I strongly support his proposal and have some commentary to provide.
1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation, active transportation links, and shops, . We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis. As per https://grattan.edu.au/report/more-homes-better-cities/ = "Allowing more housing in established suburbs would mean cheaper housing in all suburbs."
2. It will provide 21 affordable dwellings
3. It includes ground floor retail
4. I strongly encourage the use of induction or standard electric cook-tops be used as well as heat pump hot water instead of gas appliances. This is because gas is a fossil fuel, as there are more efficient and less costly to the environment and for people who will live in the apartments, its use should be reconsidered. If gas is to be used for cooktops and hot water, then apartment owners will be forced to pay for a separate daily connection fee to use the gas cooktop and for hot water they will be paying an estimated additional $479 a year (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-sydneysiders-could-save-730-a-year-by-ditching-gas-20240325-p5feyf.html). You can find evidence to show that hot water heat pumps are more efficient than gas hot water heating and that induction cooktops are more efficient than gas cooktops. Gas is also a fossil fuel, has potential health impacts when used as part of cooking. This is especially of note for this proposal as it contains - "Minimum 20kW solar photovoltaic (PV) system" which could be used to power a hot water heat pump or electric/induction cooktops but as they are gas ... it won't be able to do that.

The proposed development at 307-315 Parramatta Rd appears to be an excellent development, which will significantly enhance the area around Parramatta Rd and Leichhardt. It provides a great mix of apartment sizes, and higher quality ground floor retail than the standard currently provided on Parramatta Rd. Finally, the provision of affordable housing will go some way to supporting essential workers in Sydney.
Sydney is in the grip of an ongoing housing crisis. It is critical that we continue to approve more housing across the city. This is especially true in areas with great amenity and transport links. Leichhardt meets these in spades. Parramatta Rd has long been neglected as an area for intensified development, which is a shame, as it provides excellent links to the city, great amenity nearby and is sorely in need of increased vibrance. The southern end of Norton St will benefit greatly from more people living nearby.
Increasing density is known to support local business and it improves vibrancy. We know from experience around the world that building more housing is a key part of mitigating the cost of housing. By building homes, even luxury apartments, we provide options and reduce competition for housing. This reduces the need for those on lower incomes to compete against people with higher incomes, making housing more affordable across the city. Sydney is not only the most unaffordable city in Australia, it is one of the most unaffordable cities in the world.
As a society, we are seeing the effects of decades of housing being perceived as a problem that can be fixed elsewhere. The planning system and additional development can't solve all of society's problems, nor should it. But what we've been doing for the past few decades hasn't worked. It is essential that we not merely consider the views of current residents, but also those who don't yet know that this will be their future home.

The proposed development is completely at odds with the existing street frontage along Parramatta Road and will create shadowing issues for numerous properties in the vicinity (which are not made clear in the attachments to the application). The proposed justifications, based on stated government priorities to do with housing, cannot overcome the impact of such a large development on local amenity. If approved, is the intention for all of Parramatta Road to be developed to 16 stories as part of a longer term government view about housing? Is there a cohesive policy in this respect? Is there any considered understanding of how additional height/apartments as a result of meeting an “affordable housing “ tick-box will actually provide affordable housing to the identified cohorts (police, emergency services, nurses, teachers etc)?

Please refer to attached letter.