Vanessa Toogood
Object
Vanessa Toogood
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of the corner of Hubert Street and William Street and will be directly affected by the proposed development at this location. While I acknowledge the need for additional housing and urban development, I have significant concerns regarding the scale, impact and suitability of this proposal.
Excessive Height and Overshadowing
The proposed building is substantially taller than surrounding residential developments, including existing apartment buildings in the area. Its scale is inconsistent with the established character of the neighbourhood and will dominate the local streetscape.
The height and bulk of the development will result in significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties, reducing access to natural light and adversely affecting the amenity of surrounding homes. Existing residents should not be expected to lose enjoyment of their properties and live in the shadow of a development of this magnitude.
Light Pollution
Given the size of the proposed development, there will inevitably be a considerable increase in light spill from apartments, communal areas, car parks and associated building infrastructure.
This level of illumination will fundamentally alter the character of the area and negatively affect nearby residents, particularly those whose homes directly face or overlook the site. The cumulative impact on residential amenity should not be underestimated.
Traffic and Safety Concerns
The development will introduce a substantial number of additional residents into an area already experiencing significant traffic congestion.
William Street is heavily affected by traffic associated with City West Link, and congestion is already a daily issue for local residents. The increase in vehicle movements generated by this development will place additional strain on an already overburdened local road network.
Of particular concern is the proximity of a childcare centre and school. Excessive vehicle speeds are already common along William Street, and the addition of hundreds of residents and associated traffic movements will inevitably increase risks to pedestrians, cyclists and school children.
Without significant upgrades to surrounding infrastructure and traffic management measures, I believe the safety of local residents will be compromised.
Inadequate Supporting Infrastructure
The surrounding infrastructure already appears to be operating under considerable pressure and does not demonstrate the capacity to support a significant increase in population density.
Public transport services, including the nearby light rail, are frequently overcrowded during peak periods and often operate at or near capacity. The stations themselves are relatively constrained, and there appears to have been insufficient consideration given to how existing transport networks, public facilities and community services will accommodate the increased demand generated by this development.
The proposal places a significant burden on existing infrastructure without adequately demonstrating how those impacts will be managed.
Affordable Housing Claims
The proposal is being promoted as a contribution to housing supply and affordability. However, only 5% of the dwellings are proposed as affordable housing, and this commitment is limited to the first 15 years.
In my view, this represents only a modest contribution to addressing housing affordability and does not justify the scale of the impacts being imposed on the local community.
The primary beneficiary of this proposal appears to be the developer, while existing residents are expected to accept increased congestion, reduced amenity, greater pressure on infrastructure and significant changes to the character of the area.
Construction Impacts on Residents
In addition to concerns regarding the completed development, I am deeply concerned about the impact of the construction phase on neighbouring residents.
The extensive excavation required for a project of this scale is likely to result in prolonged periods of noise, vibration, dust and disruption. These impacts will be particularly significant for residents who work from home, retirees, families with young children and others who spend substantial time within their homes.
The duration and intensity of construction activities should not be underestimated, particularly given the scale of excavation required.
Risks to Neighbouring Properties
I also have significant concerns regarding the potential impact of excavation and ground movement on surrounding properties.
Large-scale excavation and construction activities can create risks including cracking, subsidence, drainage issues and other forms of structural damage to neighbouring homes and infrastructure.
Unfortunately, there are numerous examples where residents have faced lengthy, stressful and expensive disputes when seeking remediation for damage associated with major construction projects. Many property owners feel they are left with little practical recourse when issues arise.
Should this development proceed, robust protections must be established before construction commences. This should include independent and ongoing monitoring, detailed pre-construction condition reports, regular inspections, transparent reporting and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure neighbouring property owners are fully protected and fairly compensated if damage occurs.
Particular attention should also be given to noise management, vibration controls, dust mitigation, traffic management and the protection of surrounding residential properties throughout the construction period.
I understand and support the need for additional housing. However, development must achieve an appropriate balance between increasing housing supply and maintaining the liveability, safety, character and amenity of existing communities.
In its current form, this proposal fails to achieve that balance.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the development and urge the consent authority to either reject the proposal or require substantial reductions in its height, scale and density so that it better reflects the capacity of the surrounding neighbourhood, infrastructure and transport network.
Community Consultation
Finally, I wish to express my disappointment regarding the limited timeframe provided to the community to review and respond to a development proposal of this scale and significance.
Meaningful community consultation requires residents to be given adequate time to understand complex planning documents, assess potential impacts and prepare considered submissions. The consultation period provided has been insufficient for many residents to properly engage with the process.
It creates the perception that community feedback is being treated as a procedural requirement rather than a genuinely valued part of the decision-making process.
The role of government and planning authorities should be to balance the need for housing growth with the interests of existing communities. Most residents recognise the need for additional housing and are not opposed to development in principle. However, growth must be planned responsibly, supported by appropriate infrastructure and designed in a way that respects the people who already live in the area.
Excessive Height and Overshadowing
The proposed building is substantially taller than surrounding residential developments, including existing apartment buildings in the area. Its scale is inconsistent with the established character of the neighbourhood and will dominate the local streetscape.
The height and bulk of the development will result in significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties, reducing access to natural light and adversely affecting the amenity of surrounding homes. Existing residents should not be expected to lose enjoyment of their properties and live in the shadow of a development of this magnitude.
Light Pollution
Given the size of the proposed development, there will inevitably be a considerable increase in light spill from apartments, communal areas, car parks and associated building infrastructure.
This level of illumination will fundamentally alter the character of the area and negatively affect nearby residents, particularly those whose homes directly face or overlook the site. The cumulative impact on residential amenity should not be underestimated.
Traffic and Safety Concerns
The development will introduce a substantial number of additional residents into an area already experiencing significant traffic congestion.
William Street is heavily affected by traffic associated with City West Link, and congestion is already a daily issue for local residents. The increase in vehicle movements generated by this development will place additional strain on an already overburdened local road network.
Of particular concern is the proximity of a childcare centre and school. Excessive vehicle speeds are already common along William Street, and the addition of hundreds of residents and associated traffic movements will inevitably increase risks to pedestrians, cyclists and school children.
Without significant upgrades to surrounding infrastructure and traffic management measures, I believe the safety of local residents will be compromised.
Inadequate Supporting Infrastructure
The surrounding infrastructure already appears to be operating under considerable pressure and does not demonstrate the capacity to support a significant increase in population density.
Public transport services, including the nearby light rail, are frequently overcrowded during peak periods and often operate at or near capacity. The stations themselves are relatively constrained, and there appears to have been insufficient consideration given to how existing transport networks, public facilities and community services will accommodate the increased demand generated by this development.
The proposal places a significant burden on existing infrastructure without adequately demonstrating how those impacts will be managed.
Affordable Housing Claims
The proposal is being promoted as a contribution to housing supply and affordability. However, only 5% of the dwellings are proposed as affordable housing, and this commitment is limited to the first 15 years.
In my view, this represents only a modest contribution to addressing housing affordability and does not justify the scale of the impacts being imposed on the local community.
The primary beneficiary of this proposal appears to be the developer, while existing residents are expected to accept increased congestion, reduced amenity, greater pressure on infrastructure and significant changes to the character of the area.
Construction Impacts on Residents
In addition to concerns regarding the completed development, I am deeply concerned about the impact of the construction phase on neighbouring residents.
The extensive excavation required for a project of this scale is likely to result in prolonged periods of noise, vibration, dust and disruption. These impacts will be particularly significant for residents who work from home, retirees, families with young children and others who spend substantial time within their homes.
The duration and intensity of construction activities should not be underestimated, particularly given the scale of excavation required.
Risks to Neighbouring Properties
I also have significant concerns regarding the potential impact of excavation and ground movement on surrounding properties.
Large-scale excavation and construction activities can create risks including cracking, subsidence, drainage issues and other forms of structural damage to neighbouring homes and infrastructure.
Unfortunately, there are numerous examples where residents have faced lengthy, stressful and expensive disputes when seeking remediation for damage associated with major construction projects. Many property owners feel they are left with little practical recourse when issues arise.
Should this development proceed, robust protections must be established before construction commences. This should include independent and ongoing monitoring, detailed pre-construction condition reports, regular inspections, transparent reporting and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure neighbouring property owners are fully protected and fairly compensated if damage occurs.
Particular attention should also be given to noise management, vibration controls, dust mitigation, traffic management and the protection of surrounding residential properties throughout the construction period.
I understand and support the need for additional housing. However, development must achieve an appropriate balance between increasing housing supply and maintaining the liveability, safety, character and amenity of existing communities.
In its current form, this proposal fails to achieve that balance.
