I object to the project in its current form.

I bring your particular attention to the overbearing height and scale, the incorrect assumptions in the traffic report and the poor way notifications have been handled.

Height and scale -
At 11 stories it is too massive and it needs scaling back. Also upper stories need to be set back. The current height proposal is well out of line with the area and is ridiculously large. The FSR excess is plainly not acceptable.

Traffic impacts. This is off particular concern. I think the report has lied in its assumptions and fabricated data to the benefit of the developer. The Traffic Impact Assessment provided in support of this application is fundamentally flawed and should not be relied upon in its current form.

A key concern is the validity of the baseline traffic data used throughout the report. The assessment relies heavily on traffic movements associated with the existing storage facility and claims existing vehicle activity during the morning peak period between 7:00am and 9:00am. However, the storage facility does not open until 8:30am. Any traffic counts or assumptions attributed to site operations before opening hours are therefore questionable and potentially inaccurate.

This issue alone raises serious concerns regarding the methodology adopted by the consultant. If the baseline data is incorrect, then all subsequent modelling, trip generation forecasts and impact assessments become unreliable. Traffic reports are only as credible as the data on which they are based, and in this instance the underlying assumptions appear fundamentally defective.

The report states that only 39 vehicle trips would occur during the morning peak hour and suggests minimal traffic impacts from a development containing 203 residential apartments. This conclusion is difficult to reconcile with existing traffic conditions in the area and appears to significantly understate the likely effects of the proposal.

The comparison between a self-storage facility and a 203-unit residential development is also inappropriate. The usage patterns of a storage facility bear little resemblance to those of a residential building housing several hundred residents. Many storage customers may not visit the site for weeks or months at a time, whereas residential traffic is generated daily and is concentrated during peak commuting periods.

The report also fails to adequately recognise the existing congestion experienced on William Street, Norton Street, Darley Road and the City West Link network. Local residents witness these conditions every day. During peak periods, the Norton Street and City West Link intersection frequently operates under significant strain, with lengthy delays and vehicle queues extending back through surrounding streets.

Parking impacts have similarly been understated. It is unrealistic to assume that a development of this scale will not generate substantial demand for on-street parking, particularly when larger apartments are likely to accommodate households owning multiple vehicles. The report provides little meaningful analysis of how this demand will be managed or what impacts will be imposed on existing residents.

Given these deficiencies, I submit that the Traffic Impact Assessment cannot be regarded as an objective or reliable assessment of the proposal's impacts. The use of traffic data during hours when the existing facility is closed casts doubt over the integrity of the entire analysis. This is not a minor discrepancy but a fundamental flaw in the preparation of the report.

Accordingly, the Traffic Impact Assessment should be rejected in its entirety and a new independent assessment commissioned by a separate consulting firm with no prior involvement in the project. The revised assessment should include verified traffic counts, transparent methodology, realistic trip generation assumptions and a detailed analysis of cumulative traffic and parking impacts on the surrounding road network. Until such a report is prepared, the traffic impacts of this development cannot be properly assessed.

Notifciations period:
I can confirm that I was completely unaware of this new proposaluntil the notification was received in my mailbox on July 14 and the first time I have had an opportunity to view this project design was on receiving notification from your Department on July 14. The Engagement process and outcomes were not taken for this current application and therefore has no relevance to the current
application. This must be addressed.

To Whom It May Concern,
I'm writing today to express concerns about the proposed redevelopment at 40-76 William Street in Leichhardt.
I recognise the ongoing housing affordability crisis in Sydney and across NSW, however, the proposal for this site will not make homes more affordable, and the current design raises significant concerns.

1. Lack of affordable housing

The current proposal only includes provision of 5% so-called affordable dwellings for a limited period of 15 years. The delivery of only 15 units out of 203 new dwellings is unacceptable and won't address the ongoing housing affordability crisis.

