While I am in favour of increasing supply of housing in this suburb, I am opposed to the decision regarding this project to repeal an existing height limit for construction. The impacts of repealing this limit have not been properly outlined by those pitching this project and as someone living nearby I have some worries about negative externalities for the surrounding streets.

In general,I am concerned that even with an increase of residential buildings in this suburb, prices are not becoming more accessible for people that may want to live in Burwood.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am the owner at 7 Conder Street, Burwood, which is located immediately adjacent to the proposed development site. I object to SSD-95843710 and the associated rezoning proposal for the following reasons.
1. Excessive Height and Departure from Existing Planning Controls
The proposal seeks approval for a 21-storey building with a height of approximately 76 metres, compared with the current planning control of 15 metres. This represents an extraordinary increase in scale that is out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood and far exceeds the development intensity anticipated under the existing planning framework.
The proposed increase in Floor Space Ratio from 2:1 to 8.52:1 similarly represents an excessive level of overdevelopment and would fundamentally alter the character of Conder Street.
2. Loss of Privacy to Residents of 7 Conder Street
As a resident at 7 Conder Street, I am particularly concerned about the privacy impacts arising from a 21-storey building located immediately adjacent to our building.
The proposed tower will introduce a large number of apartments with direct sightlines towards neighbouring residences. Residents of 7 Conder Street are likely to experience overlooking into living rooms, bedrooms and balconies, resulting in a significant loss of privacy and enjoyment of our homes.
3. Overshadowing and Reduced Access to Sunlight
The height and bulk of the proposed building raise serious concerns regarding overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties.
As a resident of 7 Conder Street, I am concerned that the proposal will reduce natural sunlight to apartments, balconies and communal areas. Access to sunlight is an important component of residential amenity and should not be unreasonably diminished by a development of this scale.
The Department should carefully assess the extent of overshadowing throughout the year and ensure that neighbouring residents are not subjected to unreasonable impacts.
4. Visual Bulk and Loss of Residential Amenity
The proposed building would dominate the streetscape and create an overwhelming visual presence when viewed from nearby properties.
Residents of 7 Conder Street currently enjoy a reasonable residential outlook. The introduction of a 21-storey tower immediately adjacent to our building would significantly diminish that amenity and create a sense of enclosure and overdevelopment.
5. Traffic, Parking and Safety Concerns
The proposal includes 129 apartments and will substantially increase the number of residents, visitors, service vehicles and deliveries in the area.
Conder Street and surrounding roads already experience congestion, particularly during peak periods. The additional traffic generated by this development is likely to worsen local traffic conditions, increase parking pressures and create safety concerns for pedestrians and local residents.
6. Construction Impacts
The proposal involves demolition, excavation, bulk earthworks and the construction of a large high-rise building.
Residents of neighbouring buildings, including 7 Conder Street, are likely to experience prolonged noise, vibration, dust and disruption over several years. There are also concerns regarding excavation impacts, structural risks and potential damage to neighbouring properties.
Given the proximity of the proposed excavation and construction works to existing residential buildings, the Department should exercise particular caution before approving a development of this scale.
7. Unacceptable Precedent
Approving a building that exceeds current planning controls to this extent would set a concerning precedent for future developments within Burwood. The proposed increases to both building height and floor space ratio are so substantial that they undermine the purpose of the existing planning controls and community expectations regarding appropriate development outcomes.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD-95843710 and the associated rezoning proposal.
The proposal is excessive in height, density and scale, and would result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents, including those living at 7 Conder Street. Should redevelopment of the site proceed, it should be significantly reduced in height and bulk to better respect the amenity of surrounding properties and the character of the area.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing in support of the proposed development at 17–19 Conder Street and 21 Conder Street, Burwood.

I am a local property owner residing at 106 Wentworth Road, Burwood, and I strongly support the proposal as it will contribute to addressing the significant housing shortage currently affecting Sydney and New South Wales.

There is a well-recognised need for additional housing supply, particularly in established areas that are well serviced by public transport, employment opportunities, schools, and retail centres. Developments such as this provide an opportunity for more people, including young families and first-home buyers, to live in well-connected locations rather than being forced to move further away from their communities.

I particularly welcome and appreciate the inclusion of affordable housing within the development. Affordable housing is critically needed to assist key workers, young families, and individuals seeking to establish themselves in the local area. Providing a mix of housing types and price points helps create a more diverse and inclusive community and ensures that people from different backgrounds can continue to live and work in Burwood.

As a parent, I hope that my children will one day have the opportunity to purchase a home close to where they grew up and remain near family and support networks. Increasing housing supply in suitable locations is essential if future generations are to have a realistic chance of entering the property market.

