I strongly object to the proposed increase in height and density for the SSDA site adjacent to St Leonards Square.
Traffic and Parking Impacts
Resident congestion: St Leonards Square already relies on a single entry/exit road, shared with The Landmark, 88 Christie, Lithgow and Oxley residences, and the Telstra site under construction. Adding 541 apartments will overwhelm this limited access.
Service congestion: Refuse trucks, couriers, deliveries, and trades will further choke already inadequate road capacity.
Parking strain: Existing parking is insufficient. Additional residents and visitors will intensify competition for scarce spaces, spilling into surrounding streets.
Liveability Impacts
Reduced amenity: Increased traffic and parking pressures will erode quality of life for current residents.
Safety concerns: Congested roads and service vehicles heighten risks for pedestrians and families.
Loss of community wellbeing: Overdevelopment in this constrained location undermines the livability that drew residents to St Leonards Square.
Planning Context
Current controls already allow a substantial 30-storey building, assessed as the maximum suitable height for this site. Pushing beyond this limit is inappropriate given the narrow road access and distance from the Pacific Highway, where taller towers are more suitable.
Conclusion
This proposal imposes unacceptable traffic, parking, and liveability burdens on residents. It fails the public interest test and should be rejected in favour of the existing planning controls.
Yours faithfully,
Anna

This will be a great project to help with the current housing and rental crisis.

I submit my strong objection to the proposed (SSD-88113706) Application. My primary concerns stem from a profound lack of prior community consultation regarding the significant increase in scale, and the severe, detrimental impacts it will impose on our established residential community.

The proposed height and density represent a drastic and inappropriate overdevelopment for this secondary street location, directly contravening previously settled planning controls that deemed a 30-storey building the suitable maximum. The extreme proximity of the site—a mere 24 metres from our residences—will result in unacceptable amenity loss for hundreds of residents, including the loss of direct sunlight, privacy, sky views, and outlook, while exacerbating wind tunnel effects in our communal areas and the only nearby public space. Additionally, the local road network, already critically congested serving multiple large complexes, is utterly incapable of absorbing the traffic and service vehicle burden from over 500 additional apartments. This proposal unfairly transfers value and liveability from our community to the developer, failing the public interest test.

Finally, reopening this matter after recent planning assessments had concluded and early works had commenced severely undermines public trust in the planning system. I urge the rejection of this application in its current form to protect community wellbeing and the integrity of the planning framework.

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing as a resident of 486 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, to formally object to the proposed development at 46-52 Nicholson Street (SSD-88113706). specifically regarding the proposed height increase from the approved RL 174.95m to RL 194.30m.
My objection is based on significant contradictions within the applicant's own documentation, a disregard for the established Transport Oriented Development (TOD) controls, and the exacerbation of amenity impacts on my property which have already been acknowledged by the applicant.
1. Contradictory Assessment of Amenity Impacts The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) submitted with the application relies on a false premise to justify the development's impact on neighbors.
• The SIA explicitly states: "Concept plans showed some overshadowing extending to Newlands Park. The reduction in height in the current Proposal addresses these concerns".
• However, the Scoping Report directly contradicts this, confirming the proposal seeks to increase the height to RL 194.30, which is approximately 20 meters taller than the Permitted LEP Height of RL 174.95.
It is impossible for the SIA to claim that amenity concerns have been "addressed" by a "reduction in height" when the physical reality of the proposal is a substantial height increase. This contradiction invalidates the SIA’s conclusions regarding the impact on surrounding residents.
2. Circumvention of Strategic Planning Controls (TOD) The proposal attempts to bypass the strategic planning framework recently established by the NSW Government for the Crows Nest precinct.
• The applicant’s Scoping Report admits that under the new TOD provisions, "height and FSR bonuses... do not apply to the site" and that specific affordable housing bonuses were "turned off" for this precinct.
• Despite acknowledging these restrictions, the applicant is pursuing a "concurrent rezoning" to forcefully increase the maximum building height.
The NSW Government explicitly removed these bonus provisions to manage density and amenity in this specific location. This proposal seeks to undermine that strategic decision by spot-rezoning the site to exceed the density limits deemed appropriate by the Department.
3. Disregard for Known Impacts on 486 Pacific Highway The applicant is fully aware that my building (The Landmark, 486 Pacific Hwy) is the most sensitive receiver for this development, yet they have chosen to increase the bulk and scale regardless.
• The SIA specifically lists community concerns regarding "loss of solar access and overshadowing... with reference to impacts from southeast by St Leonards tower at 486 Pacific Hwy".
• Despite documenting these specific concerns in their own consultation tables, the proponent has proceeded with a design that is ~20m taller than the compliant height control. This increase will directly exacerbate the solar access and view loss impacts identified in the SIA, rather than mitigating them.
4. Inconsistency with Approved Concept Plan The site already holds a Concept SSDA approval (SSD-56527976), which the community understood to be the maximum envelope for the site.
• As noted in the Scoping Report, the approved concept allowed for a building envelope "up to RL 174.95".
• The new application to jump to RL 194.30 represents a significant and unjustified deviation from the approved concept. The community formed expectations based on the approved envelope, and there is no planning justification for why this additional height is now required, especially given the market conditions cited in their own economic reports.
I urge the Department to reject the proposed height increase and require the applicant to adhere to the existing, approved height limit of RL 174.95m, consistent with the Crows Nest TOD controls.
Yours faithfully

Wan Mit Choy

I am a resident of St Leonards Square and I write in the strongest possible opposition to this SSDA. This proposal is not a minor amendment or technical adjustment — it is a fundamental escalation in height and density that will permanently damage the lives, homes and wellbeing of existing residents. It represents an extraordinary overreach that benefits a single developer while imposing irreversible harm on hundreds of people who already live in this neighbourhood.

