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

Building looks nice, seems like a good location given the proximity to the light rail with nearby greenspace with the park. Seems great to me overall, I'd consider renting here given those things, and providing more options to do so sounds like a great idea, based on satalite images it's mostly detached houses (lower dwelling density meaning fewer options, and renters facing higher rents), so more stuff like this is a positive contribution to making it more accessible by increasing overall housing supply in this specific area.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to this Development Application and respectfully request that the consent authority undertake a more rigorous assessment before determining this application.

While I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply within the Inner West, this objective should not be achieved at the expense of sound planning principles, adequate infrastructure provision, or residential amenity. In its current form, I do not believe the proposal demonstrates an appropriate balance between development intensity and the capacity of the site and surrounding neighbourhood.

The proposal comprises 203 apartments, including:

* 2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
* 50 × 3-bedroom apartments;
* 131 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
* 20 × 1-bedroom apartments.

Despite the scale and dwelling mix of the proposal, only 220 residential parking spaces are provided. Based on the proposed apartment mix, the parking provision does not appear to adequately accommodate the likely parking demand generated by the development.

More than 89% of the proposed dwellings comprise two or more bedrooms. It is entirely foreseeable that many of these households, particularly those occupying the 3- and 4-bedroom apartments, will own more than one vehicle. A significant proportion of 2-bedroom apartments can also reasonably be expected to generate demand for multiple vehicles. Accordingly, the proposed parking provision appears inconsistent with the likely parking demand arising from the development.

Importantly, this proposal should not be assessed in isolation. The surrounding streets already experience significant parking pressure, with on-street parking frequently operating at or near capacity. Existing residents and visitors already face considerable difficulty finding available parking, particularly during evenings and weekends. This is an existing constraint of the locality and should form part of Council’s assessment of the proposal.

In these circumstances, any shortfall in on-site parking would not simply create additional inconvenience—it would materially worsen an already constrained parking environment. Approval of the proposal in its current form would effectively transfer the foreseeable parking demand generated by future residents onto the surrounding public road network, further reducing parking availability for existing residents and visitors, increasing traffic circulation as drivers search for parking, and adversely affecting road safety, accessibility and the overall residential amenity of the neighbourhood.

Approving a development that relies upon existing public on-street parking to accommodate foreseeable parking demand effectively transfers the infrastructure burden from the developer to the wider community. In my respectful submission, this is not an appropriate planning outcome and is inconsistent with the principles of orderly and sustainable development.

New developments should be capable of accommodating the infrastructure demands they generate. Where the surrounding road network is already under significant parking pressure, it is particularly important that the development demonstrates that adequate on-site parking has been provided. In my view, the current proposal has not demonstrated this.

In addition to the parking concerns, I have identified several apparent non-compliances with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which forms part of the applicable planning framework. These matters warrant careful consideration as they relate directly to the quality and functionality of the proposed development.

4A – Solar Access

* Only 140 of the 203 apartments (69.0%) satisfy the required solar access criterion, which falls below the ADG minimum requirement of 70%.
* A minimum of 143 compliant apartments is required, resulting in a shortfall of three apartments.
* The consent authority should also verify that the number of apartments receiving no direct midwinter sunlight does not exceed the ADG maximum of 15%.

4D-2 – Maximum Habitable Room Depth

* Twenty-three apartments do not satisfy the maximum habitable room depth requirement.
* Apartment D1.01.04 is specifically identified as having a habitable room depth of 9.6 metres.

4E-1 – Balcony / Private Open Space

* Thirty-seven apartments do not satisfy the minimum balcony or private open space requirements.
* The extent of these non-compliances suggests that this is a recurring apartment typology issue rather than isolated design exceptions.

4G-1 – Storage

* Apartment C.03.03 does not satisfy the minimum storage requirement.
* Compliance with the ADG requirement that at least 50% of storage be located within the apartment should also be confirmed.

More importantly, these are not isolated technical matters. Collectively, they raise legitimate concerns as to whether the proposal achieves the minimum design quality and residential amenity outcomes intended by the Apartment Design Guide.

The cumulative effect of these issues suggests that the proposal may not represent an appropriate planning outcome in its current form. When considered together—including the apparent shortfall in parking provision and the identified departures from the Apartment Design Guide—it is difficult to conclude that the development has been designed to appropriately respond to the site’s constraints while maintaining an acceptable standard of residential amenity for both future occupants and the surrounding community.

Given the scale of the proposed development and the significance of the matters outlined above, I respectfully request that each of these issues be specifically considered and addressed within the Council Officer’s Assessment Report, rather than being treated as minor or isolated matters. A proposal of this scale warrants a thorough assessment to ensure it fully complies with the applicable planning controls and does not create unreasonable impacts on the existing community.

