Daniel Small
Object
Daniel Small
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission to the Department of Planning,
Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-119545240 – Proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street,
Leichhardt
Dear Assessment Officer,
I write to object to the proposed residential development at 40–76 William Street,
Leichhardt.
I recognise that Sydney needs additional housing and I support well-planned development
that delivers new homes while respecting the character of established neighbourhoods and
ensuring supporting infrastructure keeps pace with growth.
My objection is not to additional housing itself. Rather, it is to the scale of this proposal and
the cumulative impacts it would have on the surrounding community. I support affordable
housing and increased housing supply; however, I question whether the public benefit
delivered by this proposal is proportionate to the significant increase in height, density and
planning concessions being sought.
About me
My wife and I live just five houses from the proposed development, on Hubert Street near
its intersection with William Street. As one of the closest residential properties, the impacts
of this development will be experienced directly by our family. I also work full-time from
home, meaning I will experience both the permanent impacts of the development and the
day-to-day disruption associated with what is likely to be a prolonged construction period.
We currently have a young toddler and another baby on the way. As I work full-time from
home, I will experience both the permanent impacts of this development and the day-to-day
disruption associated with what is likely to be a prolonged construction period.
When we purchased our home, we knew we liked the area, but we had no idea just how
special the community was. As we've become part of this community, we've made the
decision to renovate our home because we see Hubert Street as the place we want to raise
our family for many years to come.
Hubert Street is one of those increasingly rare neighbourhoods where children still ride their
bikes, play together in the street and walk to school. Neighbours know one another, look out
for each other and actively contribute to the local community through an active street
WhatsApp group where residents share information, lend household items and support one
another.
One example that reflects the character of our neighbourhood occurred when the owner of
our local corner café became seriously ill. Residents rallied around his family by raising
money and making a conscious effort to support the business until he recovered.
These experiences have reinforced for me just how unique this neighbourhood is and why I
believe its character deserves careful consideration when assessing development of this
scale.
My concern is not simply that another residential development is proposed. It is that a
development of this scale would fundamentally change the qualities that make this
neighbourhood such a desirable place to live through its cumulative impacts on traffic, road
safety, parking, privacy, flooding, public transport and visual amenity.
1. Excessive height and scale
The proposed development of up to 11 storeys is out of character with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
The area is characterised by one- and two-storey homes together with some low-rise
apartment buildings. There is no comparable building of this height nearby, meaning the
proposal would dominate the streetscape and become a visually intrusive feature across the
surrounding neighbourhood.
I also understand that a previous proposal for this site was refused by the Land and
Environment Court due to concerns including excessive bulk and scale, floor space ratio,
landscaping and overshadowing. The current proposal is materially larger than the proposal
previously refused, making it unclear how those planning concerns have now been
satisfactorily resolved.
2. Traffic, road safety and rat-running
Of all the issues associated with this proposal, traffic and road safety concern me the most.
Hubert Street and William Street already experience significant weekday peak-hour
congestion as motorists travel to and from the City West Link, with Hubert Street frequently
used as a rat-run to avoid surrounding traffic. The addition of approximately 203 apartments
will inevitably increase vehicle movements on roads that are already under considerable
pressure.
As a father of a young family, I think about how my children will use our neighbourhood as
they grow up. Hubert Street is a street where children regularly ride bikes, play outdoors
and walk to school. Increased traffic will inevitably reduce road safety for pedestrians and
cyclists and diminish one of the qualities that makes this such a great place to raise a family.
Given the site's location adjacent to one of Sydney's busiest eastbound commuter corridors,
I ask that the Department carefully assess the cumulative traffic impacts on the surrounding
local road network rather than considering only the trips generated by this proposal in
isolation.
3. Parking
Parking is already under considerable pressure throughout the surrounding streets. It is
common for our family to be unable to park outside, or even close to, our home. As parents
of a young child, with another on the way, this often means one of us temporarily double
parks so we can safely unload our child, pram and groceries before searching for a parking
space elsewhere.
While the proposal includes on-site parking, I remain concerned that it will be insufficient to
accommodate residents, visitors, carers, tradespeople and delivery drivers. Any overflow
parking is likely to spill into surrounding residential streets where parking capacity is already
limited.
Parking pressures become even more acute during events at Leichhardt Oval,
demonstrating how little spare parking capacity already exists within the surrounding
neighbourhood.
4. Public transport and local infrastructure
While encouraging public transport use is an important planning objective, existing public
transport services in the area are already heavily utilised during peak periods. The planning
assessment should not simply assume they have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
additional demand generated by a development of this scale.
Before approving a development of this size, I believe the Department should be satisfied
that the surrounding infrastructure, including roads, drainage, public transport, parks and
community facilities, has sufficient capacity to support the additional population without
reducing the quality of life for existing residents.
5. Privacy, visual impact and overshadowing
As one of the closest neighbouring properties, my family and I are particularly concerned
about the loss of privacy that would result from a building of this height and scale.
Like many homes in this part of Leichhardt, our house is relatively compact, meaning we
spend a significant amount of our time using our backyard as an extension of our living
space. This is particularly important as we have a young toddler, another baby on the way,
and enjoy spending a great deal of our family time outdoors.
The proposed building would introduce a substantial number of additional dwellings with
elevated outlooks towards surrounding residential properties. I am concerned that this would
create a significant sense of overlooking into our backyard and outdoor living areas, reducing
the privacy that we currently enjoy and fundamentally changing how comfortably we can use
these spaces.
While privacy impacts may be considered individually manageable, they should also be
assessed alongside the proposal's excessive height, bulk and scale. Taken together, these
impacts represent a substantial reduction in residential amenity for nearby homes.
6. Flooding and stormwater
Hubert Street is already recognised as a flood-prone area, with neighbours at the lower end
of the street experiencing garage flooding during significant rainfall events several times
each year.
Given these existing flood conditions, and noting that flooding was also raised during
consideration of the previous proposal for this site, I request that the Department require
independently verified modelling demonstrating that the proposal will not increase flood
levels, alter overland flow paths or worsen flood impacts for surrounding properties.
7. Construction impacts
I recognise that construction impacts are temporary. However, given my proximity to the
site and the fact that I work full-time from home, they are still an important consideration.
A development of this scale is likely to involve an extended construction period, during
which persistent noise, vibration, dust and construction traffic would directly affect my
ability to work from home. While I appreciate that construction is an unavoidable part of
redevelopment, I ask that the Department carefully consider these impacts and, should the
proposal proceed, require robust construction management measures to minimise
disruption to nearby residents who spend much of their day at home.
Conclusion
I understand the need for additional housing across Sydney and support redevelopment of
this site. However, I believe it should occur at a scale that is proportionate to its
surroundings and supported by infrastructure capable of accommodating the additional
population.
My concern is not that this site should never be redeveloped, but that the current proposal
represents a scale of development that exceeds the capacity of the existing neighbourhood
and would permanently alter the character and amenity that make this such a desirable
place to live and raise a family.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposal in its current form or require
it to be redesigned at a scale that is proportionate to its surroundings, consistent with the
established character of the area and supported by the necessary infrastructure.
Daniel Small
10 Hubert St
LEICHHARDT, 2040
July 27, 2026
Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-119545240 – Proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street,
Leichhardt
Dear Assessment Officer,
I write to object to the proposed residential development at 40–76 William Street,
Leichhardt.
I recognise that Sydney needs additional housing and I support well-planned development
that delivers new homes while respecting the character of established neighbourhoods and
ensuring supporting infrastructure keeps pace with growth.
My objection is not to additional housing itself. Rather, it is to the scale of this proposal and
the cumulative impacts it would have on the surrounding community. I support affordable
housing and increased housing supply; however, I question whether the public benefit
delivered by this proposal is proportionate to the significant increase in height, density and
planning concessions being sought.
About me
My wife and I live just five houses from the proposed development, on Hubert Street near
its intersection with William Street. As one of the closest residential properties, the impacts
of this development will be experienced directly by our family. I also work full-time from
home, meaning I will experience both the permanent impacts of the development and the
day-to-day disruption associated with what is likely to be a prolonged construction period.
We currently have a young toddler and another baby on the way. As I work full-time from
home, I will experience both the permanent impacts of this development and the day-to-day
disruption associated with what is likely to be a prolonged construction period.
When we purchased our home, we knew we liked the area, but we had no idea just how
special the community was. As we've become part of this community, we've made the
decision to renovate our home because we see Hubert Street as the place we want to raise
our family for many years to come.
Hubert Street is one of those increasingly rare neighbourhoods where children still ride their
bikes, play together in the street and walk to school. Neighbours know one another, look out
for each other and actively contribute to the local community through an active street
WhatsApp group where residents share information, lend household items and support one
another.