2. Inappropriate height and scale

In December 2023, residents took a smaller, 5-storey version of this development to the NSW Land and Environment Court, and it was refused, based on concerns about the inappropriate bulk and height. The court found it would result in “unacceptable overshadowing of the adjoining properties to the west and south in North Street…”

A development of up to 11 storeys is inappropriate in this location and will have a negative impact on current residents. A smaller building envelope should be considered - in line with the findings of the NSW Land and Environment Court.

3. Lack of Public Transport

Residents raised concerns about the lack of public transport options to service a growing population in Leichhardt, with buses and light rail already at capacity. The developer themselves has acknowledged these concerns are valid.

The government must not approve this development without first investing in more public transport services for this part of Leichhardt.

4. Pressure on existing infrastructure

Labor has opened Leichhardt up to significant uplift, with current plans showing the population could double in coming years. The cumulative impact of these developments must be considered to ensure current and future residents have access to green space, sporting infrastructure, schools, and hospitals.

Approving major new developments without further investing in essential infrastructure is unacceptable. The government must apply strategic planning principles to ensure key infrastructure is delivered first. A piecemeal approach to planning will undermine liveability for current and future residents.

5. Inadequate community consultation

This significant proposal has only been made available for public comment for 14 days, despite the considerable impact this will have on the community.

The consultation on this item must be left open for longer to allow meaningful input from residents and the wider community. The local community brings a unique perspective and can help inform governments on what infrastructure is needed to support a growing population, and how planning can be done in a more sustainable way.

It's important that communities are given a voice in the planning process. This will help create more liveable neighbourhoods for current and future residents.

I urge you to adopt a sustainable approach to planning that delivers well-planned density alongside the infrastructure our community needs.

Thank you for considering my submission. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Benedict Cooper

We strongly object to the proposed development. The proposal is totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhood with its height and mass and will have a detrimental impact upon those living in the streets nearby. This type of development has already been rejected by Local Government which has a good understanding of the character, needs and issues of the surrounding area. This brings high rise to an old character residential area and is totally inconsistent with its surroundings.
Homes in this area are typically on approximately 200sqm and were built about 100 years ago and are without any off street parking. The side street to the proposal, North Street, is very narrow and with parking on both sides of the street only one car can pass. Parking in the street is already at a premium and there has been cases when we cannot get a park at 2pm on a Tuesday afternoon. It is noted that the Butcher in North Street closed recently because of a lack of parking for his customers and has moved to Majors Bay Road, Concord.
The impact of this development on people living in the side streets and attending the primary school in Elswick Street will be dramatic as no parking will be available for residents and visitors. The parking will be taken up by persons in second and third cars from the development and visitors/ tradespersons etc. Existing residents will not be able to park in the vicinity of their own homes to transport shopping, babies and children. To suggest that residents and visitors to the proposed development will not take parking in the streets around the proposal is sheer fantasy and does not represent reality.
Also, we are totally opposed to any amendment to the Environmental Plan 2022. This established standards to protect the local area for good reason and should be retained. The proposal wants to change the rules to suit this development and this is not appropriate or justified.
In relation to the consultation process, to provide two weeks for a matter that has taken months/years to prepare, makes a mockery of the process. Such a matter should have had discussion groups, open forums and a process of genuine consultation. It is merely a Government obsession to build more houses at any cost, especially to the living standards of existing residents.
Rhonda & Rod Morrison
43/25 Market Street, Breakfast Point NSW 2137
Owners 606/22B George St, Leichhardt NSW 2040

Submission regarding DA for Redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt (SSD-119545240)

I live in the building immediately next door to the Property. I strongly object to the proposed development for the reasons below.

1. Excessive Height and Scale
I support the adaptive reuse of significant industrial buildings - the building in which we live is an excellent example of this (38 William Street, Leichhardt). However, the proposed development represents a significant intensification of the site. The size and scale is extreme when viewed against the surrounding area which is entirely a low and medium-density residential neighbourhood. It is totally out of character with the surrounding area.

I am in favour of redevelopment of the site for housing but the absolute maximum of the tallest building in the development should be is no more than 6 storeys, not 10 or 11 as is currently proposed. The remaining buildings should be within the range of 5 or 4 storeys or less.

