I strongly object to the size and scale of the proposed development for 40-76 William St Leichhardt, which demonstrates an enormously inflated building project for this site.
The fact that no height limitation is presently required to be adhered to, and the sheer number of dwellings proposed in the 5 residential buildings up to 11 storeys in height is in my opinion at odds with the character of our neighbourhood; the enormity of the physical structures will dwarf surrounding buildings in the area with implications for shadowing as detailed in the architectural documents.
Of serious concern will be the significant effects of far greater traffic flows along William St and Hubert St.
My house (No.11) is only 2 structures away from the corner of Hubert and William St, and over the 24 years I have lived here this corner has been a tricky intersection for people to negotiate. Children are regularly crossing both Hubert St and William street to get to St Columbus Catholic Primary School on time, as well as Leichhardt Public School and Leichhardt High School a little further away. Many individual journeys on foot or bicycle, crossing these streets at this location at the very bottom section of William St - a point at which motor vehicles inevitably are travelling at their highest speed. I have previously witnessed a serious accident involving a car travelling at speed and a local school student at this intersection.
The figures supplied in relation to motor vehicle movements in peak hour periods are surely a gross under-representation of what is likely, given the number of dwellings proposed and car spaces provided.
If this proposed project were to proceed there would need to be serious and significant thought given to traffic management for vehicles entering and exiting this site.
The issue of parking for the future residents of 40-76 William St is also going to be major concern. Parking in this area of Leichhardt is already a considerable issue, and the proposal put forward to provide 239 car spaces for the 203 apartments is clearly not going to allow for parking for all future residents, especially given the mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments. Parking in addition for friends, guests, family of future residents clearly indicates that the parking allowances for a project of this scale is going to be inadequate.
There is no plan indicated for where the significant number of tradespeople involved in the build will be able to park , which will obviously mean our local streets will be subjected to the these excess parking requirements. Regardless of the size of this project, for the sake of our community there needs to be arrangements in place to accommodate the extra pressure on parking in the immediate area.
Another serious concern of this project given its proposed scale, is the inadequacy of the public transport infrastructure in this particular area. In peak periods both the light rail and buses to
the city are at maximum capacity already, with waits for spaces in the light rail carriages in particular at these times very common. The addition of up to 400 new residents living in, and travelling to and from, this site requires planning to alleviate the inevitable extra pressure that will be brought to bear on our public transport infrastructure.
I personally find it extremely disappointing that the provision proposed for affordable housing is at such an incredibly low level - 15 apartments out of 203 provided for this purpose over a 15 year period only, is woefully inadequate, and is really not a reflection on the social makeup of this suburb. I would implore you to re-evaluate this possibilities for expanding this number to allow for a more significant proportion of the planned apartments to be allocated for this purpose.
All of the issues mentioned above would be at least partially mitigated by a reduction of the proposed build, to one that more sympathetically integrates with our community, and the fabric of the area.
I urge you strongly to consider my points of concern, as someone who wishes to continue to see our local community to live respectfully and sympathetically together.

I strongly object to the proposal which is so grossly disproportionate in scale and so poorly planned in terms of impact to the area it can only be taken as provocation with the intent of making a still grossly outsized and inappropriate development seem a reasonable compromise by comparison. I have submitted a full objection in the attachment