One example that reflects the character of our neighbourhood occurred when the owner of
our local corner café became seriously ill. Residents rallied around his family by raising
money and making a conscious effort to support the business until he recovered.
These experiences have reinforced for me just how unique this neighbourhood is and why I
believe its character deserves careful consideration when assessing development of this
scale.
My concern is not simply that another residential development is proposed. It is that a
development of this scale would fundamentally change the qualities that make this
neighbourhood such a desirable place to live through its cumulative impacts on traffic, road
safety, parking, privacy, flooding, public transport and visual amenity.
1. Excessive height and scale
The proposed development of up to 11 storeys is out of character with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
The area is characterised by one- and two-storey homes together with some low-rise
apartment buildings. There is no comparable building of this height nearby, meaning the
proposal would dominate the streetscape and become a visually intrusive feature across the
surrounding neighbourhood.
I also understand that a previous proposal for this site was refused by the Land and
Environment Court due to concerns including excessive bulk and scale, floor space ratio,
landscaping and overshadowing. The current proposal is materially larger than the proposal
previously refused, making it unclear how those planning concerns have now been
satisfactorily resolved.
2. Traffic, road safety and rat-running
Of all the issues associated with this proposal, traffic and road safety concern me the most.
Hubert Street and William Street already experience significant weekday peak-hour
congestion as motorists travel to and from the City West Link, with Hubert Street frequently
used as a rat-run to avoid surrounding traffic. The addition of approximately 203 apartments
will inevitably increase vehicle movements on roads that are already under considerable
pressure.
As a father of a young family, I think about how my children will use our neighbourhood as
they grow up. Hubert Street is a street where children regularly ride bikes, play outdoors
and walk to school. Increased traffic will inevitably reduce road safety for pedestrians and
cyclists and diminish one of the qualities that makes this such a great place to raise a family.
Given the site's location adjacent to one of Sydney's busiest eastbound commuter corridors,
I ask that the Department carefully assess the cumulative traffic impacts on the surrounding
local road network rather than considering only the trips generated by this proposal in
isolation.
3. Parking
Parking is already under considerable pressure throughout the surrounding streets. It is
common for our family to be unable to park outside, or even close to, our home. As parents
of a young child, with another on the way, this often means one of us temporarily double
parks so we can safely unload our child, pram and groceries before searching for a parking
space elsewhere.
While the proposal includes on-site parking, I remain concerned that it will be insufficient to
accommodate residents, visitors, carers, tradespeople and delivery drivers. Any overflow
parking is likely to spill into surrounding residential streets where parking capacity is already
limited.
Parking pressures become even more acute during events at Leichhardt Oval,
demonstrating how little spare parking capacity already exists within the surrounding
neighbourhood.
4. Public transport and local infrastructure
While encouraging public transport use is an important planning objective, existing public
transport services in the area are already heavily utilised during peak periods. The planning
assessment should not simply assume they have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
additional demand generated by a development of this scale.
Before approving a development of this size, I believe the Department should be satisfied
that the surrounding infrastructure, including roads, drainage, public transport, parks and
community facilities, has sufficient capacity to support the additional population without
reducing the quality of life for existing residents.
5. Privacy, visual impact and overshadowing
As one of the closest neighbouring properties, my family and I are particularly concerned
about the loss of privacy that would result from a building of this height and scale.
Like many homes in this part of Leichhardt, our house is relatively compact, meaning we
spend a significant amount of our time using our backyard as an extension of our living
space. This is particularly important as we have a young toddler, another baby on the way,
and enjoy spending a great deal of our family time outdoors.
The proposed building would introduce a substantial number of additional dwellings with
elevated outlooks towards surrounding residential properties. I am concerned that this would
create a significant sense of overlooking into our backyard and outdoor living areas, reducing
the privacy that we currently enjoy and fundamentally changing how comfortably we can use
these spaces.
While privacy impacts may be considered individually manageable, they should also be
assessed alongside the proposal's excessive height, bulk and scale. Taken together, these
impacts represent a substantial reduction in residential amenity for nearby homes.
6. Flooding and stormwater
Hubert Street is already recognised as a flood-prone area, with neighbours at the lower end
of the street experiencing garage flooding during significant rainfall events several times
each year.
Given these existing flood conditions, and noting that flooding was also raised during
consideration of the previous proposal for this site, I request that the Department require
independently verified modelling demonstrating that the proposal will not increase flood
levels, alter overland flow paths or worsen flood impacts for surrounding properties.
7. Construction impacts
I recognise that construction impacts are temporary. However, given my proximity to the
site and the fact that I work full-time from home, they are still an important consideration.
A development of this scale is likely to involve an extended construction period, during
which persistent noise, vibration, dust and construction traffic would directly affect my
ability to work from home. While I appreciate that construction is an unavoidable part of
redevelopment, I ask that the Department carefully consider these impacts and, should the
proposal proceed, require robust construction management measures to minimise
disruption to nearby residents who spend much of their day at home.
Conclusion
I understand the need for additional housing across Sydney and support redevelopment of
this site. However, I believe it should occur at a scale that is proportionate to its
surroundings and supported by infrastructure capable of accommodating the additional
population.
My concern is not that this site should never be redeveloped, but that the current proposal
represents a scale of development that exceeds the capacity of the existing neighbourhood
and would permanently alter the character and amenity that make this such a desirable
place to live and raise a family.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposal in its current form or require
it to be redesigned at a scale that is proportionate to its surroundings, consistent with the
established character of the area and supported by the necessary infrastructure.
Daniel Small
10 Hubert St
LEICHHARDT, 2040
July 27, 2026
Hannah Webb
Object
Hannah Webb
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-119545240 – Proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt
Dear Assessment Officer,
I write to object to the proposed residential development at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.
I recognise that Sydney needs additional housing and I support well-planned development that delivers new homes while respecting the character of established neighbourhoods and ensuring supporting infrastructure keeps pace with growth.
My objection is not to additional housing itself. Rather, it is to the scale of this proposal and the cumulative impacts it would have on the surrounding community. I support affordable housing and increased housing supply; however, I question whether the public benefit delivered by this proposal is proportionate to the significant increase in height, density and planning concessions being sought.
About me
My husband and I live just five houses from the proposed development, on Hubert Street near its intersection with William Street. As one of the closest residential properties, the impacts of this development will be experienced directly by our family.
We currently have a young toddler and another baby on the way.
When we purchased our home, we knew we liked the area, but we had no idea just how special the community was. Over the years we have come to love living here and are now planning to renovate our home because we want to raise our family here for many years to come.
Hubert Street is one of those increasingly rare neighbourhoods where children still ride their bikes, play together in the street and walk to school. Neighbours know one another, look out for each other and actively contribute to the local community through an active street WhatsApp group where residents share information, lend household items and support one another.
One example that reflects the character of our neighbourhood occurred when the owner of our local corner café became seriously ill. Residents rallied around his family by raising money and making a conscious effort to support the business until he recovered.
These experiences are why we have chosen to invest in this neighbourhood for the long term and why we are concerned about a development of this scale.
My concern is not simply that another residential development is proposed. It is that a development of this scale would fundamentally change the qualities that make this neighbourhood such a desirable place to live through its cumulative impacts on traffic, road safety, parking, privacy, flooding, public transport and visual amenity.
1. Excessive height and scale
The proposed development of up to 11 storeys is out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
The area is characterised by one- and two-storey homes together with some low-rise apartment buildings. There is no comparable building of this height nearby, meaning the proposal would dominate the streetscape and become a visually intrusive feature across the surrounding neighbourhood.
I also understand that a previous proposal for this site was refused by the Land and Environment Court due to concerns including excessive bulk and scale, floor space ratio, landscaping and overshadowing. The current proposal is materially larger than the proposal previously refused, making it unclear how those planning concerns have now been satisfactorily resolved.
2. Traffic, road safety and rat-running
Traffic is my greatest concern.
Hubert Street and William Street already experience significant weekday peak-hour congestion as motorists access the City West Link, with Hubert Street frequently used as a rat-run to avoid surrounding traffic. The addition of approximately 203 apartments will inevitably increase vehicle movements on roads that are already under considerable pressure.
My primary concern is road safety. Hubert Street is a street where children regularly ride bikes, play outdoors and walk to school. Increased traffic will reduce safety for pedestrians and cyclists and diminish one of the key qualities that attracted my family to this neighbourhood.
Given the site's location adjacent to one of Sydney's busiest eastbound commuter corridors, I ask that the Department assess the cumulative traffic impacts on the surrounding local road network rather than considering only the trips generated by this proposal in isolation.