2. Response to the Findings of Anprisa Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1768
Previous redevelopment proposals for this site were refused following consideration by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and subsequent court proceedings. The issues that contributed to previous refusals have not been comprehensively addressed in the current proposal.

The previous proposals were for a significantly smaller development. The current State Significant Development application has not substantively addressed the planning issues identified by the Land and Environment Court in Anprisa Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1768. The Court’s detailed findings remain highly relevant in assessing the planning merits of redevelopment of this site.

3. Heritage and Adaptive Reuse
We support the adaptive reuse of the Property but reliance on this should not be used as justification for a massive increase in FSR. Retaining a couple of the facade walls does not amount to an “adaptive reuse”. This development is masquerading as such clearly with the intention of circumventing the FSR requirements which would apply if it were submitted as a new development.

An adaptive reuse logically requires a substantial part of the existing building envelope to be retained, which is not the case here. One of the striking features of the Property is the saw tooth roofs, but none are being retained. Preserving part of the William Street facade and nothing else in order to construct a brand new apartment building behind the facade is surely not what is intended by “adaptive reuse” and makes a mockery of this concept. Integrating a metal framed “saw tooth” design in the open common area does not compensate for the demolition of the original roof.

4. Traffic, Parking and Transport
William Street, Francis Street and surrounding local roads already experience congestion during peak periods.
I am particularly concerned that the main vehicle access driveway on William Street is immediately adjacent to the driveway entrance for the residential building at 38 William Street. This proposed access will see a huge volume of vehicle movements over a 24-hour period, including residents’ vehicles, visitors, deliveries, waste collection vehicles and Council service vehicles. Our driveway exit is already quite challenging at times with traffic approaching from both directions, and there is a high risk of accidents, with other vehicles as well as with pedestrians. I am very concerned that the risk of accidents will be greatly exacerbated if the current design is accepted.


In addition, the location of the proposed driveway is directly beside the bedrooms of neighbouring apartments and is likely to result in unreasonable impacts from vehicle noise, headlights, engine idling, reversing alarms, braking, acceleration, vibration and late-night activity. These will occur day and night occur throughout the day and night and will adversely affect the residential amenity of existing occupants. The Applicant has not demonstrated how these impacts can be effectively mitigated and why this location represents the best planning outcome.


The proposal also disregards recommendations previously made by Inner West Council that vehicle access should instead be provided from the corner of William Street and Hubert Street. That location offers a substantially safer outcome because it provides the opportunity for a signalised intersection to manage vehicle movements while improving pedestrian and cyclist safety along William Street.
William Street is an important local route for pedestrians and cyclists and is regularly used by residents, school children and people accessing nearby parks, public transport and local businesses. It is also specifically identified as a cycleway by transport for NSW and as part of the City of Sydney bike network. Introducing a high-volume driveway at a mid-block location immediately adjacent to an existing driveway creates additional conflict points between vehicles and vulnerable road users and has the potential to reduce safety.

5. Flooding concerns
I am very concerned about the construction of a 2 floor basement carpark in the development. Furthermore, my understanding is that the William Street roadway is designated a flood affected area.

During the extreme weather conditions in 2022 when Sydney endured months of incessant rain, we saw firsthand the amount of water that flows down William Street.  As residents of the building adjoining the proposed development, our street level garage was incredibly humid and damp during all this period. The water table is directly beneath us and I am extremely concerned at the prospect of the proposed development excavating down 2 levels.  What assurances do adjoining residents have that the construction of a huge development with two floors of underground parking will not expose adjoining residents to flooding or lead to damage to our building’s foundations in the case of extreme weather events?

I am also concerned about the cumulative effects of existing underground infrastructure in the surrounding area, including the M8 motorway tunnels located approximately 150 metres north of the site, and the effect that this infrastructure has had on the movement of groundwater.

