I object to this project for several reasons. The proposed building at 11 stories is too large of this neighbourhood. Existing dwellings will have significant overshadowing. There will also be loss of solar access to many of the local dwellings. In 2023 the Land and Environment Court refused a smaller DA for significant overshadowing and inappropriate bulk and height for the site. Only 5% of the units will be considered 'affordable properties'. This is far too few. I have concerns about the increased traffic in the neighbourhood as well as an impact on on-street parking. Many existing dwellings do not have access to off-street parking thus relying on already limited on-street parking. Furthermore, there is limited public transport in this area and it is already at capacity. There is no investment in appropriate infrastructure to accompany the increase in the local population that would be associated with a development of this size.

The size of the building is too big there aren't ootheres have spoken to this in detail. Too many fars on the roundabout going into Norton st. .

Please consider a more sustainable approach like the aAllen st estate. Only 3 stories. Lots of residents. Most of leich could be like that.

Please see the attachment for comments objecting to this project.

I would like to express my objection to the proposal for the redevelopment for William Street Leichhardt.
This submission can only be brief due to the insufficient time frame provided for feedback.
I understand that this site is appropriate for a re-development but it needs to be at an appropriate scale. Previously a 5 storey development was rejected due to the impact on existing residences. The overshadowing would easily be doubled in this new proposal resulting in huge loss of amenity. Key questions are around how will parking and additional public transport requirements be managed, and where is the emphasis on developing public transport in the inner west to lessen reliance on car travel.
There are many parts of Leichhardt being opened up to developments, but there has been no provision for additional infrastructure and the cumulative effects of all the additional properties.

The notion that some would be "affordable" is misguided . It appears that only 5% is affordable and only for 15 years . This is piecemeal and ultimately useless in addressing affordability.

A creative low rise design of 3 storeys could provide much needed housing and keep a level of amenity, rather than throwing up a random tower block with little attention to design. There is so much good design information available for densifying inner city areas, but this development has not been informed by any of it , and it is concerning that these opportunities to appropriately densify suburbs are being squandered.

I object to this project.

This is because the scale and bulk of the proposed development is disproportionately large. It is unsuitable for the location, nothwithstanding the proximity to the Light Rail. The proposed development would have a clear and significant negative amenity impact on surrounding buildings and the living conditions and well-being of residents in the adjacent and surrounding homes. These impacts include loss of privacy, views, shadowing and loss of sunlight, the impact of additional traffic in already congested streets and in North St which is very narrow and already effectively a one way street, vehicular and pedestrian safety.

I was in one of the apartments at the north end of the Allen Estate tonight. That apartment is fundamentally dependent on the northern light aspect and it is clear that the proposed building will be very close to the existing buildings and that it will overshadow several of the Allen Estate buildings, throughout the day, leaving the apartments and garden areas permanently overshadowed and shaded. The proposed buildings even appear to over-shading each other. There will be very little natural light at ground level within the property itself.

It is well known that another proposal for this location was rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court in 2023. That proposal was not as large as the latest. The reasons for rejection in 2023 are still relevant and should be carefully considered again here - why should many if not all of the issues that were identified in the 2023 decision not be relevant in 2026? The determination and statement of reasons should be taken into careful consideration for consideration of the latest proposal. The reasons included technical failings in the submission and documentation and, more importantly, substantial issues with the proposal in terms of its suitability and potential negative impact on the surrounding area and people living there. Issues such as loss of privacy and views, loss of sunlight for neighbours and the negative impact on vehicle and pedestrian access for surrounding streets were raised. Loss of natural light and over-shadowing was clearly a consideration in the 2023 decision and the latest proposal will have an even greater negative impact on the surrounding existing properties and the lives of residents. The proposal is akin to erecting an 11 story shopping centre or hospital on a small site with limited access options, along with little regard for the impact traffic will have on the surrounding streets - in particular North Street (very narrow and subject to congestion, with a children's playground right on the corner of North and William) and Francis Street (only accessible from William St and already a major point of access for the Allen Estate.

As per the statement of reasons - The site is within the Helsarmel Distinctive Neighbourhood. Other than the Pioneer Memorial Park, public open space is limited within the Helsarmel Distinctive Neighbourhood, with two small parks located on the corner of North and William Street and on the corner of Darley Road and Falls Street. Where streets are lined with trees, such as Francis and James Street between William and Allen Street, the vegetative corridor contributes significantly to the character and amenity of the streetscape. The surrounding area is largely residential and of low scale, consisting of one to two storey dwellings. The majority of the surrounding dwellings are located on small allotments and are either small freestanding dwellings, attached dwellings or semi-detached dwellings.

The NSW Land and Environment court case decision can be found here - https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/stage-1-40-76-william-street-leichhardt. Also the statement of reasons here - file:///Users/user/Downloads/Court%20Judgment%2019%20December%202023.pdf.

Though the NSW and Inner West Council approaches to development may have changed over time, this proposal is still inappropriate. The many issues remain and those that involve the impact of an even bulkier set of buildings will be even worse with this proposal. The proposed landscaped area is very small relative to the size of the overall development. To say this proposal is of State significance is simply not true.

I trust that the information I've provided in this submission will be read in detail, carefully considered and taken into account when this proposal is assessed.

Previous much smaller DA was refused on grounds now being approved without community input.
My objections are
lack of community input/involvement
the foot print and skyscape are totally inappropriate for the site and will have a massive negative impact on current bresidents and new
increased traffic in an already high peak hour volume will be increased
lack of parking on site to accommodate residents will mean vehicles forced to park on akready non avaiability of parking spaces on the street as most houses are small workers cttages with no off atreet parking
theres no plan to signifcantly improve locl open space and other necessary facilities
the disruption to existing residents will be intolerable due to the vastly increased size of the development and necssity for greaer number of construction vehicles, with noise, dust et and much longer period of construction
the visual impact in an area of mainly small workers cottages will be overwhelming and totally negative in impact.
the inclusion of affordabke housing in order to greatly increase the number of units is a furfy--no unit there will be affordable to either purchase or rent (affordable is 75-80% of surrounding market price) and after 15 yrs they return to owner to sell at the then market value (no nett gain of even pseudo affordable housing)
it will have a detrimental impact soc9ally and amenity wise.
In summary a much smaller development that would have abided with points raised in LEC2023 report should be initiated

Please see attached submission.

Please see attached submission document.
Kind regards,
Michelle M