1. Look at how congested Victor Street and Albert Ave are at peak hour and on the weekend when everyone is coming to Chatswood to shop. Which rational person thought it was a good idea to add high-density housing along Victor Street? How will the ambulance and Fire truck arrive efficiently at Victor Street? With Novus' high-density building approved (who in the right mind approves such a project), do you want to add another high-density building along Victor Street? Do humans no longer have rational and logical thinking anymore?

2. With Novus approved and the Mandarin Centre both under construction. Do you want the residents at Sebel to die or suffer from years of non-stop construction noise? You may as well buy up all the apartments along Victor Street and turn them into super high-density housing all at once. Why not? It is heading towards Gotham City at this rate.

3. If you are going ahead with the project (because, let's face it, you are going ahead with Novus no matter how many objections we make), make it not high-density. Make sure the car park is at Albert Street, not Victor Street, or else it will be a total nightmare. With deliveries for the Novus building, the Sebel resident car park, train drop-off, and the pedestrian crossing along Victor Street, that is what I call a disaster zone. Please also consider adding more police to the area, as with Novus added to this street, Chatswood would turn into Gotham City and need more police. There is an elderly resident complex near Victor Street, turning Chatswood into chaos and Gotham City is not safe for those elderly residents. I was planning to retire in Chatswood, but who knows how dangerous it would become now. I can't believe all this chaos is happening in Chatswood. How did all these happen? Did I vote for the wrong government to cause this? I should be more careful about how I vote next time.

The Federation of Willoughby Progress Associations objects to this SSDA and supports Willoughby City Council's submission.

The proposed Mandarin Centre Development will cause severe mental stress for the many elderly residents who have enjoyed city views since the Sebel was built in 1997.
The 46 storey single tower proposal put forward in May 2025 gave hope as it still allowed shared views.
This latest development has dashed that hope and turned to despair.

I am a member of the public who has concerns about this development. Below are the reasons for my objection.
1. The proposed new building overshadowing the nearby Chatswood oval which is the main spot locals use to exercise and play sport. Chatswood oval is the only significant public green space nearby. My kids and older relatives use this oval to meet up with friends to exercise and enjoy the outdoors. The overshadowing of the oval will have a negative impact on our health.
2. Victor Street is already very congested due to the shopping centres and other apartment blocks. An additional building of this size would make the traffic even more congested and next to impossible for traffic to enter and exit Victor Street.
3. This new development will put further pressure on local infrastructure like schools and a lack of outdoor public green recreation and sporting areas. My concern is that there will be severe overcrowding and this would negatively impact future generations in the community.

Dear Planning Officer,
I oppose the Mandarin Centre redevelopment due to its unacceptable impacts on surrounding residents.
The project would eliminate sunlight access, create privacy intrusion, and entirely obstruct existing outlooks, fundamentally reducing residential amenity. The extent of view loss goes beyond what could reasonably be considered “view sharing” under Tenacity Consulting v Warringah.
There are also broader concerns, including increased local congestion, wind tunnelling risks, and unclear proposal details, particularly conflicting building schemes shown across submitted documents.
These issues suggest the proposal is poorly resolved and lacks transparency.
For these reasons, I request that the application be refused or significantly revised.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object the proposed redevelopment of Mandarin Centre for the following reasons:
1. The Proposed Development will block all the natural light to the south facing units of the Sebel (37 Victor Street, Chatswood), as well as any and all views.
2. The Proposed Development will create increased traffic to Victor Street and Albert Avenue. This area already experiences heavy traffic and substantial jams during all hours of the day, especially so during peak hours and weekends. I note the increase in car spaces for the new development will take it from the existing number of 300 to 444 car spaces.
3. The Proposed Development will adversely affect the amenity of the area - increased crowding, noise, pollution and heavier pedestrian traffic. None of these matters appear to be addressed in the proposals.
4. The Proposed Development constitutes twin blocks which will crowd the Sebel and destroys the outlook of those apartments facing the Proposed Development. Furthermore the design itself is an eyesore and does not appear to reflect any kind of design excellence. Moreover, one of the two blocks is built so close to the Sebel that it will have an inevitable impact on the privacy of the occupants of the apartments in both buildings.
5. The present planning controls are suitable to the area, and should not be changed in the way the proposed planning proposal sets out. There is no good reason for the changes which it would require. The existing heights will already create wind tunnel and sun blockage issues. The fact that the Proposed Development will have an additional 4 storey will exacerbate these issues.
For the above reasons, I object to the proposal. Thank you.

The traffic will be more hectic than it already is right now

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I write to formally object to SSD-85024458.
I am an owner/resident of a Level 20, south-facing apartment at The Sebel Sydney Chatswood, directly facing the proposed development site.
This submission is made on the basis that the proposal represents clear overdevelopment and will result in significant, direct, and irreversible impacts on surrounding residents.
In particular, the proposal fails to adequately address:
• Severe visual privacy intrusion
• Insufficient building separation (non-compliance with ADG intent)
• Significant loss of natural light to over 100 south-facing units
• Traffic congestion and unsafe access conditions, particularly on Victor Street
• Wind tunnelling and microclimate impacts
• Overshadowing of Chatswood Oval, a critical public open space
These impacts are not minor or theoretical—they are predictable outcomes of the current building envelope and have not been properly resolved.
Accordingly, I strongly request that SSD-85024458 be REFUSED.
In the alternative, any approval must require a substantial reduction in building bulk and increased separation distances, particular at upper levels where impacts are most severe.
Please keep me informed of all future stages of assessment.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I broadly support this project because we are in the midst of a housing crisis and it makes sense to build high-rise residential in the Chatswood CBD, especially as vacancy rates for commercial space have been increasing.
This project has undergone several iterations with the proponents making concerted efforts to meet community concerns.
I have the following comments on the application:
* there are nearly 400 residential parking spots for 325 apartments, which appears excessive for a development which is virtually adjacent to the Chatswood Interchange.
* on the other hand, the proposal for retail parking (46 spaces) appears inadequate, as such a low number of parking spaces will place pressure on Albert St and Westfield carparks, which are often at capacity during busy periods (eg weekends).
* the proponent is offering a 5% affordable housing contribution. While the proponent should be commended for offering affordable housing in perpetuity, for a development of this size and with significant departures from the WLEP, the proportion of affordable housing should be higher and at least 10%.
Thank you for providing the opportunity to provide feedback on this project.