Housing is a basic human right and should not be treated primarily as an investment vehicle. Simply building more homes without addressing property speculation and investor-driven demand will not solve the housing affordability crisis or prevent prices from continuing to rise.

Stronger measures should be considered, such as imposing significant additional taxes on third and subsequent properties, along with other policies that discourage excessive property investment and speculation.

For these reasons, I do not support this project.

Submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Application SSD-119545240 | 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt
Dear Assessment Team,
I object to the proposed development at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt in its current form.
I am not opposed to redevelopment of the site or to additional housing in an appropriate form. My concern is that this proposal is too large for the site and its surroundings, and that the process appears to be focused on finding a planning pathway that allows the development rather than requiring the development to respond to the location.
My three primary concerns are the traffic impact, the proposed change to the planning rules, and the fact that the same fundamental proposal continues to progress despite earlier rejection and repeated requests for refinement that have not resulted in meaningful change.
1. Traffic has not been properly assessed
Traffic is my most immediate and practical concern. The proposal would add approximately 203 apartments and more than 240 parking spaces to an established residential area that already experiences congestion, constrained local roads and limited on-street parking.
The impact is not just the number of cars entering and leaving in the morning and afternoon peaks. It is the permanent addition of resident, visitor, delivery, rideshare, service, waste, trades and removalist movements throughout the day, at night and on weekends.
The Transport Impact Assessment does not support the conclusion that this impact will be negligible. In particular:
• it predicts that 69% of development traffic will travel north via William Street and Norton Street, but the modelling stops at the William Street-Norton Street roundabout;
• it does not model the Norton Street-City West Link intersection, the City West Link-James Street intersection, or the interaction of queues between these known pressure points;
• it relies on a weekday survey from July 2024 without clearly identifying the survey date, whether it was during school holidays, or whether it reflected normal conditions;
• it does not include a representative weekend assessment, future-year traffic, nearby development or cumulative growth;
• it reduces the forecast impact by deducting theoretical traffic from the existing self-storage use, even though a self-storage facility is not comparable with the daily movement profile of more than 200 homes; and
• it provides only 17 visitor spaces for more than 200 apartments and does not include a current, comprehensive parking survey covering weekday evenings and weekends.
There is also a clear contradiction in assuming low car use because the site is near public transport while providing approximately one residential parking space per apartment. Proximity to buses and light rail does not mean residents will not own or use cars, particularly in the larger two, three and four-bedroom apartments.
These impacts cannot be fixed after the development is built. The surrounding streets cannot simply be widened later, and lost parking capacity cannot easily be restored. The traffic impacts must therefore be independently and comprehensively assessed before any approval is given.
At a minimum, the Department should require current weekday and weekend surveys, modelling of the downstream City West Link intersections and queue interaction, future-year and cumulative scenarios, and a realistic assessment of visitor, delivery, servicing and on-street parking demand.
2. The planning rules should not be changed to fit the proposal
The proposal seeks a concurrent rezoning through the Housing Delivery Authority pathway to allow buildings of five to eleven storeys and a density that is far beyond the current planning framework and the predominantly low-rise surrounding neighbourhood.
Planning controls can change, but changing them is not a minor administrative step. Residents, such as me with my young family, have made long-term decisions about where to live based on the controls that apply to the area. A major departure should require a compelling strategic case, a clear and proportionate public benefit, and a proposal that genuinely responds to its setting.
That case has not been made here. The EIS appears to treat the availability of a new approval pathway as justification for the proposed scale. It is not. A pathway for assessment does not establish that an eleven-storey development is appropriate for this site.
The affordable housing component also does not justify the permanent planning uplift. Only 15 of 203 apartments are proposed as affordable housing, representing approximately 5% of gross floor area, and only for a 15-year management period. The increase in height, bulk, density, traffic and development value is permanent. The impacts on the community are also permanent.
A limited and time-bound benefit is not proportionate to the lasting change being sought. If the proposal does not fit the existing controls, the starting point should be to reduce and redesign it - not change the controls to accommodate it.
3. Repeated requests for refinement have not produced meaningful change
I am also concerned by the way this proposal continues to progress despite having been rejected or found unacceptable at multiple levels and despite repeated opportunities for refinement.
Refinement should mean that the applicant responds to the substance of the concerns raised. In this case, the core issues - excessive height, bulk and density, traffic impacts, visual dominance and the relationship with the surrounding neighbourhood - remain substantially unchanged.
Repackaging the proposal, changing the approval pathway or submitting further technical material is not the same as resolving the issues. Reports repeatedly describe impacts as acceptable or low, while the underlying assessments identify serious limitations or moderate-to-severe impacts. The mitigation table largely restates conclusions rather than setting out measures that would actually reduce those impacts.
There must be a point at which the assessment process recognises that a proposal has not been adequately refined. Continuing to ask for further information while allowing the same scale and form to remain effectively intact risks turning the process into a search for a way to approve a predetermined outcome.
The Department should consider the full history of the proposal, the concerns previously raised, what changes were requested, and whether the applicant has genuinely responded. If the fundamental issues remain, the application should not continue unchanged through another pathway.
4. The supporting material understates the impacts
The same pattern is evident in the supporting reports.
• The visual assessment identifies moderate-to-severe or severe impacts from some viewpoints, yet concludes the proposal is acceptable because it is within the height framework the rezoning itself is seeking to create.
• Some photomontages appear cropped or rely on vegetation to reduce the apparent width, bulk and visibility of the buildings. Directly affected homes and open spaces within the Allen Estate are not adequately represented.
• The acoustic assessment predicts construction noise above relevant management levels, including highly noise-affected levels in some cases, while the mitigation schedule classifies the impact as low and omits a number of the consultant's specific monitoring and respite recommendations.
• The acoustic report refers to traffic routes via Atchinson Street and Mitchell Street, which do not relate to this site and appear to have been carried over from another project. This raises a reasonable concern about the quality assurance applied to the supporting documents.
Technical reports should test the proposal objectively. They should not assume that the proposed new controls make the impacts acceptable, rely on future developments to normalise the scale, or treat generic management plans as a substitute for real mitigation.
Requested outcome
I ask the Department to refuse the application in its current form.
If the applicant is permitted to submit a revised proposal, it should be required to:
• substantially reduce the height, bulk and density;
• respond directly to the reasons earlier versions were rejected or required refinement;
• demonstrate what has materially changed, rather than relying on a different planning pathway;
• provide an independent and complete traffic and parking assessment, including downstream intersections and cumulative future conditions;
• provide accurate visual material showing the full development from the Allen Estate and other directly affected residential locations; and
• replace generic mitigation statements with specific, measurable and enforceable commitments.
Conclusion
This is not an objection to housing or to reasonable redevelopment. It is an objection to an overdevelopment that has not adequately responded to its setting, the existing road network, the established planning framework or the concerns repeatedly raised about it.
The community should not be expected to accept permanent traffic, density and amenity impacts because the planning rules can now be changed to enable the proposal. Nor should an application continue substantially unchanged after repeated requests for refinement and rejection at multiple levels.
The proposal should be assessed on whether it is appropriate for this site and this neighbourhood. In its current form, it is not.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,

