Skip to main content
Back to Main Project

Part3A Modifications

Determination

Mod 4 - Further Design Changes

Bayside

Current Status: Determination

Attachments & Resources

Submissions (3)

Agency Submissions (8)

Response to Submissions (62)

Assessment (1)

Recommendation (2)

Determination (5)

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 201 submissions
Terry Topouzakis
Comment
Rosebery , New South Wales
Message
It's quite obvious the developers are seeking 14 storeys as a better
outlook to Botany Bay and City views to justify higher sale prices.
However, the development focus is on residential apartments and no
serious efforts are being made to rebuild a major and vital shopping
precinct that is desperately needed. This should be the priority given
the number of apartments they are aiming for. 3/4 levels of quality
shopping/commercial use with parking, would appeal to locals within a
2 kms radius bring small business into the area and raise the value on
surrounding neighbourhoods. Given the size of the proposed
development, the commercial aspect should be considered as essential
for this project to succeed on both the Southern and the Northern
sides of Evans Avenue. A pool in the centre of the complex is a waste
of money for this area and demographics. Consideration for Ground,
level 1 and level 2, to be majority shops and commercial use.
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
I find it astounding that the new submission is for so many more units
and parking spaces with no consideration for traffic in and out of
eastlakes.
Access to and from Eastlakes is gridlocked now during peak hours and
will only become worse with the new proposal.
I believe it was a stretch with the original proposal and if the new
one is to be given the go ahead direct access from Gardeners Rd into
the complex needs to be provided so existing locals can still enter
and leave the suburb without an additional 1300 cars trying to do the
same.
Further additional public transport must be provided for the people of
Eastlakes perhaps in the form of shuttle busses to and from Mascot
station in order to unburden the road infrastructure.
I believe the above issues need to be addressed based on the original
proposal and this new version should not be given the go ahead as the
local infrastructure can not cope with this many people in the suburb.
Significant investment in public transport and road access to the
complex needs to be achieved before any project should be allowed to
proceed.
Name Withheld
Object
Rosebery , New South Wales
Message
I am well aware of the pressures that all levels of Government are
experiencing in attempting to provide increased housing as our
population grows and I have no opposition to medium density
or even high density where it doesn't intrude on existing residents.

However the proposed changes to this development are beyond a slight
modification, they are dramatic and will intrude on existing
residents.


From 2-6 stories to 4-14 stories and from 292 apartments to 468
apartments and 700 car spaces to 1077 car spaces will result in
increased traffic already a major problem along Gardeners road. For
those of us living nearby 6 stories maximum was visible but bearable,
14 stories means that many of us will experience loss of privacy and
sunlight. From my back yard I can see the top story of a new block
recently completed on gardeners road. It is only 4-5 stories high. 14
is just unacceptable in what is predominantly a low to medium density
area (excluding a Dept of Housing development)


From the Rosebery/Alexandria side there has been massive large scale
development and this proposal from the Eastlakes side means that
residents are feeling as if buildings are hemming them in visually,
reducing sunlight, increasing traffic and human noise and making the
environment increasingly unattractive. Please do not let this
development proceed in this manner.
Name Withheld
Object
Rosebery , New South Wales
Message
I and my household of 4 persons object strongly to the modification
regarding increasing the building heights from 2-6 storeys to 4-14
storeys above the podium. This will mean an increase of 176 apartments
which is definitely over development of the area and unsightly !!
This will increase the traffic in the area too. As it is, the traffic
is conjested and public transport (only bus available) is not that
frequent. 6 storeys should be the MAXIMUM for any tower build in the
area and more parking for the shops should be made available and not
impacting the already limited parking on the street. The
infrastructure (public transport, traffic flow in/out of the shops
etc..) of the area should be closely examined to make sure it can
support the vast population increase in the area. Definitely BEFORE
allowing any further increase of the apartments. I hate to see
Eastlakes turn out to be a "mini Hong Kong" ...or the area " near
Mascot train Station" with so many high rise buidings !! I know
Eastlakes shopping centre is dated and need to be replaced by a new
modern one BUT not with so many high rise buildings. Most of the
existing residential buildings are about 3 storeys high. PLEASE do not
approve the storeys to be over 6 storeys. It will spoil the outlook of
the area..
Allowing the loading dock to operate 24 hours is ridiculous. The noise
created will impact the residents nearby. Even the aeroplanes are not
allowed to fly after 12 midnight !! Why then the loading dock should
be allowed to operate 24 hours !!
Name Withheld
Comment
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
I support the Crown project and the revitalisation of Eastlakes Shopping
centre as a whole.

I have no objection to the increase in building height or size of the
project .

I do object to the low number of car spaces being considered.
I don't think that there are enough car spaces - based on the number
provided it seems as though there is only 1 car space per unit, most
households have two cars - based on that information that would leave
141 car spaces for shoppers. I believe that the increase is
insufficient for the demand especially considering the amount of
people this shopping complex will draw.
I don't believe that visitor car spaces have been included, there
should be increased car spaces for visitors to people living within
the apartment complex to reduce the impact on street parking as street
parking is already at capacity with the exisiting surrounding
apartments .