6. Community Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement
The level of community consultation undertaken by the Applicant has been inadequate, particularly given the scale of the proposed redevelopment and its potential impacts on neighbouring residential properties. There is no indication in the EIS that the views and concerns of the community have been taken into account in formulating the design of the proposed development.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

I’ve lived locally for over a decade and have always wished they would do something about the dead buildings on William St but an 11 storey apartment is a major development and not appropriate for this oarea. 5 storey max would make sense but no more than this.

We know a smaller five storey proposal at this site was rejected by the NSW Land and Environment Court in 2023 due to inappropriate bulk and height so why are we proposing to double this?

We need to invest in essential infrastructure including more transport, and increased capacity for schools, hospitals and local sporting facilities first.

I am writing to formally object to State Significant Development application SSD-119545240 and the accompanying concurrent rezoning proposal to amend the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022, currently on exhibition until 28 July 2026. I make this submission as a directly affected resident/owner in the immediate vicinity of the site at 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt.
1. This site has already failed once, on issues this application must be shown to have resolved
A previous stage 1 development application for this site (DA/2021/0437, a 181-unit proposal, capital investment value $51,390,000) was refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel. That refusal was upheld by the Land and Environment Court on 19 December 2023 following a Class 1 appeal, with the Panel’s determination formally confirmed on 1 February 2024. This new application is significantly larger than the version already refused - 203 apartments across five buildings, up to 11 storeys, against a site currently zoned for a floor space ratio of 0.5:1. I ask the Department to publish the Panel’s Statement of Reasons and the Court’s judgment alongside the exhibition material, and to require the applicant to demonstrate, specifically and point by point, how each issue identified in that refusal and judgment has been resolved in this application - not merely to accept that a larger scheme supersedes the earlier finding.
2. The scale of the rezoning request is disproportionate and precedent-setting
The concurrent rezoning proposal seeks to increase the permissible floor space ratio from 0.5:1 to 3.1:1 - more than six times the current control - remove Clause 6.12 protections relating to adaptive reuse of existing buildings for residential dwellings, and strip the site’s Key Sites Map protections relating to landscaping, housing diversity and development control. I object to a site-specific rezoning of this magnitude being progressed via a concurrent SSD rezoning pathway that limits the normal opportunity for considered, site-specific planning controls to be tested through Council’s ordinary planning process.
3. Traffic and parking impacts have not been adequately demonstrated
203 apartments are proposed against 239 basement parking spaces, on a local road network already under pressure, including from traffic displaced by the WestConnex project. I request that the Department require and publicly release detailed, independently reviewed traffic modelling for weekday peak, weekend and construction-period conditions before this application proceeds to determination.
4. Overshadowing and privacy impacts on surrounding low-rise homes
Buildings of up to 11 storeys directly adjoining a predominantly single- and two-storey residential area, including homes on North Street and Francis Street, raise serious overshadowing and privacy concerns, on a site where a materially smaller proposal was previously refused. I request detailed shadow diagrams for the winter solstice and equinox be made available for public comment, and that the Department confirm compliance with the ADG’s solar access requirements.
5. Loss of locally significant industrial heritage
The proposal involves demolition of most of the existing industrial buildings on the site, formerly the Cyclops Toys factory, a locally well-known landmark dating to 1930, retaining only a partial façade. While the site does not appear to carry a formal heritage listing, its historical and streetscape significance to the Leichhardt community is well documented. I request that any heritage or conservation impact assessment be made publicly available, and that the retained façade be treated as a genuine, primary character-defining element rather than a token retention.
6. Cumulative pressure on local infrastructure
An addition of this scale will place further pressure on already-stretched local infrastructure, including public schools, open space and public transport capacity. I ask that the Department require evidence of infrastructure capacity assessment, not just development contributions in principle.
7. Impact estimates are not demonstrated to be based on realistic assumptions
The Traffic Impact Assessment (Appendix 17, prepared by Traffix) estimates the development will generate only 39 vehicle trips in the AM peak and 30 in the PM peak, based on TfNSW “GTIA 2024” trip generation rates for high-density, transit-accessible developments. Applying the EIS’s own occupancy methodology (Table 2) to the proposed unit mix yields an estimated 542 new residents. Against that figure, 39 AM peak trips equates to roughly 0.07 vehicle trips per resident in the peak hour - a ratio the applicant has not explained or tested against actual travel behaviour at comparable occupied buildings in the area. I ask the Department to require the applicant to publicly disclose the underlying calculation, the source document and page reference for the trip rates used, and the assumed proportion of residents travelling by car during the peak hour, rather than accepting a single aggregate trip figure as sufficient evidence of minimal impact.

