1. INTRODUCTION AND STANDING

I am a resident and ratepayer who has lived in the Chatswood area for over 20 years. I submit this objection to the proposed mixed-use development at 61A–65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood (the "Mandarin Centre" site), application reference PAE-85044973, seeking a State Significant Development consent.

I strongly oppose this application. While I acknowledge the need for housing supply in Sydney, this proposal — as designed and as scaled — represents an unjustified and disproportionate imposition on a community and infrastructure network that is already operating at or beyond capacity. The application should be refused, or at minimum significantly scaled back, for the reasons set out below.


2. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL

The application proposes two residential towers of up to 32 storeys above a four-storey retail podium, delivering 235 residential units (including only 26 affordable housing units, approximately 11%), with six levels of basement parking providing 444 car spaces. Critically, the proposal seeks to:

- Increase the maximum building height controls from RL 172.15m and RL 192.9m to RL 192m and RL 205m respectively; and
- Remove the floor space ratio (FSR) control entirely.

These are not minor departures. They fundamentally rewrite the planning framework for this site, and the community and infrastructure impacts have not been adequately addressed.


3. THE HEIGHT INCREASE AND REMOVAL OF FSR CONTROLS ARE UNJUSTIFIED

The existing Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 height controls were established through a deliberate strategic planning process. The application seeks to lift one tower to RL 205m — a level that has not been endorsed by any strategic planning review for this precinct. Height limits and FSR controls exist together as complementary mechanisms: height sets the visual and contextual envelope of a building; FSR controls the total yield. Removing FSR while also increasing height removes the only remaining ceiling on development intensity.

The removal of FSR controls is especially concerning as a precedent. Once removed for this site, it creates pressure to remove them across surrounding developments. There is no demonstrated public benefit that would justify this concession — 26 affordable housing units out of 235 is an 11% contribution that barely meets minimum thresholds and is wholly disproportionate to the scale uplift being sought.


4. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY AT CAPACITY

Chatswood is one of the most intensively developed suburban centres in metropolitan Sydney. The Pacific Highway through Chatswood, Victoria Avenue, Anderson Street, and Albert Avenue itself are subject to severe peak-hour congestion that has worsened progressively as residential towers have been approved and occupied across the precinct over the past decade.

The proposal includes 444 basement car spaces across six levels. This is a substantial traffic generator. Each driveway movement compounds pressure on Albert Avenue, which is a secondary street not designed to absorb the cumulative vehicle movements from a development of this scale. The traffic impact assessment must be rigorously scrutinised — in my experience living in this area, traffic studies consistently understate real-world congestion conditions at Chatswood.

The Chatswood Metro and train stations are already operating well above comfortable capacity during peak periods. The Sydney Metro Northwest line, while adding capacity, did not eliminate crowding — it added a new demand source. Bus services on the Pacific Highway are frequently overcrowded and unreliable. 235 additional dwellings will place further pressure on a public transport network that is already struggling to serve existing residents.


5. SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE IS CRITICALLY INADEQUATE

The school capacity crisis in Chatswood is acute and well-documented. Chatswood Public School, Willoughby Girls High School, and Chatswood High School are all heavily oversubscribed. Families in the area face genuine difficulty securing local school enrolments, and demountable classrooms have become a permanent fixture at multiple schools.

This situation has been made significantly worse by the NSW Government's decision to repurpose the Chatswood Metro construction site — which was widely understood by the community to be earmarked for a new school — to residential development instead. That decision removed the only realistic prospect of meaningful school capacity relief in this area. Approving further high-density residential development in the absence of any new school capacity is irresponsible planning. The Department should not approve additional residential yield in this location without first securing a commitment to new school infrastructure.


6. OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES ARE INSUFFICIENT

Chatswood has an extremely low ratio of open space per capita compared to other Sydney suburbs. The primary parks — Chatswood Park, Beauchamp Park, and the small pocket parks around the CBD — are already heavily used and cannot accommodate additional population without degrading the amenity they provide for existing residents. Albert Avenue and the immediately surrounding streetscape offer minimal tree canopy and no public open space.

The development provides no meaningful public open space contribution. The application should not be approved without demonstrable open space outcomes — either on-site publicly accessible space or a meaningful monetary contribution to the acquisition and embellishment of public open space in the immediate precinct.


7. CUMULATIVE DENSITY AND CARRYING CAPACITY

Chatswood is already among the highest-density residential precincts in metropolitan Sydney. The suburb has seen a wave of tower approvals over the past decade, and the cumulative impact of this densification has never been subject to a comprehensive infrastructure capacity review. Each individual development is assessed in isolation, while the combined effect on roads, schools, parks, sewer, water, and community services is borne entirely by existing residents.

