Action! and Templates

Take Action

This page is designed to help residents and other interested community members take practical action in relation to the Chatswood Dive Site proposal. Below you will find the official submission link, key stakeholder contacts, and suggested email templates that can be copied, adapted and used. We encourage respectful, factual and constructive advocacy. Personalised messages are always better than identical copy-and-paste emails, so please feel free to adjust the wording and add your own perspective.

If you share these concerns, you can:

lodge a formal submission through the NSW Planning Portal
write to key stakeholders and decision-makers
ask for a genuinely mixed-use outcome to be protected
share this page with neighbours and other interested residents

The most important point is this:

The current proposal seeks to reduce the non-residential floor space requirement from 17% to 2%.
That is an approximately 88% reduction, reducing the equivalent of almost four storeys of non-residential use in a 23-storey building to less than half a floor.

Comments on social media are not the same as a formal planning submission. If you want your views to be considered in the planning process, please use the official submission portal below.

Official submission link

Make an official submission through the NSW Planning Portal

Key contacts

Note: Ministerial names and portfolios can change. Please verify current contacts on the NSW Government ministers page before sending to a named minister.

Name / Organisation	Role	Why contact them	Website / contact method	Template
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure	Assessing authority for the SSD and concurrent rezoning	Lodge your formal submission on SSD-100006957 through the planning portal	Make a submission	DPHI submission template
Willoughby City Council	Local council (formal consultee to DPHI on the SSD and concurrent rezoning)	Ask Council to advocate strongly for a genuinely mixed-use outcome in its formal submission to DPHI	email@willoughby.nsw.gov.au	Council email template
Tim James MP	Local State MP (Member for Willoughby)	Encourage continued advocacy and direct pressure on the State Government and relevant Ministers	willoughby@parliament.nsw.gov.au	Tim James template
Nicolette Boele MP	Federal MP (Member for Bradfield)	Raise transparency, accountability and housing policy concerns	nicolette.boele.mp@aph.gov.au	Nicolette Boele template
NSW Minister for Planning	Minister for Planning (decision-maker on the concurrent LEP rezoning)	Raise planning integrity and EIS omission concerns; the Minister decides the concurrent rezoning that permanently amends Willoughby LEP 2012	Minister contact page	Planning Minister template
NSW Minister for Housing	Minister for Housing	Raise affordable housing and housing policy concerns	Minister contact page	Housing Minister template
NSW Minister for Lands and Property	Minister for Lands and Property	Raise concerns about the use of a rare strategic government-owned site	Minister contact page	Lands Minister template
Landcom	State-owned developer	Ask Landcom to explain the planning changes clearly and directly	info@landcom.nsw.gov.au	Landcom template
Chris Rath MLC	Shadow Minister for Planning / Housing / Cities	Encourage scrutiny, public comment and opposition pressure	office.rath@parliament.nsw.gov.au	Chris Rath template

Email Templates

Please feel free to adapt these templates and add your own perspective. Personalised emails usually carry more weight than identical copy-and-paste messages.

Submission to NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Purpose: Lodge a formal submission addressing the material omission in the EIS and the standard of justification required for the concurrent LEP rezoning. This is the most important action you can take.

Suggested subject: Formal submission on Chatswood Dive Site Build-to-Rent Stage 1 – SSD-100006957

