I am writing to object to this project in the strongest possible terms.
While I support the concept of every Australian having a roof over their head and a place to call home (being both an Australian and a first home owner myself), this is not the way to achieve it.
In the first instance, to say that this development is "State Significant" in order to push it quickly through a development pathway that was not designed with this type of development in mind is a blatant misuse of this approval pathway.
My main issues with this development (in point form):
1. Loss of low-cost housing supply: providing 7 low-cost housing units while demolishing 32 low-cost housing units on the same site leads to a loss of 25 low-cost housing units. Hence this development does not provide any low-cost housing for the area (it actively reduces it).
2. No increase in housing supply: due to the nature of this area, it is highly unlikely that any units built will be purchased by those desperately in need of housing (such as lower income professionals and essential workers requiring public transport access); which is what setting these housing targets in existing suburbs was supposedly designed to achieve. The units will, instead, be sold with a large profit margin (benefiting the developer); and be bought by overseas investors (who will leave them empty for a couple of years - removing them from the housing supply - then sell at an even greater profit) or local investors (who will flout legislation and operate them as AirBnBs year-round - leaving local hotel businesses empty, pushing rental prices up, removing stock from the housing supply, and leaving actual renters still without a roof over their heads).
3. Dangerous increase in local traffic detrimental to existing residents and businesses: both additional construction and residential traffic will be unbearable in the local area as a result of this development. Not only do existing residents have to contend with buses along Lavender Street, cyclists from the new Harbour Bridge Ramp, and other (endless) local infrastructure construction on the M1 corridor; all 365 vehicles (including 174 cars, plus motorbikes and bicycles) from this new development will be using Lavender Street, turning right onto Blues Point Road, right onto Blue Street, and then right onto the Pacific Highway to go to Kirribilli, the City via Cahill Expressway/Harbour Bridge, the Western Suburbs via Anzac Bridge, or northbound via the M1 (by virtue of the fact that the end of Lavender Street nearest this development is essentially an off-ramp for traffic coming off the Harbour Bridge due to the direction and lane configuration of the Harbour Bridge/Pacific Highway junction at this point). The traffic in this area is already an absolute disaster: you can't turn right onto Blue Street from Blues Point Road without running a red light during peak hour; nor can you turn right onto the Pacific Highway without running a red light (or running over a pedestrian - those are your only choices) during peak hour. There are no green arrows; and, even if there were, traffic would be backed up for kilometres. Add in track work and buses on Blue Street and it is a complete standstill. Building a residential apartment block literally on top of a train station, then still providing parking space for 365 vehicles, is not State Significant density in a suburb with excellent transport links for those who rely on public transport to travel to and from work; it is expecting a suburb that is already under significant strain to deal with a traffic nightmare because people who can afford one of these apartments (of which I'm guessing most will be priced over the $2 million mark at the very least) will expect to be able to drive regardless. The new pedestrian/cyclist shared crossing directly outside the proposed development site on Lavender Street is already a disaster: I have seen several near-misses as cars come off the Harbour Bridge (decelerating from 70km/hr) in the afternoon, then have to stop suddenly mid-roundabout while cyclists whiz across the crossing from behind you - in your blind spot - without pausing). Adding even more traffic chaos to this area would be disastrous for all involved. This traffic nightmare will also affect local businesses, in particular Quixspede (our local mechanic, who is located in Middlemiss Street). Due to one-way streets, customers already have to go up Arthur Street and navigate narrow laneways - and more cyclists - to access the business. If surrounding on-street parking and traffic congestion around Middlemiss Street is affected, I am sure it will negatively impact their business (and they have been local to the area for at least 10 years). View Hotel in Sydney currently has offers for midweek stays; so I'm sure they don't need additional competition from a glut of new AirBnBs either.
4. Developer Creep: my understanding is that there has already been significant rezoning in the area to allow for the new Victoria Cross Metro station and Milsons Point and North Sydney railway stations. Allowing another amendment to building height limits in the area would invite further developer creep (campaigning to further increase building height limits based on the 'justification' that there is already a building just as tall in the vicinity). This is a strategy pursued by designers and builders in order to further maximise their profits; and, as outlined above, would do nothing to benefit this suburb (which, due to its location, is constantly battling these types of strategies). This also leads to my next point.
5. Negative impact on adjacent heritage conservation area, heritage buildings, and local amenities: traffic in this area isn't the only issue. Due to the natural topography of the area (steep hills and sandstone cliffs leading down to the harbour), some of the lower areas (within the heritage conservation area and where the heritage listed buildings are located) already suffer from flooding due to excess/poorly managed stormwater; damp (including mould and mildew) due to lack of sunlight; and high humidity (due to the proximity to the harbour, climate change, and the topography). Humidity and damp in heritage buildings is notoriously difficult to manage; and this proposed development will further impact them due to overshadowing; and putting additional pressure on existing stormwater and other infrastructure. I note that there will need to be new substation works completed in order to supply enough power to this building (whilst local heritage buildings are told we are unable to upgrade our electrical infrastructure due to lack of availability on the grid); and that the proposed development intends to discharge to the existing stormwater network on Lavender Street. If possible, I will provide a photo/video in the attachments of the (excessive) surface water that is currently discharged from Lavender Street and Waiwera Streets and over the cliffs into Watt Park during heavy rain. I believe this is due to both heavier rains (climate change); as well as ageing/inadequate stormwater infrastructure on the higher streets (that has not kept pace with recent development). I have previously approached North Sydney Council; and my understanding is that no works are planned to improve the stormwater management in this area.
6. Better ways to ensure Australia has enough housing supply for its residents: the first step to achieve this would be to stop permitting overseas investors to buy Australian housing. Why are we allowing people from overseas to use a property for profit when they are removing it from the housing market? The second would be to stop allowing Australian investors to use and rort the AirBnB model - banning short term rentals and subletting. This would return more housing to the market (and the tourists to the hotels, which are also suffering from this business model). The third would be to utilise legislation to remove or significantly restrict the ability of investors to use bricks and mortar as a way to avoid paying taxes or make significant profits at the expense of others (who cannot afford a roof over their heads). The fourth would be to instead provide those incentives to people to either downsize, or live in a home that accommodates the number of people in the home, and no more (I am a single person living in a studio apartment; while some couples live in 6 bedroom houses on their own, which could be used to house larger families or multi-generational families). Finally, I support adaptive reuse of existing office spaces as an environmentally friendly measure to ensure everyone has access to housing. People are increasingly working from home since the COVID lockdowns; and utilising existing buildings while adapting the interior for reuse uses less resources, and is also less taxing on surrounding residents and businesses. From what I have seen so far, I am supportive of the adaptive reuse of the existing Zurich building on Blue Street (conversion from commercial to residential apartments).
Unfortunately, I am not able to support this project on any level: it is detrimental to housing supply and the people who need it most; the environment; heritage; and the local area, local businesses and residents.

