I support the project

Ground of Objection – Failure to Maintain Predominantly Commercial Outcome in E1 Zone
The subject land is zoned E1 – Local Centre, which is intended to prioritise commercial, retail, service and employment-generating uses that support the function and vitality of the centre. While residential accommodation may be permissible in limited circumstances (such as shop-top housing), such uses must remain clearly subordinate in scale, function, and proportion to the commercial role of the site.
The proposed development is predominantly residential in nature, with residential floor space, height and bulk forming the primary outcome of the proposal. The commercial component is comparatively minor and appears insufficient to meaningfully anchor or activate the site as a local centre. As such, the proposal effectively delivers a de facto residential development, more consistent with outcomes anticipated in an R4 High Density Residential zone than an E1 Local Centre.
The dominance of residential use by proportion indicates that commercial uses are being relied upon primarily as an enabling mechanism to justify increased height and density, rather than as a genuine land-use objective. This approach undermines the intent of the E1 zoning and erodes the long-term employment, service and economic function of the centre.
SEPP (Housing) 2021 reinforces that residential development within centres must be appropriately scaled, compatible with the surrounding context, and must not compromise the primary non-residential function of centre zones. In this instance, residential yield appears to be the principal driver of the proposal, with commercial uses relegated to a secondary or token role.
An appropriate development outcome within the E1 zone should demonstrate that:
Commercial uses are dominant by gross floor area and functional emphasis;
Residential accommodation is clearly ancillary and supportive of the centre; and
Building height, bulk and massing are not driven primarily by residential yield.
The proposal fails to achieve an appropriate commercial-to-residential proportion and is therefore inconsistent with the objectives of the E1 Local Centre zone, the strategic intent of centre-based planning, and the principles of orderly and economic use of land. The development should be refused or substantially amended to restore zoning integrity and ensure commercial predominance.

Objection to Building Height, Overshadowing and Loss of Privacy
Application No: SSD-84699461
Location: 241–245 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford NSW 2118
I object to the proposed 18-storey mixed-use development on the grounds that the building height is excessive, incompatible with the surrounding built form, and will result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residential amenity, including overshadowing and loss of privacy.
My residence at 294 Pennant Hills Road forms part of an existing residential building that is approximately four storeys above the subject site’s ground level. An 18-storey building would significantly tower over surrounding development, creating an overbearing visual presence that is entirely inconsistent with the established scale and character of the area.
The proposed height would cause unreasonable overshadowing, with the potential to significantly reduce access to natural sunlight for neighbouring residential apartments. Reduced solar access will negatively impact internal living spaces, private balconies, and the overall livability of existing dwellings.
In addition, a building of this height will result in a serious loss of privacy for pre-existing apartment owners. Elevated apartments at upper levels will directly overlook neighbouring residential buildings, including private balconies, living areas, and bedroom windows. This level of overlooking is unacceptable in an established residential environment and will significantly diminish residents’ reasonable expectations of privacy.
The proposal fails to provide an appropriate height transition between the development site and surrounding residential buildings. Sound planning principles require that new development respond sensitively to existing conditions and avoid imposing excessive bulk, scale, and overlooking impacts on neighbouring properties.
I submit that the development height should be restricted to a maximum of four storeys, consistent with the surrounding built form, including my residence. A four-storey limit would substantially reduce overshadowing and overlooking impacts, preserve privacy for existing residents, and result in a more appropriate and balanced development outcome.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the consent authority require a significant reduction in building height prior to any consideration of approval.

Please refer to the attached documents.

Formal Submission – Objection

Application No: SSD-84699461
Proposal: Mixed-use development including an 18-storey residential tower
Location: 241–245 Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford NSW

1. Introduction and affected dwelling

I am the occupier of an existing residential apartment located on Level 3 on the southern side of Pennant Hills Road, directly opposite the subject site. My apartment includes a private balcony, which constitutes private open space and forms part of my principal living and habitable area.

2. Description of the proposal

The application seeks consent for an 18-storey residential tower on the northern side of Pennant Hills Road, incorporating upper-level balconies and habitable rooms oriented toward Pennant Hills Road. The proposed height significantly exceeds the scale of existing residential apartment buildings located on the southern side of Pennant Hills Road.

3. Overlooking and loss of privacy

The proposal will result in direct downward overlooking into my private balcony and potentially into habitable rooms of my apartment.