Requested outcome: That the application be refused in its current form; or, at minimum, that the Department require the applicant to substantially reduce the scale and height to a level consistent with the site’s current zoning and low-rise character, and demonstrate point by point how each issue underlying the Planning Panel’s refusal and the Court’s judgment on DA/2021/0437 has been resolved.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

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

As a long‑term local resident, I am deeply concerned that the scale and intensity of this proposal are entirely inappropriate for the area. The development is far too large, out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood, and would permanently alter the suburb in ways that are unacceptable and irreversible.

Excessive Height and Overdevelopment

The neighbourhood is characterised by one‑ and two‑storey terraces and low‑rise buildings. The existing structure on the site is already disproportionately large compared to its surroundings. Adding a further seven storeys would create a high‑rise building that would dominate the local skyline, overwhelm nearby homes, and fundamentally change the established character of the suburb.

The proposed height represents clear overdevelopment. It would create a visually intrusive structure visible from numerous surrounding streets, detracting from the cohesive, human‑scale built form that residents value.

Overshadowing, Reduced Airflow and Loss of Amenity

A building of this scale will significantly overshadow neighbouring properties, reducing natural light to homes, gardens and outdoor areas. Sunlight is essential for residents’ wellbeing, comfort and energy efficiency. Reduced sunlight will inevitably increase reliance on artificial lighting and heating, raising household costs.

The height and bulk of the building will also impede natural airflow and breezes, further diminishing residential amenity and making surrounding homes less comfortable.

Loss of Privacy

The proposal would result in unacceptable overlooking. Apartments positioned high above existing homes would have direct views into private backyards and outdoor living spaces, severely compromising residents’ privacy.

Traffic, Parking and Safety Impacts

Traffic and parking impacts are among the most serious concerns. Local roads are already under strain, and the proposed increase in residential density will exacerbate congestion and parking pressure. This will create additional road safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, older residents and—critically—children. With a primary school only one block away, the increased traffic during both construction and operation poses a significant safety concern. My 11‑year‑old walks past this area daily to catch the bus, and the anticipated rise in vehicle movements places him and other school children at heightened risk.

Parking availability is already limited in surrounding streets. The proposal does not appear to provide adequate parking for future residents, visitors or service vehicles. Overspill parking will inevitably spill into neighbouring streets, further disadvantaging existing residents who already struggle to park near their homes.

Construction Impacts

The construction phase will cause years of disruption, including:

• Construction traffic and heavy vehicles on residential streets
• Road closures and reduced road capacity
• Noise from demolition and machinery
• Dust, dirt and air pollution
• Potential health impacts from prolonged exposure to noise and dust
• Loss of parking due to construction vehicles and site operations
• General disruption to daily life for residents


Given the expected duration of construction, these impacts would be felt for many years. Such prolonged disruption is not reasonable in an established residential community.

Pressure on Local Infrastructure

The proposal would place additional strain on schools, roads, public transport, community facilities, open spaces and local services. There is no clear evidence of corresponding infrastructure upgrades. Residents should not be expected to absorb the consequences of increased density without meaningful investment in essential services.

Loss of Heritage and Neighbourhood Character

The development is inconsistent with the heritage, scale and character of the area. Many residents value the historic streetscape and strong community identity. A building of this magnitude would permanently alter the urban fabric and set a precedent for further inappropriate high‑rise development.