For these reasons, I strongly object to the development and urge the consent authority to either reject the proposal or require substantial reductions in its height, scale and density so that it better reflects the capacity of the surrounding neighbourhood, infrastructure and transport network.
Community Consultation
Finally, I wish to express my disappointment regarding the limited timeframe provided to the community to review and respond to a development proposal of this scale and significance.
Meaningful community consultation requires residents to be given adequate time to understand complex planning documents, assess potential impacts and prepare considered submissions. The consultation period provided has been insufficient for many residents to properly engage with the process.
It creates the perception that community feedback is being treated as a procedural requirement rather than a genuinely valued part of the decision-making process.
The role of government and planning authorities should be to balance the need for housing growth with the interests of existing communities. Most residents recognise the need for additional housing and are not opposed to development in principle. However, growth must be planned responsibly, supported by appropriate infrastructure and designed in a way that respects the people who already live in the area.
Federica Guidi
Object
Federica Guidi
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
SUBMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
I acknowledge that I accept the Department's disclaimer and declaration, including confirmation that my submission does not contain offensive, threatening, defamatory or inappropriate content.
Re: Objection to the Proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt – Application No. SSD-119545240
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to this proposal.
My central concern is that this application appears to disregard previous planning decisions, community concerns, and the capacity and character of the local area. The process has left many residents with the impression that community views have not been genuinely considered and that meaningful public consultation has not occurred.
Lack of Adequate Community Consultation
I am deeply concerned that the community was not given sufficient time to properly review and respond to a proposal of this magnitude. The exhibition period was simply too short to allow residents to assess the extensive technical documentation, seek expert advice where necessary, and understand the full implications of the development.
Genuine community consultation requires adequate time for residents to:
Review technical reports and supporting documentation.
Seek professional advice where necessary.
Discuss the proposal with neighbours and community organisations.
Understand the short- and long-term impacts of the development.
Providing such a limited timeframe undermines public participation and creates the perception that the process was designed to minimise scrutiny rather than encourage informed community feedback. This is inconsistent with the principles of transparency, fairness and democratic participation that should underpin the planning system.
Disregard for Previous Decisions
In 2022, the developer lodged an application for a substantially smaller development comprising approximately five storeys, 170 units and 153 car spaces.
It is therefore deeply concerning that an even larger proposal is now being pursued after previous applications were rejected or opposed by the Inner West Council, the Land and Environment Court, and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel.
If highly qualified planning authorities and the Land and Environment Court have already found previous proposals for this site to be inappropriate and to breach planning regulations, including exceeding THE FSR concerns, those findings must be given significant weight. Otherwise, it raises an important question: what is the purpose of these institutions and review processes if their decisions can effectively be ignored through the submission of increasingly larger applications?
As a resident, I find this extremely troubling. Respect for the planning system requires respect for the decisions of the bodies established to assess these developments.
Impact on Local Character
The scale, bulk and visual impact of the proposed development are wholly inconsistent with the surrounding area.
Based on the plans submitted, the development would dominate the streetscape and fundamentally alter the established character of Leichhardt. Rather than responding sensitively to the surrounding built environment, the proposal appears excessive, overbearing and out of scale with neighbouring developments.
The submitted drawings themselves demonstrate the extent to which this proposal would overshadow and visually overwhelm the area. The development does not complement the existing streetscape and risks causing permanent damage to the character and amenity of the neighbourhood.
Traffic, Parking and Transport Impacts
The proposal fails to adequately address the practical realities of transport and parking demand.
Residents own vehicles and require access to parking. Increased density on this scale will inevitably place additional pressure on local roads and already constrained parking availability.
Furthermore, the assumption that public transport can absorb such a significant increase in population is unrealistic. The light rail system is already heavily utilised, and transport impacts extend far beyond peak-hour traffic movements. The cumulative effect of increased residential density must be properly assessed rather than dismissed through broad assumptions about public transport usage.
In the proposal, there is a reference to wrong streets that DO NOT EXIST; it would be a disaster - and will have a major impact, excessive noise, and parking issues. In addition, it is all very generic
Where is the entry of the streets?
Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns
The proposal seeks to deliver substantial population growth without demonstrating that the necessary supporting infrastructure is in place.
Key concerns include:
Increased traffic congestion.
Additional pressure on public transport services.
Increased pollution and environmental impacts.
Greater demand on parks, open space and recreational facilities.
Increased pressure on health, education and community services.
Additional strain on water, sewerage and essential infrastructure networks.
Infrastructure should be delivered before, or at the very least concurrently with, significant population growth. It is unacceptable for residents to bear the consequences of inadequate planning while essential infrastructure lags years behind development approvals.
Housing Supply and Existing Vacancies
The impact of the neighbour's property is a disaster - the overshadowing of buildings.
While housing supply is an important issue, I would like to have proof that this is legal - and also at another building down the road, ARA is not selling - as approval of developments of this scale should not occur without a broader consideration of existing housing availability.
Reports have identified a significant number of unoccupied dwellings within the Inner West. Before approving developments that will permanently alter the character of established communities, consideration should be given to how existing housing stock is being utilised and whether alternative solutions have been properly examined.
Conclusion
This proposal raises serious concerns regarding:
The adequacy of community consultation.
Respect for previous planning and court decisions.
The integrity of the planning process.
Infrastructure capacity.
Traffic and parking impacts.
Environmental consequences.
The preservation of local character and amenity.
If you want to succeed and do something like in the Allen ESTATE - which is so nice, good livin
I respectfully request that the Department give substantial weight to the previous decisions of the Inner West Council, the Land and Environment Court, and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel.
The planning system must operate fairly, transparently and in the public interest. Residents deserve confidence that their voices are genuinely heard and that decisions are based on sound planning principles rather than the commercial interests of a small number of stakeholders.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that this application be refused.
Yours faithfully,
I acknowledge that I accept the Department's disclaimer and declaration, including confirmation that my submission does not contain offensive, threatening, defamatory or inappropriate content.
Re: Objection to the Proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt – Application No. SSD-119545240
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to this proposal.
My central concern is that this application appears to disregard previous planning decisions, community concerns, and the capacity and character of the local area. The process has left many residents with the impression that community views have not been genuinely considered and that meaningful public consultation has not occurred.
Lack of Adequate Community Consultation
I am deeply concerned that the community was not given sufficient time to properly review and respond to a proposal of this magnitude. The exhibition period was simply too short to allow residents to assess the extensive technical documentation, seek expert advice where necessary, and understand the full implications of the development.
Genuine community consultation requires adequate time for residents to:
Review technical reports and supporting documentation.
Seek professional advice where necessary.
Discuss the proposal with neighbours and community organisations.
Understand the short- and long-term impacts of the development.
Providing such a limited timeframe undermines public participation and creates the perception that the process was designed to minimise scrutiny rather than encourage informed community feedback. This is inconsistent with the principles of transparency, fairness and democratic participation that should underpin the planning system.
Disregard for Previous Decisions
In 2022, the developer lodged an application for a substantially smaller development comprising approximately five storeys, 170 units and 153 car spaces.
It is therefore deeply concerning that an even larger proposal is now being pursued after previous applications were rejected or opposed by the Inner West Council, the Land and Environment Court, and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel.
If highly qualified planning authorities and the Land and Environment Court have already found previous proposals for this site to be inappropriate and to breach planning regulations, including exceeding THE FSR concerns, those findings must be given significant weight. Otherwise, it raises an important question: what is the purpose of these institutions and review processes if their decisions can effectively be ignored through the submission of increasingly larger applications?
As a resident, I find this extremely troubling. Respect for the planning system requires respect for the decisions of the bodies established to assess these developments.
Impact on Local Character
The scale, bulk and visual impact of the proposed development are wholly inconsistent with the surrounding area.
Based on the plans submitted, the development would dominate the streetscape and fundamentally alter the established character of Leichhardt. Rather than responding sensitively to the surrounding built environment, the proposal appears excessive, overbearing and out of scale with neighbouring developments.
The submitted drawings themselves demonstrate the extent to which this proposal would overshadow and visually overwhelm the area. The development does not complement the existing streetscape and risks causing permanent damage to the character and amenity of the neighbourhood.
Traffic, Parking and Transport Impacts
The proposal fails to adequately address the practical realities of transport and parking demand.
Residents own vehicles and require access to parking. Increased density on this scale will inevitably place additional pressure on local roads and already constrained parking availability.
Furthermore, the assumption that public transport can absorb such a significant increase in population is unrealistic. The light rail system is already heavily utilised, and transport impacts extend far beyond peak-hour traffic movements. The cumulative effect of increased residential density must be properly assessed rather than dismissed through broad assumptions about public transport usage.