The proposed development is located within close proximity to Burwood railway station, bus services, and the Burwood town centre. Higher-density housing should be encouraged in areas with strong public transport links and access to shopping centres and community infrastructure. Concentrating growth around transport hubs is sensible planning and helps reduce reliance on private vehicles while making efficient use of existing infrastructure.

I also believe the development will contribute positively to the ongoing revitalisation of the area. New investment and additional residents will support local businesses, improve the streetscape, and strengthen Burwood's position as a vibrant strategic centre.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department to support and approve the proposed development.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours faithfully,

Benoir Saade
Owner, 106 Wentworth Road, Burwood NSW

Having worked in the area for many years I think this location is ideal for high density.
I have looked closely at the plans and the affordable units in this development will help the essential workers that live in this area.
More projects like this is needed in town centres.
I also think it's important to recognise that Burwood has already been identified as an area suitable for growth.
This project is a hop, skip and jump to the thriving Chinatown precinct its well documented as the top suburb in Australia to live in.

To whom it may concern,
I would like to offer my support for the proposed development at 17-19 and 21 Conder Street, Burwood.
I am not writing this from the point of view of someone who has only recently come across Burwood. I have worked in Burwood for a long time and have also lived here for around 20 years. I have seen the suburb in its quieter years, I have seen the growth around the station, the changes to the shops, the increase in restaurants, the busier streets, the newer apartment buildings and the way Burwood has slowly become a place that people from all over Sydney now know and visit.
Because of that, I look at this proposal as part of a bigger story for Burwood, not as an isolated building. Conder Street sits within a part of Burwood that is already connected to the center of the suburb. It is not a remote back street or a place that has no relationship to the town center. It is close to the station, the main shopping areas, local businesses, services and the day-to-day life of Burwood.
From my point of view, that matters. If Burwood is going to continue growing, then the homes should be placed where people can actually live conveniently. A person living at this site could walk to the train, walk to groceries, walk to dinner, walk to appointments and be part of the suburb without needing to drive every time they leave home. That is one of the real advantages of putting housing in a town center.
I also think there is something positive about allowing more people to actually live in Burwood, not just visit it. Burwood has become popular because it is convenient, multicultural, active and well serviced. It should not become a place only for those who already own property here or those who can afford limited housing options. More apartments in the center gives more people the chance to be part of the area.
As someone who has worked here for many years, I also know how much local businesses rely on regular activity. The cafes, restaurants, small shops, supermarkets and services all benefit from people living nearby. Office workers and visitors help during certain times, but residents support the area every day of the week. A building like this brings more people into the local economy in a steady and practical way.
I understand that some people may be uncomfortable with more development. That is fair, because change can feel like a loss when you have known a place for a long time. I have felt that myself at times. But I also think Burwood has already moved into a new stage. The question is not really whether Burwood will change, because it already has and will continue to. The question is whether that change happens in the right places. In my opinion, Conder Street is one of those places.
What I would like to see is a building that feels like it has been properly considered, especially at the street level. Developments in town centers should not only be judged by how many apartments they provide, but also by how they meet the footpath, how they look from the street, and whether they make the area feel more pleasant for people walking past. Good landscaping, a well-presented entry, quality materials and a building that is properly maintained over time would make a big difference.
I also think it is important that new buildings in Burwood contribute to the overall look and standard of the suburb. Burwood is becoming more prominent, and the quality of new development matters. A project like this should feel like it belongs in the town center and should add something positive to the area, not just provide housing above ground level. From what I have seen, the proposal appears to be heading in the right direction, and I hope those details remain a priority as it progresses.
Overall, I support the proposal because I believe it gives Burwood something it needs: more homes in a location where people can genuinely live well. It brings housing close to transport, close to shops, close to work opportunities and close to the everyday services people rely on. It also helps keep the town center active and supports the businesses that make Burwood what it is.
After working in Burwood and living here for around two decades, I believe this development is a reasonable and positive step for the suburb.

Thanks

The current five level apartment block was constructed in the last 10-15 years and is perfectly in keeping with the height of buildings as you move further from the station.

The adjacent primary school has already faced significant noise and safety risks with construction across and behind it.

The building is too much for the area. Larger developments should be focussed towards Parramatta road area and the new metro.

Adding 140 car spaces is obscene!

My objections are outlined below.

1. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 21-storey building is excessive in height, bulk and scale and is inconsistent with the established and emerging character of the locality.

The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and would introduce a built form that is visually dominant, intrusive and disproportionate when compared with surrounding development.

The height and massing of the proposal would significantly alter the character of the area and create an unacceptable visual impact on neighbouring properties and the wider streetscape.

2.Inconsistency with Local Planning Objectives
The proposal appears inconsistent with the objectives of orderly and sustainable development that underpin the Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan.

