Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

Eden Street, Arncliffe Mixed Use Redevelopment

Bayside

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Demolition of all existing buildings on site and the construction of a 4-tower mixed-use development including with residential, retail and childcare centre

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition

Request for SEARs (4)

Scoping Report - Eden St site
Attach. A - Prelim Design Report - Eden St site
Attach. B - Site Survey - Eden St site
Attach. C - Prelim Traffic Satement - Eden St site

SEARs (1)

Issued SEARs_18122020_035914

EIS (35)

Application_20210706044436
Appendix Z - Air Quality Assessment
Appendix Y - Airspace Assessment
Appendix X - Operational WMP
Appendix W - Construction WMP
Appendix V - BDAR Waiver
Appendix U - Stormwater Management Plan
Appendix T - Flood Assessment
Appendix S - ACHAR
Appendix R - DSI & Geotechnical
Appendix Q - ESD Report
Appendix P - Noise Assessment
Appendix N - Traffic Impact Assessment
Appendix M - Clause 4.6 FSR
Appendix L - Clause 4.6 Height
Appendix K - Wind Impact Assessment
Appendix J - Arborist Report
Appendix I - Landscape Plans
Appendix HH - SDRP Meeting Notes
Appendix GG - Design Comp Waiver
Appendix G - Accessibility Statement
Appendix FF - Fire Statement
Appendix EE - BCA Assessment
Appendix E - Site Survey
Appendix DD - BASIX Certificates
Appendix CC - Social Impact Assessment
Appendix C - Issued SEARs
Appendix BB - Engagement Report
Appendix B - Urban Design Report
Appendix AA - Infrastructure Management Plan
Amended Appendix A - Architectural Plans_
Amended Environmental Impact Statement_
Amended Appendix O - Heritage Impact Statement_
Amended Appendix H - Visual Impact Assessment_
Appendix D - Quantity Surveyor's Report

Response to Submissions (27)

K_Updated Transport Impact Assessment
A_Amended Architectural Plans_Part5
A_Amended Architectural Plans_Part4
A_Amended Architectural Plans_Part3
A_Amended Architectural Plans_Part2
A_Amended Architectural Plans_Part1
C_Amended Landscape Plans
B_Design Amendment Report
V_Submissions Register
U_SDRP Meeting Notes
T_Acoustic Statement for Ventilation to Apartments
S_Fire Engineering Statement
R_BCA Compliance Statement
Q_Amended Social Impact Assessment
P_Updated Airspace Assessment
O_BASIX, Stamped Plans and NatHERS
N_Amended Stormwater Plans
M_Flood Impact Assessment Report
L_Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report
J_Clause 4.6 Floor Space Ratio
I_Clause 4.6 Building Height
H_Arborist Report
__Submissions Report
G_Visual Impact Cover Letter
F_Accessibility Statement
E_CPTED Cover Letter
D_Groundwater Management Response

Agency Advice (31)

TfNSW Response _ SYD20_01395_04
EHG Response - Eden Street, Arncliffe
Sydney Airport RtS - Eden Street (SSD-114
SEARs comments - Ausgrid
HNSW ACH SSD-11429726
SSD-11429726 HC response EIS
SWC Response - Eden Street, Arncliffe Mixed Us
SEARs comments - CASA
EES response Eden Street Arncliffe SSD 11429726
TfNSW Response SSD-11429726
Eden St Arncliffe Mixed Use Redev EIS
HNSW ACH - SSD-11429726 - Eden Street, Arncliffe
Ausgrid Response
SEARs comments - Sydney Water
SEARs comments - Sydney Airport
SSD Eden Street- No comment letter
DPE Water-Eden Street Mixed Use-RTS
SEARs comments - Bayside Council - FINAL _ Response to draft SEARs
SEARs comments - TfNSW Response for SSD-11429726
SEARs comments - Heritage NSW - SSD-11429726 HC SEARS Eden St Site Redevelop
SEARs comments - HNSW ACH SEARs - SSD-11429726 Eden St Redevt
SEARs comments - EPA Letter - Response SSD1149726
SEARs comments - TfNSW Response for SSD-11429726-SEARS-Eden Stre
TfNSW Response SSD-11429726
EES response - Eden Street
DPE Water Eden Street Arncliffe - RFI
DOC21 639584 EPA Letter - Billbergia Pty Ltd
HNSW
LAHC Response - SSD-11429726
DPE (Eastern & Southern) Eden Street RtS
SWC RtS Response - SSD_1149726 Eden Street