Inappropriate Location for High‑Density Development

The site is located well away from the Parramatta Road Corridor, which has long been identified as a priority area for regeneration and higher‑density housing. If additional housing is required, it should be directed to areas genuinely in need of revitalisation, where infrastructure investment is planned and appropriate. Established low‑rise neighbourhoods should not be burdened with excessive development that exceeds their capacity and character.

Minimal Public Benefit

While I support the need for more affordable housing, the proposal delivers only 5% affordable housing—an extremely limited public benefit given the scale of the impacts. Residents are being asked to accept a development that is oversized, out of character, and provides negligible community return.

A more appropriate alternative would be a lower‑height development that respects the existing neighbourhood, integrates sensitively with its surroundings, and provides a more meaningful commitment to affordable housing.

Conclusion

SSD‑119545240 represents a massive overdevelopment of the site. It would result in unacceptable impacts including excessive height, visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of privacy, reduced airflow, traffic congestion, parking shortages, construction disruption, environmental impacts, increased noise and additional pressure on local infrastructure. The minimal public benefit does not justify these significant and permanent adverse effects.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSD‑119545240 be refused. At the very least, the height, scale and density must be substantially reduced to reflect the character and capacity of the local area.

I am a local resident and wish to formally object to the proposed redevelopment at 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.

While I recognise the need for additional housing, I do not believe this proposal represents an appropriate scale or form of development for this location. The proposed 11-storey building is significantly out of character with the surrounding low-rise residential area and will have a substantial impact on the existing streetscape and local community.

My concerns are as follows:

Excessive height and scale
The size and height of this development are excessive for the site and surrounding neighbourhood. Previous proposals for this site were rejected due to concerns regarding inappropriate height, and this significantly larger proposal risks setting an undesirable precedent for future developments in Leichhardt. Development should occur in a way that respects the existing character of the suburb rather than overwhelming it.

Impact on residential amenity
An 11-storey building will have significant impacts on surrounding residents, including increased overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual bulk and a reduced sense of openness. Existing residents should not experience a substantial reduction in their quality of life due to an over-scaled development.

Traffic congestion and parking impacts
The surrounding streets already experience significant congestion and pressure on available parking. Many existing residents rely on limited on-street parking, and there is already insufficient parking capacity for the current population. A development of approximately 200 apartments will place further strain on local streets through increased vehicle movements, visitor parking demand, deliveries and rideshare activity. Even with on-site parking provisions, overflow parking is likely to impact neighbouring streets and make it increasingly difficult for existing residents to park near their homes.

Pressure on local infrastructure
The proposed increase in population density raises concerns about whether existing local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, childcare, parks and community services, has the capacity to support such a significant increase without negatively affecting current residents.

Loss of Leichhardt’s character
Leichhardt has a unique identity, with a mix of heritage buildings, established homes and predominantly low- to mid-rise development. A building of this scale risks changing the character of the suburb and diminishing the qualities that make the area attractive and liveable.

I support appropriate housing growth, but it must be balanced with protecting the amenity of existing residents and ensuring development is suitable for the location. In its current form, I believe this proposal is excessive and incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

I respectfully request that the Department carefully reconsider the scale, height and overall impact of this development and that the proposal be reduced to a form that better responds to the character, infrastructure capacity and needs of the Leichhardt community.

