As a local resident of an already dense neighbourhood impacted by aircraft noise and other urban pressures, I urge the Department to carefully reconsider this proposal and the concerns outlined in my attached submission before any determination is made.
Before any approval is contemplated, the proposal should be substantially redesigned and supported by accurate and transparent technical assessments. In its current form, the development does not adequately respond to its context, does not maximise public benefit, and cannot be considered to be in the public interest. Accordingly, the application should be refused or deferred pending significant revision and reassessment.
I respectfully ask that the issues detailed in the attached submission be carefully considered as part of the assessment process.

Dear Ms Hopper,

Please see my enclosed submission (objection) to the above noted SSD application.
Please don't hesitate to contact me to discuss this further.

Thanks,

Evan Pearson

The medium density developments 'Ara' on Flood and Allen St's, and Uniting developments on Norton and Marion St's Leichhardt, provides the optimal framework for such developments in Leichhardt. I believe the height of the proposed development (up to eleven storeys) and number of apartment (203), the number (15), proportion (5%) and duration of affordability status (5yr) are not fit for the local context, do not reflect local community preferences or will be affordable to those in housing need. I believe that reduction in particular of the height of the tallest towers and the number of apartments to better align with the existing residential environment and an increase in the number, proportion and duration of affordability status retention will be critical for the success of the project, the engagement of local support. After all it is locals who will need to endure years of disruption during construction (noise, traffic disruption due to road closures impeding access and egress to surrounding streets followed by overshadowing, traffic congestion and impinged service (GPs, Schools etc) post construction. It is essentially picking up the development at Carlton Brewery opposite UTS and transplanting it into side streets in a residential suburb. Leichhardt locals appreciate the need for an increase in supply and are not anti-development, but we do not want to lose the 'hhardt' in Leichhardt which means in is a friendly, walkable suburb with good amenities and transport options. Without a check on development of such scale we will lose the community we so love.

CYNICAL REBOOT OF A SMALLER PROPOSAL THAT WAS REJECTED IN DECEMBER 2023
The scale of the proposed development is wrong! The proposal is just a "supersizing of an earlier proposal rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court in December 2003 based on concerns about the inappropriate bulk and height and significant overshadowing for neighbouring properties. The new NSW planning laws did not give developers licence to simply "supersize" rejected proposals.

PRESSURE ON EISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Llabor has opened Leichhardt up for significant upllift . The cumullative impact of these developments must be considered to ensure current and future residents have access to green space, spoting infrastructure, schools and hospitals. Approving major new developments without first investing in essential infrastructure is unacceptable. This project lacks adequate street parking. There is already significant street parking pressure for Francis St., William St. and local streets further afield and because only one underground car space per unit will be provided there will be massive pressure from 2nd cars and multiple visitors.
In the lead up to the 2023 proposal there was canvassing of removal of the mid street closure barrier of the East part of Francis St.....We anticipate this larger poroposal would force this suggestion back into discussion and consideration. We completely oppose and reject any such idea.

INAPPROPRIATE HEIGHT AND SCALE
The Land and Environment Court found in 2023 the smaller prposal would result in "unacceptable overshadowing of the adjoining properties to the west and south in North St. We point out that the taller & larger scale of this proposal would extend the overshadowing and horizon pollution to many local streets and residential visual horizons inapppropriately. A development of up to 11 storeys is inappropriate in this location.
LACK OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT
The developers themselves have acknowledged concerns about the lack of adequate public transport to meet the population growth in Leichhardt. The Government must not approve development without critical public transportdelivered first!
Peter Hicks & Margaret Coates
9 francis St. Leichhardt 2040

Please see attached my objections to this project.

Please see the attached objection to this proposed development.

The proposal to build apartments in 5 blocks of up to 11 storeys at 40 William Street In Leichhardt is totally unacceptable.
While Leichhardt has been able to take on increased density- the public transport and other infrastructure such as schools are at peak useage.
I would support apartments built to a lover level - say 4 or 5 storeys similar to the old cyclops conversion also in William Street.
Also it is affordable and social housing that is needed, not tall blocks of so called luxury apartments.
I do not support the proposal on the above grounds
1. Public transport and parking availability at peak useage
2. Leichhardt already high density
3. The proposal is for too many apartments, too many buildings and too high - out of sync with the surrounding streetscape
4. Affordable and social housing are the priorities, not so called luxury apartments

My objection is based on the scale of the proposed development relative to the surrounding low-density residential streets, and the inability of existing local infrastructure — particularly roads, on-street parking, public transport and sewer capacity — to absorb the population increase this development would bring.
The exhibition and submission timeframe is ridiculous at only two weeks for such a major project that has already being rejected several times when the submission was for a far smaller project. As a resident we have not been provided enough information with a large number of changes that impact traffic and pedestrian risk on William Street and the surround small residential streets

The project is planned to comprise 5 separate buildings with a maximum height of 11 stories plus 2 levels of underground parking. It will overshadow existing properties, compromise the privacy of existing residents, create significant noise and inconvenience during construction and significant traffic problems on completion

I object to the proposed State Significant Development application for 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.

The local community has already engaged extensively with previous proposals for this site and has clearly expressed its concerns through formal submissions and the planning process. Those views were considered in earlier assessments, including at Council level and in the Land and Environment Court. The fact that a new application now seeks an even greater scale of development, rather than responding to those concerns, gives the impression that the community’s previously expressed views are not being adequately taken into account.

Significant housing growth should be directed towards strategically identified renewal areas and major transport corridors, such as the Parramatta Road and Victoria Road corridors, where redevelopment can be supported by appropriate infrastructure and contribute to broader revitalisation outcomes.

The existing transport network and local roads surrounding the site are already under significant pressure, and the application does not adequately demonstrate that additional demand from hundreds of new residents can be accommodated.

The previous proposal for this site was unsuccessful following extensive assessment, including consideration by the Land and Environment Court. The current application seeks an even greater scale of development rather than addressing the concerns previously raised.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require a substantial reduction in height, bulk and density to ensure any redevelopment is appropriate for the location and consistent with the long-term planning objectives for Leichhardt.