Additional Information (39)

Draft Conditions of Consent
RFI Request for Additional Information_27042022_105507
RFI Request for Additional Information_23052022_010430
31.03.22_Response to RFI Letter
31.03.22 A_Amended Architectural Plans
31.03.22 B_Amended Landscape Plans
31.03.22 C_Amended ESD Report
31.03.22 D_Intersection & Route Diagrams
31.03.22 E_Potential Easement TTW
31.03.22 F_Potential Easement Stanbury
31.03.22 G_Potential Easement CCS
31.03.22 H_Retail Paid Parking Strategy
31.03.22 I_Acoustic Cover Letter
31.03.22 J_Visual Impact Report
31.03.22 K_Heritage Cover Letter
31.03.22 L_Amended Wind Impact Statement
05.05.22_Attachment D - Amended Future Context Diagrams
21.04.2022_B4_Vertical Transport Building D
05.05.22_Attachment C - Amended Landscape Plans
21.04.2022_B3_Vertical Transport Building C
05.05.22_Attachment B - Amended Architectural Plans
21.04.2022_B2_Vertical Transport Building B
05.05.22_Attachment A - Amended Clause 4.6 FSR
21.04.2022_B1_Vertical Transport Building A
05.05.22_Response to RFI
21.04.2022_A_Solar Analysis Plans
21.04.2022__Response to RFI
14.04.2022_F_Acoustic Statement
D_Revised Flood Report
14.04.2022_E_Updated Landscape Plans
C_Updated Planting Schedule
B_Amended Architectural Plans
14.04.2022_D_Updated Architectural Plans
A_Traffic Statement
14.04.2022_C_Intersection & Route Diagrams
_Cover Letter
14.04.2022_B_EES Group Response
14.04.2022_A_DPE Water Response
14.04.2022__Response to RFI

Determination (18)

SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 15
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 14
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 13
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 12
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 11
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 10
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 9
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 8
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 7
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 6
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 5
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 4
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 3
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 2
SSD-11429726 - Stamped Plans Part 1
SSD 11429726 - Assessment Report
SSD 11429726 - Instrument of Consent
SSD 11429726 - Notice of Decision