My wife and I object to the proposed redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt.
While we support adaptive reuse of significant industrial buildings and additional housing in appropriate locations, we are concerned the proposal does not demonstrate an appropriate balance between housing supply, heritage conservation, neighbourhood amenity and environmental impacts for the site and neighbouring properties.
1. Scale, Height and Built Form
We object to the substantial intensification of the site. The visual impact of approximately 200 apartments, including rooftop additions, is significantly out of place from surrounding streets, parks and neighbouring properties.
2. Heritage
Adaptive reuse is supported provided the heritage significance of the industrial buildings is genuinely retained and not diminished through excessive additions or alterations. A clear example of this is our building, the original Cyclops Toy Factory that is located next to this site at 38 William Street, Leichhardt.
3. Residential Amenity
The proposal does not demonstrate acceptable standards of:
• solar access;
• natural ventilation;
• apartment layout;
• communal open space;
• acoustic performance; and
• privacy.
Existing residents must also be protected from overlooking, loss of privacy and unreasonable overshadowing.
4. Traffic, Parking and Access
William Street, Francis Street and surrounding roads already experience congestion. The traffic assessment should address cumulative impacts, intersection performance, pedestrian and cyclist safety, servicing, waste collection and construction traffic.
A major concern is the proposed vehicle access adjacent to 38 William Street. Continuous vehicle movements, deliveries and waste collection will generate noise, headlights, vibration and late-night disturbance immediately beside residential bedrooms, significantly reducing residential amenity.
The proposal also appears to disregard Inner West Council's previous recommendation that access be provided from the William Street/Hubert Street intersection. This location offers a safer outcome by allowing signalised traffic management while reducing conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. William Street is an important pedestrian route and designated cycleway. The Department should require the applicant to justify why Council's preferred access arrangement has not been adopted and independently assess alternative access options.
5. Infrastructure Capacity
Approximately 200 additional dwellings will increase demand for schools, childcare, parks, health services, public transport and water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure. Population growth should be accompanied by corresponding infrastructure delivery in these areas.
6. Environmental Sustainability
The proposal does not demonstrate higher standards of energy efficiency, urban heat reduction, water-sensitive urban design, stormwater quality, tree retention, biodiversity enhancement and appropriate rooftop landscaping.
7. Aircraft Noise
The site lies beneath a Sydney Airport flight path. The proposal should demonstrate compliance with Australian Standards for aircraft noise attenuation and identify the applicable ANEF and, where relevant, ANEC contours.
The applicant should also clarify whether the site falls within NSW Government housing policy exclusions applying to land affected by significant aircraft noise, including ANEF 25 or ANEC 20 contours.
8. Construction Impacts
Given the proximity to existing residents, consent conditions should include strict controls on construction hours, noise, vibration, dust, traffic management, tree protection, community consultation and complaint management. We are concerned that excavation of this scale next to the Cyclops Toy Factory could have significant structural impacts on it.
9. Planning Merit
Previous redevelopment proposals for this site, involving fewer apartments, were refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and subsequently considered by the Land and Environment Court. While this application follows a different assessment pathway, the Department should carefully consider whether the issues leading to earlier refusals have been adequately addressed.
10. Employment
The EIS places considerable emphasis on construction employment. These jobs are temporary and should be given limited weight. Once complete, the predominantly residential development is unlikely to generate significant ongoing employment beyond routine building management and maintenance.
The proposal also removes land historically supporting industrial and commercial employment. The Department should assess whether long-term employment capacity is being unnecessarily reduced.
11. Groundwater and Geotechnical Issues
The site is located within an area of historically modified drainage corridors that may contain shallow groundwater. Detailed investigations should demonstrate that groundwater, excavation and basement construction will not adversely affect neighbouring properties.
The proposal should also assess cumulative impacts associated with nearby M8 motorway tunnels, including groundwater movement, settlement and ground stability. We are concerned permanent changes to groundwater may affect the stability of our approximately 100-year-old building.
Given these complexities, an independent peer review of the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations should be considered.
12. Previous Court Findings
The Department should carefully consider whether the current application has substantively addressed the planning issues identified by the Land and Environment Court in Anprisa Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2023] NSWLEC 1768. Although this proposal proceeds under a different statutory pathway, the Court's findings remain relevant to the planning merits of redevelopment for this site.
13. Community Consultation
Community consultation appears inadequate given the scale of the proposal.
Meaningful engagement should occur before lodgement so local issues can inform the design. The strata committee and the residents in the existing Cyclops Toy Factory were never contacted before this redevelopment was submitted, despite these residents being most affected by traffic, construction, privacy, servicing and amenity impacts.
The proposed driveway adjacent to 38 William Street demonstrates the value of early consultation, which may have identified a safer and less intrusive access arrangement. The absence of structured engagement with immediately affected residents represents a missed opportunity to achieve a better planning outcome.

