1) Traffic Congestion
Victor Street is a no-through road with significant traffic congestion due to the presence of:
- 3 residential apartment blocks, including the recently approved build-to-rent NOVUS tower
- kiss-and-ride zone for dropoff to local train station
- thoroughfare for vehicles needing to access the main boulevard (common due to market stalls)
The traffic congestion for Victor and Albert streets is frequently a bottleneck with no cars being able to enter / exit Victor St within the timing of a traffic light change.
I propose that any potential redevelopment to include a clause to ensure the carpark entrance is not on Victor Street.

2) Shadowing of Chatswood Oval
Chatswood oval is the only significant public green space in the central district of Chatswood. It is frequently used by families as well as local sporting clubs (rugby, cricket etc).
The proposed height of the mandarin centre development will cause overshadowing of the oval which will impact on its usability.
There are no other suitable public green spaces in Chatswood that can replace the oval.

3) Blockage of Natural Light
The south facing units of the Sebel building (over 100) will have a dramatic impact on loss of natural light into the units. The NSW Apartment Design Guide specifies the amount of natural light that should be available for apartments. The proposed height and setback distance between the 2 buildings will certainly impact on light.
There has been no modelling to determine impact on the residents of the Sebel.

4) Privacy Concerns
The design photos show a very short setback distance between the proposed Mandarin Centre
redevelopment and The Sebel. This will result in the south-facing residents of The Sebel and the north-facing residents of the Mandarin Centre redevelopment both having significant privacy concerns - being able to look clearly into each other’s apartments.
Section 2F of the Apartment Design Guide (NSW Gov - Planning and Development) states that 2 apartment residential buildings requires a separation distance of 24 metres between habitable rooms and balconies.
This has not been shown to be the case in the proposed redevelopment - this is in violation of the guidelines.

5) Wind Tunnelling
Tall buildings with minimal separation distance results in significant wind tunnelling. There has been no modelling to show the effects of this, and similarly no discussion on strategies to minimise the impact of wind tunnelling on pedestrians and residents.

Subject: Formal Objection to Mandarin Centre Redevelopment- Request for Investigation into Traffic, Light, and Privacy Impacts on Sebel apartment.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the owner of unit 2803 of Sebel apartments, located next to the Mandarin Centre on Victor street, Chatswood. I have recently received the redevelopment notification for the Mandarin Centre site, which proposes to construct two towers of up to 32 storeys. While I support appropriate urban renewal, I have serious concerns that the current proposal will cause unacceptable adverse impacts on our living environment. I respectfully request that your authority constantly thorough investigation into the following two critical issues.

1)Traffic Congestion on Victor st - A ‘No through rd.’
2)Insufficient Separation Between Towers and Sebel.
-Severe Overshadowing of Sebel apartments, reducing natural light and liveability.
-Direct overlooking into our windows and balcony causing unacceptable loss of privacy.
-A cramped, canyon-like streetscape inconsistent with Chatswood’s planning objectives.

Request for Action
1) Reject or defer approval until a full independent Traffic Impact Assessment for Victor street is completed.
2) Require the applicant to redesign the towers to achieve the mandatory 24 metre separation, and demonstrate how light and privacy can otherwise be protected.

Yours faithfully,
Antonio Ma
Unit 2803, Sebel apartments
37 Victor Street, Chatswood

The scale of the development is expected to have significant impacts on residents of The Sebel, including concerns relating to traffic congestion, loss of natural light, privacy, and wind tunnelling. My value of my investment on the unit may go down by A$300K.

While I support the project as the current Mandarin Centre has not been well maintained and run-down. The future centre needs to have ample of parking space in order to support the business, instead of selfishly rely on the public street parking or take advantage of nearby Westfield car park. Build your own one.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed construction of a high-rise building at the site of the Mandarin Centre, on the grounds of its significant adverse impact on my residential amenity.

My principal concerns are as follows:
1. Obstruction of sky views and natural light
The proposed development would substantially block the open sky that is currently enjoyed from my property. This would create an oppressive sense of enclosure, markedly reducing the quality of natural daylight and the spacious, airy feel that characterises my home and outlook at present.
2. Loss of green and open views
At the moment, I benefit from a pleasant, albeit narrow, vista of greenery and open space. The new building would entirely eliminate this remaining view of natural elements, replacing it with a dominant built form. This change would significantly diminish the visual amenity and sense of connection to nature that I currently experience from my windows and outdoor areas.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that the height of the proposed development be limited to no more than 10 storeys. Such a reduction would go a considerable way toward mitigating the harmful effects on neighbouring residents while still allowing the project to proceed in a more balanced manner. I believe this compromise would help ensure a fair outcome that respects the well-being and quality of life of existing residents in the area.Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my objection. Your careful attention to these matters is greatly appreciated.

Dear reader,

I strongly encourage you to reconsider demolition of 61A - 65 Albert Avenue. Although I no longer live in the local area, I still commute to Chatswood on weekends and during holidays. Chatswood is know for it's large variety of shops - from the small family run markets to the large retail stores of Westfield and Chatswood Chase, the Mandarin Center has also made it's mark in establishing the areas character and the community living within it.