I live approximately 500m from the proposed development site and travel along Lavender Street many times a week.

I OBJECT to the proposed development because:

• Visual impact: 32 storeys are excessive compared to buildings in the local area.
• Overshadowing: 32 storeys would cause excessive overshadowing of Bradfield Park and Clark Park.
• Road safety: Vehicles entering and exiting the site would create a dangerous situation for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians travelling along Lavender Street and Alfred Street South, both during construction and subsequently.

| 1 | Gross non‑compliance with height controls; no strategic merit for the uplift | EP&A Act s4.15; North Sydney LEP 2013 (height of buildings); strategic merit test for the rezoning |
| 2 | Token affordable housing disproportionate to the concession | Public interest under s4.15; Housing SEPP affordable‑housing objectives; the rationale for the SSD/HDA pathway |
| 3 | Impact on Sydney Harbour foreshore scenic quality and public views | SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (Sydney Harbour Catchment / Foreshores & Waterways); Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways DCP |
| 4 | Heritage setting and local character | EP&A Act s4.15; LEP heritage provisions; surrounding Art Deco / foreshore context |
| 5 | Overshadowing of public open space and private amenity | s4.15 likely impacts; Apartment Design Guide solar criteria |
| 6 | Apartment Design Guide non‑compliance (tower separation, solar, ventilation, deep soil) | Apartment Design Guide; design quality |
| 7 | Aboriginal cultural heritage — adequacy of assessment and consultation | EP&A Act; Aboriginal cultural heritage due‑diligence and consultation requirements |
| 8 | Traffic, parking, deep excavation, geotechnical and construction impacts | s4.15 likely impacts; local road network capacity |
| 9 | Wind and pedestrian microclimate | s4.15 likely impacts; usability of claimed public domain |
| 10 | Strategic inconsistency and cumulative impact | Greater Sydney Region Plan; North District Plan; North Sydney LSPS; cumulative SSD precedent |

The grounds below are ordered by weight. Grounds 1–3 are the heart of the objection.