Submit via: NSW Planning Portal

Dear Assessment Team, I am writing to lodge a formal submission on State Significant Development application SSD-100006957, Chatswood Dive Site Build-to-Rent Stage 1 at 339 Mowbray Road, Chatswood, and the concurrent rezoning of the site currently on public exhibition. I support well-planned redevelopment and additional housing in appropriate locations. I do not object to development in principle. My concerns go to the integrity of the assessment documentation and the standard of justification that should apply to the proposed permanent changes to Willoughby LEP 2012. The most significant issue is the proposed reduction in required non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%. In practical terms, this is an approximately 88% reduction: from the equivalent of almost four storeys of non-residential use in a 23-storey building to less than half a floor. It is worth noting that the 17% requirement does not prescribe retail uses specifically. Uses such as medical consulting rooms, childcare, co-working space, or indoor community sports areas would all satisfy it. The case for preserving the non-residential component does not depend on retail viability. A further specific concern relates to a material omission in the Environmental Impact Statement. Schedule 1, Part 27 of Willoughby LEP 2012 sets out two separate and cumulative conditions for residential flat buildings on this site: (a) the ground floor must be used for non-residential purposes only; and (b) at least 17% of total gross floor area must be used for non-residential purposes. The concurrent rezoning removes both conditions. The EIS addresses only condition (b). Condition (a), which requires ground floor non-residential use, is not mentioned or justified anywhere in the EIS, despite the ground floor plans submitted with the application showing residential apartments on the ground floor. This is a material omission in the documentation for a permanent change to a State environmental planning instrument. I also note that the concurrent rezoning is a ministerial planning proposal. This public exhibition period is the community's only formal opportunity to scrutinise a proposed permanent change to Willoughby LEP 2012. The mixed-use conditions proposed for removal were established through a community-driven planning process. The standard of justification for removing them permanently should be correspondingly high, and should go beyond a merit assessment of whether a reduced non-residential component is acceptable for this particular development at this particular time. I ask the Department to: 1. require the proponent to provide a formal justification for the removal of Schedule 1, Part 27 condition (a), with specific reference to the ground floor plans submitted with the application; 2. address the distinction between conditions (a) and (b) as separate, cumulative controls in the assessment report; and 3. apply a standard of justification appropriate to a permanent LEP amendment, not merely a merit assessment of the current proposal. Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Address] [Optional: note your connection to the site or neighbourhood]

Email to Willoughby City Council

Purpose: Support a strong Council response and ask Council to advocate for a genuinely mixed-use outcome in its formal submission to DPHI.

Note: Council's formal submission to DPHI is prepared by Council planning officers, not directly by elected councillors. For maximum effect, send this email to the general Council address and consider also writing to your local ward councillors asking them to raise it with the planning team.

Suggested subject: Request for strong Council advocacy on the Chatswood Dive Site proposal – SSD-100006957

Email: email@willoughby.nsw.gov.au

Dear Mayor and Councillors, I am writing regarding the Chatswood Dive Site proposal at 339 Mowbray Road, Chatswood, being State Significant Development application SSD-100006957, and the associated planning changes currently on exhibition. I have lodged a formal submission on the proposal and am writing separately to ask Council to make the strongest possible formal and public representation in support of a balanced and genuinely mixed-use outcome for this site. I support well-planned redevelopment and additional housing in appropriate locations. My concern is not with development in principle. My concern is that the current proposal appears to move the site away from a meaningful mixed-use outcome and towards a predominantly residential one, while continuing to be described in public-facing material as a "mixed-use neighbourhood" with "shops and services". In particular, I strongly object to the proposed reduction in required non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%. In practical terms, that is an approximately 88% reduction. On a simple storey-equivalent basis, it reduces the non-residential component from almost four storeys of a 23-storey building to less than half a floor. That is not a minor adjustment. It is a fundamental change in the nature of the development. It is also worth noting that the 17% non-residential requirement does not prescribe retail uses specifically. Uses such as medical consulting rooms, childcare, co-working space, or indoor community sports areas would all satisfy it. The case for a meaningful non-residential component does not depend on retail viability. A further specific concern relates to a material omission in the Environmental Impact Statement. Schedule 1, Part 27 of Willoughby LEP 2012 sets out two separate and cumulative conditions for this site: (a) the ground floor must be used for non-residential purposes only; and (b) at least 17% of total gross floor area must be used for non-residential purposes. The concurrent rezoning removes both. The EIS addresses only condition (b). The removal of the ground floor non-residential requirement is not disclosed or justified anywhere in the EIS, despite the ground floor plans showing residential apartments. I ask Council to raise this omission explicitly in its formal submission to the Department. I am also aware that the concurrent rezoning is a ministerial planning proposal and that Willoughby City Council is a formal consultee to that process, not the consent authority. Council's formal submission to DPHI is one of the few meaningful checks on a permanent change to the LEP. That submission carries significant weight and I urge Council to use it fully. I am also concerned by the disconnect between the language used publicly to promote the development and the actual planning changes being sought. The site has already seen a progressive narrowing of public benefit over time. The previously discussed school outcome has been abandoned, and now the non-residential component is proposed to be drastically reduced. In that context, the community is entitled to be sceptical of vague future assurances that later stages will somehow restore the balance. I respectfully ask Council to: 1. lodge a strong formal submission opposing the reduction in non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%; 2. specifically raise the non-disclosure of Schedule 1, Part 27 condition (a) in its submission to DPHI; 3. rely on Council's strategic planning position and previously exhibited planning framework for the site and surrounding precinct; 4. advocate publicly for a genuinely mixed-use and community-supporting outcome; and 5. make all possible efforts with the Department, Landcom and the relevant Ministers to ensure the site is not under-delivered. This is a rare and important site. It should not become a largely residential outcome dressed up in mixed-use language. Yours faithfully, [Your name] [Optional: Suburb / local connection]