I object to the loading dock being 24hrs - this is a quiet
neighbourhood . The current 6am-10pm loading dock is able to meet the
needs of the local environment.
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
1. If the shopping centre is open 6am-10pm then there is no need to have
loading docks that operate 24hrs. Whilst loading dock doors will
contain the noise inside the building it does not contain the noise of
the large trucks moving at night. The noise travels in this
neighbourhood, especially at night, and it's unacceptable to have
trucks coming and going after 10pm regardless of how infrequent. We
have noise curfews for a reason; we don't even allow the Airport to
operate without a curfew.

2. The streets surround the area are small roads. The changes will
"average of only one vehicle every two minutes during the weekday peak
periods.", which doesn't sound like much. But consider the trucks
parking into the loading docks. They take up both side of the streets,
blocking movement for up to 3-4 minutes as it slowly tries to reverse
in to the dock. This will mean a backlog will build up. You have not
seen traffic that builds up during peak hours when northern side
construction trucks stops the flow of traffic, I've seen it back all
the way from Gardeners Rd to St Helena Pde.

3. There is not enough parking spaces to accomodate the increased
number of residential apartments. The number of parking spaces assumes
that each apartment only have 1 car. The families with young children
living in two bedrooms (or roommates) with two cars will spill into
the streets, where parking is already scarce. Houses being rebuilt in
this area are expected to have at least 2 car spots in their plans
prior to approval; new apartments should have this requirement too.

4. The increase height will also mean that the apartments directly
behind building G on Barber Ave will never get sunlight hitting their
balcony. Refer to your images on Figure 26 of the modification report.
Name Withheld
Object
Botany , New South Wales
Message
These are major modifications and my understanding is that, due their
substantial nature, a new Development Application is required.

I object to:
- the huge increase in building height of 133%
because the bulk and height of the buildings will overshadow our
property at 20 Barber Ave and the skyline will be lost.

- the large increase in the number of apartments of 60%,
because it will exacerbate the existing traffic and parking issues in
an area that is already congested, and overcrowd public transport.
Also, the huge increase in traffic will impede access in and out of
our garage on the corner of Barber Ave and St Helena Pde.
I believe that the proposed new roundabout at the intersection of
Barber Ave and St Helena Pde is inadequate and will not cater for
access to our garage.

- the large increase in gross floor area of 43%,
because the infrastructure will not be able to cope with the huge
increase in demand

- the extension of operating hours for the loading dock to 24hrs,
because the large trucks and noise will severely disrupt and disturb
the residents in our building directly across the road at 20 Barber
Ave
Name Withheld
Object
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
My concern is the roads around this development will not be able to
handle the extra cars & traffic. There is only one narrow road
(racecourse parade) leading into Eastlakes shopping centre. Other
roads near the development are also narrow.
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
Under "Transport and Accessibility"

At present, traffic heading north along Maloney Street, Eastlakes is
often banking back to around Garden Street from Gardeners Road during
the morning peak hours.

Canny drivers are turning right into Evans Avenue, left in to
Racecourse Place before turning right onto Gardeners Road.

Other such drivers are following King Street , left into Florence
Avenue until they come to the roundabout at the corner of Evans Avenue
and Racecourse Place. Here they turn right into Racecourse Place.

Traffic is banking up from both directions to the point that recently,
when I was on a 301 city-bound bus around 08:10, it took almost 10
minutes to progress from the corner of Maloney Street and Evans Avenue
to Gardeners Road at Racecourse Place.

Once Eastlakes Live is operational - even at its first stage of
occupancy, traffic density in the above area will be far worse -
especially during the am and pm peak period.

The 343 Kingsford to Chatswood bus along Gardeners Road runs every
five minutes during the Monday to Friday morning peak hours. At
present. there is always space for passengers boarding at Eastlakes.

However, once the Light Rail commences operation, my understanding is
that this bus is to merge with the 395 and 396 (Maroubra Beach to
Central and Maroubra Beach to the City) buses at the Kingsford
Interchange. It will then be 343: Maroubra Beach to Chatswood via
Gardeners Road and Eastlakes.

Our State Government is already admitting some buses will need to be
retained as the trams will not be able to cope with the volume of
passengers especially during the above hours.

So many passengers will stay on these 343 buses or board them at this
interchange. The result will be that passengers, who try to board at
Eastlakes, will find these buses already at their maximum capacity.

The 357 and 418 buses travel along Gardeners Road via Eastlakes to
Mascot Train Station. There is no solution in passengers using these
vehicles to access that station.

Locals there are already having great difficulty trying to board their
city-bound trains from the East Hills area due to them being already
so crowded. These trains have to collect many more passengers waiting
at the Green Square Station.

These are my reasons for this application to be refused. Unfortunately
it is too late for the already approved plans to be down-sized for
these same reasons.
Ausgrid
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Ausgrid has reviewed Appendix O and the report and notes the undertaking
by the proponent to make the relevant connection application for the
additional electrical load.