In the proposal, there is a reference to wrong streets that DO NOT EXIST; it would be a disaster - and will have a major impact, excessive noise, and parking issues. In addition, it is all very generic
Where is the entry of the streets?
Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns
The proposal seeks to deliver substantial population growth without demonstrating that the necessary supporting infrastructure is in place.
Key concerns include:
Increased traffic congestion.
Additional pressure on public transport services.
Increased pollution and environmental impacts.
Greater demand on parks, open space and recreational facilities.
Increased pressure on health, education and community services.
Additional strain on water, sewerage and essential infrastructure networks.
Infrastructure should be delivered before, or at the very least concurrently with, significant population growth. It is unacceptable for residents to bear the consequences of inadequate planning while essential infrastructure lags years behind development approvals.
Housing Supply and Existing Vacancies
The impact of the neighbour's property is a disaster - the overshadowing of buildings.
While housing supply is an important issue, I would like to have proof that this is legal - and also at another building down the road, ARA is not selling - as approval of developments of this scale should not occur without a broader consideration of existing housing availability.
Reports have identified a significant number of unoccupied dwellings within the Inner West. Before approving developments that will permanently alter the character of established communities, consideration should be given to how existing housing stock is being utilised and whether alternative solutions have been properly examined.
Conclusion
This proposal raises serious concerns regarding:
The adequacy of community consultation.
Respect for previous planning and court decisions.
The integrity of the planning process.
Infrastructure capacity.
Traffic and parking impacts.
Environmental consequences.
The preservation of local character and amenity.
If you want to succeed and do something like in the Allen ESTATE - which is so nice, good livin
I respectfully request that the Department give substantial weight to the previous decisions of the Inner West Council, the Land and Environment Court, and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel.
The planning system must operate fairly, transparently and in the public interest. Residents deserve confidence that their voices are genuinely heard and that decisions are based on sound planning principles rather than the commercial interests of a small number of stakeholders.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that this application be refused.
Yours faithfully,
Claudette Rechtorik
Object
Claudette Rechtorik
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission of Objection to Proposed Development 40–76 William Street (please see attached PDF that includes image of development)
To: NSW Department of Housing, Planning and Infrastructure
Re: Objection to the Proposed Development at 40–76 William Street
I write to strongly object to the proposed development at 40–76 William Street.
I acknowledge that I accept the Departments disclaimer and declaration, including confirmation that my submission does not contain offensive, threatening, defamatory or inappropriate content.
Objections to the Residential Building at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt – Application No: SSD-119545240
This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the established planning principles that underpin the NSW planning system. It represents an overdevelopment of the site that is incompatible with the existing urban character, will have significant adverse impacts on surrounding residents and public spaces, and fails to demonstrate that it is in the public interest. The photo attached to this application, by the applicant clearly demonstrates, that the development is NOT IN ANY WAY in keeping with the surrounding area.
Under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the consent authority must consider the environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposal, the suitability of the site, submissions from the community, and whether the development is in the public interest. On these matters, the proposal should be refused.
1. Excessive Size and Scale
The proposed development is entirely inappropriate in both its size and scale when viewed in the context of its surrounding neighbourhood.
The built form substantially exceeds the established character of the precinct and fails to respond appropriately to the existing streetscape, adjoining buildings and public domain.
The NSW planning framework consistently promotes development that responds to local context rather than dominating it. Good planning requires compatibility with surrounding development, not simply maximising development yield.
This proposal represents overdevelopment of the site.
2. Previous Independent Planning Decisions
The history of this site is highly relevant.
Previous proposals for this site, with only 5 storeys and 143 units, have repeatedly been rejected through multiple planning assessment processes, including determinations involving:
the Land and Environment Court;
Inner West Council; and
the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel.
We are now assessing a 2 - 3 fold increase in size of development. How is this even possible?
While each application must be assessed on its own merits, the repeated refusal of substantially smaller proposals demonstrates longstanding and well-recognised concerns regarding the suitability of intensive development on this site.
Unless those fundamental planning concerns have been resolved, the consent authority should be absolute in its refusal for a significantly scaled up version.
3. Unacceptable Overshadowing
The proposal will create significant overshadowing impacts affecting surrounding streets and neighbouring properties, including:
William Street
Francis Street
James Street
Allen Street
North Street
Hubert Street
These impacts extend well beyond the site itself.
Please look at the below image and tell me whether this building will have no impact on amenity.
Loss of sunlight affects:
residential amenity;
public streets and footpaths;
tree canopy;
open space;
passive surveillance;
neighbourhood liveability;
Mental health.
The Apartment Design Guide and broader NSW planning principles recognise access to sunlight as a key component of residential amenity.
The proposal fails to appropriately balance development intensity with protection of existing amenity.
4. Inadequate Infrastructure Capacity
The proposal places additional pressure on infrastructure that is already constrained.
The surrounding area is already experiencing increasing demand on:
local roads;
public transport;
schools;
open space;
community facilities;
parking;
drainage;
utilities.
The planning system requires consideration of whether infrastructure can adequately support additional development.
There is insufficient evidence that the existing infrastructure can absorb the significant increase in population generated by this proposal without reducing service levels for existing residents.
Growth should occur only where infrastructure capacity exists or is funded and committed.
5. Housing Need Must Be Considered Holistically
The justification for this proposal appears to rely heavily on increasing housing supply.
However, housing supply alone should not override fundamental planning principles.
Recent census data has identified a substantial number of dwellings across the Inner West that are unoccupied on Census night. While Census vacancy figures do not necessarily equate to permanently vacant homes, they indicate that housing availability and utilisation are more complex than simply increasing dwelling numbers. It is estimated approximately 800 - 1,000 houses are uninhabited within the Inner West. At least 2 of these are in the Allen Estate on Francis St that have been vacant for the entire time I’ve lived in Leichhardt which is over 20 years.
This suggests that policy responses should address housing utilisation alongside housing supply.
Approving developments that cause unacceptable planning impacts cannot be justified solely by broad housing supply objectives.
The need for housing does not remove the obligation to deliver good planning outcomes.
6. Public Interest
Section 4.15 requires consideration of whether the proposal is in the public interest.
The public interest requires development that:
respects neighbourhood character;
protects residential amenity;
provides appropriate environmental outcomes;
is supported by adequate infrastructure;
contributes positively to the community.
This proposal fails to achieve these objectives.
Instead, it would:
significantly alter the existing character of the locality;
diminish amenity for surrounding residents;
create unacceptable overshadowing;
increase infrastructure pressure;
establish an undesirable planning precedent for future overdevelopment.
Approving a proposal that is fundamentally inconsistent with established planning principles would undermine confidence in the integrity of the planning system.
Conclusion
The proposed development at 40–76 William Street represents an excessive and inappropriate form of development that is inconsistent with the objectives of the NSW planning framework.
It fails to adequately respond to the established character of the locality, imposes unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts, places further pressure on infrastructure, and has not demonstrated that it serves the public interest.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the consenting authority refuse the application in its current form.
Claudette Rechtorik
39 Francis St Leichhardt 2040
To: NSW Department of Housing, Planning and Infrastructure
Re: Objection to the Proposed Development at 40–76 William Street
I write to strongly object to the proposed development at 40–76 William Street.
I acknowledge that I accept the Departments disclaimer and declaration, including confirmation that my submission does not contain offensive, threatening, defamatory or inappropriate content.
Objections to the Residential Building at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt – Application No: SSD-119545240
This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the established planning principles that underpin the NSW planning system. It represents an overdevelopment of the site that is incompatible with the existing urban character, will have significant adverse impacts on surrounding residents and public spaces, and fails to demonstrate that it is in the public interest. The photo attached to this application, by the applicant clearly demonstrates, that the development is NOT IN ANY WAY in keeping with the surrounding area.
Under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the consent authority must consider the environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposal, the suitability of the site, submissions from the community, and whether the development is in the public interest. On these matters, the proposal should be refused.
1. Excessive Size and Scale
The proposed development is entirely inappropriate in both its size and scale when viewed in the context of its surrounding neighbourhood.
The built form substantially exceeds the established character of the precinct and fails to respond appropriately to the existing streetscape, adjoining buildings and public domain.
The NSW planning framework consistently promotes development that responds to local context rather than dominating it. Good planning requires compatibility with surrounding development, not simply maximising development yield.
This proposal represents overdevelopment of the site.
2. Previous Independent Planning Decisions
The history of this site is highly relevant.
Previous proposals for this site, with only 5 storeys and 143 units, have repeatedly been rejected through multiple planning assessment processes, including determinations involving:
the Land and Environment Court;
Inner West Council; and
the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel.