Submission for Proposed Development in William Street
Submission Regarding SSD-119545240
40–76 William Street, Leichhardt – Residential Flat Building Proposal
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development at 40–76 William
Street, Leichhardt. I have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the
development plans, and community feedback. I wish to register my strong objection to the
proposal in its current form.
My concerns overlap with issues raised by other residents, but I outline them here from my
own perspective and based on my own reading of the documentation.
1. Process and Consultation
The timeframe provided for community review is not reasonable for a proposal of this scale.
The volume and technical nature of the material makes meaningful engagement extremely
difficult within 14 days. Many residents particularly older community members are effectively
excluded from participating.
A development of this magnitude requires genuine consultation, not procedural notification.
2. Scale, Height and Built Form
The proposed height and massing are far beyond what is characteristic of William Street,
Francis Street, and the surrounding neighbourhood.
The EIS repeatedly asserts that impacts are “minimal” or “not unreasonable”, yet the visual
material clearly shows a dramatic change to the local environment. The proposal introduces
a built form that is entirely inconsistent with the established low-rise pattern of
development.
The increase to 11 storeys and the requested FSR uplift represent a fundamental departure
from existing planning controls. Nothing in the documentation adequately justifies this
departure.
3. Overshadowing, Privacy and Solar Access
The overshadowing diagrams and photomontages demonstrate significant loss of daylight
and sky views for neighbouring properties.
The claim that only “sky” is affected trivialises the real impact on residents’ amenity,
including solar access for homes with rooftop solar panels. These are not theoretical
concerns they are measurable losses.
4. Traffic, Parking and Transport Capacity
The traffic modelling presented does not align with lived experience in Leichhardt. William
Street, Norton Street and the City West Link already experience congestion, and public
transport is routinely at capacity during peak periods.
The assumption that residents will not rely on private vehicles is unrealistic. The proposal
does not adequately address the cumulative impact of additional vehicles, nor the strain on
already limited on-street parking.
5. Construction Impacts
The construction period estimated at up to five years will have substantial effects on
residents’ daily lives.
The EIS contains errors regarding local street names and makes assumptions about
construction traffic that do not reflect the reality of narrow streets such as North Street. The
waste management plan is generic and does not address the known presence of asbestos
and contaminated materials on the site.
6. Infrastructure and Social Impact
The proposal adds hundreds of new residents without any corresponding investment in
transport, open space, schools, or health services.
The EIS acknowledges potential negative social impacts but consistently downplays them.
The scale of this development will materially alter the character of the neighbourhood and
place pressure on already stretched infrastructure.
7. Affordable Housing
While the inclusion of affordable housing is welcome in principle, the proportion offered here
is very small relative to the overall development. It does not meet thresholds typically
required for bonus height or FSR concessions.
A token allocation should not be used to justify significant departures from planning
controls.
8. Heritage and Local Character
The Cyclops Toy Factory building is an important part of Leichhardt’s industrial heritage. The
proposed redevelopment overwhelms the original structure and erodes its visual presence.
The photomontages do not accurately depict the building’s current appearance, raising
concerns about the reliability of the visual assessment.
Conclusion
I support well-planned, well-integrated housing that respects local character and is
supported by adequate infrastructure. This proposal does not meet those standards.
It is too large, too tall, too dense, and insufficiently supported by evidence. The impacts on
residents both during construction and long-term are substantial and have not been properly
addressed.
I respectfully request that the Department reject the proposal in its current form or require a
significantly revised design that aligns with existing planning controls, local character, and
the capacity of surrounding infrastructure.

Size, Scale and Bulk of the building is completely out of character with the neighbourhood.
The building well be extremely oversized, overshadowing and creating loss of privacy and a major visual intrusion with 203 units. It will completely and permanently alter the neighbourhood character. I am concerned that the developer states that "The proposed development for the subject site is highly suitable for the following reasons. The architectural design responds adequately to the site conditions . There will be no overshadowing impacts beyond minimal, on the surrounds and will not have any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties. " From what I can see, the drawings clearly show overshadowing which will result in loss solar power for existing residents who will be affected. It is my understanding that the removal/depravation of sun light has significant impacts on mental health.
Traffic and parking
The IWC has already reduced traffic to 40 km within Leichhardt. The Inner West already has a high accident level of all LGAs. We have a local school very close to the proposed development and traffic in the area is already extremely congested. The development will add more traffic to already high trafficked local roads - how will the Govt propose to make this area safe?
Local residents have been campaigning for a number of years about the current traffic speeding along William street and have been campaigning for a level crossing at the intersection of Elswick and William Street so that school children can safely cross. This was only just installed this year and from what I can see and understand the installation has not had the desired effect. Darly Road is extremely, in my view, congested in peak hour and I believe that this development will further add to more cars and further congestion. In Leichhardt our residents live on very small land - block the average size so this will create density in an already dense area.
Public Transport
Our light rail is already at capacity and parking in the area is already at capacity. I commute each day to work and there are been a number of times where I already don't get on carriages because of overcrowding. Additionally there is the issue of breakdowns, maintenance and outages. The other option is the bus, which in my experience although I have caught them less freuquently has also been crowded.
Land of Environment Court
I understand that Land and Environment Court rejected this proposal in 2023 and many of the issues still remain unresolved within the new application. The key reports lack appear to me to lack detail and or independent verification and critical assessments appear incomplete or inconsistent. Having only just received notification of this application, I have only just skimmed it but am deeply concerned about the impacts it will cause the local community.
More people less greenspace
Furthermore the Inner West has an extremely low level of Greenspace. A IWC Fairer Future report states that Leichhardt has the lowest provision of existing open space per person at only 7.6 sq.m per person. Our LGA is already at the 2nd lowest provision per person in Australia. Can the State Govt advise why it want further increase density in our suburb further?
It appears that IWC are continually taking the brunt of housing density changes yet we have the 5th highest density of the 530 LGAs in Australia. I am not opposed to development done well and fitting in with the community and I believe that this isn't the case.