---

1. The scale grossly exceeds the controls and lacks strategic merit

The site carries a height limit of approximately 12 metres — about four storeys. The proposal seeks towers of 23 and 32 storeys: the taller tower is in the order of eight times the permitted building height. A departure of this magnitude is not a refinement of the controls; it abandons them, which is why a concurrent rezoning is required.

The onus rests with the applicant to demonstrate compelling strategic and site‑specific merit for an exceedance of this order. The EIS does not discharge it. "Completing the Middlemiss Peninsula," acting as a "unifying element," and "contributing to the skyline" are design narratives, not strategic justifications grounded in adopted policy.

I ask the Department to assess the proposal against the actual objectives of the North Sydney LEP 2013 height and FSR controls, and to require the applicant to place on the public record the proposed Gross Floor Area and resulting Floor Space Ratio, so the community can see the full extent of the uplift sought rather than only the storey count.

2. The affordable‑housing benefit is token and disproportionate to the concession

The entire public‑interest rationale for the SSD / Housing Delivery Authority pathway — and for the extraordinary uplift it enables — is the delivery of housing, and in particular affordable housing, at a scale that justifies overriding local controls.

Measured against that rationale, the offer is token. Of 163 apartments, only approximately seven are affordable — in the order of 3–4%. The community is asked to accept an eight‑fold height exceedance, permanent overshadowing and view loss, and irreversible character change, in exchange for a number of affordable dwellings that can be counted on two hands.

This is the crux of the objection: the public benefit is grossly disproportionate to the planning concession. A premium residential tower delivering a handful of affordable units is not the housing‑affordability outcome the pathway was designed to produce; it is a luxury development using an affordability mechanism as the key that unlocks unprecedented yield.

If the affordable‑housing justification is to carry the weight the applicant places on it, I ask that consent be withheld unless:
- the affordable component is materially increased;
- it is secured in perpetuity by a registered instrument (not merely a marketing commitment); and
- the scale is reduced to what demonstrated strategic merit supports — not the reverse.

3. Impact on the Sydney Harbour foreshore — scenic quality and public views

The site sits on the Lavender Bay foreshore of Sydney Harbour. To the extent the site is within, adjoins, or affects views across the Foreshores and Waterways Area (which I ask the Department to confirm on the NSW Spatial Viewer), the proposal engages the planning principles of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021 (carrying forward the former Sydney Harbour Catchment provisions) and the Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan.

Those principles establish that Sydney Harbour is a public resource to be protected for the public good, that the public good has precedence over the private good in any change proposed for the harbour or its foreshores, and that development must maintain, protect and enhance the scenic quality of the foreshores and waterways and the maintenance, protection and enhancement of views. The Land and Environment Court has refused foreshore proposals on precisely this basis where the scenic outlook into an embayment would be lost to those enjoying the waterway now and into the future.

A 32‑storey tower on this peninsula is fundamentally inconsistent with those principles. It would dominate the embayment, intrude on the harbour skyline from public vantage points across the water and foreshore, and privatise — visually — a public asset. I ask that the proposal be assessed expressly against these foreshore scenic‑quality and view‑protection provisions, and that the applicant's visual‑impact analysis be independently peer‑reviewed rather than accepted as lodged.

4. Heritage setting and local character

Lavender Bay is a low‑scale, fine‑grained harbourside context sitting among recognised heritage and cultural assets — the Art Deco precinct around Milsons Point, North Sydney Olympic Pool, Luna Park, the Harbour Bridge approaches, and Wendy Whiteley's Secret Garden. The proposal's height and bulk would dominate and diminish this setting. I ask that it be assessed against the heritage significance of its setting, not merely the heritage status of the lots themselves, and that the heritage impact statement be independently reviewed.

5. Overshadowing of public open space and private amenity

A 32‑storey tower on this peninsula will cast long shadows across surrounding properties and, critically, across public open space and recreation assets. I request that the Department:
- independently verify the applicant's shadow diagrams at mid‑winter (21 June) at hourly intervals;
- assess overshadowing of public open space and any heritage landscape (potentially including Wendy Whiteley's Secret Garden and the foreshore), not only private dwellings; and
- treat loss of solar access to public recreation space as weighing heavily against approval.