Email to Tim James MP

Purpose: Encourage continued advocacy and pressure on the State Government and relevant Ministers.

Suggested subject: Request for continued advocacy on Chatswood Dive Site proposal – SSD-100006957

Email: willoughby@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Dear Mr James, I am writing regarding the Chatswood Dive Site proposal at 339 Mowbray Road, Chatswood, being State Significant Development application SSD-100006957, and the associated planning changes currently on exhibition. I have lodged a formal submission on the proposal and wanted to write to you directly because I appreciate your efforts and public representations regarding the abandonment of the previously discussed school on this site. It is very disappointing to now see the State Government continuing to worsen the situation rather than improve it. I support redevelopment and additional housing in appropriate locations. However, I am deeply concerned that this site is being progressively diluted in terms of its broader community value. First, the school outcome was dropped. Now, in the current planning proposal for the first stage, the required non-residential floor space is proposed to be reduced from 17% to 2%. That is a drastic change. In practical terms, it is an approximately 88% reduction in the mixed-use requirement. On a simple storey-equivalent basis, it reduces the non-residential component from almost four storeys of a 23-storey building to less than half a floor. For a site of this importance, that is plainly not a meaningful mixed-use outcome. It is also worth noting that the 17% non-residential requirement does not prescribe retail uses specifically. Uses such as medical consulting rooms, childcare, co-working space, or indoor community sports areas would all satisfy it. The case for preserving a meaningful non-residential component does not depend on retail viability. A further specific concern relates to a material omission in the Environmental Impact Statement. Schedule 1, Part 27 of Willoughby LEP 2012 sets out two separate conditions for this site, requiring both that the ground floor be used for non-residential purposes only, and that at least 17% of total gross floor area be used for non-residential purposes. The concurrent rezoning removes both. The EIS addresses only the second. The removal of the ground floor non-residential requirement is not disclosed or justified anywhere in the EIS, despite the ground floor plans showing residential apartments. What troubles me most is the disconnect between the public-facing language and the formal planning package. The project continues to be promoted using terms such as essential worker housing, mixed-use neighbourhood, shops and services, and broader public benefit. Yet the formal proposal seeks increased height and density while materially reducing the very planning controls that would help justify that language. My concern is not ideological. It is about transparency, consistency and good planning. If this site is to be intensified significantly, then it should deliver a balanced and genuine mixed-use precinct, not a predominantly residential outcome with token activation. I would be grateful if you could continue advocating publicly and directly with the relevant Ministers and agencies for a better outcome on this site, particularly in relation to preserving a meaningful non-residential component and resisting the reduction from 17% to 2%. Thank you again for your continued attention to this issue. Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Optional: If applicable, note that you live nearby or are in the electorate]

Email to Nicolette Boele MP

Purpose: Raise transparency, accountability and housing policy concerns.