Resident, The Allen Estate
Leichhardt NSW 2040

I wish to lodge a formal objection to this development application.
The proposal comprises 203 apartments, including:
• 2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
• 50 × 3-bedroom apartments;
• 131 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
• 20 × 1-bedroom apartments.
The application proposes only 220 residential parking spaces. In my view, this is insufficient for a development of this scale and unit mix. Larger apartments, particularly 3- and 4-bedroom dwellings, are likely to accommodate households with multiple vehicles, while many 2-bedroom apartments may also generate demand for more than one vehicle. As a result, the proposed parking provision is likely to fall well short of the actual parking demand.
This shortfall would inevitably increase on-street parking demand, placing significant pressure on surrounding residential streets and reducing parking availability for existing residents and visitors. It would also adversely affect the operation, safety and amenity of the local road network.
While I recognise the importance of increasing housing supply, this should not come at the expense of fundamental residential amenity or by providing infrastructure that is clearly inadequate for the expected level of occupancy. New developments should satisfy minimum planning standards and provide sufficient parking to support their residents without transferring the burden onto the surrounding community.
In addition, I have identified several apparent non-compliances with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which forms part of the applicable planning framework. I am concerned that these matters have not been adequately addressed in the assessment process and respectfully request that the consent authority carefully review these issues before making any determination.
4A Solar access 140 of 203 apartments achieve the criterion 69.0%, below the 70% minimum. At least 143 apartments are required, resulting in a shortfall of 3 apartments. The number receiving no direct midwinter sunlight should also be confirmed against the ADG maximum of 15%.
4D-2 Maximum habitable-room depth 23 apartments are identified as not satisfying the maximum-depth criterion. Apartment D1.01.04 is specifically recorded as having a depth of 9.6 m.
4E-1 Balcony/private open space 37 apartments are identified as not satisfying the minimum balcony/private-open-space area or dimension criterion. This appears to be a repeated apartment-typology issue.
4G-1 Storage Apartment C.03.03 is identified as not satisfying the minimum storage requirement. Compliance with the requirement to provide at least 50% of storage within the apartment should also be checked.
Accordingly, as a resident within the Inner West Council area, I object to this application. I respectfully request that the consent authority either:
• refuse the application in its current form; or
• require the applicant to substantially reduce the development yield or increase the parking provision to an appropriate level before any approval is considered, i.e.,
2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
30 × 3-bedroom apartments;
90 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
20 × 1-bedroom apartments.