The development prioritises development yield and density over compatibility with the surrounding environment and residential amenity.

The consent authority should carefully assess whether the proposal genuinely satisfies the objectives of the relevant planning controls and strategic planning framework for the area.

3.Unacceptable Residential Amenity Impacts
The development will have substantial adverse impacts on neighbouring landowners and residents through:

• Loss of privacy due to overlooking from upper-level apartments.
• Increased visual intrusion.
• Loss of outlook.
• Increased noise generation from residents, visitors, vehicles and servicing activities.
• General reduction in residential amenity.

The cumulative effect of these impacts is unacceptable and has not been adequately addressed.

4.Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access
The proposed building height and bulk are likely to result in significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties, private open spaces, communal areas and public domain spaces.

Reduced solar access will adversely affect the enjoyment and use of neighbouring properties and may diminish property amenity and value.

The application has not demonstrated that overshadowing impacts have been minimised to an acceptable level.

5.Traffic, Parking and Road Safety Impacts
A development containing 129 apartments will generate a substantial increase in traffic movements.

The resulting impacts are likely to include:

• Increased traffic congestion.
• Delays at local intersections.
• Increased demand on already constrained road infrastructure.
• Reduced road safety for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.
• Increased on-street parking demand.

Although basement parking is proposed, visitor parking demand and household vehicle ownership patterns may result in parking overflow into surrounding streets.

The proposal places an unreasonable burden on existing transport infrastructure.

6.Inadequate Infrastructure Capacity
The development will place additional demand on public infrastructure and community facilities, including:

• Roads and intersections.
• Public transport services.
• Water supply infrastructure.
• Sewer infrastructure.
• Drainage systems.
• Parks and recreational facilities.
• Community services.

The application does not adequately demonstrate that existing infrastructure can accommodate the significant increase in population associated with the development.

7.Excavation and Geotechnical Risks
The proposal includes extensive bulk excavation and the construction of five basement levels.

Deep excavation presents significant risks to neighbouring properties, including:

• Ground settlement.
• Structural damage.
• Soil instability.
• Groundwater impacts.
• Damage to retaining walls and foundations.

The extent of excavation proposed is excessive and creates substantial uncertainty regarding potential impacts on adjoining landowners.

The precautionary principle should be applied when assessing these risks.

8.Construction Impacts
The construction phase is likely to extend over a lengthy period and cause significant disruption to surrounding residents.

Expected impacts include:

• Excessive noise.
• Dust and air pollution.
• Vibration impacts.
• Heavy vehicle movements.
• Reduced road safety.
• Construction-related traffic congestion.

The scale of excavation and construction required for five basement levels will intensify these impacts beyond what is reasonable in a residential setting.

9.Stormwater and Flooding Concerns
The proposal will substantially alter the site's natural drainage characteristics.

There is concern regarding:

• Increased stormwater runoff.
• Capacity of existing drainage infrastructure.
• Potential flooding impacts.
• Water quality impacts.
• Impacts on adjoining properties.

The application has not adequately demonstrated that all stormwater risks can be effectively managed over the life of the development.

10.Poor Built Form Outcome
The proposal does not represent a high-quality urban design outcome.

The development's excessive height, density and bulk create a building that appears driven by maximising floor space rather than achieving an appropriate relationship with the surrounding environment.

Good urban design requires development that respects local context, provides appropriate transitions to neighbouring properties and maintains residential amenity.

The proposal fails to achieve these objectives.

11.Public Interest Considerations
The proposal is contrary to the public interest because it imposes significant impacts on neighbouring landowners and the broader community while delivering limited local benefit relative to the scale of the impacts.

The adverse consequences associated with height, density, traffic, infrastructure demand, excavation risks, overshadowing and loss of amenity outweigh any claimed public benefit.

12.Undesirable Planning Precedent
Approval of this development would create an undesirable precedent for future applications seeking excessive height and density within the locality.

This would undermine strategic planning objectives and contribute to cumulative impacts on infrastructure, traffic, residential amenity and neighbourhood character.

Conclusion
After consideration of the matters required under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, I submit that the proposed development is not suitable for the site and should not be approved.

The proposal represents an excessive and inappropriate form of development that will result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties, local infrastructure, traffic conditions, solar access, privacy, visual amenity and neighbourhood character.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application.

Should the consent authority nevertheless consider approval, the proposal should be substantially redesigned to reduce its height, bulk, density, excavation extent and associated impacts before any determination is made.

To whom it may concern,

I write to make a submission objecting to the proposed demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a 21-storey building at the above site, together with the concurrent rezoning proposal seeking to amend the Burwood Local Environmental Plan 2012.