We are now assessing a 2 - 3 fold increase in size of development. How is this even possible?
While each application must be assessed on its own merits, the repeated refusal of substantially smaller proposals demonstrates longstanding and well-recognised concerns regarding the suitability of intensive development on this site.
Unless those fundamental planning concerns have been resolved, the consent authority should be absolute in its refusal for a significantly scaled up version.
3. Unacceptable Overshadowing
The proposal will create significant overshadowing impacts affecting surrounding streets and neighbouring properties, including:
William Street
Francis Street
James Street
Allen Street
North Street
Hubert Street
These impacts extend well beyond the site itself.
Please look at the below image and tell me whether this building will have no impact on amenity.
Loss of sunlight affects:
residential amenity;
public streets and footpaths;
tree canopy;
open space;
passive surveillance;
neighbourhood liveability;
Mental health.
The Apartment Design Guide and broader NSW planning principles recognise access to sunlight as a key component of residential amenity.
The proposal fails to appropriately balance development intensity with protection of existing amenity.
4. Inadequate Infrastructure Capacity
The proposal places additional pressure on infrastructure that is already constrained.
The surrounding area is already experiencing increasing demand on:
local roads;
public transport;
schools;
open space;
community facilities;
parking;
drainage;
utilities.
The planning system requires consideration of whether infrastructure can adequately support additional development.
There is insufficient evidence that the existing infrastructure can absorb the significant increase in population generated by this proposal without reducing service levels for existing residents.
Growth should occur only where infrastructure capacity exists or is funded and committed.
5. Housing Need Must Be Considered Holistically
The justification for this proposal appears to rely heavily on increasing housing supply.
However, housing supply alone should not override fundamental planning principles.
Recent census data has identified a substantial number of dwellings across the Inner West that are unoccupied on Census night. While Census vacancy figures do not necessarily equate to permanently vacant homes, they indicate that housing availability and utilisation are more complex than simply increasing dwelling numbers. It is estimated approximately 800 - 1,000 houses are uninhabited within the Inner West. At least 2 of these are in the Allen Estate on Francis St that have been vacant for the entire time I’ve lived in Leichhardt which is over 20 years.
This suggests that policy responses should address housing utilisation alongside housing supply.
Approving developments that cause unacceptable planning impacts cannot be justified solely by broad housing supply objectives.
The need for housing does not remove the obligation to deliver good planning outcomes.
6. Public Interest
Section 4.15 requires consideration of whether the proposal is in the public interest.
The public interest requires development that:
respects neighbourhood character;
protects residential amenity;
provides appropriate environmental outcomes;
is supported by adequate infrastructure;
contributes positively to the community.
This proposal fails to achieve these objectives.
Instead, it would:
significantly alter the existing character of the locality;
diminish amenity for surrounding residents;
create unacceptable overshadowing;
increase infrastructure pressure;
establish an undesirable planning precedent for future overdevelopment.
Approving a proposal that is fundamentally inconsistent with established planning principles would undermine confidence in the integrity of the planning system.
Conclusion
The proposed development at 40–76 William Street represents an excessive and inappropriate form of development that is inconsistent with the objectives of the NSW planning framework.
It fails to adequately respond to the established character of the locality, imposes unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts, places further pressure on infrastructure, and has not demonstrated that it serves the public interest.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the consenting authority refuse the application in its current form.
Claudette Rechtorik
39 Francis St Leichhardt 2040
Attachments
Paulette Kay
Object
Paulette Kay
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
SUBMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE I acknowledge that I accept the Departments disclaimer and declaration, including confirmation that my submission does not contain offensive, threatening, defamatory or inappropriate content.
Objections to the Residential Falt Building at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt – Application No: SSD-119545240
My objections to the proposal concern Lack of Stakeholder engagement; Bulk & Scale of the development; Traffic & Parking Impact; Construction Impact; Visual Impact; Lack of adequate local infrastructure; Social Impact; Amenity;Lack of supportive evidence/ documentation
As a resident of North Street Leichhardt I am familiar with the previous applications re DA2021/0437
and DA2020/501 - 40-76 William Street Leichhardt - Anprisa Pty Ltd v Inner West Council - LEC Proceedings Nos. 2021/73128 STAGE 2 DA and 2021/22892; DA2021/0437 and DA/2020/0501 ( PROCEEDING NO/s. 2021/228923 (STAGE 1 DA) AND 2021/731128 (STAGE 2 DA) and had submitted objections to that development dated 18 August 2022, 27 April 2022, 20 May 2020, 11 August 2020 and 6 July 2021and 12 January 2023. After several minor amendments by Anprisa that did not fully address the many negatives of the plan, the original development was finally and resoundingly rejected by the Land & Environment Court in December 2023 for several reasons including its size (a mere 5 storeys compared to the current proposal for 11 storeys yet, please note: 5 storeys were considered too big!), its shadowing of neighbours, and its inappropriateness with regard the existing streetscape which has not changed since December 2023. The previous application for development on this same side was rejected at 180 units, as too big, then rejected as still too big at 138 units. How could it possibly be approved at over 200 units?
Page 26 of the photos of the exterior show the view towards Grumpy Bean Café but not towards the children’s playground on the corner of North and William Streets that will be opposite an entry/exit driveway of the development and, potentially, a danger to families using the playground. ‘Stepping down the street wall’ to match the existing neighbourhood sounds as if consideration has been to the existing streetscape but the ‘stepping down’ in no way hides the monolithic structures from which the ‘stepping down’ is made. Personally, the levels above the original building look cheap, ugly and in way sympathetic to a heritage adaptation.
I do not object to the provision of more housing in Leichhardt but do desire the adaptation of the current building to be appropriate to the area, sympathetic to the heritage and history of the original building and considerate of the impact of a renovated building with its increase of population on the surrounding area and mindful of the amenity of current residents as well as providing for the amenity of new residents of the building. The images sin the report howing green space and recreational areas are deceptively illustrated (much like photos of properties for sale which appear more spacious in the real estate ads than in the reality of inspections). In other words, given the applied-for new building to land ratio, the available green space and recreational areas are seriously inadequate and half as considerate of future residents’ community and nature needs as the original 5-storey rejected development. Inspite of the highly technical data attached, I am able to understand enough to know that the reasons for the rejection of the original 5- -storey development apply twice as strongly to this new 11-story development. Eleven storeys, as were five storeys, are far too big/monolithic/inappropriate for the site and neither applications adhered to the building/land ratio set down by council. Obviously this 11-storey development does not comply as the developers have also applied to change the building/land ratio rules for them. Traffic in North Street - a two-way very narrow street – makes driving in it difficult and sometimes impossible when blocked by delivery, garbage or construction vehicles. Trucks are not supposed to enter from William Street but as no oversight, of course they do. Parking is extremely difficult for current residents as many new builds over the last two decades have not been allowed to include carrports as the Inner West Council wanted to encourage use of public transport. That has not worked and some residents have had to park streets away, a dangerous option at night for women and the elderly. The proposed development will compound these problems .While filled with pretty photos and colourful images,, I found that the report lacks evidence and supportive documentation in relation to some of the claims in the application. What is evident, however, is a lack of thorough planning, lack of adequate planned new infrastructure such as transport, health care, schools, child-care, open and green space. or any apparent recognition that the property is directly under the flight path. Issues of over-development, impact on local residents and amenity still apply to this current application and are even exacerbated as this proposal is greater in mass and size than the one rejected by the Land & Environment Court, the original DA was also refused twice by the Inner West Council and also by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel. The applicant’s provision of 15 affordable units, 7.4% of total build (which does not meet the National Housing Accord) , should not be a reason to allow re-zoning, increases I n building height and substantial increase in Fthe FSR. It is noted that there is no firm definition of what is actually ‘affordable housing’. Affordable for whom? I have not been given the time to access all relevant information, or the opportunity to obtain expert advice, which would have been possible if the process had been procedurally fair. I have therefore included and identified below parts of the submission from Jennifer Aaron of 6/22-38 William Street. Leichhardt. 2040 as I respect her knowledge of the issues re this new development and her expertise gained through the process of objecting to the original development.Following is an excerpt of the submission from Jennifer Aaron to which I add my support and wish it to be considered part of my submission: Stakeholder Engagement:The EIS provides a number of pages on methodology and outcomes on Stakeholder Engagement undertaken by the applicant.I can confirm that I was completely unaware of this new proposal until the notification was received in my mailbox on July 14 and the first time I have had an opportunity to view this project design was on receiving notification from your Department on July 14. The Engagement process and outcomes were not taken for this current application and therefore has no relevance to the current application.HISTORY
The applicant had submitted original proposals for the site in 2020 and 2022. In December 2023, the applicants appeal was rejected by the Land and Environment Court. And the Court dismissed the appeals.
