**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.