3. Parking
Parking is already under considerable pressure throughout the surrounding streets. It is common for us to be unable to park outside, or even close to, our home. As parents of a young toddler, this often means temporarily double parking so we can safely unload our child, pram and groceries before one of us searches for parking elsewhere.
While the proposal includes on-site parking, I remain concerned that it will be insufficient to accommodate residents, visitors, carers, tradespeople and delivery drivers. Any overflow parking is likely to spill into surrounding residential streets where parking capacity is already limited.
Parking pressures become even more acute during events at Leichhardt Oval, demonstrating how little spare parking capacity already exists within the surrounding neighbourhood.
4. Public transport and local infrastructure
As a regular commuter using the Inner West Light Rail and the 437 bus, I know both services are already heavily used during peak periods, with standing passengers common and services frequently operating at or near capacity.
Encouraging public transport use is an important planning objective. However, this should not assume existing services have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional demand generated by this proposal without affecting existing commuters.
Before approving a development of this scale, I believe the Department should be satisfied that the surrounding infrastructure, including roads, drainage, public transport, parks and community facilities, has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional population.
5. Privacy, visual impact and overshadowing
As one of the closest residential properties to the site, our home will experience the visual and privacy impacts of this development every day.
The proposed building will overlook neighbouring properties, including our backyard, resulting in a permanent loss of privacy. An 11-storey building in a predominantly low-rise neighbourhood will also dramatically alter our outlook and create a visually dominant presence that is inconsistent with the established character of the area.
I am also concerned about the cumulative impacts of overshadowing on neighbouring homes, gardens and public spaces.
6. Flooding and stormwater
Hubert Street is already recognised as a flood-prone area, with neighbours at the lower end of the street experiencing garage flooding during significant rainfall events several times each year.
Given these existing flood conditions, and noting that flooding was also raised during consideration of the previous proposal for this site, I request that the Department require independently verified modelling demonstrating that the proposal will not increase flood levels, alter overland flow paths or worsen flood impacts for surrounding properties.
Conclusion
I support the delivery of additional housing and recognise its importance for Sydney's future. However, I do not believe this proposal achieves an appropriate balance between housing delivery and the protection of neighbourhood character, infrastructure capacity and residential amenity.
I support redevelopment of this site. However, I believe it should occur at a scale that is proportionate to its surroundings and supported by appropriate infrastructure. Ultimately, my concern is not that this site should never be redeveloped, but that this proposal represents a scale of development that exceeds the capacity of the existing neighbourhood to absorb it.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposal in its current form or require it to be redesigned at a scale that is proportionate to its surroundings, consistent with the established character of the area and supported by the necessary infrastructure.
Re: SSD-119545240 – Proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt
Dear Assessment Officer,
I write to object to the proposed residential development at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.
I recognise that Sydney needs additional housing and I support well-planned development that delivers new homes while respecting the character of established neighbourhoods and ensuring supporting infrastructure keeps pace with growth.
My objection is not to additional housing itself. Rather, it is to the scale of this proposal and the cumulative impacts it would have on the surrounding community. I support affordable housing and increased housing supply; however, I question whether the public benefit delivered by this proposal is proportionate to the significant increase in height, density and planning concessions being sought.
About me
My husband and I live just five houses from the proposed development, on Hubert Street near its intersection with William Street. As one of the closest residential properties, the impacts of this development will be experienced directly by our family.
We currently have a young toddler and another baby on the way.
When we purchased our home, we knew we liked the area, but we had no idea just how special the community was. Over the years we have come to love living here and are now planning to renovate our home because we want to raise our family here for many years to come.
Hubert Street is one of those increasingly rare neighbourhoods where children still ride their bikes, play together in the street and walk to school. Neighbours know one another, look out for each other and actively contribute to the local community through an active street WhatsApp group where residents share information, lend household items and support one another.
One example that reflects the character of our neighbourhood occurred when the owner of our local corner café became seriously ill. Residents rallied around his family by raising money and making a conscious effort to support the business until he recovered.
These experiences are why we have chosen to invest in this neighbourhood for the long term and why we are concerned about a development of this scale.
My concern is not simply that another residential development is proposed. It is that a development of this scale would fundamentally change the qualities that make this neighbourhood such a desirable place to live through its cumulative impacts on traffic, road safety, parking, privacy, flooding, public transport and visual amenity.
1. Excessive height and scale
The proposed development of up to 11 storeys is out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
The area is characterised by one- and two-storey homes together with some low-rise apartment buildings. There is no comparable building of this height nearby, meaning the proposal would dominate the streetscape and become a visually intrusive feature across the surrounding neighbourhood.
I also understand that a previous proposal for this site was refused by the Land and Environment Court due to concerns including excessive bulk and scale, floor space ratio, landscaping and overshadowing. The current proposal is materially larger than the proposal previously refused, making it unclear how those planning concerns have now been satisfactorily resolved.
2. Traffic, road safety and rat-running
Traffic is my greatest concern.
Hubert Street and William Street already experience significant weekday peak-hour congestion as motorists access the City West Link, with Hubert Street frequently used as a rat-run to avoid surrounding traffic. The addition of approximately 203 apartments will inevitably increase vehicle movements on roads that are already under considerable pressure.
My primary concern is road safety. Hubert Street is a street where children regularly ride bikes, play outdoors and walk to school. Increased traffic will reduce safety for pedestrians and cyclists and diminish one of the key qualities that attracted my family to this neighbourhood.
Given the site's location adjacent to one of Sydney's busiest eastbound commuter corridors, I ask that the Department assess the cumulative traffic impacts on the surrounding local road network rather than considering only the trips generated by this proposal in isolation.
3. Parking
Parking is already under considerable pressure throughout the surrounding streets. It is common for us to be unable to park outside, or even close to, our home. As parents of a young toddler, this often means temporarily double parking so we can safely unload our child, pram and groceries before one of us searches for parking elsewhere.
While the proposal includes on-site parking, I remain concerned that it will be insufficient to accommodate residents, visitors, carers, tradespeople and delivery drivers. Any overflow parking is likely to spill into surrounding residential streets where parking capacity is already limited.
Parking pressures become even more acute during events at Leichhardt Oval, demonstrating how little spare parking capacity already exists within the surrounding neighbourhood.
4. Public transport and local infrastructure
As a regular commuter using the Inner West Light Rail and the 437 bus, I know both services are already heavily used during peak periods, with standing passengers common and services frequently operating at or near capacity.
Encouraging public transport use is an important planning objective. However, this should not assume existing services have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional demand generated by this proposal without affecting existing commuters.
Before approving a development of this scale, I believe the Department should be satisfied that the surrounding infrastructure, including roads, drainage, public transport, parks and community facilities, has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional population.
5. Privacy, visual impact and overshadowing
As one of the closest residential properties to the site, our home will experience the visual and privacy impacts of this development every day.
The proposed building will overlook neighbouring properties, including our backyard, resulting in a permanent loss of privacy. An 11-storey building in a predominantly low-rise neighbourhood will also dramatically alter our outlook and create a visually dominant presence that is inconsistent with the established character of the area.
I am also concerned about the cumulative impacts of overshadowing on neighbouring homes, gardens and public spaces.
6. Flooding and stormwater
Hubert Street is already recognised as a flood-prone area, with neighbours at the lower end of the street experiencing garage flooding during significant rainfall events several times each year.
Given these existing flood conditions, and noting that flooding was also raised during consideration of the previous proposal for this site, I request that the Department require independently verified modelling demonstrating that the proposal will not increase flood levels, alter overland flow paths or worsen flood impacts for surrounding properties.
Conclusion
I support the delivery of additional housing and recognise its importance for Sydney's future. However, I do not believe this proposal achieves an appropriate balance between housing delivery and the protection of neighbourhood character, infrastructure capacity and residential amenity.
I support redevelopment of this site. However, I believe it should occur at a scale that is proportionate to its surroundings and supported by appropriate infrastructure. Ultimately, my concern is not that this site should never be redeveloped, but that this proposal represents a scale of development that exceeds the capacity of the existing neighbourhood to absorb it.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the proposal in its current form or require it to be redesigned at a scale that is proportionate to its surroundings, consistent with the established character of the area and supported by the necessary infrastructure.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
27 July 2026
To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
RE: OBJECTION to State Significant Development Application SSD-119545240 – 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt
I am writing as a Leichhardt resident to formally object to the proposed 11-storey residential development at 40-76 William Street. While I understand the need for increased housing supply in the Inner West, this specific proposal represents a gross overdevelopment of the site that will severely degrade the local amenity, infrastructure, and character of our neighbourhood.
