I am an owner of an investment property at 88A Christie Street, St Leonards.

One of the key features that attract both myself, other owners, and prospective tenants to these apartments is the premium view of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the city. The proposed additional height of the new development will block this view for me and for a large number of residents in our building.

The St Leonards area is widely considered a quiet area of a high-quality, and this "build to rent" building designed for students or as "Airbnb" type accommodation, is simply inconsistent with this. This entire project in and of itself is not suitable for this area and does not create or assist in creating a solution to the current issues of affordable living and lack of housing in Sydney.

Additionally, I have serious concerns regarding the extend of shadowing and reduced sunlight caused by the additional height that the developers are requesting on top of an already (far too) high building. Many of the residents in our building rely on natural light for indoor amenity and energy efficiency, and this additional height will severely and negatively impact the living conditions of surrounding residents due to the reduced sunlight.

The building's increased height and close proximity to our building will also result in a significant loss of privacy for residents. This intrusion compromises the comfort and security and overall enjoyment of the residents, and I believe is inconsistent with reasonable expectations of visual privacy in such a residential area.

The combined effect of the obstruction of the views, obstruction of sunlight, and the obvious lack of privacy will greatly and adversely impact the value of my property and the properties of all the owners in our building. These aspects were all considerations for all the owners in purchasing these properties and we are all facing a significant practical as well as economic detriment.

I strongly object to the proposed additional height and although I understand that I have no further recourse in relation to the entirety of the building, I also want to note my strong objection to such a "build to rent" building that is currently being constructed.

The government should maintain integrity. The project approved in February was changed again, which is too hasty. Secondly, this change is quite different from the previous one. It is almost like a completely different project. Such a significant change cannot be simply modified; it must be re-reviewed. Thirdly, the area is too small. With only 5 buildings already concentrated, adding more height would increase the risk of accidents in the surrounding area, such as wind resistance and fire. This area is already located in a valley, and the wind force is much stronger than in other areas. The weather in Sydney is also very changeable. High-rise residential buildings often have strong wind sounds that last all night. If a fire occurs, it will spread more rapidly because the roads are narrow and will affect the efficiency of fire fighting. Therefore, this is a very important disadvantage for high-rise residential buildings. At the same time, it will seriously affect the lighting of the surrounding several buildings. It is too close, and it is completely dark. There is no quality of life at all. Not only is there no lighting, but there is also no privacy. It is too close, and one can only live with the curtains drawn all day long. Many houses have single-sided lighting. Such tall buildings blocking the view will cause psychological trauma to the residents and increase the risk of depression!

I support the project

The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure has placed the Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent development (SSD-88113706) on public exhibition from Tuesday 2 December 2025 until Monday 15 December 2025. The proposal seeks to increase building height by seven floors and add 270 apartments, resulting in a 36-storey tower at 46-52 Nicholson Street and 59-67 Christie Street, St Leonards.
Summary of Proposal
* The developer seeks to increase the building height by seven floors and add 270 apartments beyond what was previously approved.
* The proposal includes a 36-storey tower, three basement levels, 541 units, and significant changes to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan.
* Full details and exhibition materials are available at the NSW Planning Portal. https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/nicholson-street-build-rent-0
Owner Actions If you feel this development will be intrusive or negatively impact your property, you are encouraged to make a submission during the exhibition period. Submissions must be lodged online via the NSW Planning Portal. Resources and step-by-step guides are available at Planning Portal Help. For assistance, contact the Department’s customer support team on 1300 305 695.
How to Make a Submission
* Log in or create a user account at the NSW Planning Portal. https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects
* Search for “Nicholson Street Build-to-Rent” and click “Make a submission.”
* Include your name and address, the application name and number (SSD-88113706), your position, reasons for your position - please refer to below WORD doc for details, and a declaration of any reportable political donations in the last two years.
* Review the disclaimer and declaration and privacy statement before submitting.
Thank you very much.

I write to lodge a formal and unequivocal objection to Application SSD 88113706.
When we purchased our home in this area, we did so fully aware that it was a State Significant Development precinct. However, that does not mean that the community is obliged to accept every last-minute development modification proposed - particularly those that contradict years of prior consultation, breach community expectations, or unfairly impact existing residents.
1. This proposal directly undermines years of approved planning work
This development has been approved for many years at a clearly understood height, width and scale, with appropriate green space and amenity protections. These parameters were developed after extensive community consultation and were designed explicitly to protect the rights, daylight, space, privacy and amenity of existing residents.
The current applicant has come forward at the eleventh hour seeking to materially alter these long-agreed conditions. This attempt to significantly increase bulk, scale and impact, after demolition has already commenced, is entirely inappropriate and fundamentally unfair.
2. The proposal will have severe and unacceptable impacts on existing residents
If approved, this modification will result in:
- Loss of natural light
- Loss of privacy
- Encroachment on established green space expectations
- Material loss of amenity and quiet enjoyment
- Reduced comfort, airflow and liveability of existing homes
These are not minor inconveniences. These are serious impacts that harm people’s wellbeing, investment, and right to enjoy their homes without unreasonable interference.
3. The developer’s statements are inaccurate and misleading
Based on information provided, the applicant claims that they have previously consulted on this proposal and received no objections.
This is categorically false.
The entire community is aware of this application and overwhelmingly opposed to it due to its extreme overdevelopment, its late timing, and the fact that it breaches the design envelope that was already agreed by the community and the State.
To make statements that are so plainly untrue raises real concerns about the transparency and integrity of the proponent. It also calls into question the credibility of the supporting information submitted as part of this application.
4. This precinct is already overdeveloped and under strain
The area already suffers from:
- Increasing traffic congestion, with only one road servicing exit from the precinct and two entry points
- Growing parking pressure and vehicle movements
- Increased waste, noise and crime associated with higher density
- Insufficient open space relative to the population growth
The proposal seeks to worsen these issues further, delivering more density into a precinct that is already stretched beyond its original capacity.