This proposal must be assessed not just on its individual merits but in the context of the cumulative infrastructure burden already imposed on this community. The area has reached a point where further significant density increases cannot be justified without a demonstrated and funded infrastructure response.


8. THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Under section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the consent authority must consider the public interest. Approving this application — at the scale proposed, with the removal of FSR controls, and without credible infrastructure commitments — is not in the public interest for the following reasons:

- It prioritises private development profit over community liveability;
- It rewards an application that deliberately seeks to avoid planning controls rather than work within them;
- It provides only token affordable housing (11%) that is disproportionate to the scale of planning concessions being requested;
- It sets a precedent for the removal of FSR controls that will be used to justify further departures across the Chatswood precinct; and
- It further degrades the quality of life for thousands of existing residents who have reasonable expectations that planning controls will protect their neighbourhood.


9. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

I urge the Department to refuse this application in its current form. If the application is not refused outright, I request that the following conditions be considered as a minimum:

- That the height controls be reduced to comply with the existing Willoughby LEP 2012 controls, or at most a modest and justified variation;
- That the FSR control not be removed, and that a maximum FSR consistent with the existing strategic planning framework be retained;
- That the affordable housing contribution be substantially increased, to a minimum of 15% as a condition of any uplift approval;
- That a comprehensive and independently verified cumulative infrastructure capacity assessment be completed before any consent is granted; and
- That no consent be granted until the NSW Government commits to a funded plan for additional school capacity in the Chatswood precinct.

I have lived in and contributed to this community for over 20 years. I support appropriate and well-planned housing growth. But this proposal, as designed, goes far beyond what this community's infrastructure can sustain, and I strongly urge the Department to refuse it.

My name is Yameng Chen, the owner of the lot 157, Unit 2303 37 Victor Street Chatswood NSW 2067.
My family and I have lived in the Sebel since 1996. Our apartment 2303 has been our beloved family home for over 30 years.
I do not object to the redevelopment of the site in general, but I am strongly against the overdevelopment of the site, specifically against the new proposal of two very tall (32 stories) buildings to be built in the front of the Sebel building. I do not believe the current proposal has sufficient merit to proceed.
I wish to raise 2 issues:
First, impacts to existing views of the Sebel building.
The setback of the development from the Sebel boundary is currently in breach of current State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 and the Apartment Design Guidelines. The proposal does not strike the right balance between view sharing and realising the development potential of the site. The balance is tipped too strongly in favour of the latter, while ignoring the interests of current residents and community members.
My family and I have already suffered significant view loss and loss of sunlight due to the development of apartment towers on Post Office Lane and Railway Street. Even though our balconies are dual facing, there is really only one view that is not entirely blocked, and this is the view to the south. The proposed development will eradicate what view we have left and leave us imprisoned between tall buildings on all sides.
What strikes me as particularly unfair is that the new Mandarin Centre buildings are too close to the Sebel building and there won’t be any privacy for us unless we close our curtains all the time (24 hours x 7 days). This has detrimental impact on the quality of our living and health. It will also reduce the value of our property significantly.
The second issue I wish to raise is traffic impacts and safety.
The new Mandarin Centre buildings will have over 300 new apartments with 550 car parking spaces provided. This will have negative impact on local road network which already exceeded its capacity due to over development of Chatswood CBD in recent 5-10 years.
Anyone who has attempted to get onto the Pacific Highway from the Sebel in peak hour traffic could tell you that it is challenging at best and completely unmanageable at worst. The re-development of the Mandarin Centre will make the traffic situation much worse.
A Traffic Impact Assessment will need to be performed.

The maximum height of either of the 2 towers (eastern and western) should not exceed the 10th floor of the Sage building, thus allowing all-year sunshine and 'breathing space' to the Sage and Sebel buildings residents and does not block the views of neighbouring buildings residents. The concept of a modern Mandarin Centre is favourable but not at the expense of residents on all neighbouring buildings.

Written Submission to The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure re: Objection to the Development Application No SSD-85024458 at 61A-65 Albert Avenue Chatswood concerning the demolition of the existing building and construction of a mixed-use development comprising:
• two towers up to 32 storeys with a 4-storey retail podium, and
• 235 residential units, and
• 6 basement levels containing 444 car spaces, and
• so on (hereinafter referred as “The Proposal”.
From:
Mr Arthur Ying-Lim Kwan and Mrs Rita Lai-Ching Kwan
Address: Unit 1803, 37 Victor Street Chatswood NSW 2067
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0408 881 082

Declarations:
• We have not made any reportable political donations in the last 2 years.
• We acknowledge that we accept the Department’s disclaimer and declaration, including confirmation that our submission does not contain offensive, threatening, defamatory or inappropriate content.