I'm writing today to express concerns about the proposed redevelopment at 40-76 William Street in Leichhardt.

Let me say from the beginning that I'm concerned that I have been denied procedural fairness re this Development Application (DA). The big complex DA document from the Department was dated July 10, for response by July 28 (14days) however, the document did not arrive until July 14.

I believe that the creation of the State Significant Development Housing Body, which overrides all other bodies & previous well thought out & deliberated court decisions, needs to be challenged in the High Court. This body is as an override of the democratic processes, where the power of the State has overridden the individuals rights expected in an Australian democracy.

I recognise the ongoing housing affordability crisis in Sydney and across NSW, however, the proposal for this site will not make homes more affordable, and the current design raises significant concerns which are as follows:

1. Lack of affordable housing

The current proposal only includes provision of 5% so-called affordable dwellings for a limited period of 15 years. The delivery of only 15 units out of 203 new dwellings is unacceptable and won't address the ongoing housing affordability crisis.

2. Inappropriate height and scale

In December 2023, residents took a smaller, 5-storey version of this development to the NSW Land and Environment Court, and it was refused, based on concerns about the inappropriate bulk and height.. The court found it would result in “unacceptable overshadowing of the adjoining properties to the west and south in North Street…”. Additionally, all properties around will loose their privacy from people overlooking their properties from the site. Also, the proposed development is directly under the Sydney airport, western landing strip, flight path.

A development of up to 11 storeys is inappropriate in this low-rise residential location and will have a negative impact on current residents who have invested heavily in their properties. A smaller building envelope should be considered - in line with the findings of the NSW Land and Environment Court.

3. Lack of Public Transport

Residents raised concerns about the lack of public transport options to service a growing population in Leichhardt, with buses and light rail already at capacity. The developer themselves has acknowledged these concerns are valid.

I express concern that the "Service Lane" between Hubert and Charles Streets will have a significant increase in both pedestrian & vehicle traffic as this is the most direct route from the site to Leichhardt North Light Rail station and Darley Road, the major traffic road for the area. Over the years Council and Police have received reports of near misses of pedestrians being hit by vehicles and of vehicles crashing within the narrow Service lane, which is only a garbage truck wide.

The government must not approve this development without first investing in more public transport services for this part of Leichhardt, researching likely pedestrian and traffic movements and potential street parking issues as not all resident & visitor vehicles will be accommodated within the proposed development.

4. Pressure on existing infrastructure

Labor has opened Leichhardt up to significant uplift, with current plans showing the population could double in coming years. The cumulative impact of these developments must be considered to ensure current and future residents have access to green space, sporting infrastructure, schools, hospitals, communications (eg NBN), & essentail services such as Electrical, Water, sewerage & drainage. Currently when it rains moderately the drainage system overflows taking rubbish & the like down the Hubert/Charles Service lane, causing flooding of houses at the Darley Street end of the lane.

Approving major new developments without further investing in essential infrastructure is unacceptable. The government must apply strategic planning principles to ensure key infrastructure is delivered first. A piecemeal approach to planning will undermine liveability for current and future residents.

5. Inadequate community consultation

This significant proposal has only been made available for public comment for 14 days, despite the considerable impact this will have on the community and the precedent it will set for the area. No other building complex will have the bulk and height of this complex for kilometres around.

The consultation on this DA item must be left open for longer to allow meaningful input from residents and the wider community. The local community brings a unique perspective and can help inform governments on what infrastructure is needed to support a growing population, and how planning can be done in a more sustainable way.

It's important that communities are given a voice in the planning process. This will help create more liveable neighbourhoods for current and future residents.

I urge you to adopt a sustainable approach to planning that delivers well-planned density alongside the infrastructure our community needs.

Thank you for considering my submission. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely,
Rob Mansfield. 23 Charles St Leichhardt. 2040