The maximum height of either of the 2 towers (eastern and western) should not exceed the 10th floor of the Sage building, thus allowing all-year sunshine and 'breathing space' to the Sage and Sebel buildings residents and does not block the views of neighbouring buildings residents. The concept of a modern Mandarin Centre is favourable but not at the expense of residents on all neighbouring buildings.

Written Submission to The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure re: Objection to the Development Application No SSD-85024458 at 61A-65 Albert Avenue Chatswood concerning the demolition of the existing building and construction of a mixed-use development comprising:
• two towers up to 32 storeys with a 4-storey retail podium, and
• 235 residential units, and
• 6 basement levels containing 444 car spaces, and
• so on (hereinafter referred as “The Proposal”.
From:
Mr Arthur Ying-Lim Kwan and Mrs Rita Lai-Ching Kwan
Address: Unit 1803, 37 Victor Street Chatswood NSW 2067
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0408 881 082

Declarations:
• We have not made any reportable political donations in the last 2 years.
• We acknowledge that we accept the Department’s disclaimer and declaration, including confirmation that our submission does not contain offensive, threatening, defamatory or inappropriate content.


Date: 20 March 2026


We, Arthur Ying-Lim Kwan and Rita Lai-Ching Kwan, being immediately adjoining residents to the Mandarin Centre - the building to be redeveloped under The Proposal - submit in brief as follows:

We strongly object to The Proposal on the grounds that:

(a) When the previous plan of redeveloping Mandarin Centre was put forward in 2020, we believe a lot of residents and other interested people in Chatswood and nearby suburbs had formally raised their serious concerns over height, design, loss of views and privacy, overshadowing of Chatswood Oval, traffic congestion and so forth, that would result from the then proposal. The Proposal this time, not only has not satisfactorily addressed and resolved those concerns, but rather, has further significantly aggravated the magnitude and severeness of the issues; and

(b) In the absence of concrete and reliable assurance on the financial support and ability of the developer to have the redevelopment under The Proposal to be carried out and completed on a timely basis, it is not unreasonable for people to have the concern that in case of any unexpected financial, technical or other problems that the project becomes “rotten”, no one can predict how many years that the messy conditions would remain there before someone would take over to complete the redevelopment. In such case, the messy status will inevitably lead to unpleasant appearance and chaotic environment, giving very adverse image as well as undue inconvenience to both the Chatswood residents and visitors.

More details of our submissions are as follows:

(1) From the information available to us, the redevelopment under The Proposal is to convert the existing five-storey Mandarin Centre into two towers up to 32 storeys with a 4-storey retail podium, 235 residential units, 6 basement levels containing 444 car spaces, and so forth. Inevitably, as one can reasonably expect, this will lead to a huge increase of numbers of residents, travellers and car movements adding to the local road network in Chatswood and nearby suburbs, giving rise to the severe and irreversible damages to Chatswood which will be further mentioned in paragraph (3) below.

(2) From personal perspectives, we are resident-owners of Unit 1803, The Sebel, Level 18, 37 Victor Street Chatswood, and currently we have uninterrupted views from our lounge and kitchen, which do provide us with some reasonable visual space, source of natural light and “breathing” area, as well as reasonable privacy.

But then under The Proposal, these views will be obstructed. In effect, the new developed building(s) will be visually so close to ours that not only our privacy is totally lost, but also it would inevitably create an “overcrowding” and “oppressive” environment causing undue annoyance, or even more seriously, emotional distress to our life at home.

However, these personal loss and damage to us are far insignificant and unimportant in the context of the seriousness of the overall adverse effects and harms to the community as a whole and people at large of the Chatswood that would be resulting from The Proposal. These overall costs and harms to the public will be further described in the subsequent paragraphs.


(3) Currently Chatswood, especially the CBD, is already over-saturated with people and buildings. Here the traffic is so congested, the noise pollution so severe, and the available infrastructures and amenity facilities so extremely in shortage. Even taking into account of potential expansion, the road network, infrastructures and amenity are already far insufficient to meet people’s need.

Hence by approving The Proposal and allowing the related redevelopment would simply mean that all of a sudden, there are additions of 235 residential units, many retail shops and hundreds of car spaces, and the resulting enormous burden will be a further stretch of the said facilities beyond their breaking points to a detrimental extent. The adverse consequences, which are irreversible, will be so significant and long-lasting that the whole community will suffer for years and years, and many years to come.

(4) When we look at the current conditions, social, economic and political, both local and overseas, we can hardly have any optimistic views in the next three to five years, or maybe even a longer period, especially on the building development industry.

High stagflation risk in economies including Australia, coupled with inflation, interest rate hikes, squeeze of money supplies and lending, as well as economic uncertainty, would inhibit the Proposer’s ability to secure the necessary financing.