I am a resident of North Street, Leichhardt. I object to this State Significant Development application in its current form, principally on grounds of parking and access, height and bulk, and construction impacts.
1. On-site parking must be guaranteed for every apartment
The EIS proposes 241 car spaces (224 resident, 17 visitor, 2 car-share) for 203 apartments. This aggregate figure does not guarantee each apartment its own dedicated space — some units could receive two spaces while others receive none. I request a binding condition guaranteeing one dedicated on-site space per apartment, and written confirmation of how spaces are distributed across the unit mix. An earlier iteration of this site proposed only 155 spaces for 181 apartments, showing this has been a recurring shortfall.
2. Vehicle and service access must not be via North Street
The EIS confirms both basement parking levels, the sole loading/service dock (heavy rigid vehicles up to 9.5m), and a residential lobby entry are all proposed off North Street — a narrow street already under parking pressure. I object to any vehicle, service, or heavy vehicle access via North Street and request it be relocated entirely to William Street or Francis Street. This concentration will reduce on-street parking, increase congestion, and directly affect residents' ability to access their own properties and driveways. I also request independent verification of the applicant's own Traffic Impact Assessment (prepared by Traffix, engaged by the applicant), and that loading dock/waste collection hours be restricted and made an enforceable condition of consent.
3. Height, bulk and scale are excessive and out of character
The EIS confirms (Section 7.6.5) the site has no prescribed mapped height limit, as the application seeks concurrent rezoning — meaning the applicant is effectively proposing its own height control alongside seeking approval under it. The proposal comprises buildings of 5, 8, 8 and 10 storeys, up to 11 storeys (51.4m) at the William Street corner, against a surrounding context of only 2–6 storeys. Notably, the site directly adjacent to North Street is proposed elsewhere for a maximum of only 3 storeys (11.9m) under Council's own future strategy — a stark contrast undermining the applicant's claim of a contextually sensitive design. A previous Land and Environment Court Commissioner's decision on this site specifically found a comparable building envelope unacceptable due to overshadowing, identifying solar access to North Street dwellings on the winter solstice as a key constraint. I request independently verified shadow diagrams for North Street properties, and that any height uplift be strictly limited to what is justified by robust, independently reviewed evidence of minimal amenity impact.
4. Unsubstantiated retail/commercial benefit claims
The EIS claims the project will “transform and act as a catalyst site for the renewal of North Leichhardt, through the delivery of new commercial and retail space.” However, the GFA breakdown (21,489m²) is described entirely as residential, and the ground floor (Section 3.7.1) contains only apartments, communal open space, and a loading dock — no café, shop, or retail tenancy. I request the Department disregard this unsubstantiated claimed benefit when assessing the application.
5. Construction-phase impacts, particularly worker parking
The EIS confirms a ~30-month construction program, with hours proposed 7am–5pm Monday to Friday and 8am–3pm Saturdays — six days a week for the duration of the build. The EIS's own preliminary Construction Traffic Management Plan acknowledges increased demand for on-street parking from construction workers as a recognised impact. I request a binding condition guaranteeing dedicated off-street parking for all construction workers and contractors, so North Street parking is not consumed by the workforce for the build's duration, and that the CTMP be finalised and independently reviewed before determination, not left as a preliminary document. The assessment should also account for cumulative impacts from other nearby developments (e.g. the Epicure site on Allen Street), not this site in isolation.
Conclusion
I request that consent not be granted unless the development is amended to: guarantee one dedicated on-site car space per apartment; remove all vehicle, service and heavy vehicle access via North Street, relocating it to William Street or Francis Street; substantially reduce the proposed height and bulk; disregard the unsubstantiated retail/commercial benefit claim; and impose a binding, enforceable construction management plan including guaranteed off-street worker parking. I would appreciate being kept informed of the outcome of this application.