Date: 20 March 2026


We, Arthur Ying-Lim Kwan and Rita Lai-Ching Kwan, being immediately adjoining residents to the Mandarin Centre - the building to be redeveloped under The Proposal - submit in brief as follows:

We strongly object to The Proposal on the grounds that:

(a) When the previous plan of redeveloping Mandarin Centre was put forward in 2020, we believe a lot of residents and other interested people in Chatswood and nearby suburbs had formally raised their serious concerns over height, design, loss of views and privacy, overshadowing of Chatswood Oval, traffic congestion and so forth, that would result from the then proposal. The Proposal this time, not only has not satisfactorily addressed and resolved those concerns, but rather, has further significantly aggravated the magnitude and severeness of the issues; and

(b) In the absence of concrete and reliable assurance on the financial support and ability of the developer to have the redevelopment under The Proposal to be carried out and completed on a timely basis, it is not unreasonable for people to have the concern that in case of any unexpected financial, technical or other problems that the project becomes “rotten”, no one can predict how many years that the messy conditions would remain there before someone would take over to complete the redevelopment. In such case, the messy status will inevitably lead to unpleasant appearance and chaotic environment, giving very adverse image as well as undue inconvenience to both the Chatswood residents and visitors.

More details of our submissions are as follows:

(1) From the information available to us, the redevelopment under The Proposal is to convert the existing five-storey Mandarin Centre into two towers up to 32 storeys with a 4-storey retail podium, 235 residential units, 6 basement levels containing 444 car spaces, and so forth. Inevitably, as one can reasonably expect, this will lead to a huge increase of numbers of residents, travellers and car movements adding to the local road network in Chatswood and nearby suburbs, giving rise to the severe and irreversible damages to Chatswood which will be further mentioned in paragraph (3) below.

(2) From personal perspectives, we are resident-owners of Unit 1803, The Sebel, Level 18, 37 Victor Street Chatswood, and currently we have uninterrupted views from our lounge and kitchen, which do provide us with some reasonable visual space, source of natural light and “breathing” area, as well as reasonable privacy.

But then under The Proposal, these views will be obstructed. In effect, the new developed building(s) will be visually so close to ours that not only our privacy is totally lost, but also it would inevitably create an “overcrowding” and “oppressive” environment causing undue annoyance, or even more seriously, emotional distress to our life at home.

However, these personal loss and damage to us are far insignificant and unimportant in the context of the seriousness of the overall adverse effects and harms to the community as a whole and people at large of the Chatswood that would be resulting from The Proposal. These overall costs and harms to the public will be further described in the subsequent paragraphs.


(3) Currently Chatswood, especially the CBD, is already over-saturated with people and buildings. Here the traffic is so congested, the noise pollution so severe, and the available infrastructures and amenity facilities so extremely in shortage. Even taking into account of potential expansion, the road network, infrastructures and amenity are already far insufficient to meet people’s need.

Hence by approving The Proposal and allowing the related redevelopment would simply mean that all of a sudden, there are additions of 235 residential units, many retail shops and hundreds of car spaces, and the resulting enormous burden will be a further stretch of the said facilities beyond their breaking points to a detrimental extent. The adverse consequences, which are irreversible, will be so significant and long-lasting that the whole community will suffer for years and years, and many years to come.

(4) When we look at the current conditions, social, economic and political, both local and overseas, we can hardly have any optimistic views in the next three to five years, or maybe even a longer period, especially on the building development industry.

High stagflation risk in economies including Australia, coupled with inflation, interest rate hikes, squeeze of money supplies and lending, as well as economic uncertainty, would inhibit the Proposer’s ability to secure the necessary financing.

Middle East turmoil, including at the Strait of Hormuz, and the resulting soaring oil and fuel prices, then high transportation, labour and other building costs, not to mention the consequential supply chain instability and disruptions and the resulting materials bottlenecks, could unexpectedly shoot up the costs of redevelopment, and lead to unbearable financial hardship to the Proposer.

All these factors, not only they do not appear to be supportive to the Proposal, rather they are fatal determinants casting doubts on the Proposer’s ability to carry out and complete on time the building redevelopment under the Proposal.

So in the absence of concrete and reliable assurance on the financial support and ability of the Proposer to have the redevelopment under The Proposal to be carried out and completed on a timely basis, it is not unreasonable for us to have serious concern that in case of any unexpected financial, technical or other problems during the redevelopment process that the project becomes “rotten”, how long the messy conditions would remain there before someone would take over to complete the redevelopment? Months? Years?

If this happens, the messy conditions will inevitably lead to unpleasant appearance and chaotic environment, giving a very adverse image as well as undue inconvenience to both the Chatswood residents and visitors.