The Level 17 floor plan demonstrates that balconies and habitable rooms on the uppermost levels are oriented toward Pennant Hills Road. Given the substantial height differential between the proposed tower and my Level 3 apartment, occupants of the upper storeys will be positioned well above my dwelling and will have direct downward sightlines into my private open space.

This form of overlooking is not mitigated by separation distance or road width, as the impact arises from elevated downward views, rather than lateral views between buildings of similar height. As such, the proposal gives rise to an unreasonable loss of privacy to an existing dwelling.

4. Non-compliance with SEPP (Housing) 2021

Under Clause 20 (Design requirements) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, the consent authority must consider whether the design of the development is:

Compatible with the character of the local area, and

Appropriate having regard to the amenity of existing and future occupants

The proposed 18-storey tower fails to adequately respond to surrounding residential development on the southern side of Pennant Hills Road. The excessive height and orientation of upper-level apartments directly contribute to overlooking and loss of privacy impacts, demonstrating that the design is not compatible with the surrounding residential context and does not adequately protect existing residential amenity.

5. Failure to satisfy Apartment Design Guide (ADG) privacy objectives

The Apartment Design Guide, which must be considered under the Housing SEPP, contains clear objectives to:

Minimise direct overlooking between dwellings

Protect the privacy of private open space, including balconies

Ensure reasonable levels of residential amenity for existing dwellings

The proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with these objectives, as:

The EIS does not include a detailed overlooking or sightline analysis, including downward views from upper storeys toward existing residential apartments

No adequate privacy mitigation measures are identified for upper-level balconies and habitable rooms, such as fixed privacy screens, increased setbacks, balcony re-orientation, or obscured glazing

The height and massing of the tower directly undermine the ability to achieve reasonable visual privacy outcomes

In the absence of demonstrated mitigation, the proposal does not satisfy the privacy and amenity objectives of the ADG.

6. Excessive height and lack of appropriate transition

The proposed 18-storey height is inconsistent with the storey height and scale of neighbouring residential apartment buildings on the southern side of Pennant Hills Road. The proposal fails to provide an appropriate height transition or stepping down toward existing residential development.

The excessive height materially contributes to the overlooking impacts described above. In this context, the development is over-scaled and does not represent an appropriate built form response.

In my submission, the building height should not exceed the storey height of neighbouring residential apartment buildings, or alternatively should be substantially stepped down or set back to achieve compliance with SEPP (Housing) 2021 and ADG amenity objectives.

7. Inadequate assessment

The Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately assess or resolve the above impacts. In particular, it fails to:

Demonstrate how direct downward overlooking into existing private balconies will be avoided

Justify the proposed height having regard to existing residential amenity

Provide enforceable design responses to mitigate privacy impacts

This represents a material deficiency in the assessment of residential amenity impacts.

8. Requested outcome

I respectfully request that the consent authority require the proponent to:

Reduce the height and storey scale of the proposed tower so that it does not exceed, or is appropriately transitioned relative to, neighbouring residential apartment buildings

Provide a detailed overlooking and sightline analysis, including downward views from upper storeys toward existing apartments on the southern side of Pennant Hills Road

Implement enforceable design amendments or conditions to protect privacy and amenity, including increased setbacks, privacy screening, balcony re-orientation, or removal of upper-level storeys

9. Conclusion

In its current form, the proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with SEPP (Housing) 2021 and the Apartment Design Guide in relation to visual privacy and residential amenity. The application should not be approved unless substantial amendments are made to address the excessive height, direct overlooking, and loss of privacy impacts on existing dwellings.

The 75 metre height limit is the maximum height that should be permissable in this location. Nothing more. If this is approved should we have up to 50 storeys the closer we get to the station? Loftus Crescent is a narrow road with a narrow footpath. Totally inappropriate for a 35 storey building. There's only one footpath as the other side of the road is the railway. The amount of cars these proposed apartments will bring onto the roads will be such that there will be chaos every morning and afternoon. The roundabout on the corner of Loftus Crescent and Subway Lane will not be able to cope with the number of cars that will be passing through there everyday.
This area has a lack of amenities and this proposal does nothing to help with that. The mention of express trains passing through Homebush is deceptive as they don't stop at Homebush.
Once again, 35 storeys is far too much for this location. The infrastructure here just can't support two buildings of heights up to 119m. Parramatta Rd, the main road that passes through here at this location isn't coping with the traffic volume as it is now.