My objections to the proposal concern:
Inadequate stakeholder engagement
The application is a new proposal intended to meet State Government housing objectives, but this development has prior history, including rejection by the Land and Environment Court in December 2023. The consultation process is unfair because the community has had only 14 days to review 176 pages of material and attachments, with the notice also arriving late. The documents are highly technical, leaving residents without enough time, resources, or expert advice to respond properly.

The Bulk & Scale of the development
The proposal that was rejected in December 2023 was rejected by the Land and Environment Court, mainly because it was too dense, out of character, and exceeded the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR).
This proposal is even larger than before, with more buildings, more floors, and 203 apartments, and still breaches the FSR limit. The design is not in keeping with the heritage and low-scale character of the area, particularly the historic Cyclops Toy Factory. The proposed apartment blocks would cause significant overshadowing, loss of privacy, and reduced solar access for nearby properties, including one with rooftop solar panels.

Traffic and Parking Impact
The applicant’s claim about proximity to public transport reducing car use does not reflect local conditions in Leichhardt. The light rail is already overcrowded; buses are at the mercy of traffic and also overcrowded. Many residents still need cars for work and moving around outside the CBD, and local street parking is scarce.
I believe that the proposal underestimates traffic and parking impacts, with nearby streets and intersections already heavily congested, sometimes affecting emergency access.
The applicant’s traffic assessments have been done using storage facility estimates and are unrealistic. The development will likely increase on-street parking demand from future residents.

Inadequate Local Infrastructure and Services
The proposed development will house in excess of 400 people. If as stated, the majority will use public transport, then urgent action will be required to expand and extend the light rail system between Dulwich Hill and Central as it is already overcrowded now. Bus services must be increased to allow commuters to travel to and from work in the city. The 437 route is at capacity during peak morning hours and there are long queues and waiting times in the evenings travelling from the QVB stop back to Leichhardt.
Unless the state plans to improve public transport services and parking conditions in the area, the new development will have negative impacts to the residents (both existing and new) of the area.
Not to mention the increase in demand for amenities such as childcare facilities, schools and parks.

Construction Impact
I reject the applicant’s claim that construction traffic and noise impacts will be negligible. Firstly, their street references are incorrect. There is no Atchinson Street and Mitchell Street in Leichhardt. Secondly nearby residents would face significant disruption from heavy trucks, noise, and loss of parking during construction. The construction waste plan is also too generic given likely asbestos, contaminated soil, and lead paint issues. There is no clear details on vehicle access routes which will impact residents. Local streets like North Street are very narrow and already prone to congestion.

Social and Visual Impact
The application understates the social impacts of the proposal and treats serious effects as minor or only “perceived”. The impacts of the development will be ACTUAL as they will cause real disruption to residents’ way of life, health, wellbeing, privacy, amenity, walkability, and sense of place, especially during a construction period that could last up to five years. The increased traffic, noise, dust and loss of solar access and outlook would affect nearby residents and the local community. North St Playground which is in close proximity to the proposed development site will be directly impacted. The proposal is an overdevelopment and is not consistent with the area’s existing low-rise character and will also not improve housing affordability.

The applicant has made also made inaccurate references to the Italian Forum as an Italian Cultural Centre to support their proposal. Anyone who lives in and around the area know that the Italian Forum is full of empty shop fronts and is practically lifeless in the evenings and weekends. Many attempts at revitalising it have failed. Additionally, this development is a good 15-20min walk from the Italian Forum. There will be increased parking demand IF the Italian Forum is a supporting argument.

Whilst I do not oppose development and progress, I do oppose plans for overdevelopment of housing that doesn’t come with supporting infrastructure and consideration for the existing residents, their lifestyle and wellbeing.