(5) In conclusion, as shown in the foregoing paragraphs, other than being beneficial merely to the Proposers and Developers concerned, The Proposal virtually gives no benefits whatsoever to the Chatswood community and its people. Not only that, the resulting social costs are so unbearably enormous, and the consequential damages are just irreversible and long-lasting.

It would only be those, as it appears to us, who are so self-interested, lack of social consciousness, and totally ignoring the public interest and welfare, could ever work out and formally put forward such abhorring redevelopment proposal.

Thus, after all factors are being considered, we believe there will be no other more appropriate decision that can be rightly made but to have The Proposal rejected.


Finally, we wish to mention that the Department should, and would as we trust, safeguard the interest and welfare of the overall community and people at large of Chatswood and nearby suburbs, and not merely the financial interest of certain individual property owners and developers, and accordingly makes its final determination to have The Proposal rejected.

Hope our above views will meet with the Department’s agreement. Thank you.

ARTHUR KWAN
CPA (Aust) B Com FCPA

RITA KWAN
Patron of Australian Chinese Charity Foundation
Governor Patron of CanRevive Cancer Foundation

I fully support the project. As a resident of Chatswood, I have to agree that whilst the Mandarin Centre is an institution in Chatswood, It is starting to show its age and a facelift is long overdue.

I also strongly agree that having a residential tower above the new centre is a no brainer, as it will significantly increase housing availability and affordability in Chatswood. I do however, wish to see the number of storeys in the residential tower to be above 40 as well as residential carparking.

I strongly object to the proposed Brookhollow Avenue Data Centre Expansion (SSD-81928961)

The concerns are:
* Noise & Light pollution
* Reduction in Air quality
* Depletion of clean drinkable water in an already drought prone country
* Economic downturn through reduction of employment opportunities
* Heating of local area in once again an already hot place with climate change already causing extreme temperatures

The list goes on, the only people who want more data centre capacity are those who are paying to rush these projects through.
No matter how you slice it these projects only harm our communities, our planet and ourselves.
The corruption in this country is simply self destructive.

Thanks,

Hi, I am writing these comments in good faith, knowing that I can't stop such a strategically important project from occurring, but wanting to ensure that both the State and Local Government's are sincere in preventing noise pollution for nearby residents. The current data centre is small and has never posed a problem before. The proposed expansion is exponentially bigger with the potential for substantial noise - particularly at night - where a constant (and irritating) humming sound is a distinct possibility. The study from the acoustic expert that was commissioned (and paid for) by the Builder presents a borderline pass scenario for homes in my immediate area, but the result is based on so many assumptions and caveats that it can hardly be taken as gospel that these projections will play out in practice. Because of this I am urging both the State Government and Local Council to commission their own independent testing throughout the building process, and upon completion of the project, to ensure that current and future residents of the area are not burdened by obtrusive and excessive noise levels. I understand that various noise mitigation options are available to the Builder and these should be rigidly enforced by Government to ensure that local residents are not adversely impacted. Regards (and many thanks), Andrew.

Objection – Brookhollow Avenue Data Centre Expansion (SSD-81928961)

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to object to the proposed expansion of the Brookhollow Avenue Data Centre at 3 Brookhollow Avenue, Norwest.

I understand that this is an expansion of an existing facility. However, the existing data centre is already located very close to residential apartment buildings, and I do not believe this justifies further increasing the size and intensity of the operation.

My main concerns are the impact on nearby residents and residential amenity, particularly:

* Noise: A data centre operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Cooling systems, mechanical equipment and backup generators have the potential to create ongoing noise, including overnight.
* Diesel generators and fuel: The proposal includes 77 diesel generators and bulk diesel storage. This raises concerns about noise, fumes, air quality, fire and safety given the proximity of homes.
* Scale and visual impact: The proposed building will be approximately 43 metres high, which is a substantial structure in close proximity to residential apartments and will have a significant visual impact.
* Air quality: Residents should not be exposed to additional diesel emissions from generator testing or operation.
* Construction and ongoing activity: The expansion will bring further construction, servicing, deliveries and maintenance activity into an area where people live.
* Cumulative impact: The existing facility already has an impact on surrounding residents. Expanding it further risks progressively reducing residential amenity and normalising an increasingly intensive industrial use next to homes.

I appreciate that data centres are important infrastructure. However, a facility of this scale, with significant power requirements, cooling infrastructure, generators and fuel storage, is more appropriately located in an area designed to accommodate intensive industrial infrastructure and with adequate separation from residential development.

I respectfully request that the application be refused.

I strongly object to SSD-81928961 and ask that the impacts on surrounding residential properties and the long-term amenity of the area be given serious consideration.

Please find enclosed our concerns regarding the 3 Brookhollow Avenue data centre redevelopment proposal.