Approved Documents

There are no post approval documents available

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 22 submissions
Chase Han
Object
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
I have some concerns about the impact of this project on the myself and this area.
1. 19-23 storeys in height with four buildings will affect the daylighting of my living room in summer afternoon.
2. 744 apartments bring more people and cause traffic problems.
Name Withheld
Object
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
i object this project on the basis of its size and bulk. 744 units is equivalent to 1/4 of all single dwellings of Arncliffe, in addition to existing units in Eden st and the upcoming new high rise units within a short distance. Potentially, with this amount of units and the increase of residents in a such concentrate space is a recipe for number of disasters.
Traffic, increased crime, infrastructure...too many to list
Shishir Thapaliya
Object
EDMONDSON PARK , New South Wales
Message
Hi, I think 19-23 Storey high buildings at the proposed location is way too high.
It will create congestion in the nearby narrow streets and the community as a whole. My unit is right opposite the proposed development which is 9 storeys high.
I could support the project if it was around 10 storey high and the number of units decreased accordingly.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Comment
,
Message
No Comment Response
Attachments
Water Group
Comment
,
Message
Please see attached advice
Attachments
Biodiversity and Conservation Division
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Please see letter of response from EES attached.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
I have concern with the increased amount of traffic generated despite the traffic report is suggesting no impact/ good performance and/ or with "spare capacity".
Outbound (am) and inbound (pm) traffic during peak hours at the moment on Brodie Spark Drive - Princes Highway/ Eden Street - Forest Road (before the COVID lockdown) is way beyond their capacity. We as residents here have to avoid these roads leaving for work because they are literally gridlock. This has a huge and proven impact on traffic onto Burrows Street, Allen Street and Arncliffe Street. This has caused Arncliffe Street having to turn into a one-way street now just to alleviate the known gridlock situation during peak hours. With the increased amount of new approved and new proposed developments, I have concerns if the traffic studies have considered traffic generated by other development in the close proximity? Is there other proposal to improve the current traffic condition before considering more development?
Proposed loading dock and carpark entry to the development is at the worst location along Eden Street, the bad traffic condition in the morning will cause vehicles to stack up along Eden Street, all the cars accessing the site will have to queue up along Eden Street adding on to the current gridlock. This will worsen the traffic on Forest Road during the pm peak hours.
Traffic conditions on Princes Highway has never been improved despite the many new development being proposed and approved. If there is no solutions to improve the current traffic condition, I cannot see myself supporting this proposal as it would only worsen the urban condition as it currently stand.
Name Withheld
Object
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
I'm afraid this project will affect the ventilation/sunshine time of my home as it's very high (19-23 storey), and it will make the busy road even more crowded, it already takes 2 mins for me to wait for the green light to cross the road.
CASA
Comment
PHILLIP , Australian Capital Territory
Message
Attachments
Robert Hodge
Comment
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
I am submitting the attached document on behalf of SP 56932 which is located at 158-164 Princes Highway Arncliffe.
While we support the development in principal, we are concerned that, contrary to the Planning Secretary’s specific Environmental Assessment Requirements, the EIS has failed to consider the projects impact on our building with respect to overshadowing and impact on views.
We respectfully request the EIS be revisited to address its shortcomings with a view to minor changes being made to the proposed development so as to reduce current impacts on our building.
Attachments
ROADS AND MARITIME SERVICES DIVISION
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached TfNSW response to the EIS.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
I have carefully perused the Eden Street Redevelopment application and wish to make the following comments.

It is obvious the proposed development will have a very significant impact on Arncliffe.

I am not opposed to the redevelopment of the 1.3-hectare Department of Housing land for new residential housing, community space and some retail. However, I do have a serious concern about some aspects of the proposed development.

The focus of my concerns with the proposal are as follows:

• The size of development for the location.
With the construction of a number of substantial high-density apartment and unit developments in recent years in Wolli Creek, east of the Princes Highway in Arncliffe, and west of the Princes Highway towards Banksia, I believe an additional building precinct of the size proposed for the Eden Street site is excessive.
I believe that the creation of over 700 apartments across 4 tower buildings of 19 to 23 storeys will crowd too many people into the area. This constitutes an over-development of the street.
I believe that the size of the development should be substantially reduced – with a significant decrease in the height of the buildings to lower the number of apartments, and hence the total residents housed on the site.

• Failure to take into account the significant traffic congestion that will result at Eden Street.
The proposed development will have a huge impact on local traffic. With the traffic modelling being based on data taken on days in the period of March to June this year there must be some question as to its accuracy for real-life road usage in a non-covid-restricted environment.
The development will result in a substantial amount of traffic – cars, motorbikes, bicycles, trucks and service vehicles – moving in and through Eden Street. This will make it a very busy and congested thoroughfare at all times.
With the precinct only having a single entry/exit point, vehicle congestion on Eden Street is inevitable with traffic from the north or south waiting for other vehicles to enter the parking area, and in the exit as leaving vehicles wait for street traffic to clear.
Vehicles can enter Eden Street from Forest Road only by turning left when travelling east. Similarly, only a left-hand turn is permissible when exiting from Eden Street onto Forest Road. Thus, it seems probable that the main entry and exit to Eden Street will be from Burrows Street.
It is inevitable that traffic congestion will occur at the intersection of Eden Street and Burrows Street, especially with vehicles wanting to turn right out of Eden Street to travel on the Princes Highway. The proximity of Eden Street to the traffic lights of the Burrows Street and Princes Highway intersection will result in a backlog of traffic across the Eden Street intersection.
The location of the Islamic Imaan Centre on the north-east side of Burrows Street at the intersection with Eden Street will contribute to traffic and parking problems at this critical intersection.