My objection is based on the following key concerns:
1. Unprecedented Bulk, Height, and Overshadowing
An 11-storey development is entirely out of character for the surrounding low-to-medium-density streetscape of Leichhardt. It is highly concerning that in December 2023, the NSW Land and Environment Court refused a smaller, 5-storey version of this exact development due to unacceptable bulk, height, and significant overshadowing. Proposing a development more than double that height is an egregious disregard for the Court’s previous findings and the surrounding community.
Furthermore, the extensive overshadowing from an 11-storey complex will severely impact the solar access of neighbouring properties. For a community heavily invested in residential solar generation and battery storage (myself included), plunging surrounding homes into shadow directly undermines local renewable energy efforts.
2. Severe Strain on Local Infrastructure and Childcare
The proposal seeks to add 203 apartments to a relatively constrained footprint. As a local resident raising a young family, I am deeply concerned about the immense strain this sudden population influx will place on our local infrastructure. Essential family services in the area. Particularly local preschools and early learning centres are already highly competitive and operating at or near capacity. Approving a development of this density without concurrent investment in local childcare, schooling, and community infrastructure is irresponsible.
3. Traffic Congestion and Pedestrian Safety
The inclusion of 239 car spaces across two basement levels will funnel an unacceptable volume of new daily vehicle movements into William Street. The main access to the City West Link via Norton Street and Darley Road will struggle with the additional volume of vehicles coming from William Street. Our local streets are heavily utilised by young families, pedestrians, and cyclists. Introducing this level of concentrated traffic creates severe congestion and compromises the safety of children navigating the area on their way to local parks and schools.
4. Inadequate Public Transport Infrastructure
The local public transport network is not equipped to absorb the demand of 203 new households. The nearest rapid transit option, the Inner West Light Rail (such as the Leichhardt North stop), is already operating at or beyond capacity during peak commute times. Adding hundreds of new residents without a corresponding, guaranteed upgrade to bus frequencies or light rail capacity is a recipe for gridlock and will severely impact the liveability of the area.
5. Token Affordable Housing Allocation
The developer is attempting to push this project through the Housing Delivery Authority pathway, yet only a mere 5% of the 203 proposed dwellings are designated as affordable housing. This negligible contribution to the housing crisis does not justify overriding local planning controls, ignoring previous court rulings, and permanently altering the skyline and character of Leichhardt.
I strongly urge the Department to reject this application in its current form. Any development on this site must respect the existing community, align with sensible height limits, and provide genuine infrastructure and affordable housing benefits that justify its impact.
Sincerely,
Leichhardt Resident
To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
RE: OBJECTION to State Significant Development Application SSD-119545240 – 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt
I am writing as a Leichhardt resident to formally object to the proposed 11-storey residential development at 40-76 William Street. While I understand the need for increased housing supply in the Inner West, this specific proposal represents a gross overdevelopment of the site that will severely degrade the local amenity, infrastructure, and character of our neighbourhood.
My objection is based on the following key concerns:
1. Unprecedented Bulk, Height, and Overshadowing
An 11-storey development is entirely out of character for the surrounding low-to-medium-density streetscape of Leichhardt. It is highly concerning that in December 2023, the NSW Land and Environment Court refused a smaller, 5-storey version of this exact development due to unacceptable bulk, height, and significant overshadowing. Proposing a development more than double that height is an egregious disregard for the Court’s previous findings and the surrounding community.
Furthermore, the extensive overshadowing from an 11-storey complex will severely impact the solar access of neighbouring properties. For a community heavily invested in residential solar generation and battery storage (myself included), plunging surrounding homes into shadow directly undermines local renewable energy efforts.
2. Severe Strain on Local Infrastructure and Childcare
The proposal seeks to add 203 apartments to a relatively constrained footprint. As a local resident raising a young family, I am deeply concerned about the immense strain this sudden population influx will place on our local infrastructure. Essential family services in the area. Particularly local preschools and early learning centres are already highly competitive and operating at or near capacity. Approving a development of this density without concurrent investment in local childcare, schooling, and community infrastructure is irresponsible.
3. Traffic Congestion and Pedestrian Safety
The inclusion of 239 car spaces across two basement levels will funnel an unacceptable volume of new daily vehicle movements into William Street. The main access to the City West Link via Norton Street and Darley Road will struggle with the additional volume of vehicles coming from William Street. Our local streets are heavily utilised by young families, pedestrians, and cyclists. Introducing this level of concentrated traffic creates severe congestion and compromises the safety of children navigating the area on their way to local parks and schools.
4. Inadequate Public Transport Infrastructure
The local public transport network is not equipped to absorb the demand of 203 new households. The nearest rapid transit option, the Inner West Light Rail (such as the Leichhardt North stop), is already operating at or beyond capacity during peak commute times. Adding hundreds of new residents without a corresponding, guaranteed upgrade to bus frequencies or light rail capacity is a recipe for gridlock and will severely impact the liveability of the area.
5. Token Affordable Housing Allocation
The developer is attempting to push this project through the Housing Delivery Authority pathway, yet only a mere 5% of the 203 proposed dwellings are designated as affordable housing. This negligible contribution to the housing crisis does not justify overriding local planning controls, ignoring previous court rulings, and permanently altering the skyline and character of Leichhardt.
I strongly urge the Department to reject this application in its current form. Any development on this site must respect the existing community, align with sensible height limits, and provide genuine infrastructure and affordable housing benefits that justify its impact.
Sincerely,
Leichhardt Resident
Kees Boersma
Object
Kees Boersma
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the size and scale of the proposed development for 40-76 William St Leichhardt, which demonstrates an enormously inflated building project for this site.
The fact that no height limitation is presently required to be adhered to, and the sheer number of dwellings proposed in the 5 residential buildings up to 11 storeys in height is in my opinion at odds with the character of our neighbourhood; the enormity of the physical structures will dwarf surrounding buildings in the area with implications for shadowing as detailed in the architectural documents.
Of serious concern will be the significant effects of far greater traffic flows along William St and Hubert St.
My house (No.11) is only 2 structures away from the corner of Hubert and William St, and over the 24 years I have lived here this corner has been a tricky intersection for people to negotiate. Children are regularly crossing both Hubert St and William street to get to St Columbus Catholic Primary School on time, as well as Leichhardt Public School and Leichhardt High School a little further away. Many individual journeys on foot or bicycle, crossing these streets at this location at the very bottom section of William St - a point at which motor vehicles inevitably are travelling at their highest speed. I have previously witnessed a serious accident involving a car travelling at speed and a local school student at this intersection.
The figures supplied in relation to motor vehicle movements in peak hour periods are surely a gross under-representation of what is likely, given the number of dwellings proposed and car spaces provided.
If this proposed project were to proceed there would need to be serious and significant thought given to traffic management for vehicles entering and exiting this site.
The issue of parking for the future residents of 40-76 William St is also going to be major concern. Parking in this area of Leichhardt is already a considerable issue, and the proposal put forward to provide 239 car spaces for the 203 apartments is clearly not going to allow for parking for all future residents, especially given the mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments. Parking in addition for friends, guests, family of future residents clearly indicates that the parking allowances for a project of this scale is going to be inadequate.
There is no plan indicated for where the significant number of tradespeople involved in the build will be able to park , which will obviously mean our local streets will be subjected to the these excess parking requirements. Regardless of the size of this project, for the sake of our community there needs to be arrangements in place to accommodate the extra pressure on parking in the immediate area.
Another serious concern of this project given its proposed scale, is the inadequacy of the public transport infrastructure in this particular area. In peak periods both the light rail and buses to
the city are at maximum capacity already, with waits for spaces in the light rail carriages in particular at these times very common. The addition of up to 400 new residents living in, and travelling to and from, this site requires planning to alleviate the inevitable extra pressure that will be brought to bear on our public transport infrastructure.
I personally find it extremely disappointing that the provision proposed for affordable housing is at such an incredibly low level - 15 apartments out of 203 provided for this purpose over a 15 year period only, is woefully inadequate, and is really not a reflection on the social makeup of this suburb. I would implore you to re-evaluate this possibilities for expanding this number to allow for a more significant proportion of the planned apartments to be allocated for this purpose.
All of the issues mentioned above would be at least partially mitigated by a reduction of the proposed build, to one that more sympathetically integrates with our community, and the fabric of the area.
I urge you strongly to consider my points of concern, as someone who wishes to continue to see our local community to live respectfully and sympathetically together.
The fact that no height limitation is presently required to be adhered to, and the sheer number of dwellings proposed in the 5 residential buildings up to 11 storeys in height is in my opinion at odds with the character of our neighbourhood; the enormity of the physical structures will dwarf surrounding buildings in the area with implications for shadowing as detailed in the architectural documents.
Of serious concern will be the significant effects of far greater traffic flows along William St and Hubert St.