Suggested subject: Concerns regarding Chatswood Dive Site proposal – SSD-100006957

Email: nicolette.boele.mp@aph.gov.au

Dear Ms Boele, I am writing regarding the Chatswood Dive Site proposal at 339 Mowbray Road, Chatswood, being State Significant Development application SSD-100006957, and the associated planning changes currently on exhibition. I appreciate that this is a State planning matter rather than a Federal one. However, I am writing because I believe it raises broader issues of transparency, good governance, housing affordability, and the proper use of a rare strategic public site. I support well-planned redevelopment and additional housing in appropriate locations. My objection is not to housing in principle. My concern is that the current proposal appears to be shedding important elements of public benefit while continuing to be presented in language that suggests a balanced community outcome. Most notably, the current planning package for the first stage proposes to reduce the required non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%. That is an approximately 88% reduction. On a simple storey-equivalent basis, it reduces the non-residential component from almost four storeys of a 23-storey building to less than half a floor. In practical terms, that means the mixed-use component is being reduced to something close to token ground-floor activation. It is also worth noting that the 17% non-residential requirement does not prescribe retail uses specifically. Uses such as medical consulting rooms, childcare, co-working space, or indoor community sports areas would all satisfy it. The case for preserving non-residential floor space does not depend on retail viability. A further specific concern relates to a material omission in the Environmental Impact Statement. Schedule 1, Part 27 of Willoughby LEP 2012 sets out two separate conditions for this site, requiring both that the ground floor be used for non-residential purposes only, and that at least 17% of total gross floor area be used for non-residential purposes. The concurrent rezoning removes both. The EIS addresses only the second. The removal of the ground floor non-residential requirement is not disclosed or justified anywhere in the EIS, despite the ground floor plans showing residential apartments. At the same time, the formal proposal also seeks removal of the 10% affordable housing requirement. That is particularly troubling given the way the project is publicly framed around housing need, essential worker housing and broader public benefit. Even if the proposal includes build-to-rent apartments for essential workers, that is not the same thing as preserving a standing affordable housing requirement. The two concepts overlap, but they are not equivalent. What concerns me most is the disconnect between the public-facing language and the actual planning changes being sought. Public material speaks of a mixed-use neighbourhood, shops and services, essential worker housing and community benefit. Yet the formal proposal seeks increased height and density while weakening both the non-residential and affordable housing planning settings. This site has already seen a narrowing of its public role over time, with the previously discussed school outcome no longer proceeding. The current proposal now weakens the non-residential component and removes the affordable housing requirement as well. That pattern is deeply concerning on a site that should be setting a high benchmark for balanced urban renewal. I would be grateful for any support you can offer in encouraging a more transparent, balanced and community-supporting outcome, and in reinforcing the importance of genuine housing affordability, mixed-use planning, and clear public accountability in the redevelopment of government-owned land. Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Optional: Suburb / local connection]

Email to the NSW Minister for Planning

Purpose: Raise planning integrity concerns, the EIS omission, and the Minister's direct responsibility as decision-maker on the concurrent LEP rezoning.

Suggested subject: Concerns regarding Chatswood Dive Site proposal – SSD-100006957

