141 Allen Street Leichhardt NSW 2040

This DA may have been an appropriate development if there were significant efforts by State Government to greatly increase public and active transport and other infrastructure in the area. But alas, there are none. On the contrary, with the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, both federal and state government clearly have no intention for Sydney to go down this path. The WestConnex project will encourage greater car dependency all over Sydney and will worsen air quality and the already terrible congestion in Leichhardt, making it increasingly unfavorable for residential development. In this light, a more appropriate development might be a petrol station, a car park, auto wrecker, car sales yard, tyre junkyard, respiratory illness medical centre, accident trauma centre, tow-truck or NRMA depot, road-rage counselling centre etc. Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed. Clearly the priorities of the State Government and the WestConnex Delivery Authority are in conflict with the developer.

Dee Payne,I'm just concerned children don't have the luxury of a backyard! Why so many flats why !,just don't get why . if this is allowed,these types places become ghettos eventually,too many people in the one area,,this amount would have to cause traffic congestion,stop taking away the feel of suburbs and tranquility,yes tranquility in my area,good old Leichhardt,we have plenty of land,the State Goverment needs to realese more ,do I want a city that houses children in flats ?no ! And I'm not against the Westconnx,just overcrowding,

Offstreet parking is not a solution it is a contributer to congestion and climate change. The requirement for appartments to have offstreet parking means that appartment owners are paying more for their homes including space for a car, when they may never own a vehicle.

The higher costs continue after purchase with strata levies having to cover the risk of flooding (given proximity to Flood Street) and the cost of maintaining lifts and water pumps and other connections to the storm water system. The smaller the appartment the more disproportionate are the overheads of operating it.

Council needs to carefully asess and report on the impact of these plans on road, sewerage and storm water infrastructure.

With land expensive and scarce - s94 payments can't buy parkland. Developments need to provide a common "backyard" probably ideally suited at the front of the property. ie a pocket public park.

Units also need private open space in the same way as "houses" where washing can be dried, herbs can be grown and worm farms can crunch through food scraps.

The development is ill conceived and should be rejected on the following grounds;

1. The traffic report supporting the development is based on a narrow analysis of traffic demand outside of peak hours.

2. There is insufficient parking for the number of potential residents in the development resulting in loss of amenity for local residents.

3. The bulk and form of the development is significantly out of character with the surrounding environment.

4. The development was not considered in the planning for the light rail extension. The light rail extension is overcrowded in the peak morning period and adding some 300 people to those services will prevent downstream residents from accessing public transport.

5. Council has sought and accepted a multi million dollar 'developer contribution'. This was objected to previously without any response from Council. Why are they not addressing questions with respect to the conflict of interest

6. There is insufficient solar access for to many of the units

7. The industrial heritage and employment opportunities of the site will be compromised