My house (No.11) is only 2 structures away from the corner of Hubert and William St, and over the 24 years I have lived here this corner has been a tricky intersection for people to negotiate. Children are regularly crossing both Hubert St and William street to get to St Columbus Catholic Primary School on time, as well as Leichhardt Public School and Leichhardt High School a little further away. Many individual journeys on foot or bicycle, crossing these streets at this location at the very bottom section of William St - a point at which motor vehicles inevitably are travelling at their highest speed. I have previously witnessed a serious accident involving a car travelling at speed and a local school student at this intersection.
The figures supplied in relation to motor vehicle movements in peak hour periods are surely a gross under-representation of what is likely, given the number of dwellings proposed and car spaces provided.
If this proposed project were to proceed there would need to be serious and significant thought given to traffic management for vehicles entering and exiting this site.
The issue of parking for the future residents of 40-76 William St is also going to be major concern. Parking in this area of Leichhardt is already a considerable issue, and the proposal put forward to provide 239 car spaces for the 203 apartments is clearly not going to allow for parking for all future residents, especially given the mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments. Parking in addition for friends, guests, family of future residents clearly indicates that the parking allowances for a project of this scale is going to be inadequate.
There is no plan indicated for where the significant number of tradespeople involved in the build will be able to park , which will obviously mean our local streets will be subjected to the these excess parking requirements. Regardless of the size of this project, for the sake of our community there needs to be arrangements in place to accommodate the extra pressure on parking in the immediate area.
Another serious concern of this project given its proposed scale, is the inadequacy of the public transport infrastructure in this particular area. In peak periods both the light rail and buses to
the city are at maximum capacity already, with waits for spaces in the light rail carriages in particular at these times very common. The addition of up to 400 new residents living in, and travelling to and from, this site requires planning to alleviate the inevitable extra pressure that will be brought to bear on our public transport infrastructure.
I personally find it extremely disappointing that the provision proposed for affordable housing is at such an incredibly low level - 15 apartments out of 203 provided for this purpose over a 15 year period only, is woefully inadequate, and is really not a reflection on the social makeup of this suburb. I would implore you to re-evaluate this possibilities for expanding this number to allow for a more significant proportion of the planned apartments to be allocated for this purpose.
All of the issues mentioned above would be at least partially mitigated by a reduction of the proposed build, to one that more sympathetically integrates with our community, and the fabric of the area.
I urge you strongly to consider my points of concern, as someone who wishes to continue to see our local community to live respectfully and sympathetically together.
Tristan Haddow-Allen
Object
Tristan Haddow-Allen
Object
Leichhardt
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the proposal which is so grossly disproportionate in scale and so poorly planned in terms of impact to the area it can only be taken as provocation with the intent of making a still grossly outsized and inappropriate development seem a reasonable compromise by comparison. I have submitted a full objection in the attachment
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission for Proposed Development in William Street
Submission Regarding SSD-119545240
40–76 William Street, Leichhardt – Residential Flat Building Proposal
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development at 40–76 William
Street, Leichhardt. I have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the
development plans, and community feedback. I wish to register my strong objection to the
proposal in its current form.
My concerns overlap with issues raised by other residents, but I outline them here from my
own perspective and based on my own reading of the documentation.
1. Process and Consultation
The timeframe provided for community review is not reasonable for a proposal of this scale.
The volume and technical nature of the material makes meaningful engagement extremely
difficult within 14 days. Many residents particularly older community members are effectively
excluded from participating.
A development of this magnitude requires genuine consultation, not procedural notification.
2. Scale, Height and Built Form
The proposed height and massing are far beyond what is characteristic of William Street,
Francis Street, and the surrounding neighbourhood.
The EIS repeatedly asserts that impacts are “minimal” or “not unreasonable”, yet the visual
material clearly shows a dramatic change to the local environment. The proposal introduces
a built form that is entirely inconsistent with the established low-rise pattern of
development.
The increase to 11 storeys and the requested FSR uplift represent a fundamental departure
from existing planning controls. Nothing in the documentation adequately justifies this
departure.
3. Overshadowing, Privacy and Solar Access
The overshadowing diagrams and photomontages demonstrate significant loss of daylight
and sky views for neighbouring properties.
The claim that only “sky” is affected trivialises the real impact on residents’ amenity,
including solar access for homes with rooftop solar panels. These are not theoretical
concerns they are measurable losses.
4. Traffic, Parking and Transport Capacity
The traffic modelling presented does not align with lived experience in Leichhardt. William
Street, Norton Street and the City West Link already experience congestion, and public
transport is routinely at capacity during peak periods.
The assumption that residents will not rely on private vehicles is unrealistic. The proposal
does not adequately address the cumulative impact of additional vehicles, nor the strain on
already limited on-street parking.
5. Construction Impacts
The construction period estimated at up to five years will have substantial effects on
residents’ daily lives.
The EIS contains errors regarding local street names and makes assumptions about
construction traffic that do not reflect the reality of narrow streets such as North Street. The
waste management plan is generic and does not address the known presence of asbestos
and contaminated materials on the site.
6. Infrastructure and Social Impact
The proposal adds hundreds of new residents without any corresponding investment in
transport, open space, schools, or health services.
The EIS acknowledges potential negative social impacts but consistently downplays them.
The scale of this development will materially alter the character of the neighbourhood and
place pressure on already stretched infrastructure.
7. Affordable Housing
While the inclusion of affordable housing is welcome in principle, the proportion offered here
is very small relative to the overall development. It does not meet thresholds typically
required for bonus height or FSR concessions.
A token allocation should not be used to justify significant departures from planning
controls.
8. Heritage and Local Character
The Cyclops Toy Factory building is an important part of Leichhardt’s industrial heritage. The
proposed redevelopment overwhelms the original structure and erodes its visual presence.
The photomontages do not accurately depict the building’s current appearance, raising
concerns about the reliability of the visual assessment.
Conclusion
I support well-planned, well-integrated housing that respects local character and is
supported by adequate infrastructure. This proposal does not meet those standards.
It is too large, too tall, too dense, and insufficiently supported by evidence. The impacts on
residents both during construction and long-term are substantial and have not been properly
addressed.
I respectfully request that the Department reject the proposal in its current form or require a
significantly revised design that aligns with existing planning controls, local character, and
the capacity of surrounding infrastructure.
Submission Regarding SSD-119545240
40–76 William Street, Leichhardt – Residential Flat Building Proposal
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development at 40–76 William
Street, Leichhardt. I have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the
development plans, and community feedback. I wish to register my strong objection to the
proposal in its current form.
My concerns overlap with issues raised by other residents, but I outline them here from my
own perspective and based on my own reading of the documentation.
1. Process and Consultation
The timeframe provided for community review is not reasonable for a proposal of this scale.
The volume and technical nature of the material makes meaningful engagement extremely
difficult within 14 days. Many residents particularly older community members are effectively
excluded from participating.
A development of this magnitude requires genuine consultation, not procedural notification.
2. Scale, Height and Built Form
The proposed height and massing are far beyond what is characteristic of William Street,
Francis Street, and the surrounding neighbourhood.
The EIS repeatedly asserts that impacts are “minimal” or “not unreasonable”, yet the visual
material clearly shows a dramatic change to the local environment. The proposal introduces
a built form that is entirely inconsistent with the established low-rise pattern of
development.
The increase to 11 storeys and the requested FSR uplift represent a fundamental departure
from existing planning controls. Nothing in the documentation adequately justifies this
departure.
3. Overshadowing, Privacy and Solar Access
The overshadowing diagrams and photomontages demonstrate significant loss of daylight
and sky views for neighbouring properties.
The claim that only “sky” is affected trivialises the real impact on residents’ amenity,
including solar access for homes with rooftop solar panels. These are not theoretical
concerns they are measurable losses.
4. Traffic, Parking and Transport Capacity
The traffic modelling presented does not align with lived experience in Leichhardt. William
Street, Norton Street and the City West Link already experience congestion, and public
transport is routinely at capacity during peak periods.
The assumption that residents will not rely on private vehicles is unrealistic. The proposal
does not adequately address the cumulative impact of additional vehicles, nor the strain on
already limited on-street parking.
5. Construction Impacts
The construction period estimated at up to five years will have substantial effects on
residents’ daily lives.
The EIS contains errors regarding local street names and makes assumptions about
construction traffic that do not reflect the reality of narrow streets such as North Street. The
waste management plan is generic and does not address the known presence of asbestos
and contaminated materials on the site.
6. Infrastructure and Social Impact
The proposal adds hundreds of new residents without any corresponding investment in
transport, open space, schools, or health services.
The EIS acknowledges potential negative social impacts but consistently downplays them.
The scale of this development will materially alter the character of the neighbourhood and
place pressure on already stretched infrastructure.
