Wentworth PointWatchSend the email

The case against Block H · SSD-99885210

Why residents oppose the current scale.

This is not one objection. It is a record of scale escalation, infrastructure pressure, broken trust, and developer benefit sold back to residents as “community benefit.”

Prepare EIS. Not final approval. Still stoppable.

The charge sheet

01The scale exploded — 16/25 storeys to two 50-storey towers.
02The floor area ballooned — and no one has shown the ledger.
03Support was mostly not from the 2127 postcode.
04Council did not adopt the stronger objection position — the vote record shows it.
05The State pathway removed local control.
06Public benefits are being used to sell the uplift.

Send the email →Share this page

What residents bought into

What is now proposed

16 and 25 storeys

Two 50-storey towers

~350 dwellings

1,200 dwellings

~30,000 sqm residential GFA

~105,000 sqm in applicant material

Local planning control

State Significant Development

Block H was not meant to become this.

Section A

The scale problem

Residents were not asked for a little more housing. They are being asked to accept a different suburb.

Count 01

Not an amendment. A total escalation.

Residents were not asked for “a little more.” They are being asked to accept a completely different scale.

The record moves from 16 and 25 storeys and about 350 dwellings to two 50-storey towers and 1,200 dwellings under the SSD pathway. That is not a minor amendment.

Demand

Publish one official side-by-side comparison of original controls, 2023 DCP controls, and current SSD material.

Source: City of Parramatta Block H page; NSW Planning Portal SSD-99885210.

Add this to my email →

Count 02

One block, overloaded.

One block. One developer. 1,200 dwellings. Wentworth Point carries it.

1,200 dwellings concentrate on a single block, onto the same roads, ferry and bus nodes, parks and schools residents already rely on.

Demand

The EIS must assess cumulative pressure across the whole peninsula, not treat Block H in isolation.

Source: NSW Planning Portal SSD-99885210.

Add this to my email →

Count 03 · Hero

The GFA exploded. Residents deserve the ledger.

The floor area has ballooned — and no one has shown residents the full accounting.

The public record shows residential GFA moving from about 30,000 sqm, to about 85,000 sqm in the 2023 DCP material, to roughly 105,000 sqm in applicant material. Residents deserve an approval-by-approval reconciliation of how it grew. This remains unresolved.

Demand

Council, DPHI and Billbergia must publish a full GFA reconciliation for Block H and adjoining sites.

Source: NSW Planning Portal; 2023 DCP material; applicant scoping material.

Add this to my email →

Count 04

This is not “just height.” It is a wall of impact.

Two 50-storey towers reshape the sky, the wind and the streets below.

This scale changes overshadowing, ground-level wind, visual bulk, privacy, views and microclimate — measurable impacts, not opinions.

Demand

The EIS must publish resident-readable wind, overshadowing, visual, view-loss, privacy and microclimate studies.

Source: NSW Planning Portal SSD-99885210 (EIS requirements).

Add this to my email →

Section B

Infrastructure and public-benefit concerns

A benefit is only real if it is legally locked, delivered early, publicly accessible, and big enough to match the demand 1,200 dwellings create. Otherwise it is a sales pitch.

Count 05

Public benefits are being used to sell the damage.

Do not sell residents a burden and call it a benefit.

A park, childcare centre or shuttle may sound positive, but none automatically justifies 1,200 dwellings and two 50-storey towers. Public benefits are not a blank cheque.

Demand

Every benefit tested for timing, ownership, public access, enforceability, maintenance, capacity, and proportion to the uplift.

Source: Billbergia public material; NSW Planning Portal.

Add this to my email →

Count 06

A shuttle bus is not public transport infrastructure.

A shuttle bus is not a train line, a ferry upgrade, or road capacity.

A privately funded shuttle can be limited, overcrowded, rerouted, reduced or cancelled. It does not replace permanent, high-capacity transport, and future projects cannot substitute for proven capacity when 1,200 dwellings are occupied.

Demand

Show legal guarantees, funding duration, capacity, hours, triggers, and interim transport capacity in the EIS — not future promises.

Source: Billbergia public material; NSW Planning Portal (transport).

Add this to my email →

Count 07

A park does not offset the uplift.

The suburb should not accept two 50-storey towers to get open space it already needs.

Wentworth Point already faces open-space pressure. Traffic and parking were leading themes in submissions; 1,200 dwellings add trips, deliveries, service and construction traffic on top.

Demand

Publish open space per person before/after, and resident-readable traffic modelling for Hill Road, Burroway Road, Footbridge Boulevard and Bennelong Bridge, including construction phases.

Source: DPHI submissions report (open space / traffic themes).

Add this to my email →

Count 08

One childcare centre does not solve a suburb.

Families need a suburb that works — not one benefit used to justify 1,200 dwellings.

A childcare centre does not resolve schools, medical access, after-school care or family services. Social infrastructure was a major theme in submissions.

Demand

Publish a social-infrastructure capacity table: current capacity, future demand, funding, timing and legal delivery mechanism.