Accordingly, as a resident within the Inner West Council area, I respectfully object to this application and request that the consent authority carefully reconsider the proposal before any determination is made.

I respectfully request that the consent authority either:

* refuse the application in its current form; or
* require the applicant to substantially amend the proposal by reducing the development yield and/or providing an appropriate level of residential parking before any approval is considered.

If the applicant is unable to demonstrate that the proposed development can adequately accommodate the anticipated parking demand while achieving compliance with the relevant planning controls and design standards, the development yield should be substantially reduced to a level that is consistent with the capacity of the site.

By way of example, a development comprising approximately:

* 2 × 4-bedroom apartments;
* 30 × 3-bedroom apartments;
* 90 × 2-bedroom apartments; and
* 20 × 1-bedroom apartments,

would represent a more appropriate scale of development and would better balance housing delivery with infrastructure capacity, planning controls, and the amenity of the existing community.

RE: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-80704962 — Redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt
To the Assessment Officer,
I am writing as a local resident of [3 Charles Street, Leichhardt] to object to State Significant Development Application SSD-80704962 for the redevelopment of 40–76 William Street, Leichhardt (Lot 2 DP 789576), lodged by Anprisa Pty Ltd.
My objection is confined to two grounds: the failure to justify the proposed car parking ratio against actual local conditions, and the disproportionate scale of the development relative to the surrounding low-to-medium density character of this part of Leichhardt.
Ground 1: The Proposed Car Parking Ratio Is Not Justified Against Actual Local Conditions
Policy minimums and Apartment Design Guide (ADG) benchmarks are a starting point, not a substitute for evidence of what this specific locality can actually absorb. Charles Street and William Street already experience significant on-street parking pressure residents are routinely unable to park near their own homes when sporting fixtures are held on the other side of Leichhardt, and are forced to park several streets away. A parking rate that may be adequate elsewhere in the Inner West is not automatically adequate here.
I ask the Department to require the Applicant to:
Justify the proposed parking ratio with reference to actual, evidenced parking occupancy and availability on Charles Street, William Street and surrounding roads, including at peak/event-day demand, not only against policy minimums.
Demonstrate, with that evidence, that any shortfall between demand and supply will not be displaced onto streets that already have no spare capacity.
Where the Applicant cannot demonstrate this, either increase on-site parking provision or reduce the scale of the development so that supply and evidenced local demand are properly aligned.
A parking ratio that is merely policy-compliant, without being tested against the real conditions of this street network, does not satisfy the intent of the SEARs requirement to demonstrate the development's transport impacts have been properly assessed.
Ground 2: The Scale of the Development Is Disproportionate to the Surrounding Low-to-Medium Density Character
This part of Leichhardt is characterised by low-to-medium density housing. The Built Form and Urban Design requirements in the SEARs require the Applicant to demonstrate how the proposed height, bulk, scale, setbacks and articulation of the development respond to the context, site characteristics and existing and future character of the locality. I do not consider that a development of this scale achieves that outcome.
I ask the Department to require the Applicant to:
Provide a clear, evidence-based comparison of the proposed height, bulk and scale against the existing built form on Charles Street, William Street and the immediately surrounding blocks, rather than against citywide or precinct-wide averages that may not reflect this specific street character.
Justify any reliance on height or floor space bonuses under an applicable EPI by explaining how the resulting built form remains proportionate to, and compatible with, this low-to-medium density streetscape.
Where this justification cannot be adequately demonstrated, reduce the scale of the development to a form genuinely consistent with the surrounding area.
A development that is significantly out of scale with its low-to-medium density surroundings does not represent good design in the sense intended by the design quality and built form requirements applicable to this assessment.
Requested Outcome
I ask that the Department not approve this application unless and until:
The Applicant has justified the proposed parking ratio against real, evidenced local conditions on Charles Street and William Street, not policy minimums alone; and
The Applicant has demonstrated that the scale of the development is genuinely proportionate to the surrounding low-to-medium density character of this part of Leichhardt, with the design reduced in scale if this cannot be shown.
Thank you for considering this submission. I would welcome the opportunity to be kept informed of further exhibition or assessment milestones for this application.

Yours faithfully,
Armin Nehzat
0403 888 777
20 July 2026

The proposal to build a residential block of the scale proposed is going to adversely impact a neighbourhood which is currently at capacity. Any development should not be allowed to exceed the height of the existing building, which even then would be significant in its impact to the number of resident vs the amenities available. This development seems like it would be more appropriately built on Parramatta Rd. I oppose such a development as while it might benefit the developers financially it will surely negatively impact the residents.

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