7. Affordable Housing
While the inclusion of affordable housing is welcome in principle, the proportion offered here
is very small relative to the overall development. It does not meet thresholds typically
required for bonus height or FSR concessions.
A token allocation should not be used to justify significant departures from planning
controls.
8. Heritage and Local Character
The Cyclops Toy Factory building is an important part of Leichhardt’s industrial heritage. The
proposed redevelopment overwhelms the original structure and erodes its visual presence.
The photomontages do not accurately depict the building’s current appearance, raising
concerns about the reliability of the visual assessment.
Conclusion
I support well-planned, well-integrated housing that respects local character and is
supported by adequate infrastructure. This proposal does not meet those standards.
It is too large, too tall, too dense, and insufficiently supported by evidence. The impacts on
residents both during construction and long-term are substantial and have not been properly
addressed.
I respectfully request that the Department reject the proposal in its current form or require a
significantly revised design that aligns with existing planning controls, local character, and
the capacity of surrounding infrastructure.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
Size, Scale and Bulk of the building is completely out of character with the neighbourhood.
The building well be extremely oversized, overshadowing and creating loss of privacy and a major visual intrusion with 203 units. It will completely and permanently alter the neighbourhood character. I am concerned that the developer states that "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 on neighbouring properties. " From what I can see, the drawings clearly show overshadowing which will result in loss solar power for existing residents who will be affected. It is my understanding that the removal/depravation of sun light has significant impacts on mental health.
Traffic and parking
The IWC has already reduced traffic to 40 km within Leichhardt. The Inner West already has a high accident level of all LGAs. We have a local school very close to the proposed development and traffic in the area is already extremely congested. The development will add more traffic to already high trafficked local roads - how will the Govt propose to make this area safe?
Local residents have been campaigning for a number of years about the current traffic speeding along William street and have been campaigning for a level crossing at the intersection of Elswick and William Street so that school children can safely cross. This was only just installed this year and from what I can see and understand the installation has not had the desired effect. Darly Road is extremely, in my view, congested in peak hour and I believe that this development will further add to more cars and further congestion. In Leichhardt our residents live on very small land - block the average size so this will create density in an already dense area.
Public Transport
Our light rail is already at capacity and parking in the area is already at capacity. I commute each day to work and there are been a number of times where I already don't get on carriages because of overcrowding. Additionally there is the issue of breakdowns, maintenance and outages. The other option is the bus, which in my experience although I have caught them less freuquently has also been crowded.
Land of Environment Court
I understand that Land and Environment Court rejected this proposal in 2023 and many of the issues still remain unresolved within the new application. The key reports lack appear to me to lack detail and or independent verification and critical assessments appear incomplete or inconsistent. Having only just received notification of this application, I have only just skimmed it but am deeply concerned about the impacts it will cause the local community.
More people less greenspace
Furthermore the Inner West has an extremely low level of Greenspace. A IWC Fairer Future report states that Leichhardt has the lowest provision of existing open space per person at only 7.6 sq.m per person. Our LGA is already at the 2nd lowest provision per person in Australia. Can the State Govt advise why it want further increase density in our suburb further?
It appears that IWC are continually taking the brunt of housing density changes yet we have the 5th highest density of the 530 LGAs in Australia. I am not opposed to development done well and fitting in with the community and I believe that this isn't the case.
The building well be extremely oversized, overshadowing and creating loss of privacy and a major visual intrusion with 203 units. It will completely and permanently alter the neighbourhood character. I am concerned that the developer states that "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 on neighbouring properties. " From what I can see, the drawings clearly show overshadowing which will result in loss solar power for existing residents who will be affected. It is my understanding that the removal/depravation of sun light has significant impacts on mental health.
Traffic and parking
The IWC has already reduced traffic to 40 km within Leichhardt. The Inner West already has a high accident level of all LGAs. We have a local school very close to the proposed development and traffic in the area is already extremely congested. The development will add more traffic to already high trafficked local roads - how will the Govt propose to make this area safe?
Local residents have been campaigning for a number of years about the current traffic speeding along William street and have been campaigning for a level crossing at the intersection of Elswick and William Street so that school children can safely cross. This was only just installed this year and from what I can see and understand the installation has not had the desired effect. Darly Road is extremely, in my view, congested in peak hour and I believe that this development will further add to more cars and further congestion. In Leichhardt our residents live on very small land - block the average size so this will create density in an already dense area.
Public Transport
Our light rail is already at capacity and parking in the area is already at capacity. I commute each day to work and there are been a number of times where I already don't get on carriages because of overcrowding. Additionally there is the issue of breakdowns, maintenance and outages. The other option is the bus, which in my experience although I have caught them less freuquently has also been crowded.
Land of Environment Court
I understand that Land and Environment Court rejected this proposal in 2023 and many of the issues still remain unresolved within the new application. The key reports lack appear to me to lack detail and or independent verification and critical assessments appear incomplete or inconsistent. Having only just received notification of this application, I have only just skimmed it but am deeply concerned about the impacts it will cause the local community.
More people less greenspace
Furthermore the Inner West has an extremely low level of Greenspace. A IWC Fairer Future report states that Leichhardt has the lowest provision of existing open space per person at only 7.6 sq.m per person. Our LGA is already at the 2nd lowest provision per person in Australia. Can the State Govt advise why it want further increase density in our suburb further?
It appears that IWC are continually taking the brunt of housing density changes yet we have the 5th highest density of the 530 LGAs in Australia. I am not opposed to development done well and fitting in with the community and I believe that this isn't the case.
Dean Simpson
Object
Dean Simpson
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of North Street, Leichhardt. I object to this State Significant Development application in its current form, principally on grounds of parking and access, height and bulk, and construction impacts.
1. On-site parking must be guaranteed for every apartment
The EIS proposes 241 car spaces (224 resident, 17 visitor, 2 car-share) for 203 apartments. This aggregate figure does not guarantee each apartment its own dedicated space — some units could receive two spaces while others receive none. I request a binding condition guaranteeing one dedicated on-site space per apartment, and written confirmation of how spaces are distributed across the unit mix. An earlier iteration of this site proposed only 155 spaces for 181 apartments, showing this has been a recurring shortfall.
2. Vehicle and service access must not be via North Street
The EIS confirms both basement parking levels, the sole loading/service dock (heavy rigid vehicles up to 9.5m), and a residential lobby entry are all proposed off North Street — a narrow street already under parking pressure. I object to any vehicle, service, or heavy vehicle access via North Street and request it be relocated entirely to William Street or Francis Street. This concentration will reduce on-street parking, increase congestion, and directly affect residents' ability to access their own properties and driveways. I also request independent verification of the applicant's own Traffic Impact Assessment (prepared by Traffix, engaged by the applicant), and that loading dock/waste collection hours be restricted and made an enforceable condition of consent.
3. Height, bulk and scale are excessive and out of character
The EIS confirms (Section 7.6.5) the site has no prescribed mapped height limit, as the application seeks concurrent rezoning — meaning the applicant is effectively proposing its own height control alongside seeking approval under it. The proposal comprises buildings of 5, 8, 8 and 10 storeys, up to 11 storeys (51.4m) at the William Street corner, against a surrounding context of only 2–6 storeys. Notably, the site directly adjacent to North Street is proposed elsewhere for a maximum of only 3 storeys (11.9m) under Council's own future strategy — a stark contrast undermining the applicant's claim of a contextually sensitive design. A previous Land and Environment Court Commissioner's decision on this site specifically found a comparable building envelope unacceptable due to overshadowing, identifying solar access to North Street dwellings on the winter solstice as a key constraint. I request independently verified shadow diagrams for North Street properties, and that any height uplift be strictly limited to what is justified by robust, independently reviewed evidence of minimal amenity impact.
4. Unsubstantiated retail/commercial benefit claims
The EIS claims the project will “transform and act as a catalyst site for the renewal of North Leichhardt, through the delivery of new commercial and retail space.” However, the GFA breakdown (21,489m²) is described entirely as residential, and the ground floor (Section 3.7.1) contains only apartments, communal open space, and a loading dock — no café, shop, or retail tenancy. I request the Department disregard this unsubstantiated claimed benefit when assessing the application.
5. Construction-phase impacts, particularly worker parking
The EIS confirms a ~30-month construction program, with hours proposed 7am–5pm Monday to Friday and 8am–3pm Saturdays — six days a week for the duration of the build. The EIS's own preliminary Construction Traffic Management Plan acknowledges increased demand for on-street parking from construction workers as a recognised impact. I request a binding condition guaranteeing dedicated off-street parking for all construction workers and contractors, so North Street parking is not consumed by the workforce for the build's duration, and that the CTMP be finalised and independently reviewed before determination, not left as a preliminary document. The assessment should also account for cumulative impacts from other nearby developments (e.g. the Epicure site on Allen Street), not this site in isolation.