• Failure to take into account the significant traffic congestion that will result at other intersections.
The Eden Street entry/exit to Burrows Street won’t only create traffic problems at this intersection but also result in bottlenecks at many of the surrounding feeder intersections for local commuters, people wishing to access facilities and services in and around the town centre and for commuters driving through the area. Projected upgrades to these intersections may assist traffic flow but won’t eliminate the congestion.

• Failure to provide sufficient long-term on-site parking, and to consider the parking needs of existing residents in the neighbouring unit blocks.
At present Eden Street accommodates two lanes of traffic with parking on both sides of the road. As a resident of the street I can attest to the fact that, even following the departure of the greater number of residents from the existing social housing units over the past few years, there are still very few free parking spaces available on the street at any time.
There are two reasons for the lack of parking. Some commuters from around the area use the untimed parking in Eden Street when catching the train from Arncliffe Station, especially when the station parking zone is full. Secondly, residents of the houses and units have inadequate garage or off-street parking for their cars. This is a significant point because it highlights that, regardless of proximity to public transport or any concern about the environment, people demonstrably maintain a strong dependency on car ownership. Furthermore, with most residences in Eden Street being an apartment or unit with each housing more than one person and the likelihood of more than one vehicle attached to each, the high number of cars involved is obvious.
The proposed development reduces the available, and needed, street parking spaces for the existing population of Eden Street, and their visitors. The creation of a bike path on the western side of the street is a positive feature but obviously greatly exacerbates the loss of available street parking.
While the parking for motorcycles and bicycles specified in the development application should be satisfactory it is naïve to think that the basement car parking spaces will be sufficient to meet the actual residential parking requirements of the development.
The minimum parking requirements have been adopted for the development because the precinct is within 800 metres of Arncliffe Station. I anticipate these parking controls will result in a shortfall of a significant number of car spaces to accommodate that which will be required for the parking of vehicles belonging to the residents, their visitors, retail workers, childcare staff, shoppers and others who might come to enjoy the community space.
It should be noted that any failure to accommodate all the residents’ vehicles on-site will mean the additional cars will need to vie with existing Eden Street residents for the significantly reduced street parking spaces. With insufficient spaces available for existing residents of Eden Street, where will they (and their visitors) be able to park?

• Failure to understand the limits of Arncliffe Railway Station.
The development will place further pressure on the already increasing demand on the station to cater for rail commuters when the services to it are already becoming pressured during non-covid peak times. Trains travelling towards the city in the morning peak hour are often quite crowded at Arncliffe station. As the station receives only all-stops train services, and is the last station before the Wolli Creek interchange, a majority of the train is filled with passengers by the time it arrives at Arncliffe station.

• Final comments.
There are other parts of the development which are of a concern. Some of these are of a technical nature or require a level of knowledge or expertise beyond my experience. I hope others will have made submission to address these issues.
What must be highlighted is that it is the cumulative impact of the issues in consideration of all the other large high-density developments in and around Arncliffe that speaks so strongly against approving another. The Eden Street redevelopment application must not be considered in isolation.
There are many issues and negative consequences which substantiate the fact that the scope of the Redevelopment Application for 161-179 Princes Highway & 26-42 Eden Street, Arncliffe as proposed is far too large for the Eden Street location. I have made just a few comments here indicating a few of the ramifications arising from placing too many people on the site. Therefore, I recommend a reduction in the number of apartments.

I believe that the proposal, if approved, will create problems in and around Eden Street which, in turn, will have a detrimental impact on Arncliffe. I believe the proposal would not be supported by the wider community if individual opinion was canvassed. For this reason, I ask that the development be amended to a much more reasonable scale that would, rather than creating ongoing problems, contribute to maintaining Arncliffe as a great place to live.
Heritage NSW – Aboriginal cultural heritage (ACH)
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Amended Heritage NSW ACH Comments attached.
Attachments
Heritage NSW – HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NSW
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
see attached letter
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
The height of the apartment buildings for this project are substantially higher than anything in the immediate vicinity. It will permanently change the streetscape and create shadowing across the well used shopping centre. While I do not oppose the overall project I cannot see any justification for these heights. There has been a significant number of large apartment buildings built in the area in the last 3 years so we have more than exceeded the targets set for the area. Please set these apartments no higher than 6 storeys to maintain the character of the area.
TRANSPORT FOR NSW
Comment
Haymarket , New South Wales
Message
See attached.
Attachments
Caroline Martin
Support
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
As a stakeholder in the Glenwood apartment complex at 27-29 Eden Street, our building is directly opposite the proposed major development. I am aware that making objections would be futile as the project will go ahead regardless of any objections by myself or other area residents.