Contact page: Minister for Planning contact page

Dear Minister, I am writing regarding the Chatswood Dive Site proposal at 339 Mowbray Road, Chatswood, being State Significant Development application SSD-100006957, and the associated planning changes currently on exhibition. I have lodged a formal submission on the proposal. I am writing to you specifically because my concerns go to the integrity of the planning outcome being pursued on this site, and because the concurrent rezoning running alongside this SSD application is a ministerial planning proposal: the permanent amendment to Willoughby LEP 2012 is a decision that rests with the Minister for Planning, not the Department acting autonomously. I support well-planned redevelopment and additional housing in appropriate locations. I do not object to development in principle. My concern is that the current proposal appears to move this site away from a genuinely balanced mixed-use outcome and toward a predominantly residential development, while continuing to be presented in public-facing material as a "mixed-use neighbourhood" with "shops and services". The most significant issue is the proposed reduction in required non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%. This is not a minor technical adjustment. It is an approximately 88% reduction. On a simple storey-equivalent basis, it reduces the non-residential component from almost four storeys of a 23-storey building to less than half a floor. In practical terms, that is not preserving mixed use. It is practically eliminating it. It is also worth noting that the 17% non-residential requirement does not prescribe retail uses specifically. Uses such as medical consulting rooms, childcare, co-working space, or indoor community sports areas would all satisfy it. The case for preserving a meaningful non-residential component does not depend on retail viability. A further specific concern relates to a material omission in the Environmental Impact Statement. Schedule 1, Part 27 of Willoughby LEP 2012 sets out two separate and cumulative conditions for this site: (a) the ground floor must be used for non-residential purposes only; and (b) at least 17% of total gross floor area must be used for non-residential purposes. The concurrent rezoning removes both. The EIS addresses only condition (b). The removal of the ground floor non-residential requirement is not mentioned or justified anywhere in the EIS, despite the ground floor plans showing residential apartments on the ground floor. This is a material omission in the documentation for a permanent change to a State environmental planning instrument. What troubles me most is the disconnect between the public-facing language and the formal planning package. The project continues to be promoted using terms such as essential worker housing, mixed-use neighbourhood, shops and services, and broader public benefit. Yet the formal planning proposal seeks increased height and density while materially reducing the very planning controls that would help justify that language. Removing the mixed-use conditions from Willoughby LEP 2012 is a legislative act, not a merit assessment. The controls being proposed for removal were established through a community-driven planning process. The standard of justification for removing them permanently should be correspondingly high, and should not rest on a finding that a reduced non-residential component is acceptable for this particular development at this particular time. I respectfully ask that you: 1. require the proponent to provide a formal justification for the removal of Schedule 1, Part 27 condition (a) (ground floor non-residential use only), which is not currently disclosed or justified in the EIS; 2. ensure the concurrent rezoning is assessed against the standard appropriate to a permanent LEP amendment; and 3. give serious reconsideration to approving the proposed reduction in non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%, which does not represent a balanced mixed-use outcome for a strategic government-owned site of this scale. Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Optional: Suburb / local connection]

Email to the NSW Minister for Housing

Purpose: Raise affordable housing and housing policy concerns.

Suggested subject: Concerns regarding Chatswood Dive Site proposal – SSD-100006957

Contact page: Minister for Housing contact page

Dear Minister, I am writing regarding the Chatswood Dive Site proposal at 339 Mowbray Road, Chatswood, being State Significant Development application SSD-100006957, and the associated planning changes currently on exhibition. I have lodged a formal submission on the proposal. I am writing to you specifically because the concerns raised by this proposal go directly to questions of housing affordability, public benefit, and whether the Government's stated housing objectives are being matched by the planning settings actually being pursued. I support well-planned redevelopment and additional housing in appropriate locations. I do not object to development in principle. However, I am concerned that the current proposal relies heavily on socially positive language around essential worker housing and housing need, while at the same time seeking to remove the 10% affordable housing requirement and drastically reduce the non-residential component of the site. That combination is difficult to reconcile. The project is being publicly promoted in terms of essential worker housing, a mixed-use neighbourhood, shops and services, and broader public benefit. Yet the formal planning package seeks: - removal of the 10% affordable housing requirement - reduction in required non-residential floor space from 17% to 2% - increased height and density Even allowing for the inclusion of build-to-rent apartments for essential workers, that does not appear to be the same thing as preserving a standing affordable housing requirement across the site. The two concepts may overlap in part, but they are not equivalent, and one does not automatically replace the other. I am also very concerned by the proposed reduction in non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%. That is an approximately 88% reduction. On a simple storey-equivalent basis, it reduces the non-residential component from almost four storeys of a 23-storey building to less than half a floor. It is worth noting that the 17% requirement does not prescribe retail uses specifically; uses such as medical consulting rooms, childcare, co-working space, or indoor community sports areas would all satisfy it. In practical terms, the proposed level of non-residential space does not preserve a meaningful mixed-use outcome. A further specific concern relates to a material omission in the Environmental Impact Statement. Schedule 1, Part 27 of Willoughby LEP 2012 sets out two separate conditions for this site, requiring both that the ground floor be used for non-residential purposes only, and that at least 17% of total gross floor area be used for non-residential purposes. The concurrent rezoning removes both. The EIS addresses only the second. The removal of the ground floor non-residential requirement is not disclosed or justified in the EIS, despite the ground floor plans showing residential apartments. I respectfully ask that you give close attention to this issue and ensure that the proposal is examined not only in terms of housing numbers, but also in terms of whether it genuinely advances housing affordability, transparency, and a balanced public outcome. In particular, I ask that serious reconsideration be given to: 1. the proposed removal of the 10% affordable housing requirement; and 2. the proposed reduction in non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%. Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Optional: Suburb / local connection]

Email to the NSW Minister for Lands and Property

Purpose: Raise concerns about the use of a rare strategic government-owned site.