Conclusion
I request that consent not be granted unless the development is amended to: guarantee one dedicated on-site car space per apartment; remove all vehicle, service and heavy vehicle access via North Street, relocating it to William Street or Francis Street; substantially reduce the proposed height and bulk; disregard the unsubstantiated retail/commercial benefit claim; and impose a binding, enforceable construction management plan including guaranteed off-street worker parking. I would appreciate being kept informed of the outcome of this application.
1. On-site parking must be guaranteed for every apartment
The EIS proposes 241 car spaces (224 resident, 17 visitor, 2 car-share) for 203 apartments. This aggregate figure does not guarantee each apartment its own dedicated space — some units could receive two spaces while others receive none. I request a binding condition guaranteeing one dedicated on-site space per apartment, and written confirmation of how spaces are distributed across the unit mix. An earlier iteration of this site proposed only 155 spaces for 181 apartments, showing this has been a recurring shortfall.
2. Vehicle and service access must not be via North Street
The EIS confirms both basement parking levels, the sole loading/service dock (heavy rigid vehicles up to 9.5m), and a residential lobby entry are all proposed off North Street — a narrow street already under parking pressure. I object to any vehicle, service, or heavy vehicle access via North Street and request it be relocated entirely to William Street or Francis Street. This concentration will reduce on-street parking, increase congestion, and directly affect residents' ability to access their own properties and driveways. I also request independent verification of the applicant's own Traffic Impact Assessment (prepared by Traffix, engaged by the applicant), and that loading dock/waste collection hours be restricted and made an enforceable condition of consent.
3. Height, bulk and scale are excessive and out of character
The EIS confirms (Section 7.6.5) the site has no prescribed mapped height limit, as the application seeks concurrent rezoning — meaning the applicant is effectively proposing its own height control alongside seeking approval under it. The proposal comprises buildings of 5, 8, 8 and 10 storeys, up to 11 storeys (51.4m) at the William Street corner, against a surrounding context of only 2–6 storeys. Notably, the site directly adjacent to North Street is proposed elsewhere for a maximum of only 3 storeys (11.9m) under Council's own future strategy — a stark contrast undermining the applicant's claim of a contextually sensitive design. A previous Land and Environment Court Commissioner's decision on this site specifically found a comparable building envelope unacceptable due to overshadowing, identifying solar access to North Street dwellings on the winter solstice as a key constraint. I request independently verified shadow diagrams for North Street properties, and that any height uplift be strictly limited to what is justified by robust, independently reviewed evidence of minimal amenity impact.
4. Unsubstantiated retail/commercial benefit claims
The EIS claims the project will “transform and act as a catalyst site for the renewal of North Leichhardt, through the delivery of new commercial and retail space.” However, the GFA breakdown (21,489m²) is described entirely as residential, and the ground floor (Section 3.7.1) contains only apartments, communal open space, and a loading dock — no café, shop, or retail tenancy. I request the Department disregard this unsubstantiated claimed benefit when assessing the application.
5. Construction-phase impacts, particularly worker parking
The EIS confirms a ~30-month construction program, with hours proposed 7am–5pm Monday to Friday and 8am–3pm Saturdays — six days a week for the duration of the build. The EIS's own preliminary Construction Traffic Management Plan acknowledges increased demand for on-street parking from construction workers as a recognised impact. I request a binding condition guaranteeing dedicated off-street parking for all construction workers and contractors, so North Street parking is not consumed by the workforce for the build's duration, and that the CTMP be finalised and independently reviewed before determination, not left as a preliminary document. The assessment should also account for cumulative impacts from other nearby developments (e.g. the Epicure site on Allen Street), not this site in isolation.
Conclusion
I request that consent not be granted unless the development is amended to: guarantee one dedicated on-site car space per apartment; remove all vehicle, service and heavy vehicle access via North Street, relocating it to William Street or Francis Street; substantially reduce the proposed height and bulk; disregard the unsubstantiated retail/commercial benefit claim; and impose a binding, enforceable construction management plan including guaranteed off-street worker parking. I would appreciate being kept informed of the outcome of this application.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
My objections to the proposal concern:
Inadequate stakeholder engagement
The application is a new proposal intended to meet State Government housing objectives, but this development has prior history, including rejection by the Land and Environment Court in December 2023. The consultation process is unfair because the community has had only 14 days to review 176 pages of material and attachments, with the notice also arriving late. The documents are highly technical, leaving residents without enough time, resources, or expert advice to respond properly.
The Bulk & Scale of the development
The proposal that was rejected in December 2023 was rejected by the Land and Environment Court, mainly because it was too dense, out of character, and exceeded the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR).
This proposal is even larger than before, with more buildings, more floors, and 203 apartments, and still breaches the FSR limit. The design is not in keeping with the heritage and low-scale character of the area, particularly the historic Cyclops Toy Factory. The proposed apartment blocks would cause significant overshadowing, loss of privacy, and reduced solar access for nearby properties, including one with rooftop solar panels.
Traffic and Parking Impact
The applicant’s claim about proximity to public transport reducing car use does not reflect local conditions in Leichhardt. The light rail is already overcrowded; buses are at the mercy of traffic and also overcrowded. Many residents still need cars for work and moving around outside the CBD, and local street parking is scarce.
I believe that the proposal underestimates traffic and parking impacts, with nearby streets and intersections already heavily congested, sometimes affecting emergency access.
The applicant’s traffic assessments have been done using storage facility estimates and are unrealistic. The development will likely increase on-street parking demand from future residents.
Inadequate Local Infrastructure and Services
The proposed development will house in excess of 400 people. If as stated, the majority will use public transport, then urgent action will be required to expand and extend the light rail system between Dulwich Hill and Central as it is already overcrowded now. Bus services must be increased to allow commuters to travel to and from work in the city. The 437 route is at capacity during peak morning hours and there are long queues and waiting times in the evenings travelling from the QVB stop back to Leichhardt.
Unless the state plans to improve public transport services and parking conditions in the area, the new development will have negative impacts to the residents (both existing and new) of the area.
Not to mention the increase in demand for amenities such as childcare facilities, schools and parks.
Construction Impact
I reject the applicant’s claim that construction traffic and noise impacts will be negligible. Firstly, their street references are incorrect. There is no Atchinson Street and Mitchell Street in Leichhardt. Secondly nearby residents would face significant disruption from heavy trucks, noise, and loss of parking during construction. The construction waste plan is also too generic given likely asbestos, contaminated soil, and lead paint issues. There is no clear details on vehicle access routes which will impact residents. Local streets like North Street are very narrow and already prone to congestion.
Social and Visual Impact
The application understates the social impacts of the proposal and treats serious effects as minor or only “perceived”. The impacts of the development will be ACTUAL as they will cause real disruption to residents’ way of life, health, wellbeing, privacy, amenity, walkability, and sense of place, especially during a construction period that could last up to five years. The increased traffic, noise, dust and loss of solar access and outlook would affect nearby residents and the local community. North St Playground which is in close proximity to the proposed development site will be directly impacted. The proposal is an overdevelopment and is not consistent with the area’s existing low-rise character and will also not improve housing affordability.
The applicant has made also made inaccurate references to the Italian Forum as an Italian Cultural Centre to support their proposal. Anyone who lives in and around the area know that the Italian Forum is full of empty shop fronts and is practically lifeless in the evenings and weekends. Many attempts at revitalising it have failed. Additionally, this development is a good 15-20min walk from the Italian Forum. There will be increased parking demand IF the Italian Forum is a supporting argument.
Whilst I do not oppose development and progress, I do oppose plans for overdevelopment of housing that doesn’t come with supporting infrastructure and consideration for the existing residents, their lifestyle and wellbeing.
Inadequate stakeholder engagement
The application is a new proposal intended to meet State Government housing objectives, but this development has prior history, including rejection by the Land and Environment Court in December 2023. The consultation process is unfair because the community has had only 14 days to review 176 pages of material and attachments, with the notice also arriving late. The documents are highly technical, leaving residents without enough time, resources, or expert advice to respond properly.
The Bulk & Scale of the development
The proposal that was rejected in December 2023 was rejected by the Land and Environment Court, mainly because it was too dense, out of character, and exceeded the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR).
This proposal is even larger than before, with more buildings, more floors, and 203 apartments, and still breaches the FSR limit. The design is not in keeping with the heritage and low-scale character of the area, particularly the historic Cyclops Toy Factory. The proposed apartment blocks would cause significant overshadowing, loss of privacy, and reduced solar access for nearby properties, including one with rooftop solar panels.