I live on the corner of Francis St and William St with my garage facing William St. I am concerned that from the new proposal that the main entrance to the parking area will be directly opposite my garage. I have safety concerns for myself leaving my garage with this new proposal. The original proposal had the main entrance facing Hubert St with a proposed round-about making it safer for all traffic - why the change? With the volume of traffic using William St, this will become difficult for the residents entering and exiting the building. I believe a rethink is needed on where the entrance to the carpark will be to maintain both traffic safety for all who use William St.

The Hon Paul Scully MP
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

Subject: Request to refuse SSD-119545240 and concurrent rezoning — 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt

Dear Minister Scully,
I writing to you as a concerned local Leichhardt resident and ask you and the Department to refuse the proposed redevelopment and concurrent rezoning at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.
I support appropriately located housing, including affordable housing. However, this proposal is excessive for its location on many factors and would permanently change the character and liveability of the surrounding community.
Residents already experience limited street parking, congested local roads and pressure on public transport. The application’s suggestion that another 203 apartments will have only minor impacts is not realistic when considered against daily local conditions.

My principal grounds for refusal are:
1. The Land & Environment Court refused a smaller proposal
In December 2023, the Land and Environment Court dismissed both appeals and refused the previous applications for 181 apartments on this site. The judgment identified issues including excessive floor space, non-compliance with adaptive-reuse requirements and inadequate landscaped area.
(Land and Environment Court judgment, pages 1–4)
The current proposal is larger, comprising:
* 203 apartments;
* five buildings between five and eleven storeys;
* an FSR increase from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1; and
* the demolition of most existing structures.

(EIS, pages 15–17 and 57)
The Department specifically required the applicant to address the Court’s findings. A different State Significant Development and rezoning pathway does not resolve the Court’s underlying concerns about density, scale, adaptive reuse, landscaping and impacts on neighbours.

2. The scale is excessive for the site and community
The proposal would increase the permitted FSR from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1, more than six times the existing control. It would place an 11-storey building beside an established, predominantly low-rise residential community.
This would not be a minor addition to the neighbourhood. It would permanently alter the area’s scale, privacy, visual character, sunlight, traffic patterns and demand for local services.
The application appears to start with the desired yield of 203 apartments and then seek new site-specific controls to permit it. It does not convincingly explain why a substantially smaller development could not deliver housing while responding more appropriately to the surrounding streets.

3. Traffic, parking and public-transport impacts are underestimated
The Traffic Impact Assessment concludes that the proposal would generate only 24 additional morning peak trips and 10 additional evening peak trips after allowing for the site’s existing use, and that no external road improvements are required.
(Transport Impact Assessment, page 37)
As a local resident, I do not consider this a realistic representation of the likely impact of 203 new households. The development will also generate visitors, deliveries, waste vehicles, tradespeople, ride-share vehicles, removal trucks and construction traffic.
Parking is already difficult in the surrounding streets. The proposal’s own documents identify between 237 and 241 parking spaces, yet claim that residents will rely heavily on public transport.
(EIS, pages 16, 27 and 57; Transport Impact Assessment, pages 23–25)
The site is near light rail and bus stops, but proximity to a stop does not establish that services have enough capacity, frequency or suitable routes to support this density. The nearest railway station is approximately 1.7 kilometres away in Petersham.
(Social Impact Assessment, page 13)
An independent transport assessment should consider actual local parking conditions, future growth, school and weekend traffic, public-transport capacity and the combined impact on William, North, Francis and surrounding streets.