Suggested subject: Concerns regarding Chatswood Dive Site proposal – SSD-100006957

Contact page: Minister for Lands and Property contact page

Dear Minister, I am writing regarding the Chatswood Dive Site proposal at 339 Mowbray Road, Chatswood, being State Significant Development application SSD-100006957, and the associated planning changes currently on exhibition. I have lodged a formal submission on the proposal. I am writing to you specifically in your capacity as Minister for Lands and Property because my concern goes to the way a rare and strategically located government-owned site is now being used, and whether the public outcome being pursued is commensurate with the significance of the land. I support well-planned redevelopment and additional housing in appropriate locations. I do not object to development in principle. However, I am concerned that this site is being progressively narrowed from a broader community-supporting outcome toward a predominantly residential one, while continuing to be described in public-facing material as a mixed-use and public-benefit development. The most significant issue is the proposed reduction in required non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%. This is not a minor technical amendment. It is an approximately 88% reduction. On a simple storey-equivalent basis, it reduces the non-residential component from almost four storeys of a 23-storey building to less than half a floor. In practical terms, that does not preserve a meaningful mixed-use outcome. It practically eliminates it. It is worth noting that the 17% non-residential requirement does not prescribe retail uses specifically. Uses such as medical consulting rooms, childcare, co-working space, or indoor community sports areas would all satisfy it. The case for preserving a meaningful non-residential component does not depend on retail viability. A further specific concern relates to a material omission in the Environmental Impact Statement. Schedule 1, Part 27 of Willoughby LEP 2012 sets out two separate conditions for this site, requiring both that the ground floor be used for non-residential purposes only, and that at least 17% of total gross floor area be used for non-residential purposes. The concurrent rezoning removes both. The EIS addresses only the second. The removal of the ground floor non-residential requirement is not disclosed or justified in the EIS, despite the ground floor plans showing residential apartments. What particularly troubles me is that this site has already seen a progressive reduction in broader public benefit over time. The previously discussed school outcome has been abandoned, and now the non-residential component is proposed to be drastically reduced as well. In that context, it is difficult not to conclude that a rare strategic public site is being used primarily for residential yield while community-supporting elements are progressively weakened. I respectfully ask that you give close attention to whether the current proposal represents an appropriate public-value outcome for this site, and in particular whether the proposed reduction in non-residential floor space from 17% to 2% is consistent with the obligations that should attach to redevelopment of strategic government-owned land. Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Optional: Suburb / local connection]

Email to Landcom

Purpose: Ask Landcom to explain the planning changes clearly and directly.

Suggested subject: Request for a clear explanation of proposed planning changes – Chatswood Dive Site, SSD-100006957