Source: DPHI submissions report (social infrastructure themes).

Add this to my email →

Section C

Trust & process failure

Residents did not stay silent. They objected for years — and the proposal kept coming back bigger and more protected by process.

Count 09 · Hero

Support was mostly not from the 2127 postcode.

The people who live with the consequences objected. The support came largely from people who don't.

In the 2020 Council exhibition, 763 submissions were received and 491 opposed. In the separate 2023 DPHI exhibition, objections were overwhelmingly local — 393 of 480 (82%) from the 2127 area — and detailed, while only about 32% of support submissions were from 2127.

Demand

Publish a transparent local-vs-non-local breakdown, and explain how past objections were weighed as the proposal escalated.

Source: City of Parramatta 2022 report; DPHI 2023 Block H Submissions Report.

Add this to my email →

Count 10 · Hero

Council did not adopt the stronger objection position. The vote record shows it.

Council cannot wash its hands now. The votes are on the record.

In Dec 2023 a Darley/Prociv amendment to forward a stronger objection lost 4–10; the carried Noack/Siviero motion (10–4) was a process/VPA motion, not a Council objection. In Sept 2022 a Prociv/Darley refusal motion lapsed; the carried Noack/Siviero motion (10–4) sought further information toward a possible revised-scheme exhibition. Councillor Paul Noack's name is on both carried motions — residents are entitled to scrutinise whether they stopped the escalation or left the pathway open. The record shows they did not stop it.

Demand

Show the 2022 and 2023 vote records beside the case. Each current councillor should state whether they oppose the current scale and will write to the Planning Minister.

Source: City of Parramatta minutes, 12 Sept 2022 and 11 Dec 2023.

Add this to my email →

Count 11

Private promotion is not public consent.

Developer PR is not community consent.

Information sessions, calls, flyers and benefit lists are not the same as formal public exhibition through the NSW Planning Portal.

Demand

Billbergia and DPHI must separate private marketing from the official SSD exhibition and publish all materials shown to residents.

Source: DPHI submissions report; NSW Planning Portal.

Add this to my email →

Count 12

The State pathway reduced local control.

Wentworth Point should not lose local control just when the stakes are highest.

The project moved from local DCP/VPA debate into HDA/SSD assessment. The State — not Council — is now the consent authority.

Demand

Donna Davis, Paul Scully and Chris Minns must state whether they support this scale, rather than hiding behind process.

Source: NSW Planning Portal; HDA project summary; SSD declaration.

Add this to my email →

Count 13

Moving the goalposts is not consultation.

Residents keep being told to engage with the next process. That is fatigue, not consent.

From Council reports to DPHI exhibition to HDA recommendation to SSD declaration, the process keeps shifting while residents keep fighting.

Demand

Publish a resident-facing process explainer: what was decided, what was not, what can still change, and exactly where to submit.

Source: NSW Planning Portal; City of Parramatta records.

Add this to my email →

Section D

Developer benefit vs resident impact

Billbergia may promote its proposal. Residents may test every claim against the record — and ask why any benefit needs two 50-storey towers.

Count 14

Developer benefit vs resident impact

Billbergia collects the upside. Wentworth Point carries the pressure.

Billbergia is the developer seeking the increased scale; residents live with the long-term consequences.

Demand

Every claimed benefit measured against the value and scale of the uplift.

Source: NSW Planning Portal SSD-99885210 (applicant: Billbergia / WP Block H Pty Ltd).

Add this to my email →

Count 15

A promised benefit is not a delivered benefit — and the VPA is not a shield.

Benefits announced in a brochure are not benefits locked in law.

Benefits only matter if legally locked, delivered early, publicly accessible and maintained. A Voluntary Planning Agreement is only as strong as its wording, timing and enforcement.

Demand

Publish the full VPA, a plain-English summary, an independent valuation, delivery triggers, ownership, maintenance, public access and penalties for non-delivery — before any approval.

Source: Council records; NSW Planning Portal; draft VPA material.

Add this to my email →

Count 16 · Hero

60 affordable homes out of 1,200. That is the offer.

A ~$1 billion project for 1,200 apartments offers about 60 affordable homes — and even the Minister's own note said that is not enough.

The Pre-Development Application (PDA-99350210) describes 1,200 dwellings, about 105,000 sqm GFA and an estimated development cost of roughly $1 billion, with 5% in-fill affordable housing — about 60 affordable dwellings. The HDA briefing record (10 Oct 2025) describes the same 5% essential-worker / affordable provision. The Minister's note for EOI 253562 stated the proposal needs a greater commitment to affordable housing provisions given the significant uplift.

Demand

Publish the affordable-housing percentage, exact number, tenure, duration, eligibility, ownership, management and whether it is permanent — and explain why the commitment was not increased after the Minister's note.

Source: PDA-99350210; HDA Record of Briefing 10 Oct 2025; HDA published records (Minister's note, EOI 253562).

Add this to my email →

Do not let silence be counted as consent

Send the email. Make them answer in writing.

Send the email →Council voting record