4. The Cyclops factory should be genuinely preserved
The former Cyclops factory is an important part of Leichhardt’s industrial history and local identity. Its brick buildings, steel windows, roof structures and historic Cyclops and Raleigh signage should remain substantially intact in their complete three-dimensional form.
The applicant’s heritage report confirms that the proposal would demolish four of the five industrial structures, retain only the tallest building’s street façades and replace much of the original fabric with new development and interpretive features.
(Statement of Heritage Impact, page 39)

This is not meaningful preservation of the factory complex. Retaining limited façades while demolishing the original buildings, roof structures and internal industrial spaces would reduce authentic heritage to decoration around a much larger apartment development.
The same heritage report also states that the site is within the Laneways Sub Area on page 4, but later says it is separated from that area by William Street.
(Statement of Heritage Impact, pages 4 and 39)
Any redevelopment should be designed within and around the existing Cyclops buildings, retaining their full form wherever structurally possible.

Requested action
I respectfully request that you and the Department:
1. Refuse the concurrent rezoning from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1.
2. Refuse SSD-119545240 in its current form.
3. Require an independent review of traffic, parking, public-transport capacity, heritage and overshadowing.
4. Require the Cyclops factory buildings to be substantially retained in their complete form and no higher.
5. Require any materially revised proposal to be publicly re-exhibited.
6. Invite a substantially smaller development with lower height(no higher than existing buildings) and density, better transitions to neighbouring homes and greater permanent public benefit.


As a local resident, I am concerned that the reports treat the impacts as minor or low. Residents will experience them very differently: more vehicles, greater parking pressure, more crowded transport, extended construction disruption, loss of neighbourhood character and greater pressure on local infrastructure.

Housing is needed, but it should not be delivered by approving a larger proposal after the Court refused the earlier smaller development, while the application still contains conflicting housing, parking and traffic information, demolishing an important part of Leichhardt’s industrial history and imposing an excessive development on a community whose roads, parking and transport are already under pressure.
This proposal does not meet that test and should be refused.

Yours sincerely,
Very concerned Resident
North Street, Leichhardt

19th July 2026

**Attn: The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure**
4 Parramatta Square, 12 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
**SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION**
**Application Name:** Residential Flat Building at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt
**Application Number:** SSD-119545240
**Location:** 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt NSW 2040 (Lot 2 DP 789576)
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to formally declare my strong objection to the State Significant Development application SSD-119545240. As a local resident of the Inner West, I will be directly impacted by the scale, density, and long-term consequences of this massive redevelopment.
While the community supports the principle of the adaptive reuse of industrial heritage and the supply of diverse housing, the current masterplan constitutes a severe overdevelopment of a highly constrained residential pocket.
I urge the Department to refuse this application based on the following critical planning and environmental grounds:
1. Excessive Bulk, Scale, and Visual Amenity Impacts
The transition of this site from low-rise industrial warehouses into five interconnected blocks stepping up to 11 storeys is completely out of character with the surrounding Leichhardt streetscape.
Inappropriate Height:
An 11-storey tower at the corner of William Street represents a radical and unacceptable departure from the prevailing low-to-medium rise character of the neighborhood.
Overshadowing and Privacy:
The 5-storey components fronting the adjacent residential streets will severely overshadow nearby single and double-story homes, causing a permanent loss of solar access and a drastic breach of privacy for direct neighbors.
2. Flouting Local Planning Controls (Leichhardt LEP)
The sheer density of the proposed 203 apartments represents an attempt to bypass the local environmental planning controls that protect Inner West communities. A previous, smaller-scale iteration of this project was rightly refused on environmental planning grounds; doubling down with an even larger footprint shows a disregard for the zoning objectives of the R1 General Residential zone.
3. Stormwater Management and Existing Flood Risks
The subject site is heavily restricted by local flood management planning controls and sits within a known flood overlay zone.
Basement Parking Hazards:
The proposal includes a multi-level basement parking network. Excavatting a site of this scale within a flood zone introduces severe risks of altering local water tables, worsening overland flow, and redirecting flash flooding onto neighboring properties during heavy rain events.
Impervious Surfaces:
Replacing current footprints with subterranean basements heavily compromises natural site absorption, despite the inclusion of a central courtyard.
4. Traffic Congestion and Narrow Street Safety
The traffic impact assessment severely downplays the reality of the Leichhardt road network.
Local Road Inadequacy:
Accessing the site via narrow residential channels like Francis Street, William Street, and North Street to cater to hundreds of new residents and delivery vehicles is highly problematic. These streets are heavily choked with parked cars and cannot absorb the volume generated by 200+ apartments.
Construction Disruptions:
The demolition of four massive industrial buildings will require extensive heavy vehicle haulage over an extended period. This will present immediate safety hazards for families walking to nearby school catchments, including Orange Grove Public School and Sydney Secondary College Leichhardt Campus.
Conclusion
The proposed development does not represent orderly or ecologically sustainable development. The minor social yield of 15 affordable housing units does not justify the immense, irreversible negative externalities that 188 high-density market apartments will inflict on Leichhardt's infrastructure, character, and traffic flow.
I respectfully request that the Department reject SSD-119545240 in its current form. I am concerned that approval of this submission will send a message that judicial decisions made by the Land and Environment Court can be disregarded and bypassed severely undermining the judicial system. Further, it highlights that the criteria around submission of a SSD are at odds with existing planning laws and undermine our current system of governance by deriding the role of the judiciary making it subject to the executive layer and undermining it's independence.
Thank you for considering this submission. I request that my personal details remain confidential on the planning portal.
Sincerely,
*A local resident