The following submission regarding Application Number SSD-119545240 at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt is to object to over-development of the site.
Firstly, please note that the submission period of 14 days is completely unacceptable. It does not provide a legitimate timeframe for the application to be properly assessed.
The application consists of 64 documents with approximately 2,500 pages to review, thereby requiring an appropriate and meaningful submission period.
Below are some of the concerns with the current development application.
1. Scale of the Development
The height and size of the proposed development are completely out of proportion with the surrounding neighbourhood which consists of mainly low scale, character homes and quiet streets.
The Land and Environment Court in December 2023 rejected a proposal for a 5-storey development on the same site due to concerns about the inappropriate height and scale of the building. The court found it would result in “unacceptable overshadowing of the adjoining properties to the west and south in North Street. The earlier proposal has now been more than doubled to 11-storeys. The negative impact will directly increase with the scale and bulk of the proposed development.
2. Affordable Housing
If the premise of the development is to increase housing supply and subsequently improve affordability, then the 5% affordable housing limit is unacceptable.
3. Infrastructure
The large scale of the development would have a proportionally negative impact on traffic, public transport, schools, health providers, supermarkets, parks and every other infrastructure and community resource.
Rather than determine the outcome of this development in isolation, the cumulative effect of multiple developments and applications in the locality must also be considered. It is essential that adequate investment and positive improvements in infrastructure are delivered prior to approval of any major development sites in the suburb.
4. Public Transport
There is already enormous pressure on the bus and light rail systems and this development would dramatically increase the pressure. The developer acknowledges the concerns in the application. The government should not approve the development without first delivering a better public transport solution.
5. Traffic
Increased traffic will impact William Street, Allen Street, Francis Street, North Street, Hubert Street and the surrounding laneways. Aside from the noise, congestion and inconvenience, safety is a serious concern. The local roads and lanes are a high pedestrian area, used as a route to and from shops, schools, churches, light rail and as a general neighbourhood walk. Without appropriate speed limits being enforced, pedestrian safety will be compromised.
6. Privacy and Overshadowing
The height of the proposed towers will cause overshadowing and reduce privacy in nearby homes and back yards.
7. Parking
It is likely that the number of residents’ cars associated with the 203-apartment development will outnumber the number of parking spaces proposed. There is already pressure on nearby residential parking in the surrounding streets.
8. Impact during Demolition and Construction
The larger the scale of the building the longer the construction traffic, noise, dust and inconvenience will be endured by local residents.
9. Heritage
The application largely dismisses the heritage value of the surrounding neighbourhood, but it is an area which displays a distinct sense of history. As with all areas still able to maintain their historical context, the connection to the past provides a grounding and continuity that cannot be re-instated once lost. To over-develop the site would be to the detriment of the whole neighbourhood.
10. Wellbeing
The surrounding streets offer a relatively peaceful neighbourhood in an extremely busy city. These small pockets of calm provide a retreat from an otherwise hectic environment. In an environment of constant change and over-development, uncertainty and anxiety will continue to grow unless some level of stability is maintained in the local neighbourhood.
I trust you will take these points into consideration.

My objection to this proposal is based on the following key issues:

- Inadequate stakeholder and community consultation
- Excessive bulk, scale and density
- Traffic, parking and transport impacts
- Construction impacts
- Visual and heritage impacts
- Insufficient supporting infrastructure
- Social and amenity impacts
- Inadequate supporting evidence and documentation

While I acknowledge the applicant's intention to contribute to the State Government's housing objectives and provide affordable housing, these objectives should not override established planning principles or justify a development that is inconsistent with the character, capacity and planning controls applicable to the site.

Procedural Fairness and Community Consultation
I believe the community has been denied procedural fairness. Residents were effectively given less than 14 days to review a 176-page Environmental Impact Statement and numerous technical appendices. Although correspondence was dated 10 July, many residents did not receive notification until 14 July, significantly reducing the available review period.

This timeframe is unreasonable for a proposal of this scale and complexity. It disadvantages residents who may be travelling (we were away during the school holidays and just returned, giving us less than a week), unwell, caring for family members, or who do not have internet access. Many elderly residents are unable to lodge online submissions, while the highly technical nature of the documentation requires expertise beyond the resources available to most members of the community.

If this constitutes community consultation, it falls well short of meaningful public engagement. Furthermore, several aspects of the application lack sufficient evidence or supporting documentation, making it difficult for the community to properly assess the proposal.

Community Position
Neither I nor many local residents oppose development or additional housing. Our concern is the scale of this proposal, inadequate planning, insufficient infrastructure, and the lack of genuine consultation.

Leichhardt is already experiencing significant pressure on transport, parking, schools, childcare, healthcare, open space and other community infrastructure. The site also sits directly beneath a major flight path, further affecting residential amenity.

Planning History
This site has an extensive planning history. Previous applications lodged in 2020 and 2022 were refused by Inner West Council, the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel, and ultimately dismissed by the Land and Environment Court in December 2023.

The Court concluded that the proposal:
- was inconsistent with the established low-scale character of the area;
- failed to justify significant breaches of the maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio (FSR);
- proposed development well beyond the intended density under the Local Environmental Plan; and
- introduced excessive built form that could not be justified.