Traffic and Parking Impact
The applicant’s claim about proximity to public transport reducing car use does not reflect local conditions in Leichhardt. The light rail is already overcrowded; buses are at the mercy of traffic and also overcrowded. Many residents still need cars for work and moving around outside the CBD, and local street parking is scarce.
I believe that the proposal underestimates traffic and parking impacts, with nearby streets and intersections already heavily congested, sometimes affecting emergency access.
The applicant’s traffic assessments have been done using storage facility estimates and are unrealistic. The development will likely increase on-street parking demand from future residents.
Inadequate Local Infrastructure and Services
The proposed development will house in excess of 400 people. If as stated, the majority will use public transport, then urgent action will be required to expand and extend the light rail system between Dulwich Hill and Central as it is already overcrowded now. Bus services must be increased to allow commuters to travel to and from work in the city. The 437 route is at capacity during peak morning hours and there are long queues and waiting times in the evenings travelling from the QVB stop back to Leichhardt.
Unless the state plans to improve public transport services and parking conditions in the area, the new development will have negative impacts to the residents (both existing and new) of the area.
Not to mention the increase in demand for amenities such as childcare facilities, schools and parks.
Construction Impact
I reject the applicant’s claim that construction traffic and noise impacts will be negligible. Firstly, their street references are incorrect. There is no Atchinson Street and Mitchell Street in Leichhardt. Secondly nearby residents would face significant disruption from heavy trucks, noise, and loss of parking during construction. The construction waste plan is also too generic given likely asbestos, contaminated soil, and lead paint issues. There is no clear details on vehicle access routes which will impact residents. Local streets like North Street are very narrow and already prone to congestion.
Social and Visual Impact
The application understates the social impacts of the proposal and treats serious effects as minor or only “perceived”. The impacts of the development will be ACTUAL as they will cause real disruption to residents’ way of life, health, wellbeing, privacy, amenity, walkability, and sense of place, especially during a construction period that could last up to five years. The increased traffic, noise, dust and loss of solar access and outlook would affect nearby residents and the local community. North St Playground which is in close proximity to the proposed development site will be directly impacted. The proposal is an overdevelopment and is not consistent with the area’s existing low-rise character and will also not improve housing affordability.
The applicant has made also made inaccurate references to the Italian Forum as an Italian Cultural Centre to support their proposal. Anyone who lives in and around the area know that the Italian Forum is full of empty shop fronts and is practically lifeless in the evenings and weekends. Many attempts at revitalising it have failed. Additionally, this development is a good 15-20min walk from the Italian Forum. There will be increased parking demand IF the Italian Forum is a supporting argument.
Whilst I do not oppose development and progress, I do oppose plans for overdevelopment of housing that doesn’t come with supporting infrastructure and consideration for the existing residents, their lifestyle and wellbeing.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LEICHHARDT
,
New South Wales
Message
The following submission regarding Application Number SSD-119545240 at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt is to object to over-development of the site.
Firstly, please note that the submission period of 14 days is completely unacceptable. It does not provide a legitimate timeframe for the application to be properly assessed.
The application consists of 64 documents with approximately 2,500 pages to review, thereby requiring an appropriate and meaningful submission period.
Below are some of the concerns with the current development application.
1. Scale of the Development
The height and size of the proposed development are completely out of proportion with the surrounding neighbourhood which consists of mainly low scale, character homes and quiet streets.
The Land and Environment Court in December 2023 rejected a proposal for a 5-storey development on the same site due to concerns about the inappropriate height and scale of the building. The court found it would result in “unacceptable overshadowing of the adjoining properties to the west and south in North Street. The earlier proposal has now been more than doubled to 11-storeys. The negative impact will directly increase with the scale and bulk of the proposed development.
2. Affordable Housing
If the premise of the development is to increase housing supply and subsequently improve affordability, then the 5% affordable housing limit is unacceptable.
3. Infrastructure
The large scale of the development would have a proportionally negative impact on traffic, public transport, schools, health providers, supermarkets, parks and every other infrastructure and community resource.
Rather than determine the outcome of this development in isolation, the cumulative effect of multiple developments and applications in the locality must also be considered. It is essential that adequate investment and positive improvements in infrastructure are delivered prior to approval of any major development sites in the suburb.
4. Public Transport
There is already enormous pressure on the bus and light rail systems and this development would dramatically increase the pressure. The developer acknowledges the concerns in the application. The government should not approve the development without first delivering a better public transport solution.
5. Traffic
Increased traffic will impact William Street, Allen Street, Francis Street, North Street, Hubert Street and the surrounding laneways. Aside from the noise, congestion and inconvenience, safety is a serious concern. The local roads and lanes are a high pedestrian area, used as a route to and from shops, schools, churches, light rail and as a general neighbourhood walk. Without appropriate speed limits being enforced, pedestrian safety will be compromised.
6. Privacy and Overshadowing
The height of the proposed towers will cause overshadowing and reduce privacy in nearby homes and back yards.
7. Parking
It is likely that the number of residents’ cars associated with the 203-apartment development will outnumber the number of parking spaces proposed. There is already pressure on nearby residential parking in the surrounding streets.
8. Impact during Demolition and Construction
The larger the scale of the building the longer the construction traffic, noise, dust and inconvenience will be endured by local residents.
9. Heritage
The application largely dismisses the heritage value of the surrounding neighbourhood, but it is an area which displays a distinct sense of history. As with all areas still able to maintain their historical context, the connection to the past provides a grounding and continuity that cannot be re-instated once lost. To over-develop the site would be to the detriment of the whole neighbourhood.
10. Wellbeing
The surrounding streets offer a relatively peaceful neighbourhood in an extremely busy city. These small pockets of calm provide a retreat from an otherwise hectic environment. In an environment of constant change and over-development, uncertainty and anxiety will continue to grow unless some level of stability is maintained in the local neighbourhood.
I trust you will take these points into consideration.
Firstly, please note that the submission period of 14 days is completely unacceptable. It does not provide a legitimate timeframe for the application to be properly assessed.
The application consists of 64 documents with approximately 2,500 pages to review, thereby requiring an appropriate and meaningful submission period.
Below are some of the concerns with the current development application.
1. Scale of the Development
The height and size of the proposed development are completely out of proportion with the surrounding neighbourhood which consists of mainly low scale, character homes and quiet streets.
The Land and Environment Court in December 2023 rejected a proposal for a 5-storey development on the same site due to concerns about the inappropriate height and scale of the building. The court found it would result in “unacceptable overshadowing of the adjoining properties to the west and south in North Street. The earlier proposal has now been more than doubled to 11-storeys. The negative impact will directly increase with the scale and bulk of the proposed development.
2. Affordable Housing
If the premise of the development is to increase housing supply and subsequently improve affordability, then the 5% affordable housing limit is unacceptable.
3. Infrastructure
The large scale of the development would have a proportionally negative impact on traffic, public transport, schools, health providers, supermarkets, parks and every other infrastructure and community resource.
Rather than determine the outcome of this development in isolation, the cumulative effect of multiple developments and applications in the locality must also be considered. It is essential that adequate investment and positive improvements in infrastructure are delivered prior to approval of any major development sites in the suburb.
4. Public Transport
There is already enormous pressure on the bus and light rail systems and this development would dramatically increase the pressure. The developer acknowledges the concerns in the application. The government should not approve the development without first delivering a better public transport solution.
5. Traffic
Increased traffic will impact William Street, Allen Street, Francis Street, North Street, Hubert Street and the surrounding laneways. Aside from the noise, congestion and inconvenience, safety is a serious concern. The local roads and lanes are a high pedestrian area, used as a route to and from shops, schools, churches, light rail and as a general neighbourhood walk. Without appropriate speed limits being enforced, pedestrian safety will be compromised.
6. Privacy and Overshadowing
The height of the proposed towers will cause overshadowing and reduce privacy in nearby homes and back yards.
7. Parking
It is likely that the number of residents’ cars associated with the 203-apartment development will outnumber the number of parking spaces proposed. There is already pressure on nearby residential parking in the surrounding streets.
8. Impact during Demolition and Construction
The larger the scale of the building the longer the construction traffic, noise, dust and inconvenience will be endured by local residents.
9. Heritage
The application largely dismisses the heritage value of the surrounding neighbourhood, but it is an area which displays a distinct sense of history. As with all areas still able to maintain their historical context, the connection to the past provides a grounding and continuity that cannot be re-instated once lost. To over-develop the site would be to the detriment of the whole neighbourhood.
10. Wellbeing
The surrounding streets offer a relatively peaceful neighbourhood in an extremely busy city. These small pockets of calm provide a retreat from an otherwise hectic environment. In an environment of constant change and over-development, uncertainty and anxiety will continue to grow unless some level of stability is maintained in the local neighbourhood.
I trust you will take these points into consideration.