Email: info@landcom.nsw.gov.au

Dear Landcom team, I am writing regarding the Chatswood Dive Site proposal at 339 Mowbray Road, Chatswood, being State Significant Development application SSD-100006957, and the associated planning changes currently on exhibition. I have lodged a formal submission on the proposal. I am writing separately because I would like Landcom to explain clearly and directly how the current planning package can be reconciled with the way the project has been described publicly. I support redevelopment and additional housing in appropriate locations. However, I strongly object to the proposed reduction in required non-residential floor space from 17% to 2% for the first stage site. This is not a minor technical adjustment. It is an approximately 88% reduction. On a simple storey-equivalent basis, it reduces the non-residential component from almost four storeys of a 23-storey building to less than half a floor. It is also worth noting that the 17% non-residential requirement does not prescribe retail uses specifically; uses such as medical consulting rooms, childcare, co-working space, or indoor community sports areas would all satisfy it. The proposed level of non-residential space is, in my view, plainly insufficient to justify describing the outcome as genuinely mixed-use, regardless of the retail environment. That is why I believe there is a serious disconnect between the public-facing language used to promote the project and the formal planning changes now being sought. Public material refers to a mixed-use neighbourhood, shops and services, essential worker housing and wider public benefit. However, the exhibited planning package seeks to materially weaken the non-residential requirement while also increasing height and density. I also wish to raise a specific concern about a material omission in the Environmental Impact Statement. Schedule 1, Part 27 of Willoughby LEP 2012 sets out two separate conditions for this site: (a) the ground floor must be used for non-residential purposes only; and (b) at least 17% of total gross floor area must be used for non-residential purposes. The concurrent rezoning removes both. The EIS addresses only condition (b). The removal of condition (a), requiring ground floor non-residential use, is not disclosed or justified anywhere in the EIS, despite the ground floor plans showing residential apartments. I am also not persuaded by any suggestion that this issue can simply be deferred to later stages. The public position for the site has already shifted over time, including the loss of the previously discussed school outcome. In that context, the community is entitled to expect that a balanced mixed-use outcome be secured through planning controls, not left to future aspiration. I therefore ask Landcom to explain: 1. why the reduction from 17% to 2% is considered appropriate; 2. why the removal of the ground floor non-residential condition (Schedule 1, Part 27 condition (a)) is not disclosed or addressed in the EIS; 3. how the proposed level of non-residential floor space is said to represent a meaningful mixed-use outcome; and 4. why the community should have confidence that later stages will restore balance when key public-benefit elements have already been progressively reduced. I would appreciate a direct response. Regards, [Your name] [Optional: Suburb / local connection]

Email to Chris Rath MLC

Purpose: Encourage scrutiny, public comment and opposition pressure.

Suggested subject: Concerns regarding Chatswood Dive Site proposal – SSD-100006957

Email: office.rath@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Dear Mr Rath, I am writing regarding the Chatswood Dive Site proposal at 339 Mowbray Road, Chatswood, being State Significant Development application SSD-100006957, and the associated planning changes currently on exhibition. I have lodged a formal submission on the proposal. I am writing to you specifically in your capacity as Shadow Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, Shadow Minister for Housing, and Shadow Minister for Cities, because my concerns go directly to planning integrity, housing policy, and the proper use of a rare strategic site. I support well-planned redevelopment and additional housing in appropriate locations. I do not object to development in principle. However, I am deeply concerned that this proposal appears to move the site away from a genuinely balanced mixed-use outcome and towards a predominantly residential development, while continuing to be described in public-facing material as a "mixed-use neighbourhood" with "shops and services". The most significant issue is the proposed reduction in required non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%. This is not a minor technical adjustment. It is an approximately 88% reduction. On a simple storey-equivalent basis, it reduces the non-residential component from almost four storeys of a 23-storey building to less than half a floor. In practical terms, that does not preserve a meaningful mixed-use outcome. It practically eliminates it. It is worth noting that the 17% non-residential requirement does not prescribe retail uses specifically. Uses such as medical consulting rooms, childcare, co-working space, or indoor community sports areas would all satisfy it. The case for preserving a meaningful non-residential component does not depend on retail viability. A further specific concern relates to a material omission in the Environmental Impact Statement. Schedule 1, Part 27 of Willoughby LEP 2012 sets out two separate conditions for this site, requiring both that the ground floor be used for non-residential purposes only, and that at least 17% of total gross floor area be used for non-residential purposes. The concurrent rezoning removes both. The EIS addresses only the second. The removal of the ground floor non-residential requirement is not disclosed or justified in the EIS, despite the ground floor plans showing residential apartments. I am also concerned that the project is being promoted using language such as essential worker housing, mixed-use neighbourhood, shops and services, and broader public benefit, while the formal planning package seeks increased height and density, removal of the affordable housing requirement, and a drastic weakening of the non-residential component. I would be grateful if you could give attention to this issue and consider whether further scrutiny, public comment, or parliamentary pressure is warranted, particularly in relation to: 1. the proposed reduction in non-residential floor space from 17% to 2%; 2. the material omission of Schedule 1, Part 27 condition (a) from the EIS; 3. the removal of the affordable housing requirement; and 4. the broader mismatch between the project's public-facing description and the formal planning package. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours sincerely, [Your name] [Optional: Suburb / local connection]

Search This Blog

Chatswood Dive Site Watch