One of the main reasons for the refusal was:“The proposed density was considered out of character for the area, with the application failing to justify the breach of the maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio (FSR). The Urban Design Study ignores the generally low scale density character of the area, proposing a density of development that is well in excess of any development in the area, providing a FSR that is 290% in breach of the maximum permitted FSR on the Site pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the LLEP. The breach of the maximum FSR in relation to the Site is not justified and nor are the introduction of two new buildings, one to North Street and one located within the footprint of the southern warehouse, given the FSR restrictions and the extent of FSR already available within the existing warehouse envelopes. The original building which became the Cyclops Toy Factory in 1930, was built in 1913 and the photos of the design clearly show that the proposed re-development of the site, is in no way in keeping with the building and the housing in the suburb and the surrounding streets. The Cyclops Toy Factory is an iconic and historical building which attracts architectural groups on a regular basis and the architectural design of the building will be significantly lost with this huge overshadowing and modern building. The picture of the original Cyclops Toy Factory and the proposed modern development in View 3, appears to be AI generated as it is not a true reflection of the building. There are no CCTV cameras which have been there for many years, there is no street numbering and does not show the special paint on the lower part of the building which was done more than 15 years ago and the overall colour of the building is inaccurate. This latest application has increased in size & number from the 2023 LEC rejected application – number of buildings to 5 number of floors up to 11and the number of apartments -203.
This proposed development is denser, breaches the maximum permitted FSR, inconsistent with the low scale character of the area and the photo of the proposed development clearly demonstrates this. VISUAL IMPACT : EIS 8.6. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE- The applicant’s document states: “The proposed development for the subject site is highly suitable for the following reasons. The architectural design responds adequately to the site conditions. There will be no overshadowing impacts beyond minimal, on the surrounds and will not have any unreasonable impacts to neighbouring properties. The above statement is completely incorrect. The drawing of the building as it will be attached to 22-38 William Street clearly shows the overshadowing of the building and the loss of solar, privacy and light on the western side of the building, FOR REST OF SUBMISSION SEE ATTACHMENT
Objections to the Residential Falt Building at 40-76 William Street Leichhardt – Application No: SSD-119545240
My objections to the proposal concern Lack of Stakeholder engagement; Bulk & Scale of the development; Traffic & Parking Impact; Construction Impact; Visual Impact; Lack of adequate local infrastructure; Social Impact; Amenity;Lack of supportive evidence/ documentation
As a resident of North Street Leichhardt I am familiar with the previous applications re DA2021/0437
and DA2020/501 - 40-76 William Street Leichhardt - Anprisa Pty Ltd v Inner West Council - LEC Proceedings Nos. 2021/73128 STAGE 2 DA and 2021/22892; DA2021/0437 and DA/2020/0501 ( PROCEEDING NO/s. 2021/228923 (STAGE 1 DA) AND 2021/731128 (STAGE 2 DA) and had submitted objections to that development dated 18 August 2022, 27 April 2022, 20 May 2020, 11 August 2020 and 6 July 2021and 12 January 2023. After several minor amendments by Anprisa that did not fully address the many negatives of the plan, the original development was finally and resoundingly rejected by the Land & Environment Court in December 2023 for several reasons including its size (a mere 5 storeys compared to the current proposal for 11 storeys yet, please note: 5 storeys were considered too big!), its shadowing of neighbours, and its inappropriateness with regard the existing streetscape which has not changed since December 2023. The previous application for development on this same side was rejected at 180 units, as too big, then rejected as still too big at 138 units. How could it possibly be approved at over 200 units?
Page 26 of the photos of the exterior show the view towards Grumpy Bean Café but not towards the children’s playground on the corner of North and William Streets that will be opposite an entry/exit driveway of the development and, potentially, a danger to families using the playground. ‘Stepping down the street wall’ to match the existing neighbourhood sounds as if consideration has been to the existing streetscape but the ‘stepping down’ in no way hides the monolithic structures from which the ‘stepping down’ is made. Personally, the levels above the original building look cheap, ugly and in way sympathetic to a heritage adaptation.
I do not object to the provision of more housing in Leichhardt but do desire the adaptation of the current building to be appropriate to the area, sympathetic to the heritage and history of the original building and considerate of the impact of a renovated building with its increase of population on the surrounding area and mindful of the amenity of current residents as well as providing for the amenity of new residents of the building. The images sin the report howing green space and recreational areas are deceptively illustrated (much like photos of properties for sale which appear more spacious in the real estate ads than in the reality of inspections). In other words, given the applied-for new building to land ratio, the available green space and recreational areas are seriously inadequate and half as considerate of future residents’ community and nature needs as the original 5-storey rejected development. Inspite of the highly technical data attached, I am able to understand enough to know that the reasons for the rejection of the original 5- -storey development apply twice as strongly to this new 11-story development. Eleven storeys, as were five storeys, are far too big/monolithic/inappropriate for the site and neither applications adhered to the building/land ratio set down by council. Obviously this 11-storey development does not comply as the developers have also applied to change the building/land ratio rules for them. Traffic in North Street - a two-way very narrow street – makes driving in it difficult and sometimes impossible when blocked by delivery, garbage or construction vehicles. Trucks are not supposed to enter from William Street but as no oversight, of course they do. Parking is extremely difficult for current residents as many new builds over the last two decades have not been allowed to include carrports as the Inner West Council wanted to encourage use of public transport. That has not worked and some residents have had to park streets away, a dangerous option at night for women and the elderly. The proposed development will compound these problems .While filled with pretty photos and colourful images,, I found that the report lacks evidence and supportive documentation in relation to some of the claims in the application. What is evident, however, is a lack of thorough planning, lack of adequate planned new infrastructure such as transport, health care, schools, child-care, open and green space. or any apparent recognition that the property is directly under the flight path. Issues of over-development, impact on local residents and amenity still apply to this current application and are even exacerbated as this proposal is greater in mass and size than the one rejected by the Land & Environment Court, the original DA was also refused twice by the Inner West Council and also by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel. The applicant’s provision of 15 affordable units, 7.4% of total build (which does not meet the National Housing Accord) , should not be a reason to allow re-zoning, increases I n building height and substantial increase in Fthe FSR. It is noted that there is no firm definition of what is actually ‘affordable housing’. Affordable for whom? I have not been given the time to access all relevant information, or the opportunity to obtain expert advice, which would have been possible if the process had been procedurally fair. I have therefore included and identified below parts of the submission from Jennifer Aaron of 6/22-38 William Street. Leichhardt. 2040 as I respect her knowledge of the issues re this new development and her expertise gained through the process of objecting to the original development.Following is an excerpt of the submission from Jennifer Aaron to which I add my support and wish it to be considered part of my submission: Stakeholder Engagement:The EIS provides a number of pages on methodology and outcomes on Stakeholder Engagement undertaken by the applicant.I can confirm that I was completely unaware of this new proposal until the notification was received in my mailbox on July 14 and the first time I have had an opportunity to view this project design was on receiving notification from your Department on July 14. The Engagement process and outcomes were not taken for this current application and therefore has no relevance to the current application.HISTORY
The applicant had submitted original proposals for the site in 2020 and 2022. In December 2023, the applicants appeal was rejected by the Land and Environment Court. And the Court dismissed the appeals.
One of the main reasons for the refusal was:“The proposed density was considered out of character for the area, with the application failing to justify the breach of the maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio (FSR). The Urban Design Study ignores the generally low scale density character of the area, proposing a density of development that is well in excess of any development in the area, providing a FSR that is 290% in breach of the maximum permitted FSR on the Site pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the LLEP. The breach of the maximum FSR in relation to the Site is not justified and nor are the introduction of two new buildings, one to North Street and one located within the footprint of the southern warehouse, given the FSR restrictions and the extent of FSR already available within the existing warehouse envelopes. The original building which became the Cyclops Toy Factory in 1930, was built in 1913 and the photos of the design clearly show that the proposed re-development of the site, is in no way in keeping with the building and the housing in the suburb and the surrounding streets. The Cyclops Toy Factory is an iconic and historical building which attracts architectural groups on a regular basis and the architectural design of the building will be significantly lost with this huge overshadowing and modern building. The picture of the original Cyclops Toy Factory and the proposed modern development in View 3, appears to be AI generated as it is not a true reflection of the building. There are no CCTV cameras which have been there for many years, there is no street numbering and does not show the special paint on the lower part of the building which was done more than 15 years ago and the overall colour of the building is inaccurate. This latest application has increased in size & number from the 2023 LEC rejected application – number of buildings to 5 number of floors up to 11and the number of apartments -203.
