Mod 4 - Further Design Changes

Totally against any changes to Development application. Local traffic is
already at breaking point due to the number of apartments that have
"sprung up" in recent years. With this latest application it will add
hundreds more cars to the Eastlakes/Mascot area in close vicinity to
my residence. I wasn't for the initial application and this latest
variation is unacceptable.

I strongly object to any modification for this development. This area is
mainly a residential neighbourhood and will negatively benefit from
extra increased ugly overshadowing overcrowded towers. This area is
struggling to accommodate anymore traffic and the bus system is
limited. Due the Light Rail there is more traffic congestion on the
main road plus all the other major developments nearby with more to
come have almost grodlocked the area already. Schools, parks,
Hospitals, shops are all overcrowded. We don't need another high rise
tower blocking the skyline. This is just a trick that all Developers
use to pass a DA then ad to it with amendments afterwards. Apartments
are not selling well in the area and this will become another white
elephant partially empty building. The residents and broader Community
don't want or need this modification.

This submission fails to comply with "CONTEXT" and Duty of Care to
existing residents in this already Built area.
Council has a responsibility to protect the existing amenity of its
residents and the LIVABILITY of the area. The surrounding area is
family residential with near by schools. The park adjacent to this
proposal has not been viewed by the developer as anything other than
an asset THEY can profit from at the rate and tax payers loss. THIS
MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!
The overshadowing of this area and the increased demand on
infrastructure can not be dismissed with the prospect of levies from
developers, for these are allocated to the incurred burden of
providing for the increased demands. What in fact happens is that the
residents (Tax and rate Payers) lose.
I request Council and indeed the NSW State Government refuse this
proposals amendments.

Dear Mrs/Ms,

I am the owner of the unit near Eastlakes shopping centre.I am happy
with the first project which says that it would not be to big.
The second version is uncomfortable for people who live close to it.
We are afraid that it will be to nosy and not safe for us.We wish to
live in a nice and quiet area like now.
Please,consider my request and do not make the shopping centre bigger.

Kind Regards,
Beata Grubiak

Dear Ms/Mr,

My name is Robert Grubiak. My unit is close to eastlakes shopping
centre.I would like that a centre will be made follow the first
project.I do not want to have it bigger.I ma afraid that the area will
be to nosy and unsafe for occupants.
Please,consider my request.

Kind Regards,
Robert Grubiak

I do not support the proposed modifications. This area is congested
enough and will benefit from a face life but not such a greedy and
lucrative suggestion. These are people's lives and dwellings, there
should be some consideration to that.

Dear Minister of Planning,
As a member of Eastlakes Community, I object to the modification
request above and am concerned with the drastic changes in this
modification.
While there is a decrease in the number of towers, there is a huge
increase in the height of the towers (from 2-6 stories to 4-14). In a
significant departure from the original proposal, the number of
apartments planned are being increased from 292 to 468. There is also
a proposed 24hr loading dock.
I object to the modification request because of the following key
issues.
1. The scale is too large and concentrated for the area.
2. It will further congest, an already congested suburb. (At least new
8400 residents are expected to move in).
3. Local streets cannot cope with additional traffic that will be
generated by the new residents moving in and the increased shopping
precinct.
4. Increase in delay and overcrowding due to lack of mass rapid public
transport options. Nearest train / tram lines are a few kilometers
away with not enough bus connections (especially off-peak hours).
5. 24 hrs loading bay and additional traffic the shopping precinct
generates will disturb the current quiet nature of the suburb. This
affects the quality of life significantly. It is important to note
that Eastlakes is currently apartment heavy with apartments places
close to each other. There isn't enough green cover to absorb the
additional noise the new precinct will generate.
6. 14 stories will obstruct the view and sunlight of surrounding
residences.
7. 14 stories will obstruct the sunlight to the surrounding parks -
Jerome Dowling Reserve Playground, Eastlakes reserve, Bridget Tight
reserve etc.
8. Additional competition for the limited public recreational
facilities available. Note that, Botany Bay has one of the lowest
green cover among Sydney suburbs.
9. Surrounding schools and child care are already facing over-crowding
due to high density development in the surrounding suburbs.
10. Lack of high speed internet connectivity (NBN or similar) will
further congest the internet traffic in the area.

The fact that the development is a State significant process should
not interfere with the fair and equitable treatment of all impacted
parties. The development should be reconsidered.

I strongly object to such a large scale number of dwellings being added
to the centre and believe that community members' safety and health is
seriously at stake. There are only two roads that lead to Eastlakes
shopping centre. They are two-lane roads, that at present are unable
to cope with the amount of traffic going through on a regular basis.