Rather than addressing these concerns, the current proposal increases the scale of development to five buildings, up to 11 storeys and 203 apartments, making it substantially larger than the proposal previously rejected by the Court. The current building is the tallest in the entire neighbourhood (stretching almost all the way to parramatta Rd, and this proposal looks to triple the existing height.

Bulk, Scale and Density
The proposal seeks an FSR of 3.1:1 where the permitted FSR is 0.5:1—an increase of more than 600%.

The applicant also seeks planning concessions despite providing only 15 affordable housing units, representing approximately 7.4% of dwellings and around 5% of total floor area. This falls below the affordable housing thresholds generally associated with bonus height and FSR provisions under the National Housing Accord.

Planning controls exist to protect neighbourhood character and ensure orderly development. They should not be set aside simply to maximise apartment yield.

Stakeholder Engagement
The Environmental Impact Statement describes an extensive stakeholder engagement process. However, I was not aware of this proposal until receiving the Department's notification on 14 July.

Accordingly, the engagement described in the EIS cannot reasonably represent consultation undertaken for this current application and should not be relied upon as evidence of meaningful community engagement.

Visual and Heritage Impact
The proposal would substantially alter the appearance of the historic Cyclops Toy Factory, an important local heritage building dating from 1913.

The proposed additions overwhelm the existing building, diminish its architectural significance, and are inconsistent with the surrounding low-rise streetscape. Rather than demonstrating adaptive reuse, the proposal dominates the heritage fabric.

The applicant's visual material also appears to present an unrealistic representation of the site, omitting existing streetscape features and understating the visual impact of the development.

The applicant further states that overshadowing will be minimal. This is inconsistent with the architectural drawings, which clearly indicate loss of sunlight, privacy and outlook for neighbouring properties, including reduced solar access for existing rooftop solar panels.

The assertion that the loss of sky views is insignificant fails to acknowledge the cumulative effect on residential amenity.

Traffic, Parking and Transport
The traffic assessment substantially understates the existing transport constraints in Leichhardt.

Public transport, particularly the Light Rail, regularly operates beyond capacity during peak periods. Many residents rely on private vehicles because employment locations are not adequately serviced by public transport.

Parking within surrounding streets is already heavily constrained. The proposal provides insufficient evidence that on-site parking will accommodate resident demand, particularly for larger family-sized apartments. Increased on-street parking demand will inevitably affect existing residents. Currently, without any offstreet parking, we often end up parked down the street or around the corner, the addition of this may new units with the residents and their guests, we will not be able to park within blocks of our home. We have young children and this increases their risk to their safety as well.

The traffic modelling also appears to rely on unrealistic assumptions, including comparisons with the existing storage facility, which generates fundamentally different traffic patterns to a 203-unit residential development.

Existing congestion at the William Street, Norton Street and City West Link intersection is already severe during peak periods, often affecting bus movements and emergency vehicle access. The proposal provides insufficient assessment of these cumulative impacts. This also will impact the heavy traffic at peak hours off of Darley Rd to City West link, and make it almost completely inaccessible, not to mention the impact that this will flow onto Charles, Hubert and Francis.
Construction Impacts

The construction impact assessment contains significant deficiencies.

It incorrectly refers to Atchison Street and Mitchell Street, which do not exist in Leichhardt, raising concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the report.

The conclusion that construction traffic will have negligible noise impacts is not credible given the scale of the proposed works. Local residents are already experiencing significant disruption from much smaller nearby developments. Parking during this time will be even more constrained and cause dangerous conditions for residents.

The Construction Waste Management Plan is generic and does not adequately address the site's known contamination issues, including asbestos, contaminated soil and lead paint.

The application should also identify the proposed construction vehicle access routes so the community can properly assess impacts on surrounding streets, particularly North Street, which is already constrained by its narrow width and existing traffic conditions.

Conclusion
This proposal remains fundamentally inconsistent with the established planning framework for the site and surrounding area.

The issues identified by the Land and Environment Court in 2023 have not been resolved. Instead, the proposal seeks an even greater level of density, height and built form while relying on limited affordable housing outcomes to justify significant departures from planning controls. This proposal is so out of line with the low-density zoning, and is not near major public transport to use that as a justification, it would be better suited for a major train station, not a light rail line that is over capacity as is.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the application be refused.

