What the EIS doesn't say: the Chatswood Dive Site rezoning removes two conditions, not one
Campaign update, March 2026
Since my last post I have lodged a formal submission on SSD-100006957 via the NSW Planning Portal, and have since prepared a detailed letter to Willoughby City Council setting out further analysis and objections. Both are accompanied by a compiled set of source document extracts. The documents are available to download at the bottom of this post. In reviewing the application documents ahead of this work, two further issues came to light that I think are important enough to explain in plain terms here.
There are two separate findings I want to cover. The first is an argument about how the planning justifications in this proposal compound one another in a way that should concern anyone thinking about what this site is actually going to deliver. The second is a more technical but significant finding: the concurrent rezoning removes two conditions from Willoughby LEP 2012, but the EIS only tells us about one of them.
First: the school argument compounds the problem rather than addressing it
Most people who have followed the Chatswood Dive Site would know that a primary school was, at one stage, part of the expectations for the site. Tim James MP publicly supported it; it had real community backing. The school has since been dropped from the proposal.
What is less widely noticed is what happens to that school's removal once it enters the formal planning documents. In Section 4.19 of the EIS (the section titled "Alternatives Considered"), the proponent lists the option of using the existing planning controls and explains why it is rejecting that option. One of the reasons given for reducing the non-residential floor space requirement from 17% to 2% is, in effect, that the school is no longer there.
The argument, paraphrased, is: the controls were designed for a school; the school is gone; therefore 2% better reflects current demand.
Even accepting the premise that 17% was originally calibrated around a school, the argument at most justifies reconsidering the form of the non-residential requirement, not eliminating 88% of it. The gap between "the controls were written with a school in mind" and "therefore 2% is appropriate" is not bridged anywhere in the EIS. No analysis, no retail demand study, no comparison with similar sites. The 2% figure is asserted as a conclusion.
And 2% is not a meaningful mixed-use outcome. Across a 23-storey building totalling 16,206 sqm of gross floor area, 2% is less than half a floor. 17% is almost four floors. That is not a minor recalibration. It is the effective elimination of the non-residential component from the Stage 1 lot.
Second: the rezoning removes two conditions, but the EIS only describes one
This second point came out of reading Willoughby LEP 2012 directly alongside the EIS, rather than relying on the EIS's own description of what is changing.
Schedule 1, Part 27 of the LEP is the provision that sets the mixed-use requirements for this site (Area 8 in the schedule). It contains two separate and cumulative conditions that apply to residential flat buildings:
| Condition | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Condition (a) | The ground floor is used for non-residential purposes only. |
| Condition (b) | At least 17% of the gross floor area of the building will be used for non-residential purposes. |
Both conditions apply. Satisfying one does not discharge the other.
The concurrent rezoning removes the entire Part 27 entry for Area 8, which means both conditions are removed. The EIS, however, only describes the removal of condition (b). The 17% figure is mentioned repeatedly; it is the figure that underpins the justification in Section 4.19. Condition (a), the ground floor requirement, does not appear in the EIS at all.
This is a material omission. Condition (a) is arguably more immediately tangible than the 17% figure. Most people can picture what a ground floor devoted entirely to non-residential uses looks like; it is the kind of building where you walk past a cafe, a pharmacy, a community space, or a medical centre at street level. It is the difference between a street that feels alive and one where you walk past the blank facade of an apartment building. That outcome, which the current LEP requires, has been removed from the planning framework without being named or explained in the application documents.
I have raised this in a detailed letter to Willoughby City Council, sent via a cover email to Councillor Andrew Nelson, with a request that Council incorporate this omission in its formal submission to the Department and call on the proponent to address both conditions in any revised documentation.
Where things stand
The detailed letter to Willoughby City Council covers all three objections in full:
- The non-residential floor space reduction from 17% to 2%, including the two-condition finding above;
- The removal of the affordable housing requirement under Clause 6.8, and why the BTR rental discount is not an equivalent obligation; and
- The removal of the active street frontage requirement for the Nelson Street frontage under Clause 6.7.
The submission also addresses the "Stage 2 will fix it" argument, which relies on the label "Anticipated Future Development" on the architectural drawings to imply that mixed-use outcomes will be delivered later. That label is not a planning commitment, and the LEP amendment, if approved, is permanent.
The documents referenced in this post are available here:
Download: Letter to Council (PDF) Download: Source Document Extracts (PDF)
The SSD portal submission (filed 21 March 2026) and all other documents are also available on the Documents and Resources page.
SSD-100006957 (BTR Stage 1) is open for public submission via the NSW Planning Portal. If you live or work nearby and want to lodge your own comment, the portal is the place to do it.
Comments
Post a Comment