Updated after Rts from objection to comment

1. Inappropriate scale & height for the streetscape.
2.Affordable housing. 5%,for only 15 years will do nothing to offer relief for housing crisis. These apartments will be UNaffordable.
3. Not adequate infrastructure to provide for such an increase in resident numbers.
4.Lack of public transport for that area. Basically the Light Rail nearby is at capacity now.

We, residents in Leichhardt support some housing density uplift, but this proposal in William st would be a massive over development for the area including congestion and overshadowing for neighbouring properties.
A smaller scale proposal was rejected by the Land & environment court in 2023.. so why allow this twice as high proposal. It’s an outrage.
Please do NOT approve this development.
Deirdre Evans

I object to this development application and ask that it be refused.
Affordable housing: The proposal commits just 5% affordable housing, and only for 15 years. This does nothing for affordability in this area.
Height and scale: The Land and Environment Court rejected a smaller, five-storey proposal on this same site in December 2023, finding it excessive. This application proposes up to 11 storeys — far beyond what the Court has already ruled inappropriate — and would unacceptably overshadow neighbouring properties to the west and south.
Public transport: Buses and light rail in Leichhardt are already at capacity. Even the developer acknowledges this. Development of this scale should not proceed ahead of genuine transport upgrades.
Infrastructure: Cumulative impact must be assessed properly. Current and future residents need real access to green space, schools, hospitals, and sporting facilities — not promises to catch up later.
I ask that this application be refused, and any future proposal align with appropriate height, affordability, and infrastructure standards.

I do not support the proposal for an 11 storey development. I do support a development at this site but lower density. I also feel that the proposed 5% affordable housing is too low and this should be higher and guaranteed for more than 15 years.
The original development of 5 storey’s is much more sustainable with the current infrastructure in place and the current levels of public transport in the area.

The project height and base plate is too large. In December 2023, residents took a smaller, 5-storey version of this development to the NSW Land and Environment Court and it was refused, based on concerns about the inappropriate bulk and height, and significant overshadowing for neighbouring properties. Now, after the NSW Labor Government re-wrote planning laws, the developer has come back with a new proposal that’s up to six storeys higher. This is clear manipulation of "State Significant Development" which is not just happening with this development, but with developmnts all over Sydney. There is no basis for the project to be allowed to be so large and cause adverse impact on the local community.

Supplementary submission to SSD-119545240, Residential Flat Building, 40-76 William Street, Leichhardt
I am writing to add an additional matter to my earlier submission on SSD-119545240. I am an owner and resident of a property on North Street, directly impacted by the proposed development.
The Environmental Impact Statement confirms that both basement parking levels (237 spaces) and all service vehicle access for the entire 203 unit development are proposed via North Street, not William Street. North Street is a genuinely narrow residential street. It does not have sufficient width for two vehicles to pass each other travelling in opposite directions at the same time, and on street parking is permitted on both sides, further reducing the usable carriageway. The EIS’s Traffic Impact Assessment does not appear to separately model or justify how basement garage traffic for up to 237 vehicles, together with all deliveries, waste collection and service vehicle movements for the development, will safely enter and exit a street of this width without conflict with two way traffic, parked cars and pedestrians.
I also raise a procedural concern. Despite being among the residents most directly affected by this proposal, this critical detail, that all basement and service vehicle access will be concentrated on North Street, was not made clear or prominent in the exhibition material. It appears only within a dense, lengthy Environmental Impact Statement rather than being flagged in the exhibition notice or any resident-facing summary. Residents of North Street had no meaningful opportunity to become aware of this specific impact on their street unless they read the full technical document in detail. I ask the Department to consider whether directly affected residents on North Street were adequately notified of this aspect of the proposal, and to ensure this is addressed clearly in any further public information about the application.
I ask the Department to require a specific, independent assessment of North Street’s capacity and safety to carry this concentrated access load, separate from the general intersection level of service modelling already provided, before this application is determined.
I request that this supplementary submission be linked to my earlier submission on SSD-119545240 in the assessment record.

This development has been before Council multiple times and most recently the Land and Environment Court, and has been repeatedly rejected for being too large, too tall, providing inadequate parking, and increasing traffic in narrow streets. It would be less than a block away from a long day care centre and a primary school, and the increased pressure on parking and traffic volume would increase the risk for children. There is already parking pressure on the streets around the proposed development, and this will only exacerbate the problem. The north-western corner of Norton St is poorly supported by buses particularly into the centre of the city and the light rail during peak hour is already overcrowded. The surrounding buildings are mainly one and two story residences and a converted warehouse of three stories, and the nearest high rise buildings are more than 1.5kms away near Parramatta Road. This proposal is twice the height of the most recently rejected proposal, with significantly increased floor to space ratio. If five stories has been previously considered to be too high then 11 stories is monstrous. It is completely inappropriate visually and out of character for the suburb. I support in principle the site being redeveloped, but not the repeated attempts by this developer to cram as many apartments as possible into this space without providing appropriate amenities and infrastructure and at a cost to surrounding residents and visitors.

please see my submission as an attachment.

Please see attached