6. Apartment Design Guide non‑compliance

Two towers on a 2,305 sqm site raise serious Apartment Design Guide concerns: adequate building separation between the two towers (for privacy, outlook and solar access), the proportion of apartments achieving the minimum solar access in mid‑winter, natural cross‑ventilation rates, deep‑soil provision, and the genuine usability of the claimed communal open space given overshadowing and wind. I request that the Department require, and publish, a full ADG compliance table and independently test any claimed compliance, particularly tower separation and solar access.

7. Aboriginal cultural heritage — adequacy of assessment and consultation

The site lies on the Sydney Harbour foreshore, on the Country of the Cammeraygal people. Harbour‑foreshore landscapes carry recognised sensitivity for Aboriginal cultural heritage, including the potential for su

Objection to Proposed Development: 64–66 Lavender Street & 3–7 Middlemiss Street, Lavender Bay

Dear Sir
I wish to formally object to the proposed development at 64–66 Lavender Street and 3–7 Middlemiss Street, Lavender Bay for the following reasons.

1. Excessive Scale which is incompatible with local area
I agree that increased housing is needed for our city, my own young adult children are in need of affordable housing. However, the proposal to erect two towers of approximately 23 and 32 storeys is excessive and fundamentally incompatible in this highly constrained area. It simply does not make sense on any level to impose this on the local properties and streets and will cause incredible difficulty to the existing amenity and residents.

2. Traffic Impacts: Inappropriate Location for a substantial build
The site sits at a critical junction at the southern exit of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Lavender Street and Alfred Street already carry substantial traffic between Sydney’s CBD and North Sydney. A development of this scale will worsen congestion and compromise safety, which is already complicated by too many people and cars in the area.

Traffic already flowing through the roundabout at this junction and with the addition of the cyclists traveling to and from the bridge is already a recipe for disaster, with many people taking short cuts and driving dangerously. There is already limited parking, too many delivery vehicles, many buses and impatient drivers.

Bringing a substantial increase in residents into this area through a build of this scale is absolutely beyond common sense and totally irresponsible planning.

3. Amenity Impacts
The potential impacts on the local amenity are significant and should not be underestimated or dismissed.
• Substantial overshadowing and loss of sunlight with increased wind effects at street level are life changing for residents and visitors.
These impacts will further affect liveability for current and future residents already experiencing these effects since the construction and refurbishment of surrounding buildings which are 15 stories high. The effect of 32 stories is unimaginable.
• Diminished comfort and usability of public parks and spaces – both locals and visitors alike visit these public spaces and popular tourist destinations: ie. Wendy’s Secret Garden, the harbour walkways to Luna Park, ferry wharfs and surrounding public parks.

4. Heritage and Community Value
• Milsons Point and Lavender Bay are valued parts of Sydney’s cultural and historical fabric. They have an established character defined by low-rise, heritage streetscapes and are in a highly constrained area known for Victorian terraces, heritage parks, Wendy’s Secret Garden, Luna Park, and its unique harbour setting.

These qualities contribute to the identity of the community and its broader appeal.

5. Irreversible Impact
• The impacts of a development of this scale would be effectively permanent.
• Once built, increased traffic, overshadowing, wind effects, and changes to neighbourhood character cannot be readily reversed.
• A precautionary approach is warranted. Buildings to match current developments would surely be more suitable.
• Long-term consequences must be carefully considered, particularly where they may cause lasting harm to an established and valued community.

Conclusion
• Growth and development are important, but they must be appropriately located and sensitively designed. Developments of inappropriate scale risk permanently eroding the defining characteristics that make an area significant.
• This proposal represents overdevelopment of a constrained and historically significant site.
• Decision-makers should give full and careful consideration to the cumulative impacts outlined above.
• The area’s heritage and unique character must be protected. Buildings of similar height to existing would be far more acceptable ie: 15 stories maximum.
• Development of this scale is not seen in European cities ie: Paris, London, Rome. Cities that tourists flock to each year, to be overwhelmed by their medieval beauty, history and culture.

Please don’t destroy Sydney and its magical inner-city suburbs. History and culture need to be nurtured for time to come. Please retain the older buildings without letting them be overwhelmed by gigantic skyscrapers.

Thank you for considering this submission. I am certainly not against development nor do I deny the extreme need for affordable housing in our city – and in areas close to the city and suburbs, and not only in the cheaper areas on the outskirts of Sydney. All I ask is that these developments are done responsibly and with genuine consideration for the existing conditions and amenity of the area. And for the future liveability of the area.