Ausgrid has no further submission.
Name Withheld
Object
EASTLAKES , New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposal made for the changes in the southern site.
Point 1. Reducing the number of towers is good so the area is less
congested.
Point 2. Objection on increasing the number of storeys and increasing
the number of units. This will also create congestion on the area.
Point 7. Object to modifying the operational hours for non residential
& loading dock. This will create a busy zone at all time.
This area only has single lane road on each side.
With additional number of units, and longer operational hours, this
will create a busy zone at all time. Lots of older and young family
resides in the area. With the above modifications it will also create
noise and more air pollution for high traffic movement.
Name Withheld
Object
rosebery , New South Wales
Message
- will create a wind tunnel & block light which is already minimal
- no accessible motorway / main road / infrastructure to support
additional traffic & people
- dense residential area doesn't support later / longer operating
hours
- already issues with too many unsold highly priced appartments coming
into a housing downturn
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
We do not need that much high rise in Eastlakes
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
1- Height NO MORE than 6 storeys
2- NO EXTRA number of units
3- NO MORE Parking spaces
4- NO NO NO Loading Dock 24 hours
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
1- NO NO NO more than 6 storeys
2- NO MORE extra apartments
3- NO NO NO more car parking spaces, enough congestion
4- NO NO NO 24 hours Loading dock
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
DO NOT accept more higher storeys than 6, maximum
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
I think Gentrification is something we need to embrace and accept.
However when it comes to the new proposed height of up to 14
stories...it becomes more of a development becoming an eyesore rather
than complimenting and bringing new and improved buildings into the
area.

Eastlakes is a very old suburb and due to its age has not seen any
upgrades to the roads and to the electrical substations. In the past
month we have suffered 2 major electrical blackouts on lasting for
over 4 hours.

I do not approve for the height to go up more than the original
proposed height of 7 stories.

No other building exceeds 4 stories in Eastlakes, not even the
department of housing.
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
No more than the agreed 6 storeys, and everything else, only original
submisssion.
CASA
Object
Phillip , Australian Capital Territory
Message
The building proposal infringes prescribed airspace for Sydney Airport.
Therefore under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations
1996, Approval is required from the Department of Infrastructure,
Regional Development and Cities.

On 26 July Sydney Airport invited CASA and Airservices Australia to
comment (under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996)
on a Crown Group building development at 19A EVANS AVENUE, EASTLAKES.
The height was 74m AHD.

On 3 September CASA received an assessment from Airservices which
advised: "at a maximum height of 74m (243ft) AHD the property
development will affect the RNAV GNSS RWY 25 instrument procedure at
Sydney Airport.
The maximum height of the property development without affecting any
procedures at Sydney Airport is 60.6m (199ft) AHD. This proposed
property development at a maximum height of 74m (243ft) will have an
impact on the RNAV GNSS RWY 25 instrument procedure at Sydney Airport.
Therefore, this property development - a permanent structure, as
proposed cannot be supported by Airservices."

On 11 October 2018 CASA assessed the proposal under the Airports
(Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996 and advised Sydney Airport:
"..... construction of the proposed tallest building at the site will
present an unacceptable effect on the safety of existing and future
air transport operations at Sydney Airport."

The Aeronautical Impact Assessment (AIA) by Landrum and Brown of 13
April 2018 (the version at your web link) advises that PANS-OPS is not
infringed.
The AIA by Landrum and Brown of 24 July 2018 that was provided by
Sydney Airport advises the RWY 25 RNAV-Z (GNSS) at 60.64m AHD. The
conclusion advises: "It will be necessary to gain approval for the
infringement of the Sydney OLS and PANS OPS surfaces via an
application to Sydney Airport Corporation Limited."

CASA advises that at a height of 73.7m (or 71.7m AHD) the construction
of the proposed tallest building (building D, J) at the site will
present an unacceptable effect on the safety of existing and future
air transport operations at Sydney Airport. The other buildings (E, F
and G) will be under the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces and PANS-OPS
surfaces and do not need to be assessed by CASA.

CASA notes that according to the AIA by Landrum and Brown of 13 April
2018, the building will be 71.70m AHD. The architectural drawings show
the tallest building at a height of 73.7m.

It is also recommended that NSW Planning seeks comment from Sydney
Airport and the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and
Cities.
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes , New South Wales
Message
The proposed modifications is a huge increase from the original proposal,
there is no sufficient reason to justify why it has deviated so much
from the original proposal.
- Having an increase of 200 units will not benefit the community, it
will just create chaos and over population in such a small area.
- The infrastructure of the area will not cope with the modifications.
The increase in apartments will create major traffic jams as the
street infrastructure and street parking is remaining the same.
- the current street infrastructure cannot cope now let alone with an
additional 600 units.
- the new proposed architecture does not represent the local community
at all. It is too large and flashy for the type of community of
Eastlakes who are low-middle class, multicultural citizens.
- The increase in storeys will impact the current apartments by
blocking sunlight and obstructing their views. It will also reduce the
sunlight from the adjacent park.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
MP09_0146-Mod-4
Main Project
MP09_0146
Assessment Type
Part3A Modifications
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
Bayside
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Deputy Secretary

Contact Planner

Name
Emma Butcher