This proposed development is denser, breaches the maximum permitted FSR, inconsistent with the low scale character of the area and the photo of the proposed development clearly demonstrates this. VISUAL IMPACT : EIS 8.6. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE- The applicant’s document states: “The proposed development for the subject site is highly suitable for the following reasons. The architectural design responds adequately to the site conditions. There will be no overshadowing impacts beyond minimal, on the surrounds and will not have any unreasonable impacts to neighbouring properties. The above statement is completely incorrect. The drawing of the building as it will be attached to 22-38 William Street clearly shows the overshadowing of the building and the loss of solar, privacy and light on the western side of the building, FOR REST OF SUBMISSION SEE ATTACHMENT
Attachments
Carmen Huckel Schneider
Object
Carmen Huckel Schneider
Object
Leichhardt
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing in my personal capacity as a local resident to object to the proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.
My primary concern is the proposed height of the development. At eleven storeys, it is completely out of scale with the surrounding area. It would be significantly taller than the recently completed Ara Leichhardt development on Flood and Allen Streets, which is only four to six storeys, and even significantly taller than Leichhardt Green on George Street. A building of this height would overshadow the existing Allen Estate townhouses facing Francis Street as well as the apartments in the former Cyclops Building on the corner of Francis and William Streets. It is also likely to create overlooking and visibility issues for the nearby St Francis Primary School. A previous proposal for this site of up to five storeys was rejected because of overshadowing concerns. It is difficult to understand how an eleven-storey proposal can now put forward. This site can clearly accommodate a substantial number of new homes without such excessive height.
My second concern is the lack of information about the space between proposed Building D and the existing Cyclops Building, including the current driveway from Francis Street. The Architectural Design Report does not adequately explain what is proposed for this area. Section 4.02 leaves it blank, while Section 4.03 refers to a right of carriageway and an unexplained shaded area. It is impossible to understand how this space will function or whether it will affect traffic movements on Francis Street. Such a significant omission should require the application to be refused until complete information is provided.
Finally, I believe the traffic impacts have been seriously underestimated. Francis, Herbert and Charles Streets are key walking and cycling routes for residents travelling to the light rail, Callan Park, the Leichhardt Aquatic Centre, Hawthorne Canal, the GreenWay and the Bay Run. Introducing 203 apartments with associated vehicle movements onto William Street will increase traffic and make these connections less safe and less pleasant. A lower-rise development could still provide substantial housing while better protecting the walkability and liveability that make Leichhardt a great place to live.
For these reasons, I urge the NSW Government to reject this proposal in its current form.
My primary concern is the proposed height of the development. At eleven storeys, it is completely out of scale with the surrounding area. It would be significantly taller than the recently completed Ara Leichhardt development on Flood and Allen Streets, which is only four to six storeys, and even significantly taller than Leichhardt Green on George Street. A building of this height would overshadow the existing Allen Estate townhouses facing Francis Street as well as the apartments in the former Cyclops Building on the corner of Francis and William Streets. It is also likely to create overlooking and visibility issues for the nearby St Francis Primary School. A previous proposal for this site of up to five storeys was rejected because of overshadowing concerns. It is difficult to understand how an eleven-storey proposal can now put forward. This site can clearly accommodate a substantial number of new homes without such excessive height.
My second concern is the lack of information about the space between proposed Building D and the existing Cyclops Building, including the current driveway from Francis Street. The Architectural Design Report does not adequately explain what is proposed for this area. Section 4.02 leaves it blank, while Section 4.03 refers to a right of carriageway and an unexplained shaded area. It is impossible to understand how this space will function or whether it will affect traffic movements on Francis Street. Such a significant omission should require the application to be refused until complete information is provided.
Finally, I believe the traffic impacts have been seriously underestimated. Francis, Herbert and Charles Streets are key walking and cycling routes for residents travelling to the light rail, Callan Park, the Leichhardt Aquatic Centre, Hawthorne Canal, the GreenWay and the Bay Run. Introducing 203 apartments with associated vehicle movements onto William Street will increase traffic and make these connections less safe and less pleasant. A lower-rise development could still provide substantial housing while better protecting the walkability and liveability that make Leichhardt a great place to live.
For these reasons, I urge the NSW Government to reject this proposal in its current form.
Federica Guidi
Object
Federica Guidi
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
SUMMARY
This proposal is a disappointing example of planning that appears to prioritise development outcomes and the council's new cash over the wellbeing and interests of the people who live in Leichhardt.
It fails to adequately address the loss of parking, increased traffic and safety risks, the strain on already stretched local infrastructure, and the significant social impacts on existing residents.
I respectfully request that the Department give this application the highest level of scrutiny and refuse it in its current form. It is an illegal proposal (they can not go so high with the buildings), and I want to check with the media whether they agree.
The long-term impacts on residents, local infrastructure, amenity and neighbourhood character far outweigh the limited public benefits claimed by the applicant.
The excessive height and scale of the proposed buildings will have a substantial impact on neighbouring homes through the loss of sunlight, reduced privacy, overshadowing, and changes to the character of the surrounding streetscape. These are not minor or theoretical impacts—they will be real and enduring consequences for local residents.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the voices, concerns and needs of the community have been overlooked in favour of maximising development potential. Good planning should balance growth with the protection of existing communities. This proposal fails to achieve that balance and, in its current form, is not an appropriate outcome for Leichhardt.
Objection to the Proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt
GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
Lack of Stakeholder Engagement
Excessive Bulk and Scale
Traffic and Parking Impacts
Construction Impacts
Visual Impacts
Lack of Adequate Local Infrastructure
Social Impacts
Amenity Impacts
Inadequate Supporting Evidence and Documentation
I wish to express my strong objection to this application and my disappointment that a development of such scale and significance has been presented with insufficient consultation, inadequate supporting evidence and little regard for the concerns of the existing community.
While I support the need for additional housing and appropriate redevelopment, I do not support excessive overdevelopment that conflicts with established planning controls, local character and community expectations. The provision of just 15 affordable housing units (7.4% of the total development) does not justify the extraordinary increases in height, density and Floor Space Ratio being sought.
The consultation process has been inadequate and unfair. Residents were given an unreasonably short timeframe to review and respond to hundreds of pages of highly technical documentation. Many community members, particularly elderly residents or those without access to technology, have been effectively excluded from meaningful participation in the process.
I am also concerned that many conclusions within the Environmental Impact Statement are unsupported by sufficient evidence. Significant claims regarding traffic, visual impacts, amenity, infrastructure capacity and community benefits are often presented without adequate justification or supporting data.
Importantly, many of the concerns that resulted in previous refusals of this site remain unresolved. The applicant's earlier proposals were refused by Inner West Council, the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and ultimately the Land and Environment Court in 2023. Despite those decisions, the current proposal seeks an even greater level of development intensity, including increased height, bulk, density and apartment numbers.
The Leichhardt community is already experiencing pressure on transport services, parking, schools, childcare facilities, healthcare services and public open space. This proposal would place further strain on infrastructure that is already struggling to meet existing demand.
Having reviewed the application, I find it difficult to understand how a development that so significantly exceeds planning controls, conflicts with the established character of the area, and fails to adequately address concerns raised in previous refusals can be regarded as an appropriate outcome for this site.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department give this application the highest level of scrutiny and refuse it in its current form. The long-term impacts on residents, local infrastructure, amenity and neighbourhood character far outweigh the limited public benefits claimed by the applicant.
This proposal is a disappointing example of planning that appears to prioritise development outcomes and the council's new cash over the wellbeing and interests of the people who live in Leichhardt.
It fails to adequately address the loss of parking, increased traffic and safety risks, the strain on already stretched local infrastructure, and the significant social impacts on existing residents.
I respectfully request that the Department give this application the highest level of scrutiny and refuse it in its current form. It is an illegal proposal (they can not go so high with the buildings), and I want to check with the media whether they agree.
The long-term impacts on residents, local infrastructure, amenity and neighbourhood character far outweigh the limited public benefits claimed by the applicant.
The excessive height and scale of the proposed buildings will have a substantial impact on neighbouring homes through the loss of sunlight, reduced privacy, overshadowing, and changes to the character of the surrounding streetscape. These are not minor or theoretical impacts—they will be real and enduring consequences for local residents.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the voices, concerns and needs of the community have been overlooked in favour of maximising development potential. Good planning should balance growth with the protection of existing communities. This proposal fails to achieve that balance and, in its current form, is not an appropriate outcome for Leichhardt.