Proposed Residential Flat Building at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt – Application No. SSD-119545240

I write to object to the proposed State Significant Development at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.

As a resident of Leichhardt, I recognise that Sydney needs additional housing and that urban infill has an important role to play. However, increased density must be delivered in a way that respects existing communities, protects residential amenity and is supported by appropriate infrastructure.

Unfortunately, I do not believe this proposal achieves those objectives.

The proposed development of 203 apartments across five buildings, reaching up to eleven storeys, together with the accompanying request to dramatically increase the site's permissible Floor Space Ratio from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1, represents an excessive level of development that is inconsistent with the established character of Leichhardt and the expectations of the local community.

1. Inappropriate height, bulk and scale

The proposed eleven-storey buildings are fundamentally out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.

Leichhardt is valued for its human scale, heritage character, established streetscapes and relatively low to medium-density development. While redevelopment is expected over time, new buildings should contribute positively to the neighbourhood rather than dominate it.

The proposal introduces a built form that is significantly larger than surrounding development and would become a visually dominant feature of William Street and the surrounding residential area.

Good planning requires new development to transition sensitively between different building forms. This proposal instead creates an abrupt change in height and bulk that is inconsistent with the existing urban landscape.

Approving a development of this scale would fundamentally alter the character of Leichhardt and undermine the qualities that make it an attractive place to live.

2. Excessive planning uplift without sufficient public benefit

This application is accompanied by a request to substantially amend the planning controls applying to the site.

Increasing the Floor Space Ratio from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1 represents a significant planning concession. This is more than six times the amount of floor space currently allowed under the planning records.

Such an extraordinary increase should only occur where there is a clear and enduring public benefit. In saying that, the proposal offers only 5% affordable housing for a limited period of 15 years. This is a relatively modest public benefit when weighed against the significant increase in building height, density and development yield being sought.

If planning controls are to be relaxed to this extent, the broader community should receive a substantially greater long-term benefit.

3. Overshadowing and loss of residential amenity

One of the defining characteristics of Leichhardt is its liveability. Natural sunlight, privacy, open outlook and access to fresh air contribute significantly to residents' health and wellbeing. Buildings of up to eleven storeys will inevitably increase overshadowing of neighbouring homes, apartments, communal open spaces and surrounding public areas. While some change is expected as cities grow, development should not come at the expense of the residential amenity enjoyed by existing communities.

The Department should carefully consider the cumulative impacts of overshadowing, visual bulk and loss of privacy, not only for immediately adjoining properties but across the broader neighbourhood.

4. Pressure on existing infrastructure

Leichhardt has experienced significant residential growth over recent years and is expected to accommodate further growth in the future. However, population growth must be matched by investment in essential infrastructure.

The proposal will place additional demand on:

local roads;
public transport;
schools;
healthcare services;
parks and recreational facilities;
community infrastructure; and
pedestrian and cycling networks.
Approving major residential developments before corresponding infrastructure improvements are delivered risks reducing the quality of life for both current and future residents.

Growth should be planned, not simply accelerated.

5. Traffic and transport

A development of this size will inevitably increase traffic movements during both construction and occupation.

Although basement parking is proposed, the development will generate additional private vehicle trips, deliveries, service vehicles and visitor traffic throughout the surrounding street network.

William Street, Francis Street and surrounding roads already experience congestion during peak periods.

The cumulative effect of multiple large developments occurring throughout Leichhardt should be considered rather than assessing this proposal in isolation.

6. Construction impacts

The proposal involves demolition, excavation, basement construction and a large-scale residential build. Construction activity of this magnitude will result in prolonged disruption to nearby residents and businesses through:

heavy vehicle movements;
noise;
vibration;
dust;
road occupation;
construction traffic; and
reduced residential amenity.
While construction management plans can reduce some impacts, they cannot eliminate them.

These impacts should be carefully weighed against the benefits of the proposal.

7. Planning precedent

Perhaps my greatest concern is the precedent this proposal may establish. Planning decisions are rarely isolated. Approving a development of this height and density may encourage similar proposals elsewhere in Leichhardt. Over time this could fundamentally change the character of the suburb through incremental approval of increasingly intensive developments that bear little relationship to the existing built environment.

Leichhardt deserves a coherent long-term planning vision rather than piecemeal increases in density driven by individual applications.

