When assessed against section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, relevant SEPPs, the Apartment Design Guide and City of Canada Bay LEP objectives, the proposal fails to demonstrate that its impacts have been adequately mitigated or justified.
The cumulative infrastructure burden, unacceptable overshadowing and ventilation outcomes, excessive scale, and delayed community benefit warrant refusal in its current form.
Should consent be contemplated, it must be subject to substantial redesign, materially reduced height and yield, enforceable infrastructure delivery and significantly increased community investment to ensure a sustainable and genuinely beneficial outcome for Concord West.
Attached are my detailed notes for your assessment.

The report does not contain any images of the wind tunnel testing model, which should be constructed in accordance with the AWES QAM-1-2019 guideline. The study model should be fabricated to within 2% accuracy of the architectural drawings, which clearly has been omitted from review.
There is also a substantial lack of sensors across the development site, with no sensors included to validate the wind conditions on the balconies, especially the corner balconies of the towers. Given the site receives no immediate shielding from neighbouring buildings this could in fact be a major issue for certain balcony areas, which would need to be mitigated.
The point layout also does not meet the Recommended Assessment area as outlined in AWES which is to investigate up to a distance of half the building height away from the building boundary.
The report also does not include any form of wind rose plots or tabulated values to compare the existing site wind conditions with the proposed test conditions. The report also states vegetation was included and the results appear to be acceptable. Have the tabulated values been omitted on purpose to mask the wind conditions of the proposed site without any vegetation? The assessor should not be reliant on the summary provided without the quantitative evidence.

I strongly support the project. This will provide 1,400 much needed homes located next to public transport. Sydney suffers from a dire housing shortage and if the next generation is to have a chance of living in the city we need to support new housing. If we are ever to make housing affordable for our children we need more rather than less development, in particular development such as this situated next to mass transit.


I live in Concord West (owner occupier) and am excited for the new vibrancy and dynamism that such a development is likely to bring. I would strongly encourage the state/council to make sure that this project goes ahead and to take actions to ensure that local public services are expanded as needed to meet the demands of new residents.

I support the project of the Mixed-Use Development on 1 King Street, Concord West

To suggest that an additional 1300 new apartments on the site at 1 King St, Concord West, will be anything other than chaos is absurd. This site can only be accessed by road via the George St / Pomeroy St intersection due to the constraints of being a peninsula site enclosed by railway to the east and water / mangroves to the west and north. In recent years planning approvals have permitted an additional 369 units at 27-29 George St, 170 at 21-25 George St and 88 at Rothwell Avenue - all in the immediate vicinity of the subject site; and there is an on-going proposal for a further 324 units to be built at 7 Concord Ave. Furthermore, the actual DA online states there will be 1336 units NOT the 1300 stated in the mailed letter.

As the owner of a unit on Queen St, Concord West, directly across the station from 1 King St, I am concerned that the inevitable log-jam of traffic entering/exiting George St at the only junction providing access will result in residents of 1 King St opting to park their cars on the east side of the railway line for easy access to Concord Road and Homebush Bay Drive. This easily saves 15 to 20 minutes at busy times of the day. My unit does not have private onsite parking and I am very much dependent on free on-street availability.

I am not totally against the development of this site for residential units, however the scale is over-burdening the limited road infrastructure. Unless a new link can be put in from the north end of George Street to Homebush Bay Drive, the idea of adding the volume of cars associated with a development of this size is untenable.

Finally, increasing the building height from 55m to 144m cannot have been a decision made overnight. Such heights are totally inappropriate for Concord West and Billbergia's sneaky attempt to push this DA amendment through has not gone un-noted by the local community.
Please do right by the residents of Concord West and limit the size of this development to more sensible proportions. Thank you

I am objecting to increase in height and density of the proposed developement at 1 King Street, Concord West. As it requires access to George St, which is the only road in and out of North Strathfield. This overly busy road is already crowded as it, it cannot take more traffic. The proposal is too high and will not fit well with the surrounding neighbourhood.

As a local resident, I formally object to SSD-81999457 based on the following concerns:

Transport & Gridlock: The site relies on a single entry point (George St / Pomeroy St). The developer’s modeling admits wait times will significantly increase, yet ignores the cumulative impact of other future local developments. I reject the argument that further clogging a 'failing' intersection is acceptable.

School & Healthcare Capacity: Local primary schools and healthcare services are already at or near capacity. This proposal does not provide adequate evidence that local social infrastructure can absorb the massive influx of thousands of new residents.

Pressure on Open Space: Our local parks and recreational facilities are already heavily utilized. This extreme increase in density will lead to the over-saturation of Bicentennial Park and surrounding green spaces, reducing the quality of life for current residents.

Loss of Local Character: The sheer scale and height of this development are inconsistent with the character of Concord West.

I urge the Department to reject this application and reduce the density to a level that our schools, roads, and community services can actually support.

We, the residents of 174 George Street Concord West, lodge this formal objection to SSD‑81999457, the proposed concurrent rezoning to permit a mixed‑use development comprising eight buildings ranging from 6 to 38 storeys, with 1,468 basement car spaces, and associated residential, retail, commercial, and open‑space uses at 1 King Street, Concord West.

Our objection is made under the State Significant Development (SSD) framework and the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs). The Planning Proposal fails to demonstrate that the rezoning is appropriate for the site, consistent with strategic planning principles, or capable of being supported by local infrastructure. It also fails to avoid unacceptable impacts on surrounding properties and the broader community.

As the closest residents, particularly at 172 and 174 George Street, we will be disproportionately impacted by the excessive height, density, traffic generation, environmental impacts, and permanent loss of amenity resulting from this proposal.

Please see the attached formal objection.