Accordingly, as a senior citizen living alone, I need to have the following questions answered so as to make a considered decision as to whether or not to sell my unit prior to the development taking place as obviously a redevelopment of a major project such as this will take a number of years. I appreciate that when completed the Eden Street project has the potential to improve the area in many ways with new housing, both social and private, creating an energetic hub with retail and cafe precincts, a child minding facility, a public library plus a public park with walkways and street art - all very admirable.

Please would you provide me with responses to my questions as listed below:

1. When is it estimated that the existing 13 Housing Commission buildings will be demolished, ie estimated start and finish dates ?
2. When is it estimated that the necessary earthworks and excavation will begin and end ?
3. What mitigation steps for close neighbours will be taken regarding dust/debris during the excavation/earthworks period ?
4. What traffic controls are planned for Eden Street during the entire project's construction, ie truck traffic during the various stages of the development?
5. What traffic controls are planned for Eden Street once the project is completed, given the potential increase of private traffic on a street which is often used as a 'rat run' to avoid traffic on the Princes Highway.

Not wishing to have to relocate, please understand that it is very important to me that these questions be responded to. I have lived in Eden Street for over 22 years, moving into my unit when our building at 27-29 Eden Street had just been completed. I love the area and wish to stay.

I look forward to a personal response in the near future. Thank you.
Name Withheld
Comment
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
Dear Planning,
I am all for renewing the area as renewal is needed for the future, especially at the housing commission site on Eden Street which has existed since the 1940's and past its used-by date.
I am quite concerned the 19-23 storey height planned for this development on Eden Street is not to scale for the area and way too tall in comparison to what buildings exist. This development will block a lot of light and sky views. Some new developments in the area are 6-10 storeys.

The residents and locals do not want this development to look like the unplanned `slum' with no amenities that is Wolli Creek or Hurstville.

Arncliffe is on the top of a hill driving south from Newtown, this developments height will be way out of place for the feel and heritage history of the area. You will see this development from everywhere. I am so happy the village shops on the western side of the train station still exist and is a nod to the history of Arncliffe.

Arncliffe is desperate for community hubs like parks,dog walks, exercise trails, coffee shops and places where the community mingle.
Some developments is the area have literally been slapped up with no architectural merit with nothing but a train station and nothing else for the people that actually live here.
I hope you take my comments seriously as I am a resident of nearly 20 years. I am quite worried for our future as a community and how these developments that are way too large will affect our area in the look and feel of what buildings actually look like in the mix here.
Regards,
Rosemary
Name Withheld
Object
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
I support the reduction in parking spaces to avoid further traffic on Princess Highway and encourage public transport usage.

While the ADG requires a 7% deep soil area, there is a 15% guidance for large developments over 1500m. The development should increase the deep soil area to 15%. Ideally a second deep soil zone could be constructed, even though it will likely receive less sunlight and the parking space might need some rearrangement or further cutting. For example, the waste rooms could move elsewhere.

I do not support the separation of social housing tenants in a separate building. To better integrate these tenants, it would be better if they were evenly spread out through all 4 buildings. Being integrated with regular working people can give them a better perspective of live. Putting them to together in one building can often have negative impacts. The developer could still be able to commit to the same number of units in quantity and quality. Additionally, the developer should be able to handle the different fit out of these units. The long term positive social effects would outweigh the short-term inconvenience during the build phase.
New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation
Support
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
The NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) is supportive of the State Significant Development application of the Eden St, Arncliffe Mixed Use Redevelopment currently on exhibition (SSD-11429726), in line with the NSW Government’s Future Directions for Social Housing policy.

The project will revitalise LAHC’s aging social housing estate at Arncliffe and deliver more and better social housing which is sustainable, less expensive to maintain and meet the needs of NSW’s social housing tenants now and into the future.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-11429726
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
Bayside
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister

Contact Planner

Name
David Glasgow