8. Previous planning history and the need for rigorous assessment.

This site has a significant planning history that should be given careful consideration.

Previous proposals for redevelopment of 40–76 William Street were refused following detailed assessment by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and, subsequently, by the Land and Environment Court. The Court ultimately dismissed the developer's appeals and upheld the refusal of both the Stage 1 concept proposal and the Stage 2 development application.

This planning history is highly relevant. It demonstrates that concerns regarding the site's redevelopment have previously been examined in detail by independent decision-makers and found to be significant enough to warrant refusal.

While I acknowledge that this is a new proposal, it is also a substantially more intensive proposal, seeking buildings of up to eleven storeys together with a dramatic increase in the permissible Floor Space Ratio.

For this reason, I respectfully request that the consent authority carefully examine whether the concerns identified in previous assessments have been genuinely resolved or whether they remain applicable to the current proposal.

Under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the consent authority is required to consider the likely impacts of the development, the suitability of the site, public submissions and the public interest before determining the application. In my view, the previous planning history means these matters warrant particularly careful scrutiny in this case.

The Department should clearly explain in its assessment report how each of the significant issues identified in the previous refusals has been addressed. If those issues remain unresolved, or have been exacerbated by the increased height, density and scale of the current proposal, they should weigh heavily against approval.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse SSD-119545240 in its current form.

If redevelopment of this site is to proceed, it should be substantially redesigned to:

reduce the overall height and building bulk;
provide a more appropriate transition to surrounding development;
minimise overshadowing and privacy impacts;
better reflect the established character of Leichhardt;
demonstrate that adequate infrastructure exists to support future residents; and
deliver a significantly greater and more enduring public benefit in exchange for the substantial planning uplift being sought.

Leichhardt is a unique and highly valued community. Future development should enhance that character rather than diminish it. While I support thoughtful, sustainable growth, I do not believe this proposal represents good planning or delivers an appropriate outcome for the local community.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I am the owner and live in Hubert Street, Leichhardt, with my husband and two children. We are very close to the proposed development, and my building and household will be directly affected by it. My concerns are with the huge size of this particular proposal and that will (i) create excessive shadows, (ii) reduce natural light, (iii) create excessive an unnatural light spill, (iv) negatively impact on traffic and road safety and (v) overwhelm current transport services.

Height and overshadowing

The building is a great deal taller than the housing nearby, including the existing apartment blocks. As depicted in the EIS Appendix 6 the there is nothing else that comes close in height and it stands out in a negative way from the rest of the buildings. The bulk that comes with that height will throw shadow across neighbouring homes and cut the natural light those properties currently receive, directly and negatively impacting on physical and mental health and overall quality of life.

Light spill

A development this large will run a lot of lighting, across apartments, shared areas, the car park and the building’s services. That light will carry into the surrounding streets, especially for homes that face the site directly. At night this changes the feel of what is now a quiet residential pocket, and the effect on neighbours has not been properly accounted for.

Traffic and road safety

The proposal adds a large number of residents, and their vehicles, to a section of road that is already under strain. William Street carries heavy traffic linked to the City West Link, and congestion here is a daily reality rather than an occasional one. More apartments mean more cars competing for the same road space.

I am particularly worried about safety. There is a childcare centre and a primary school close by, and speeding along William Street is already a problem. Adding hundreds of residents and the traffic that comes with them raises the risk to children, pedestrians and cyclists. Unless the surrounding roads and crossings are upgraded and proper traffic controls put in place, I do not see how local safety can be maintained.

Transport and services

The infrastructure here is already stretched and does not look able to carry a population increase of this size. The light rail is regularly full at peak times and the stops themselves are small. There is little in the proposal to show how the existing transport, services and community facilities are meant to absorb the extra demand. The application asks the neighbourhood to carry that load without demonstrating how it will be managed.

Affordable housing

The development is presented as a contribution to housing supply and affordability, but only five per cent of the apartments are set aside as affordable, and only for the first fifteen years. That is a small and time-limited commitment. It does not justify the scale of the impacts being asked of the people who already live here. On balance the main beneficiary is the developer, while residents are left with the congestion, the loss of amenity and the pressure on local services.

My Request

This development does not comply with current planning guidelines and in its current form will have a significantly negative impact in the community in which it is proposed to be built. I request that the current proposal is rejected and that the developer is required to apply substantial reductions in height (ideally with a maximum height of no more than 6 stories) before re-submitting for approval.