Objection to the Proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt
GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
Lack of Stakeholder Engagement
Excessive Bulk and Scale
Traffic and Parking Impacts
Construction Impacts
Visual Impacts
Lack of Adequate Local Infrastructure
Social Impacts
Amenity Impacts
Inadequate Supporting Evidence and Documentation
I wish to express my strong objection to this application and my disappointment that a development of such scale and significance has been presented with insufficient consultation, inadequate supporting evidence and little regard for the concerns of the existing community.
While I support the need for additional housing and appropriate redevelopment, I do not support excessive overdevelopment that conflicts with established planning controls, local character and community expectations. The provision of just 15 affordable housing units (7.4% of the total development) does not justify the extraordinary increases in height, density and Floor Space Ratio being sought.
The consultation process has been inadequate and unfair. Residents were given an unreasonably short timeframe to review and respond to hundreds of pages of highly technical documentation. Many community members, particularly elderly residents or those without access to technology, have been effectively excluded from meaningful participation in the process.
I am also concerned that many conclusions within the Environmental Impact Statement are unsupported by sufficient evidence. Significant claims regarding traffic, visual impacts, amenity, infrastructure capacity and community benefits are often presented without adequate justification or supporting data.
Importantly, many of the concerns that resulted in previous refusals of this site remain unresolved. The applicant's earlier proposals were refused by Inner West Council, the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and ultimately the Land and Environment Court in 2023. Despite those decisions, the current proposal seeks an even greater level of development intensity, including increased height, bulk, density and apartment numbers.
The Leichhardt community is already experiencing pressure on transport services, parking, schools, childcare facilities, healthcare services and public open space. This proposal would place further strain on infrastructure that is already struggling to meet existing demand.
Having reviewed the application, I find it difficult to understand how a development that so significantly exceeds planning controls, conflicts with the established character of the area, and fails to adequately address concerns raised in previous refusals can be regarded as an appropriate outcome for this site.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department give this application the highest level of scrutiny and refuse it in its current form. The long-term impacts on residents, local infrastructure, amenity and neighbourhood character far outweigh the limited public benefits claimed by the applicant.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
Introduction
I object to the proposed development at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt (SSD-119545240).
My concerns relate to:
•Excessive bulk, scale and density
•Non-compliance with planning controls
•Traffic and parking impacts
•Visual and heritage impacts
•Overshadowing and loss of amenity
•Construction impacts
•Inadequate supporting infrastructure
•Insufficient stakeholder consultation
•Lack of supporting evidence for several key conclusions contained within the application
While I support the provision of additional housing, including affordable housing, development should be consistent with established planning principles, local character, infrastructure capacity and adopted planning controls.
Community Consultation and Procedural Fairness
The consultation period provided limited opportunity for residents to review and respond to a substantial volume of highly technical material. The notification letter was dated 10 July and received on 14 July, leaving a relatively short period for meaningful community review.
The Environmental Impact Statement also refers extensively to stakeholder engagement undertaken in relation to earlier proposals. However, that consultation was not undertaken specifically for the current application and therefore should not be relied upon as evidence of community engagement for this proposal.
Planning History
The planning history of the site is highly relevant.
Previous development applications for this site were refused by Inner West Council and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel. In December 2023, the Land and Environment Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
A key issue identified by the Court was the excessive density of development and the failure to justify substantial departures from the applicable Floor Space Ratio (FSR) controls.
The current proposal seeks approval for an even larger development than the proposal considered by the Court. It includes:
•Five buildings
•Building heights of up to 11 storeys
•203 apartments
•An FSR of 3.1:1
Accordingly, the concerns previously identified regarding scale, density and neighbourhood character remain relevant.
Bulk, Scale and Density
The proposal represents a significant departure from the planning controls that apply to the site.
The permissible FSR is 0.5:1. The proposed FSR is 3.1:1, representing a substantial exceedance of the applicable control.
The scale, height and density of the proposed development are inconsistent with the predominantly low-rise character of the surrounding area. The proposal would significantly exceed the scale of surrounding residential development and would create a built form that is visually dominant within the local streetscape.
While affordable housing is proposed, the development includes only 15 affordable housing units, representing approximately 7.4% of the total number of dwellings. This does not justify the extent of the departures sought from established planning controls.
Visual and Heritage Impacts
The proposal would have substantial visual impacts on both the surrounding neighbourhood and the heritage setting of the former Cyclops Toy Factory.
The existing factory building is a recognised local landmark and an important component of the area's industrial heritage. The scale and height of the proposed development would visually dominate the original building and diminish its prominence within the streetscape.
The proposal cannot reasonably be described as being consistent with the existing character of William Street, North Street or the surrounding residential area, which is predominantly characterised by low-rise development.
Overshadowing, Solar Access and Privacy
The application concludes that impacts on adjoining properties will be minimal. However, the submitted plans indicate that neighbouring properties will experience reductions in solar access, privacy and outlook.
Particular concern exists regarding impacts on the western side of 22-38 William Street and adjacent properties, where increased building height and proximity have the potential to reduce sunlight, daylight access and privacy.
The assessment appears to understate the significance of these impacts on existing residents.
Traffic and Parking
The traffic impacts of the proposal have not been adequately assessed.
William Street, Norton Street and the City West Link intersection already experience significant congestion during peak periods. Local residents regularly experience delays accessing and exiting the area, particularly during morning and afternoon peak traffic conditions.
The proposal would introduce 203 dwellings into an area already experiencing congestion and parking pressure.
The assumption that future residents will predominantly rely on public transport is not supported by evidence. Many residents are likely to require private vehicles for employment, education and other travel outside the CBD and inner-city area.
The traffic assessment also relies heavily on comparisons with the existing storage facility. This comparison is of limited value, as a self-storage facility generates fundamentally different traffic patterns to a residential development accommodating more than 400 residents.
Further assessment should be undertaken to accurately quantify:
•Peak-hour traffic generation
•On-street parking demand
•Intersection performance
•Cumulative impacts from existing and approved developments in the area
Infrastructure Capacity
The application does not adequately address the capacity of local infrastructure to accommodate a development of this scale.
Additional population growth will place increased demand on:
•Public transport
•Local roads
•Health services
•Schools
•Childcare facilities
•Public open space
The application provides limited evidence demonstrating that existing infrastructure can absorb these impacts without a reduction in service levels for existing residents.
Construction Impacts
The construction phase is expected to extend over several years and will result in significant impacts on nearby residents.
These impacts are likely to include:
•Construction traffic
•Heavy vehicle movements
•Parking loss
•Noise and vibration
•Dust generation
•Reduced pedestrian amenity
The construction management and waste management information provided is generic and does not appear sufficiently tailored to a site involving contamination, asbestos management and demolition works of this scale.
Clearer information should be provided regarding construction vehicle routes, site access arrangements and mitigation measures.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I submit that the proposal remains inconsistent with the established character of the locality, represents an excessive departure from applicable planning controls and would result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents, local infrastructure and the heritage setting of the site.
The previous concerns identified by Inner West Council, the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and the Land and Environment Court have not been satisfactorily addressed. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the application be refused or substantially redesigned to achieve compliance with relevant planning controls and better integration with the surrounding neighbourhood.
I object to the proposed development at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt (SSD-119545240).
My concerns relate to:
•Excessive bulk, scale and density
•Non-compliance with planning controls
•Traffic and parking impacts
•Visual and heritage impacts
•Overshadowing and loss of amenity
•Construction impacts
•Inadequate supporting infrastructure
•Insufficient stakeholder consultation
•Lack of supporting evidence for several key conclusions contained within the application
While I support the provision of additional housing, including affordable housing, development should be consistent with established planning principles, local character, infrastructure capacity and adopted planning controls.
Community Consultation and Procedural Fairness
The consultation period provided limited opportunity for residents to review and respond to a substantial volume of highly technical material. The notification letter was dated 10 July and received on 14 July, leaving a relatively short period for meaningful community review.
The Environmental Impact Statement also refers extensively to stakeholder engagement undertaken in relation to earlier proposals. However, that consultation was not undertaken specifically for the current application and therefore should not be relied upon as evidence of community engagement for this proposal.
Planning History
The planning history of the site is highly relevant.
Previous development applications for this site were refused by Inner West Council and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel. In December 2023, the Land and Environment Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
A key issue identified by the Court was the excessive density of development and the failure to justify substantial departures from the applicable Floor Space Ratio (FSR) controls.
The current proposal seeks approval for an even larger development than the proposal considered by the Court. It includes:
•Five buildings
•Building heights of up to 11 storeys
•203 apartments
•An FSR of 3.1:1
Accordingly, the concerns previously identified regarding scale, density and neighbourhood character remain relevant.