Submission Objecting to SSD-119545240

I am writing to object to the proposed State Significant Development SSD-119545240.

As a local resident, I believe this development is far too large for the area and completely out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. The area is made up predominantly of one and two-storey terraces and low-rise buildings. The existing main building is already very large compared to everything around it, and the addition of a further seven storeys would result in a high-rise building that would dominate the suburb and permanently change its character.

The height of the development is excessive and represents clear overdevelopment of the site. It would completely dwarf neighbouring homes and create a visually intrusive structure that would be visible from many surrounding streets. Rather than complementing the existing character of the area, it would massively overwhelm it.

A building of this height will overshadow surrounding properties, reducing natural light and warmth to homes, gardens and outdoor areas. Access to sunlight is important for residents' wellbeing and quality of life. Reduced sunlight may also increase energy costs as people become more reliant on artificial lighting and heating. The development is also likely to reduce natural airflow and breezes through the area. This will further reduce residential amenity and make surrounding homes less comfortable.

The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for neighbouring residents. Existing homes would be overlooked by apartments positioned high above them, allowing direct views into private backyards and outdoor living areas.

Traffic and parking impacts are another major concern. Local roads are already under pressure and the development will significantly increase the number of vehicles in the area. Increased residential density will inevitably lead to congestion and unacceptable parking pressure on local streets. This will also create road safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, older residents and, with a junior school just a block away, children.

Parking is already difficult in many surrounding streets. The proposal does not appear to provide sufficient parking to accommodate future residents, visitors and service vehicles. As a result, existing residents are likely to experience significant overspill parking in neighbouring streets where they already struggle to park outside or near to their own homes. There appears to be no meaningful protection for existing residents who will bear the impacts.

The construction phase will create years of disruption for local residents. Concerns include:

• Construction traffic and heavy vehicles on residential streets.
• Road closures, blocked streets and reduced road capacity.
• Noise from demolition, excavation, piling and machinery.
• Dust, dirt and air pollution.
• Potential health impacts from prolonged exposure to noise and dust.
• Loss of parking during construction due to work vehicles and site activities.
• General disruption to residents' daily lives.

The expected long construction period could impact residents for many years. This level of disruption should not be accepted in an established residential community.

The proposal will also place additional strain on local infrastructure. Schools, roads, public transport, community facilities, open spaces and local services will all be required to accommodate a significant increase in population. There is little evidence that corresponding infrastructure upgrades will occur. Residents should not have to absorb the consequences of increased density without appropriate investment in services and facilities.