Thank you

Objection to SSD-86797708
64–66 Lavender Street / 3–7 Middlemiss Street, Lavender Bay
To the Secretary, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure Submitted via the NSW Major
Projects Portal — 24 June 2026
I object to this application. I am not against new housing. I am against this proposal, for these reasons:
• It removes more affordable housing than it adds. 32 existing low-cost homes are demolished; 7
affordable units are offered. That is a net loss of 25 affordable homes in a housing crisis.
• The real number of new homes is overstated. 163 apartments minus 32 demolished is 131 net — not
the 163 used to sell the scheme.
• It is the wrong scale in the wrong place. Towers of 32 and 23 storeys sit more than 500% above the
height control, directly against the Lavender Bay Conservation Area and two adjoining social housing
blocks.
• The most vulnerable neighbours were ignored. The EIS makes no specific provision for the two social
housing blocks that will be overshadowed, overlooked and disrupted for a three-year build.
• The traffic claim is not believable. 174 car spaces feed onto Lavender Street — the only freeway exit
into the area, beside a roundabout, cycle route and crossing — yet the impact is called "negligible."
• Key traffic studies were never done. An independent review (Ref. 251105.01DA, 18 June 2026) found
no intersection counts, no road-network modelling, no queuing or swept-path analysis, no cumulative or
pedestrian-safety assessment, plus parking and bicycle non-compliances.
• The approved scheme and the exhibited scheme are different. The SEARs allowed "up to 20 storeys";
the HDA scheme in March 2026 was 20 storeys / 140 apartments. This is 32 storeys / 163 apartments —
roughly 60% taller than what was scoped.
• The developer has never built a high-rise. Central Element's completed projects range from 4 to 74
units (median ~20). This is not the proven, large-scale delivery the SSD pathway is meant to fast-track.
• The community was not properly consulted. Engagement amounted to two webinars in late January,
advertised by a single notice that most affected residents never received.
I ask the Department to refuse the application in its current form and to require any revised proposal to
respect the site's height controls, protect the adjoining Conservation Area and social housing, deliver a net
increase in affordable housing, and complete the independent traffic and safety studies the EIS omits.
Alex Milliner
79 Berry Street, North Sydney, NSW 2061

Objection to Proposed Development at Middlemiss/Arthur/Lavender Streets Lavender Bay SSD-86797708
I understand the need for more housing but I’m objecting to this proposal as I don’t believe it fulfils the needs of the actual housing which is required.
I live in North Sydney, and I know this area very well. What’s being proposed here doesn’t stack up – not on the numbers, not on the planning merits and not for the community. Dropping from 32 affordable homes to 7 is not progress in the housing crisis – it’s making it worse. The cross-ventilation for the “affordable” housing doesn’t even meet the ADG minimum standard. The tower separation doesn’t comply. The height is out of context with everything around it. The traffic situation in this area is a genuine safety issue that hasn’t been properly addressed – multiple non-compliances have been identified by a specialist consultant, and the proposed heavy vehicle entry point in Arthur Lane creates a direct hazard for residents who have no choice but to reverse into that exact space.
Wendy Whiteley’s Garden, Clark Park and Bradfield Park – these are genuinely loved parts of this area for residents, workers and visitors, including many tourists .Overshadowing of these parks for the benefit of 156 luxury apartments isn’t a trade-off I think any reasonable person would accept. The visual bulk of these towers is inappropriate for this area and is not remotely sympathetic to the adjacent Lavender Bay Conservation Area and heritage homes.
I support more housing. I think we need it. But this isn’t the answer – it’s poor development in the wrong form, in the wrong place, at the wrong scale. Scale it back, protect the affordable housing, fix the heritage interface, and sort out the traffic before this goes any further.
Medium density development would be a much more suitable development for this site.
Thank you