Bulk, Scale and Density
The proposal represents a significant departure from the planning controls that apply to the site.
The permissible FSR is 0.5:1. The proposed FSR is 3.1:1, representing a substantial exceedance of the applicable control.
The scale, height and density of the proposed development are inconsistent with the predominantly low-rise character of the surrounding area. The proposal would significantly exceed the scale of surrounding residential development and would create a built form that is visually dominant within the local streetscape.
While affordable housing is proposed, the development includes only 15 affordable housing units, representing approximately 7.4% of the total number of dwellings. This does not justify the extent of the departures sought from established planning controls.
Visual and Heritage Impacts
The proposal would have substantial visual impacts on both the surrounding neighbourhood and the heritage setting of the former Cyclops Toy Factory.
The existing factory building is a recognised local landmark and an important component of the area's industrial heritage. The scale and height of the proposed development would visually dominate the original building and diminish its prominence within the streetscape.
The proposal cannot reasonably be described as being consistent with the existing character of William Street, North Street or the surrounding residential area, which is predominantly characterised by low-rise development.
Overshadowing, Solar Access and Privacy
The application concludes that impacts on adjoining properties will be minimal. However, the submitted plans indicate that neighbouring properties will experience reductions in solar access, privacy and outlook.
Particular concern exists regarding impacts on the western side of 22-38 William Street and adjacent properties, where increased building height and proximity have the potential to reduce sunlight, daylight access and privacy.
The assessment appears to understate the significance of these impacts on existing residents.
Traffic and Parking
The traffic impacts of the proposal have not been adequately assessed.
William Street, Norton Street and the City West Link intersection already experience significant congestion during peak periods. Local residents regularly experience delays accessing and exiting the area, particularly during morning and afternoon peak traffic conditions.
The proposal would introduce 203 dwellings into an area already experiencing congestion and parking pressure.
The assumption that future residents will predominantly rely on public transport is not supported by evidence. Many residents are likely to require private vehicles for employment, education and other travel outside the CBD and inner-city area.
The traffic assessment also relies heavily on comparisons with the existing storage facility. This comparison is of limited value, as a self-storage facility generates fundamentally different traffic patterns to a residential development accommodating more than 400 residents.
Further assessment should be undertaken to accurately quantify:
•Peak-hour traffic generation
•On-street parking demand
•Intersection performance
•Cumulative impacts from existing and approved developments in the area
Infrastructure Capacity
The application does not adequately address the capacity of local infrastructure to accommodate a development of this scale.
Additional population growth will place increased demand on:
•Public transport
•Local roads
•Health services
•Schools
•Childcare facilities
•Public open space
The application provides limited evidence demonstrating that existing infrastructure can absorb these impacts without a reduction in service levels for existing residents.
Construction Impacts
The construction phase is expected to extend over several years and will result in significant impacts on nearby residents.
These impacts are likely to include:
•Construction traffic
•Heavy vehicle movements
•Parking loss
•Noise and vibration
•Dust generation
•Reduced pedestrian amenity
The construction management and waste management information provided is generic and does not appear sufficiently tailored to a site involving contamination, asbestos management and demolition works of this scale.
Clearer information should be provided regarding construction vehicle routes, site access arrangements and mitigation measures.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I submit that the proposal remains inconsistent with the established character of the locality, represents an excessive departure from applicable planning controls and would result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents, local infrastructure and the heritage setting of the site.
The previous concerns identified by Inner West Council, the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and the Land and Environment Court have not been satisfactorily addressed. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the application be refused or substantially redesigned to achieve compliance with relevant planning controls and better integration with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
I am reasonably familiar with the various planning pathways available for developers in NSW. I strongly support appropriate development to deliver increased housing and, particularly, affordable housing.
I object to the proposed development at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt.
*Stormwater runoff impact on downhill residents*
I live on Hubert Street, which is downhill from the proposed development. We currently experience regular flooding along both Hubert Street and the rear lane between Hubert Street and Charles Street during heavy downpours. The existing stormwater drainage system is insufficient to support significant volumes of water and residents have been raising this concern with Council for many years, to no effect. Flooding of the rear lane now occurs multiple times a year, with many residents implementing sand bags to try and mitigate the damage to property. The proposed development will inevitably increase overland water runoff which will exacerbate this flooding.
Significant upgrade works to the stormwater drainage network throughout the surrounding streets would be necessary to increase the capacity of the drainage network and this work should be a condition of any approval, for any development, at the site. On-site drainage measures will not be enough to prevent increased overland runoff and increased flooding for downhill residents.
*Affordable housing term is insufficient to justify planning benefits*
I strongly support affordable housing. However, the proposed development only includes affordable housing for 15 years. That is far too short to deliver measured community benefit. Affordable housing is intended to enable essential workers to live within proximity to their workplaces. A small way for our society to express appreciation for the critical (and typically underpaid) work they provide. Even if a resident stays for the full 15-year term, if the resident has young children towards the beginning of their term, they will have to leave before the end of that child’s schooling, potentially requiring a change in schools. The disruption associated with moving and changing schools should not be a condition precedent for affordable housing. I recognise that the development complies with the minimum requirements in this regard, and that this reflects an overarching policy issue.
The favourable development outcomes received from including affordable housing are disproportionate to the meagre benefit of delivering the minimum capacity and term of affordable housing.
*Excessive height*
I am not aware of any other buildings in the Leichhardt or Lilyfield area which are 10 storeys. A development of the proposed height and scale would be appropriate in the vicinity of Parramatta Road, which offers strong transport links and would provide investment to revitalise the corridor. However, the proposed development is located in the heart of quiet suburban streets. The proposed development, particularly the height, is completely inconsistent and incongruous with the surrounding neighbourhood and will significantly change the character of the area.
*Excessive scale and impact on surrounding areas*
For completeness, I also have concerns regarding:
• disruption from noise, dust and vibration during construction;
• pedestrian safety concerns during construction including associated with heavy vehicles;
• pedestrian safety concerns following completion of the development due to significant increases in traffic volumes in the neighbouring streets;
• on-street parking impacts following completion; and
• a general failure of the state planning pathway to ensure the delivery of high density housing is appropriately located regardless of any affordable housing component.
I object to the proposed development at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt.
*Stormwater runoff impact on downhill residents*
I live on Hubert Street, which is downhill from the proposed development. We currently experience regular flooding along both Hubert Street and the rear lane between Hubert Street and Charles Street during heavy downpours. The existing stormwater drainage system is insufficient to support significant volumes of water and residents have been raising this concern with Council for many years, to no effect. Flooding of the rear lane now occurs multiple times a year, with many residents implementing sand bags to try and mitigate the damage to property. The proposed development will inevitably increase overland water runoff which will exacerbate this flooding.
Significant upgrade works to the stormwater drainage network throughout the surrounding streets would be necessary to increase the capacity of the drainage network and this work should be a condition of any approval, for any development, at the site. On-site drainage measures will not be enough to prevent increased overland runoff and increased flooding for downhill residents.
*Affordable housing term is insufficient to justify planning benefits*
I strongly support affordable housing. However, the proposed development only includes affordable housing for 15 years. That is far too short to deliver measured community benefit. Affordable housing is intended to enable essential workers to live within proximity to their workplaces. A small way for our society to express appreciation for the critical (and typically underpaid) work they provide. Even if a resident stays for the full 15-year term, if the resident has young children towards the beginning of their term, they will have to leave before the end of that child’s schooling, potentially requiring a change in schools. The disruption associated with moving and changing schools should not be a condition precedent for affordable housing. I recognise that the development complies with the minimum requirements in this regard, and that this reflects an overarching policy issue.
The favourable development outcomes received from including affordable housing are disproportionate to the meagre benefit of delivering the minimum capacity and term of affordable housing.
*Excessive height*
I am not aware of any other buildings in the Leichhardt or Lilyfield area which are 10 storeys. A development of the proposed height and scale would be appropriate in the vicinity of Parramatta Road, which offers strong transport links and would provide investment to revitalise the corridor. However, the proposed development is located in the heart of quiet suburban streets. The proposed development, particularly the height, is completely inconsistent and incongruous with the surrounding neighbourhood and will significantly change the character of the area.
*Excessive scale and impact on surrounding areas*
For completeness, I also have concerns regarding:
• disruption from noise, dust and vibration during construction;
• pedestrian safety concerns during construction including associated with heavy vehicles;
• pedestrian safety concerns following completion of the development due to significant increases in traffic volumes in the neighbouring streets;
• on-street parking impacts following completion; and
• a general failure of the state planning pathway to ensure the delivery of high density housing is appropriately located regardless of any affordable housing component.