I am a nearby resident. I do not wish for my personal address or identifying details to be published. I request that this submission be treated as a confidential local resident submission to the extent permitted.

I object to the proposal for the reasons set out below.

1. Excessive height, bulk and scale

The proposed 21-storey building is excessive in the context of the surrounding area. I understand the current height limit for the site is approximately 15 metres and the land is currently zoned MU1. A 21-storey building would represent a very substantial departure from the existing planning controls and would introduce a built form that is out of scale with the surrounding residential and mixed-use environment.

The proposal appears to rely on a significant change to the planning controls rather than being a development that fits within the current planning framework. In my view, this level of uplift should not be supported unless there is clear evidence that the site, local streets, services, sunlight impacts and surrounding amenity can accommodate such a significant increase in height and density.

2. Overshadowing and loss of natural light

A major concern is the likely overshadowing impact on nearby residential properties. The proposed building is located very close to surrounding homes. A 21-storey building of this scale is likely to cast significant shadows over nearby properties, including properties to the west of the site.

The loss of natural light would have a serious impact on residential amenity. Access to sunlight is not a minor issue. It affects the daily living environment, warmth, use of outdoor areas, indoor comfort, and the general amenity of nearby homes. The proposal should not be approved unless a detailed, independent and publicly available shadow analysis clearly demonstrates that surrounding residential properties will not suffer unacceptable overshadowing.

I am particularly concerned that a building of this height, located only a short distance from nearby homes, will materially reduce sunlight access and create an unreasonable impact on residents who purchased or occupied their homes based on the existing planning controls.

3. Traffic and local road impacts

The surrounding local road network is relatively small and is not designed to accommodate a substantial increase in traffic generated by a 21-storey development. A building of this scale would likely generate increased private vehicle movements, delivery vehicles, service vehicles, waste collection, visitor parking demand and construction traffic.

The cumulative impact on the local street network should be carefully considered. Existing local roads already have limited capacity, and additional traffic may lead to congestion, safety issues, difficulty entering and exiting local streets, increased noise, and greater pressure on on-street parking.

The proposal should not be supported unless a comprehensive and realistic traffic and parking assessment demonstrates that the local road network can safely and efficiently accommodate the increased traffic generated by the development. Any assessment should consider not only the subject site in isolation, but also the cumulative impact of other recent and proposed developments in the surrounding area.

4. Inadequate transition to nearby residential properties

A 21-storey building in close proximity to existing residential properties would create an abrupt and unreasonable transition in height and density. Good planning should provide an appropriate transition between high-density development and neighbouring lower-scale residential areas.

The proposal does not appear to provide an appropriate built form relationship with nearby homes. The height, bulk and proximity of the proposed tower are likely to create unacceptable visual dominance, overlooking, overshadowing and loss of privacy.

5. The existing building is relatively new and demolition is not justified

I also note that the existing development on the site appears to be relatively new. Demolishing a comparatively recent building in order to replace it with a much taller tower raises questions about orderly planning, sustainability and whether the proposed uplift is genuinely justified.

The planning system should not encourage repeated demolition and redevelopment of relatively new buildings unless there is a clear public benefit and the impacts on surrounding residents are properly addressed.

6. Amenity impacts during construction

The demolition and construction of a 21-storey building would likely cause significant disruption to nearby residents over an extended period. This may include construction noise, dust, vibration, truck movements, traffic disruption, reduced parking availability and safety risks for pedestrians and residents.

If the proposal is progressed, strict construction management conditions would be required. However, given the scale of the proposed development and the constrained local road environment, construction impacts remain a significant concern.

7. Need for proper local planning, not site-specific overdevelopment

I understand that the application is being considered through a State Government process rather than a standard Council development application. However, the impacts will be experienced by local residents and the local road network. The fact that the proposal is linked to a rezoning does not remove the need for proper consideration of local amenity, sunlight access, traffic, infrastructure capacity and built form compatibility.

Any change to the Burwood Local Environmental Plan 2012 should be carefully justified. A large increase in building height from the existing 15-metre control to a 21-storey built form would be a significant change. It should not be supported unless there is strong evidence that the proposal produces a net public benefit and does not cause unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, I object to the proposed 21-storey development and the associated rezoning proposal.

I respectfully request that the consent authority / Department:

refuse the proposal in its current form;
require a substantially reduced height and built form that is more consistent with the existing and desired local character;
require detailed independent assessment of overshadowing, traffic, parking, infrastructure capacity, privacy, visual impact and construction impacts;
ensure that any future proposal provides an appropriate transition to surrounding residential properties; and
protect the amenity of existing residents, including sunlight access, privacy, local traffic safety and residential character.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours faithfully,
A concerned nearby resident