What is particularly disturbing is that this proposal has been brought forward without any prior consultation with the surrounding community. Residents living just 24 metres away across a narrow road were given no opportunity to be informed, engaged or heard before such a dramatic increase was placed on exhibition. This approach is deeply unfair and undermines confidence in the planning process.

The additional height would have severe and unacceptable impacts on St Leonards Square residents. Direct sunlight to apartments would be blocked for large parts of the day, sight of the sky lost, and privacy to living and sleeping rooms seriously compromised through close proximity and direct overlooking. Many residents would lose valued views entirely. These are not abstract concerns — they affect people’s daily lives, mental health and enjoyment of their own homes.

The proposal would also worsen already difficult wind conditions. Wind tunnel effects would be amplified on private balconies, through the St Leonards Square Plaza and in Friedlander Place, our nearby public open space available to residents. St Leonards Square shared outdoor amenities on level 2 including a function room and BBQ area, would lose further access to direct sunlight, reducing their usability and value as communal spaces. In addition, many residents face significant financial loss, as apartment values are diminished and effectively transferred to the developer.

The increased density is equally concerning. The area is served by only one access road, already under pressure from Northmark, Shoremark, St Leonards Square, The Landmark, 88a and 88b Christie Street, surrounding residential streets and also the major Telstra development that is now under construction. Adding hundreds of additional apartments will overwhelm this network with resident vehicles, refuse trucks, couriers, service providers and delivery traffic, creating congestion, noise and safety risks.

Existing planning controls already permit a 30-storey residential building on this site, which was assessed through previous planning processes as the maximum appropriate height. The site sits on a small local road, away from and below the Pacific Highway. Pushing beyond these controls is extreme, unnecessary and entirely inappropriate. Very tall towers are already planned and established along the Pacific Highway corridor, where this scale of development belongs.

After multiple planning assessments — most recently concluded in February 2025 — the community had every reason to believe this matter was settled. Early works have even commenced. Re-opening the site now for additional height and density damages public trust in the NSW planning system.

This proposal clearly fails the public interest test. I urge the consent authority to reject the proposed increases and uphold the existing planning controls.

The proposed development is a ridiculous project with significant impacts to St. Leonards Square

1. Loss of views/Property Investment Value Depreciated
Most investors are losing a fortune of money as they paid premium for the iconic view such as Most of our views will be gone i.e. Sydney Olympic park, the Anzac bridge and even Harbour Bridge. After the addition of 7 levels, all investment sum could be written off.

2. Shelter Effect/Negative impacts arised
The following problems are coming up if the proposed additional 7 levels are added:
a) It is totally not making sense that two buildings i.e. 46-52 Nicholson St and St Leonards are at the same level with a very close distance. It is against the city planning in the right way with shelter effect raised.
b) Loss of direct sunlight and overshadowing
c) No privacy
d) A wind tunnel created resulted in balconies no longer useable
3.Traffic
Heavy traffic are expected during the peak hours along Oxley St and Nicholson St

4.Medical
With more residents living after the addition of 7 levels and more new development in the nearby, it also add pressures to the Royal North Shore Hospital

5.High density and low living standard
The proposed development of adding 7 levels will create high density and low grade quality of living which is against the council policy of developing high standard of living in St. Leonards.

I OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN THE ATTACHMENT

I am a resident of St Leonards Square and I strongly oppose the proposed SSDA seeking a significant increase in height and number of apartments on the neighbouring site.

What is most disturbing is that this proposal has been brought forward without any prior consultation with the people who will be most affected. Residents living only 24 metres away across a narrow road were given no opportunity to be heard before this dramatic change was placed on exhibition.

The additional height would cause severe and permanent harm to our homes. Direct sunlight to apartments would be blocked, sight of the sky lost, privacy to living and sleeping rooms destroyed, and valued views eliminated. Wind tunnel effects would worsen across balconies, through the St Leonards Square Plaza and in Friedlander Place, our nearby public space. Shared outdoor amenities, including our BBQ area, would lose sunlight. Many residents would also suffer significant financial loss, as apartment values are reduced to benefit to the single developer of this neighbouring site.

The proposed density is equally unacceptable. There is only one road leading out to Pacific Highway, which already under severe traffic strain from Northmark/Shoremark(52-56 Christie Street), St Leonards Square (472-486 Pacific Highway), Landmark (500 Pacific Highway) and 88a/88b Christie Street. Adding hundreds more apartments will overwhelm local streets with resident traffic, service vehicles, refuse trucks, couriers and delivery drivers.

Current planning controls already allow a 30-storey residential building, which was assessed as the maximum appropriate height for this site given its location away from and below the Pacific Highway on a small local road. Pushing beyond this is extreme and unnecessary. Very tall buildings are already concentrated along the Pacific Highway, where they belong.

This proposal benefits a developer at the direct expense of existing residents and fails the public interest test. It damages wellbeing, liveability and community trust.

After multiple planning processes, most recently concluded in February 2025, residents had every reason to believe this matter was finalised. Early works have even commenced. Re-opening the site for additional height and density at this late stage undermines confidence in the NSW planning system and is not acceptable.

I urge the consent authority to reject the proposed increases and uphold the planning controls that were already determined through proper process.

The project seriously affects the value of my property and block my view. There is no reasons to approve the project except for their own benefits of the developer.