I am an employee at Work inc and would like to object to the proposed development at the corner of Lavender Street and Middlemiss Street.
I understand Sydney needs more housing, but I do not believe this development is appropriate for Lavender Bay. The scale of the proposed towers is completely out of character with the surrounding area and will have a significant impact on the heritage, amenity and community that make this neighbourhood so special.
One of the reasons I enjoy working at Work inc is its unique location within the heritage-listed Bay 6 precinct. Lavender Bay has a rare village feel that is increasingly difficult to find in Sydney. The historic buildings, terrace homes, harbour setting and strong sense of community create an environment that benefits residents, workers and local businesses alike. Once that character is lost, it cannot be restored.
I am concerned about the potential economic impact this development may have on Work inc and the businesses that operate from the precinct. Many members choose Work inc specifically because of its unique heritage setting, natural light, harbour surrounds and village atmosphere. These qualities are a significant part of the value proposition that attracts businesses to the space.
A multi-year construction project involving noise, dust, traffic disruption, overshadowing and reduced amenity has the potential to affect member retention, occupancy levels and future business growth. If businesses choose to relocate due to the disruption or diminished experience, this could result in a direct loss of income for Work inc and the broader local economy.
As someone who works within the precinct every day, I believe the economic impact on existing businesses has not been adequately considered. The success of Work inc has been built over many years through careful stewardship of the heritage environment and strong community connections. It would be disappointing to see those efforts undermined by a development that fails to properly account for its impact on the businesses and people already contributing to the vitality of Lavender Bay.
I am particularly concerned about the impact the development will have on solar access and amenity. Natural light is an important part of the workplace environment at Work inc, and the proposed towers will create significant overshadowing throughout the precinct. The increased density, loss of openness and potential wind impacts will fundamentally change how the area feels.
I am also concerned about the impact on the local community. Work inc is home to more than 100 businesses, and over the years we have built strong relationships with local residents, neighbouring businesses and the social housing community across the road. There is a genuine sense of harmony in Lavender Bay that has developed over many years. I believe this proposal risks disrupting that balance.
Safety is another major concern. The proposed construction traffic, particularly truck movements through Arthur Lane and surrounding streets, will create additional risks for pedestrians and cyclists. These laneways are already heavily used, and it is difficult to see how large construction vehicles can safely operate in such a constrained environment over a multi-year construction period.
I am also concerned about the loss of existing affordable rental accommodation. At a time when housing affordability is one of Sydney's biggest challenges, it seems counterproductive to remove affordable housing from the area while replacing it with a significantly smaller affordable housing outcome.
Most importantly, my objection is not to housing itself. Sydney needs more homes, but there are many more suitable locations for high-rise development than the heart of Lavender Bay. This is a unique heritage precinct that deserves thoughtful planning and a more sensitive approach.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the proposal be refused or substantially redesigned to better respect the heritage, character, amenity and community of Lavender Bay.

I am a local resident and wish to object to this proposal.

My concern is with the scale of what is proposed and whether the applicant has demonstrated that such an extraordinary increase in height and density is justified for this location.

Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and supporting documentation, I am not persuaded that the public benefits offered by the proposal are proportionate to the planning uplift being sought, nor that the impacts on the surrounding community have been adequately addressed.

The issue that concerns me most is the proposed built form.

The applicant seeks to introduce towers of a scale that would fundamentally and adversely alter the character of Lavender Bay. While the EIS repeatedly places the site within the context of Milsons Point and North Sydney, the reality is that the proposal sits directly adjacent to Lavender Bay and its established lower-rise residential environment. In my view, the proposal is simply too large for this location and would become the dominant built form at the Lavender Bay edge of the precinct.

In my view, the proposal does not provide an appropriate transition between these different urban characters. Instead, it introduces a level of height and bulk that will become the dominant built form at the Lavender Bay edge of the precinct.

I am also concerned by the effect the proposal will have on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The applicant places considerable emphasis on the provision of pocket parks, public domain improvements and a through-site pedestrian link. However, the value of these benefits is of limited significance especially when considering the impact the proposal will have on existing established parks and amenities which are of far greater value to the community.

Bradfield Park North, Clark Park and Wendy Whiteley's Secret Garden contribute significantly to the liveability of the area. Any reduction in solar access to these spaces should be treated seriously, particularly when those impacts are being balanced against relatively modest public domain benefits within the development itself.

Traffic and transport impacts are another area of concern.

The EIS concludes that the proposal will have only limited impacts on the surrounding road network. However, anyone familiar with Lavender Street, Alfred Street and Middlemiss Street understands that these roads already operate under significant pressure during peak periods. They serve multiple functions including access to the Warringah Freeway, Milsons Point, North Sydney, local residential areas, public transport, pedestrian routes and cycling infrastructure.

In this context, I am not persuaded that the estimated trip volumes adequately reflect a development providing approximately 174 parking spaces. I believe that the estimated trip volumes have been significantly underestimated for a building that provides 174 parking spaces. I am also concerned that only four visitor parking spaces are proposed for a development containing 163 apartments. There is a real risk that parking demand will be displaced into surrounding residential streets where parking is already constrained.

