Shadow over Chatswood: Willoughby Councillor raises red flags over Chatswood’s high-rise boom

“It’s extraordinary.”

The phrase echoes throughout our conversation with Councillor Andrew Nelson, as he lays out what he sees as an alarming reality: the quiet but significant transformation of Chatswood under a wave of new high-rise development proposals, about which the public knows relatively little.

Nelson, who represents Willoughby’s West Ward, is trying to draw attention to what he sees as a system increasingly weighted in favour of developers, with local councils and communities left out of the picture.

He’s taken his concerns to Planning and Public Spaces Minister Paul Scully and federal MP Jerome Laxale.

As he walks through the fine print of these State Significant Development (SSD) proposals – many of them more than 20 storeys tall – the bureaucratic maze becomes clear.

“You have to go away and scour the State Government’s Major Projects portal for project documents … and that’s what I do,” he says with a dry laugh.

Nelson is a retired geoscientist and a councillor with time and determination. But he’s worried about what happens when few are looking.

The problem

With both metro and train access, Chatswood is a natural fit for denser housing. Willoughby Council recognised this in 2020.

“The council acted responsibly,” Nelson says. “It enlarged the CBD boundary, provided for more dwellings, more commercial space, and had a vision for quality design – slim, green, separated buildings.”

But that vision is now being eroded.

In the express lane

A growing number of proposals have shifted from being council-approved DAs to SSDs, effectively allowing developers to bypass local planning controls and objections.

At the Mandarin Centre site, the developer is seeking to build 300 apartments with 550 car spaces. The proposed new Mandarin Centre high-rise building would overshadow nearby Chatswood Oval in winter, contrary to council controls. Council has objected, but the final decision lies with the State Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure.

The parking business

One key issue is car parking. A proposal at 38–42 Anderson Street asks for 494 car spaces for 258 apartments and commercial tenants – 262 more than council recommends, according to its submission.

“Developers make a lot of money off each car space,” Nelson said.

Who gets the final say, and what is that based on?

Nelson says the Department of Planning and Housing and Infrastructure “write a report at the end saying, ‘Council said this, but we’re allowing the developer to do something else’. Council has reduced power.”

Nelson says state departments and developers routinely claim these developments will have no significant impact on traffic or state roads.

Role of council in question

So where does that leave the public?

Out of the loop, according to Nelson. “It’s not as if it’s done in an underhanded way – you can find the documents. But who has time to go through all of it? I do, but I’m one councillor.”

Affordable for who?

At the heart of Nelson’s concern is not just planning or height, but purpose.

“You have to ask yourself: is this about providing affordable housing? Or is it just a better financial return for developers?”

Nelson supports council’s commitment to ensuring 10 percent of new dwellings are affordable in perpetuity. In contrast, the state’s 15 percent affordable housing requirement applies for only 15 years.

And with the future of a promised 1000-student school on the Metro Dive site now in doubt, no clear plan for more green space, and mounting pressure on infrastructure, he wonders how the area will cope.

“This is going to significantly change the face of Chatswood,” he said. “And the public needs to know what’s coming.”