooking into neighbouring apartments
• Outlook: Loss of open outlook and visual dominance of the built form
• Traffic & Safety: Added congestion and pressure on already constrained access points
• Parking: Insufficient visitor parking leading to overflow into surrounding areas
• Construction Impact: Prolonged noise, vibration, heavy vehicles, and disruption
• Slope Stability: Risk from excavation on sloping land, particularly given surrounding buildings are over 50 years old and undergoing major repairs
• Drainage: Altered stormwater flow and increased runoff, with potential localised impacts
• Wind Effects: Changes to wind patterns affecting comfort and usability of surrounding spaces
• Noise Environment: Potential for increased and reflected noise from large built forms
I also question the accuracy and completeness of the submitted materials and request careful review.
This proposal, in its current form, is excessive and unacceptable. I urge the Department to require a substantial reduction in height and scale, or to reject the application.
This proposal will directly affect how I experience and use my home on a daily basis, reducing comfort, privacy and overall liveability.
Yours sincerely,
Katrina Dowgird

Good morning:

I am writing to you in relation to the Development of 225 Units at 300 Burns Bay Rd. Lane Cove.

I, Gabriela Gray owner of Unit29 at 300A Burns Bay Rd, OBJECT to this Development for the following reasons:

1. PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 54.5 MTS. MORE THAN DOUBLE THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS IN THE AREA.
THE PRESENT LIMIT IS 21 MTS.

2. FLOOR SPACE RATIO NEARLY DOUBLE FROM 2:1 TO 3.22:1.

3. ASSOCIATED IMPACTS FROM FROM THE PROPOSED HEIGHT ( SEVERE OVERSHADOWING, PRIVACY, VIEW IMPACT.

4. EXACERBATION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC ISSUES AND PARKING.

5. CONSTRUCTION RELATED IMPACTS (CONTAMINATION, DUST, TRAFIIC, NOISE, POLLUTION, PARKING AND WASTE)

6. INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ABILITY OF LOCAL SHOPS, TRANSPORT, OPEN SPACES, SCHOOLS, AND ROADS TO
ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS, IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUE.


FOR ALL THESE REASONS I OPPOSE THIS PROJECT TO GO AHEAD.
IT IS LUDICROUS TO GIVE CONSENT TO THIS PROJECT WHICH IS PROPOSING MORE THAN DOUBLE THE CURRENT
APPROVED HEIGHT AND PROPOSING AN INCREASE OF FLOOR SPACE FROM 2:1 TO 3.22:1

KIND REGARDS.