The construction impacts associated with a project of this scale should also not be underestimated. Extensive excavation, truck movements, dust, vibration and noise will affect nearby residents for a prolonged period. I am not persuaded that these impacts have been adequately addressed. Given the scale of infrastructure and construction activity already occurring in the broader area, these impacts should be considered cumulatively rather than in isolation.

Ultimately, I am left with the view that the proposal seeks a very substantial planning benefit while offering comparatively limited public benefit in return. While the need for additional housing is clear, I do not believe the applicant has demonstrated why a development of this particular scale is necessary or why the resulting impacts, which the EIS materially under emphasise, should be accepted.

Development at this site should only be considered within current permitted planning policies applicable to R4 zoning. The applicant has failed to demonstrate why a development of this scale is necessary or justified when substantial redevelopment could already occur under the existing planning framework applicable to the site.

For these reasons, I object to the proposal and request that it be refused.

OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT MIDDLEMISS/ARTHUR/LAVENDER STREETS, LAVENDER BAY SSD 86797708
I wish to register my strong objection to this development proposal. I have reviewed the submitted materials and find numerous deficiencies. I will provide you below with some of the deficiencies/concerns I have. FYI, I have not provided you with all of them, in the interest of not overwhelming you.
My MAJOR objections include, but are not limited to the following:
1. The affordable housing component is inadequate – a reduction of 32 to 7 homes is a significant net loss that contradicts the stated objectives of the development, and the communities clearly expressed priorities. I am strongly in favour of affordable housing, but this proposal is simply not the way to deliver it.

2. The traffic assessment identifies multiple non-compliances, and I share the concerns raised by specialist consultant Tom Steal of McLaren Project Engineering. The proposed heavy vehicles access point in Arthur Lane creates a direct and foreseeable safety risk for all residents who have no alternative but to reverse out of their garages. In my case I must reverse out of my garage, at the very end of Arthur Lane, and do a three-point turn at the 90-degree bend in the roadway to point the front of my vehicle forward to travel to the intersection of the lane and Arthur Street. The corner where I must turn in Arthur Lane is a blind corner which does not permit me to see any traffic coming up the lane. In addition, this laneway is just 5 metres wide making it too small for a “heavy vehicle” and a car to pass safely.

3. In addition to the local traffic assessment, since the recent realignment of traffic flows on the nearby Warringah Expressway, significant changes in traffic movements in the area have demonstrably occurred. Because of the amount of traffic now coming off the SHB onto the Pacific Highway, some traffic seems to be now using Lavender Street as the starting point for a ‘rat run’ around North Sydney and Crows Nest during both morning and afternoon peak hours using back streets to avoid heavy traffic. Exiting the SHB at Lavender Street during peak hours is a slow process as such traffic must give way on a busy roundabout. It is very likely that this will back up traffic right back on the left lane going north on the SHB. This has previously been observed when the Prime Ministers vehicle was held up in a traffic jam at this roundabout a year or so ago.