I myself have made some fond memories in the Mandarin Center - hugging a giant panda that was put up for Chinese New Year, making some quick stops at Daiso and going out for Korean BBQ and Timezone with friends. To see this timeless building be knocked down would be heartbreaking for me and many others - store owners, employees and the community, some who have know this special place for years. Would you really want to let go of a unique piece of the past?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

My objection relates to the proposal for parking - 398 resident and 46 retail car spaces. Where currently there are 303 car spaces.

Government document “Guide to Traffic Impact Assessment” (GTIA) sets out parking provision for shopping centres and specifies how traffic impact is assessed.

According to that document, approximately 395 retail car spaces should be provided, given the size of the retail component of the proposal. The development proposal represents a shortfall of 349 spaces. It appears that many shoppers would be expected to park in the Albert St car park and reach the shopping centre via the retained pedestrian airbridge.

As someone who has previously lived in Chatswood and frequently visits Chatswood, limiting retail parking (46 retail car spaces) while significantly favouring residential parking (398 resident car spaces - more than the number of apartments being built) is clearly a selling point for the developer as they stand to make more money by offering car space(s) for each apartment.

However doing so will have negative consequences on surrounding streets - and cause more congestion to a heavily congested Pacific Highway, Albert Avenue and Victor Avenue - as cars need to navigate through local streets in search for available parking.

The developer assesses retail traffic impact based on the 46 proposed spaces (ignoring the potential 349 cars in the Albert Ave car park), and notes a possible reduced overall impact, compared to current traffic. On this basis, the proponent has been excused by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) from doing traffic modelling. Previous modelling for the same site (but a different proposal) noted “that the Pacific Highway/ Albert Avenue intersection operates at capacity”. Traffic from a number of development proposals, including this one, will stretch that intersection well beyond its capacity.

The Government guideline document (GTIA) states that retail traffic assessment should be based on gross leasable retail floor area (i.e. size of retail development, GFLA), not car spaces. The proponent has adopted the latter approach. An assessment based on GFLA would identify a significantly greater number of car movements.

This issue needs to be addressed through a more rigorous and objective assessment of car traffic in that area. More modelling is needed prior to revisiting the number of retail to residential parking.

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development of the two up to thirty-two-storey residential blocks at the above location. As a resident of the apartment building immediately adjacent to the proposed site, I believe the scale of this project is entirely incompatible with the site's physical constraints and will cause significant harm to the local community.
My objections are based on the following material planning considerations:
1. Severe Infringement of Privacy and Overlooking
The proposed development is situated only several metres from the existing residential block where I reside.
Bedroom Privacy: The current plans allow for new units to look directly into the bedroom of existing homes. This creates an unacceptable level of overlooking that cannot be mitigated by privacy screens alone.
Loss of Amenity: The short setback distance fails to provide the necessary separation between high-rise structures, resulting in a fundamental loss of privacy and a sense of "enclosure" for current residents.
2. Critical Traffic Congestion and Infrastructure Strain (Victor Street & Albert Avenue)
Victor Street is a narrow, single-lane, dead-end road that is already struggling to handle current traffic volumes.
Exclusive Access: Critically, Victor Street is the only access point for my existing apartment block. Because it is a dead-end road, any congestion caused by the new development directly impacts my ability to enter or exit my own home.
Station Access and "Kiss and Ride": Victor Street is also a major access route to the train station and houses a vital "Kiss and Ride" drop-off point. The high-turnover traffic associated with station commuting already causes significant friction.
Current Gridlock: Traffic currently backs up to the point where vehicles must wait one to two full light cycles to enter or exit Victor Street from Albert Avenue. Adding hundreds of new residential units will turn this existing delay into a permanent state of gridlock, potentially trapping existing residents in their own street.
Market Access: Victor Street is the sole vehicular access point for the open-air market held along Victoria Avenue. On market days, the stall owners and patrons will have to navigate the already congested Victor Streeet; this development would likely make the street impassable, threatening the viability of the market.
3. Impact on Public Amenity (The Oval)
The immense height of the two up to thirty-two-storey towers will cast substantial shadows over the nearby public oval.
Loss of Utility: This oval is a key recreational space for the public. Persistent overshadowing will make the area cold and less inviting for community sports and leisure.
Ecological Impact: I am concerned that the reduction in natural sunlight will negatively affect the health and growth of the grass, leading to a degraded playing surface and increasing the maintenance burden on the council.
4. Wind Tunneling and Microclimate
Constructing two up to thirty-two-storey blocks with such a minimal setback will create a "canyon effect." This results in significant wind tunneling and downdraughts, which will make the pedestrian environment on Victor Street—particularly for those walking to the station—unpleasant and potentially hazardous during inclement weather.
Conclusion
The proposal represents a massive overdevelopment of a constrained site. The reliance on a single-lane dead-end road for exclusive access, the extreme proximity to existing bedrooms, and the impact on the public oval demonstrate that this project is unsustainable.
I strongly urge the Planning Committee to reject this application. Any development on this site must be scaled back significantly in height and include a substantial setback to respect the existing residential community and the operational capacity of our local infrastructure.

I object on the basis that the proponent's Traffic Impact Assessment does not provide a valid representation of the traffic that will be generated (not done according to DPHI guidelines) and no traffic modelling is performed. Traffic from dominantly this but also nearby developments will likely overwhelm Albert Ave, and require remedial action. The development should be paused until traffic issues are addressed. See attachment for full discussion and a working of the traffic implications