Middle East turmoil, including at the Strait of Hormuz, and the resulting soaring oil and fuel prices, then high transportation, labour and other building costs, not to mention the consequential supply chain instability and disruptions and the resulting materials bottlenecks, could unexpectedly shoot up the costs of redevelopment, and lead to unbearable financial hardship to the Proposer.

All these factors, not only they do not appear to be supportive to the Proposal, rather they are fatal determinants casting doubts on the Proposer’s ability to carry out and complete on time the building redevelopment under the Proposal.

So in the absence of concrete and reliable assurance on the financial support and ability of the Proposer to have the redevelopment under The Proposal to be carried out and completed on a timely basis, it is not unreasonable for us to have serious concern that in case of any unexpected financial, technical or other problems during the redevelopment process that the project becomes “rotten”, how long the messy conditions would remain there before someone would take over to complete the redevelopment? Months? Years?

If this happens, the messy conditions will inevitably lead to unpleasant appearance and chaotic environment, giving a very adverse image as well as undue inconvenience to both the Chatswood residents and visitors.


(5) In conclusion, as shown in the foregoing paragraphs, other than being beneficial merely to the Proposers and Developers concerned, The Proposal virtually gives no benefits whatsoever to the Chatswood community and its people. Not only that, the resulting social costs are so unbearably enormous, and the consequential damages are just irreversible and long-lasting.

It would only be those, as it appears to us, who are so self-interested, lack of social consciousness, and totally ignoring the public interest and welfare, could ever work out and formally put forward such abhorring redevelopment proposal.

Thus, after all factors are being considered, we believe there will be no other more appropriate decision that can be rightly made but to have The Proposal rejected.


Finally, we wish to mention that the Department should, and would as we trust, safeguard the interest and welfare of the overall community and people at large of Chatswood and nearby suburbs, and not merely the financial interest of certain individual property owners and developers, and accordingly makes its final determination to have The Proposal rejected.

Hope our above views will meet with the Department’s agreement. Thank you.

ARTHUR KWAN
CPA (Aust) B Com FCPA

RITA KWAN
Patron of Australian Chinese Charity Foundation
Governor Patron of CanRevive Cancer Foundation

I fully support the project. As a resident of Chatswood, I have to agree that whilst the Mandarin Centre is an institution in Chatswood, It is starting to show its age and a facelift is long overdue.

I also strongly agree that having a residential tower above the new centre is a no brainer, as it will significantly increase housing availability and affordability in Chatswood. I do however, wish to see the number of storeys in the residential tower to be above 40 as well as residential carparking.

I strongly oppose the proposed redesign of Sites 7, 17 and 18 at 960A Bourke Street, Zetland, which is currently on public exhibition as a State Significant Development Application under the Housing Delivery Authority (HDA) pathway.

This submission should not be interpreted as opposition to housing density. As a long-term resident of the area, I support well-planned high-density development and have not objected to the many thousands of apartments already delivered throughout the Green Square precinct.

However, the revised proposal conflicts with important state and local planning policies, including Planning Priority E11 of the Eastern City District Plan, the Green Square Town Centre Development Control Plan, and the strategic planning framework that has guided the development of this precinct for more than a decade. In particular, it departs from the previously approved land-use mix, reduces active street frontage outcomes, and undermines the employment targets established for the town centre.

My objection relates specifically to these three sites. They are located directly beside the civic plaza, the Green Square Library, and Green Square Station. Under the revised proposal, most of the employment-generating commercial floorspace that formed a key part of the original approvals is removed and replaced with build-to-rent apartments that deliver only a modest increase in housing yield.

The loss resulting from this change is substantial. It removes the opportunity for a commercial centre capable of providing much-needed local employment in an area already experiencing above-average unemployment. It also reduces the delivery of retail services for a catchment where shortages have already been identified, and weakens the supporting infrastructure required for the precinct to accommodate additional residential growth. Without the jobs, services and street activation that these sites were intended to provide, the ability of Green Square to sustainably support further housing density is diminished rather than improved.
The taking away of Commercial opportunity is unacceptable.
Any vibrant functioning precinct needs a balance of Residential and Commercial zoning.

I am writing to object the revised proposal.

I have concerns regarding the proposal to remove commercial amenities in an area that is already experiencing a shortage. Green Square is a rapidly growing community, with an increasing population of young families, professionals, and a steady flow of expats and visitors.

Reducing local commercial spaces risks further limiting access to essential services, retail, and community amenities that support the daily needs of residents and contribute to a vibrant, functional neighbourhood. A low level of local amenities can significantly impact liveability by forcing residents to travel further (by car) for basic services, increasing traffic and congestion, and reducing the sense of community that well-serviced neighbourhood centres typically foster.

Maintaining and expanding commercial amenities is critical to supporting the continued growth of Green Square and ensuring the area develops into a balanced, convenient, and sustainable urban precinct.

Please critically evaluate this application and assess the lost opportunity and negative impact it will have on our community.

As per attached PDF