Community advocacy hub
Protect a genuine mixed-use outcome at the Chatswood Dive Site
I support redevelopment of the Chatswood Dive Site and I support additional housing in the right place. What I do not support is the effective elimination of the non-residential component while the project continues to be described in public-facing language as a mixed-use neighbourhood with shops, services and broader public benefit.
Core objection: the formal planning package for the Build-to-Rent lot seeks to reduce the non-residential gross floor area requirement from 17% to 2%.
How to take action
The issue in one sentence
The project is being presented using positive language about essential worker housing, mixed use, shops and services, while the formal planning changes would make the Stage 1 lot overwhelmingly residential.
Why it matters
This is a rare strategic government-owned site. If it is intensified, it should deliver a genuinely mixed-use, community-supporting precinct rather than token ground-floor activation.
My position
I am not opposing redevelopment in principle. I am arguing for good YIMBY: more housing, but also honest public messaging, meaningful mixed use and proper public benefit.
Key facts
- The formal planning package for the BTR lot seeks to reduce the non-residential GFA requirement from 17% to 2%.
- The same package also seeks to increase height and FSR on the BTR lot.
- The BTR proposal is described as a 23-storey development with 180 build-to-rent dwellings and only around 314 m² of retail/commercial floor space.
- At a high level, public-facing material emphasises essential worker housing, mixed-use neighbourhood language, shops and services, and broader public benefit.
What the numbers show
Simple storey-equivalent explanation
- 23 storeys × 17% = 3.91 storeys
- 23 storeys × 2% = 0.46 of a storey
In plain terms, reducing the requirement from 17% to 2% is roughly equivalent to cutting the non-residential component from about four storeys of floor area to less than half a storey.
Square-metre cross-check
Using the BTR lot figures discussed in the public documentation, a 17% requirement would equate to roughly 2,800 m² of non-residential floor space, while 2% equates to only around 330 m². That aligns closely with the proposed 314 m² of retail/commercial area.
Bottom line: this is not a small reduction. It is the practical elimination of the meaningful mixed-use component on the Stage 1 lot.
Why I object
- I reject the proposed reduction of non-residential GFA from 17% to 2%.
- I do not agree with using mixed-use and public-benefit language while simultaneously stripping back the planning controls that support those outcomes.
- I consider this site too important to become a predominantly residential outcome with only token activation.
- I support housing supply, but I support good density with value-adding place-making, not density at any cost.
What a better outcome would look like
- Retain a meaningful non-residential requirement consistent with a genuine mixed-use precinct.
- Be transparent about what planning controls are being changed and why.
- Deliver a stronger ground-plane outcome with real shops, services and community-supporting uses.
- Ensure the public story matches the actual planning ask.
How to take action
You can make your own submission and raise your own concerns in your own words. Useful themes include:
- support for redevelopment and additional housing in principle
- opposition to the reduction of non-residential GFA from 17% to 2%
- concern that the project is being publicly framed as mixed use while the formal planning package makes it overwhelmingly residential
- concern that a rare strategic site is under-delivering on mixed use and public benefit
- request that Council, MPs, Ministers and Landcom support a more balanced outcome
Add the official planning submission link here: [INSERT LINK]
Add stakeholder contact links here: [INSERT COUNCIL / MP / MINISTER / LANDCOM LINKS]
Suggested short statement
I support redevelopment of the Chatswood Dive Site and I do not oppose additional housing in principle. However, I object to the proposed reduction of the non-residential floor space requirement from 17% to 2%. That change would materially alter the site from a genuine mixed-use outcome to a predominantly residential one, while the project continues to be presented in public-facing language as a mixed-use neighbourhood with shops, services and broader public benefit. This is not transparent, and it is not the right outcome for a rare strategic government site.
Updates
[Add updates here: letters sent, responses received, council statements, media coverage, screenshots, and submission reminders.]