The proposal is inconsistent with the existing heritage and character of the area. Many residents value the community atmosphere and historic character of the neighbourhood. This development risks permanently altering the urban fabric and identity of the suburb. Once a building of this scale is approved, the precedent cannot easily be undone.

Importantly, the site is located a considerable distance from the Parramatta Road Corridor, which has long been recognised as an area in need of regeneration and investment. If additional housing is required, it should be directed towards areas that genuinely need revitalisation and where both government and private investment can help transform underutilised and struggling precincts into vibrant communities. Established low-rise residential neighbourhoods should not be expected to absorb excessive development that is out of scale with their character, particularly where the supporting infrastructure, roads, parking, schools and public services are already under pressure.

I support the need for more affordable housing, but this proposal fails to deliver a meaningful community benefit. With only 5% affordable housing, the public return is minimal while the impacts on existing residents are significant and permanent. The community deserves both a development that is appropriately scaled to its surroundings and a much stronger commitment to affordable housing, rather than being asked to accept an oversized development that delivers neither.

There are clearly more appropriate alternatives that could provide additional housing while respecting the existing character of the area. A lower height development that better integrates with the surrounding neighbourhood, would provide a far more balanced outcome.

Overall, I believe SSD-119545240 is a massive overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would result in unacceptable impacts including excessive height, visual intrusion, loss of neighbourhood character, overshadowing, reduced airflow, loss of privacy, increased traffic congestion, parking shortages, construction disruption, environmental impacts, increased noise and additional pressure on local infrastructure. The extremely limited public benefit does not outweigh these substantial adverse impacts.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSD-119545240 be refused. At the very least, the height, scale and density of the development should be significantly reduced to better reflect the character and capacity of the local area.

I object to SSD-119545240 for the proposed redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.

My objection is not to redevelopment of the site in principle, but to the excessive scale, height and density of the current proposal and the inadequacy of the supporting assessment.

The proposal would introduce approximately 203 apartments in buildings up to 11 storeys within a predominantly low-rise residential area. It also relies on a concurrent rezoning to facilitate a substantial and permanent increase in development yield.

My key concerns are:
- The Visual Impact Assessment appears to understate the proposal’s true bulk and scale. Some photomontages do not show the full extent of the building, rely heavily on vegetation as screening and characterise significant streetscape change primarily as a loss of “sky view”.
- The Traffic Impact Assessment does not adequately assess the broader road network. It predicts that 69% of development traffic will travel via William Street and Norton Street, yet does not model the key Norton Street–City West Link intersection or the City West Link–James Street intersection.
- The traffic modelling relies on a 2024 base case and does not adequately address future growth, cumulative development, weekend conditions or the full residential traffic profile generated by residents, visitors, deliveries, rideshare, servicing and waste collection.
- The proposal provides only 17 visitor parking spaces for more than 200 apartments, with no comprehensive assessment of overflow parking on William Street, Allen Street, North Street, Hubert Street and surrounding roads.
- The Noise and Vibration Assessment predicts construction noise above applicable criteria, but the mitigation schedule does not fully incorporate the necessary monitoring, respite periods, notification procedures and corrective actions.
- The Mitigation Measures Table classifies almost every impact as “Low”, despite specialist reports identifying significant traffic, noise and visual impacts. In many cases, it simply concludes that impacts are acceptable rather than demonstrating how they will be avoided or reduced.
- The stakeholder engagement process is questionable. Although nearby residents were identified as Tier 1 stakeholders, I received no consultation or notification before the formal exhibition notice.
- Errors and inconsistencies within the supporting reports reduce confidence in the overall quality and reliability of the EIS.

These impacts would be permanent and, particularly in relation to traffic and parking, difficult or impossible to correct once the development is built.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require a substantial reduction in height, bulk and density, together with independent reviews of the traffic, visual and mitigation assessments.

Like many residents, I purchased my home (as a first home buyer) in reliance on the planning controls that applied to the area at the time. While planning controls may change over time, significant departures from those controls should only occur where there is a compelling strategic justification and a demonstrable public benefit. In this instance, I do not consider the proposal has established that balance.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. I respectfully request that the issues raised above, together with the attached technical planning matters, be given careful consideration during the assessment of this application. I am open to being contacted for future consultation as required.

Please refer to my attached detailed submission for the full basis of my objection and supporting examples.

See attached comments