5. The timing and manner of this application are wholly unreasonable
To lodge an application of this scale and significance after demolition is underway is not only inappropriate - it is a clear attempt to pressure the community into accepting an outcome we would never have supported had it been proposed earlier.
This undermines the consultation process and is an affront to the residents who have relied on the previously approved plans when making significant financial and personal decisions about where to live.
6. I am not opposed to development - I am opposed to this development
The community is not anti-development.
We are opposed to unjustified, late-stage changes that:
- Contradict years of prior approvals,
- Undermine community expectations,
- Are based on misleading assertions, and
- Cause significant and avoidable harm to existing residents.
Request for Determination

For the reasons above, I strongly urge the Department to:
- Reject Application SSD 88113706,
- Reinforce adherence to the original approved height, width, and amenity conditions, and
- Require any future proposals to undergo genuine and transparent community consultation, not retrospective justification.
This application is unreasonable, unfair, inconsistent with the public interest, and fundamentally incompatible with the planning principles that have guided development in this precinct to date.
Thank you for considering this objection. The community expects, and deserves, a decision that respects the integrity of the planning process and the legitimate rights of existing residents.

I object to the proposal and request the Department refuse (decline) the application in full. I am a resident/owner at 486 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, and my apartment faces Nicholson Street directly toward the site. The proposal seeks an excessive uplift in height, bulk and dwelling yield which will impose unacceptable and permanent impacts on existing residents in an already high-density precinct. These impacts include a major loss of outlook and sky view, increased overshadowing and reduced sunlight access (particularly during winter months), and intensified direct overlooking into neighbouring apartments and balconies, creating serious privacy impacts. The proposal will also worsen local traffic, servicing and pick-up/drop-off congestion—the area is already heavily congested during peak hours, and additional residents, visitors, deliveries and construction vehicles will further compromise safety, access and amenity on Nicholson Street and surrounding roads. A taller and bulkier tower is also likely to worsen pedestrian wind conditions, and nearby residents will face prolonged construction disruption (noise, dust, vibration and heavy vehicle movements) at very close proximity. The public exhibition/consultation period is unreasonably short for a development of this scale and complexity. For these reasons, the proposal should not be approved.

I OBJECT to the project. This development will definitely have negative impact on my property. The proprosed changes represent a significant increase iin height and density for the area, it will definitely have negative impacts on amenity, privacy, traffic and the value of our properties. Please consider the well-being of the current owners of the proeprty in the vicinty, and should not proceed with the project. I OBJECT to the project.

Dear Sirs,
I understand that the state government is considering adding 7 extra levels to the apartment at 46-53 Nicholson Street, St Leonards NSW 2065, resulting in a taller building of at least 20m higher (the “New Building”).
I am writing in my capacity as an owner of Unit 3206 of 486 Pacific Highway, St Leonards NSW 2065, and also as a concerned occupant within this apartment building.
My concerns are as follows:
• the New Building will cause hardship for existing occupants in 486 and 500 Pacific Highway due to direct loss of sunlight into the living room areas;

• further hardship will occur when the New Building causes a new wind tunnel between the buildings. Owners within 486 and 500 Pacific Highway will be unable to open their apartment windows at their pleasure. I should note that it is often terrible to take a stroll on Nicholson Street now due to strong and turbulent winds even without the existence of the New Building;

• adding 7 extra levels will inevitably cause loss of view sharing for existing owners in 486 and 500 Pacific Highway from their living room areas. An extra 20m higher will be of equivalent building height to 486 Pacific Highway, if not higher because of building amenities such as the installation of piping, ducting and air-conditioning plants on the roof of the New Building. No water views, greenery views, or iconic landmarks such as the harbor bridge view, or Olympic Park will be visible should the extra levels be approved; and

• traffic is already a nightmare on Nicholson Street regardless of the hour in the day. It is catastrophic during peak hours such as the morning and evening rush. The state government needs to consider the upgrade of existing roads and infrastructure such as road widening initiatives before approving more dwellings within the vicinity of 486 and 500 Pacific Highway.
The magnitude of my concerns listed above is further amplified by the state government’s decision to develop apartments above the crows nest metro station, and at the existing car wash at 29-57 Christie Street, St Leonards.
The state government should not over crowd the St Leonards suburb at the expense of the existing owner and occupant’s living standards.
Failure to consider the above consideration is arguably unethical, and otherwise in contrary to the standards of Australian values. Community feedback and expectations must be heard.
I sincerely hope the state government can consider the rejection of adding further levels to the New Building based on the contents of this letter.
Yours Sincerely,



Wiley

This SSD88113706 project did not have proper consultation with neighbours, but the docs showed “consultation didn’t get negative feedback “ is completely lie, I dismayed about how relevant people handle such significant project. My object is the project on small street, which will recreate massive traffic on the small street, it will not be safe for kids and elders, there is childcare center 10meters away. My understanding is the council only allows high building blocks on major road such as pacific highway. There are family residents on St Leonard’s square, such high building will block blue sky for kids who play on level 2 amenities facilities. On the top of these, the value of whole St Leonard’s Square units will free fall after this giant building is built, should we consider current residents’s wellfare at all? I am completely object to build this giant building for rental.

See attached reasons for my objection to this proposal.
Hope you take them into consideration and take the appropriate actions