4. I also object to the obvious excessive overshadowing of the Lavender Bay Conservation area in:
Lavender Bay is a tiny waterfront sanctuary tucked below North Sydney’s business centre. It has enchanted some of the giants of Australian art, including our first professional landscape artist, Coonrad Martens, as well as Arthur Streeton, Roland Wakelin and Margaret Olley, in the 1970s and early 1980s, At times the homes of some of Sydney’s leading artists, among them Brett Whiteley whose ‘indefatigable’ wife Wendy is still in residence and Peter Kingston (who’s former home is being prepared for restoration). A display of some of Peter’s iconic caricatures can be found on the boardwalk below Wendy’s Secret Garden.
Clark Park is the commencement point for popular public tours of Wendy’s Secret Garden. From this spot there are extensive vistas of Lavender Bay, Harbour Bridge, Luna Park, Circular Quay, the Sydney Opera House, Barangaroo, Darling Harbour, and the Sydney CBD. Thousands of local, interstate and overseas tourists visit this iconic area every year. The overshadowing from the proposal will be devastating to the use of this area. It also attracts hundreds of visitors every weekend for picnicking at this famous vista.
Wendy’s Secret Garden The world-renowned tours of Wendy’s Secret Garden commence in Clark Point. These tours are a regular occurrence all through the summer season and provide much needed revenue for the ongoing upkeep of this unique garden. FYI, most tourists on these tours are from overseas and have made this a “must see stop” on city tours around Sydney. Overshadowing, shown in John Denton CAD Draft P/L shadow diagram, indicate the impact on this iconic garden and will impact amenity of this garden and these tours.
Bradfield Park was given to the “people of North Sydney” on the completion of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932. Some of this land has now been used to deliver a long overdue cycle ramp to the SHB cycleway. It did come at a cost with the amount of open space required. Locals and visitors have lost some of their open outdoor area used for personal exercise & walking, the exercising of pets. Unfortunately, it too will be overshadowed for part of the afternoon – see John Denton CAD Draft P/L shadow diagram. For the proponent of this development to say the shadowing on trees has minimum impact, is ignorant and appalling. Like humans, trees need sun and without it suffer root destruction.
The absence of vibration monitoring, acoustic assessment for plant and equipment, site vehicle movements and the failure to properly consider the Lavender Bay Heritage Conservation Area are also very serious omissions. Combined with the non-compliance with ADF separation distance and cross-ventilation requirement for these buildings demonstrate a failure to understand the controls in place for such building delivery.
Offering to inspect nearby Heritage properties “after” construction is completed for any damage, particularly given the age of the heritage homes, I do not consider this application to be approvable in its current form. A substantially revised proposal rectifying these omissions is required. Please note that this is nowhere near a complete list of problems with this proposal. But in the interests of demonstrating the need for greater consideration of this proposal, my comments need to be seen in conjunction with the multitude of objections this community has shared with the SSD authority.
5. Loss of Amenity
I have very strong objections to the impact on the closest residents to this construction. I refer to our long-time neighbours in the social housing buildings essentially surrounded by the development activity. These are my neighbours and an integral part of our community. Many of them are frail and vulnerable. A claimed 3-year construction timeframe will be too great an impact on their lives.

6. For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSD-86797708 be refused in its current form.
Yours faithfully,

Dear Sir / Madam,
I am in my early 20’s and have lived at a terrace house in Arthur Street, Lavender Bay since graduating
from highschool. I work as a software developer, on average I train to my office in Alexandria one day a
week, I work from home three weekdays, and I train to university in the city one day a week. I also walk
our dog everyday of the week. On the train days and dog walks, I walk past the site of the proposed two
buildings at 64–66 Lavender Street and 3–7 Middlemiss Street (the “Development”). I also have asthma,
which I manage daily.
I am making this submission in my personal capacity as a resident. Having read the EIS, I OBJECT to the
proposal. The reasons that matter most to me are practical ones, they go to my health, my ability to do
my job, and the home I spend almost all my time in, and I set them out below.
The Construction Phase Will Make My Home Unlivable
The single biggest issue for me is what the construction phase will do to this house while I am still living
and working in it.
 Asthma and construction dust. I have managed asthma since I was a child and I have occasional
flare-ups. A multi-year build of this scale, only metres from my bedroom window, will generate
sustained fine particulate matter, demolition dust and emissions from heavy equipment and
vehicles directly into the air I breathe at home. The EIS does not, in my view, adequately address
how fine particulate exposure will be managed for adjacent residents with such respiratory
conditions, and “we’ll plan for that later” is not an answer I can accept when it directly affects my
health.
 Construction noise and my job. As a software developer I need long stretches of quiet, focused time
to write code, plus video calls with work colleagues. Jackhammers, excavation, concrete pours and
trucks operating across Arthur Lane from my room will make focused work effectively impossible,
and run the risk of making me unintelligible on work calls I am required to take. This is not a
manageable disruption, it is a fundamental loss of my ability to do my job from home.
 Vibration and my workstation. My entire professional setup, multiple monitors, a desktop machine,
peripheral, lives in this house. The Geotechnical Report and the Statement of Heritage Impact both
flag that buildings like ours of this age are susceptible to vibration-induced damage during
excavation. Damage to the house I work from translates directly into damage to my livelihood.
Life Once the Towers Are Built
Even setting construction aside, the completed Development would meaningfully change the way I live
in this house.
 Light and outlook from my room. My desk faces the back of the house and my window looks out
over Arthur Lane onto the site. Right now I have sky, trees and rooflines. Under this proposal that
view is replaced by 23 and 32-storey towers roughly30 metres away. Both the natural light I rely on
through the working day and the outlook itself, something I genuinely value while spending eight or
more hours a day at a desk, are simply taken away.