The addition of such a large proposed amount of additional housing
including housing towers and a 24hr loading dock will put more strain
on an already collapsing and inappropriate road network.

It's likely that due to increased traffic on the two sole roads
leading to the centre emergency services like ambulances and police
have more trouble getting into the area. Then the ghettoisation of the
suburb will be complete and irreversible.

Dear Mr Joshua,
Thank you for notifying Sydney Water of the proposed modification
request listed above. We have reviewed the proposal and can provide
the following comments for your consideration.
Due to the proximity of the proposed development to Sydney Water
assets, we recommend that Council imposing the following conditions of
consent:
Building Plan Approval
The approved plans must be submitted to the Sydney Water Tap in™
online service to determine whether the development will affect any
Sydney Water sewer or water main, stormwater drains and/or easement,
and if further requirements need to be met.
The Sydney Water Tap in™ online self-service replaces our Quick Check
Agents as of 30 November 2015.
The Tap in™ service provides 24/7 access to a range of services,
including:
* building plan approvals
* connection and disconnection approvals
* diagrams
* trade waste approvals
* pressure information
* water meter installations
* pressure boosting and pump approvals
* changes to an existing service or asset, e.g. relocating or moving
an asset.

Sydney Water's Tap in™ online service is available at:
https://www.sydneywater.com.au/SW/plumbing-building-developing/building/sydney-water-tap-in/index.htm
Section 73 Certificate
A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994
must be obtained from Sydney Water.
It is recommended that applicants apply early for the certificate, as
there may be water and sewer pipes to be built and this can take some
time. This can also impact on other services and building, driveway or
landscape design.
Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing
Coordinator. For help either visit www.sydneywater.com.au > Plumbing,
building and developing > Developing > Land development or telephone
13 20 92.
If you require any further information, please contact the Growth
Planning and Development Team at [email protected].

Kind Regards,
Growth Planning & Development Team

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please don't be tricked by these developers and their tricks.
I have decades of experience with developers and this is a common
trick of Developers to get their foot in the door.
I believe their will be more modifications. I ask you all to be strong
on 1st application of 2-6 storeys & 292 appartments.
My major reasons to ask for your rejection is due to the traffic
conjestion that such a large devslopment will cause to what is a small
road footprint area. Secondly the implications of such a large
development will have on the visual landscape of the area. As such
please consider these implications and decline this development
proposal.

Yours Sincerely,

Brian Hill

The gross overdevelopment of this site would be a an abomination to the
local community and a cultural loss to the Sydney metropolitan area at
large. My in-laws live nearby and shop almost exclusively at Eastlakes
which I have always known to be an easily accessible center with
affordable products, beautifully fresh produce with the charm
character of a foreign country. It feels like a little Turkish village
shopping center that has landed in the middle of Sydney. The food is
fresh, cheap, and exotic. It's a hub for older gentlemen from the
Middle East who sit at the outdoor seating of one cafe and drink their
Turkish coffees, smoke, read the papers, and chat. The shops sell a
wide range of Middle Eastern ingredients, snacks and goods. It's a
very comfortable place to shop . How tragic that will change. At the
monstrous scale proposed, we will be left w another sterile behemoth
full of overpriced goods.

Just wondering also what is to become of the housing commission and
older units in the surrounding area? Where will they shop or will they
be driven out of their homes?

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Adnil Ramos

Will make a submission.

Adnil

i would like to object around the increase in the development proposal.
this will increase the overall population of the area to a non
sustainable level with the influx of people, cars, and traffic into
the area, which does not have the infrastructure to cater for the
increase in density.
I do not see anything in the application which will help the
infrastructure outside of the immediate area, and even those that are
proposed only appear to be available to tenants and not all locals.
i would also like to object to the 24 hour loading dock, again noise
and traffic concerns will affect the local neighbors with trucks and
lorry's travelling in the local streets out of core hours.

I object to the modification request, specifically on 2 areas:
- Increasing building heights above the podium from 2-6 storeys to
4-14 storeys
- Increase in number of apartments of 176 (from 292 to 468).

The sheer increase in the local population will make what is already a
busy & dangerous area around the shopping centre clogged up beyond
what we get at the moment. After 8am, the traffic queues to get onto
Gardeners Road can tail back round the side of the shopping centre and
take 20 minutes to get through. The roads are narrow and I've seen
countless near misses for pedestrians and schoolkids. My fear is
safety in what is usually a quiet area now disrupted by a major
increase in vehicles. The proposed increase in apartments, in addition
to the 24 hour loading dock proposed will make this considerably worse
and we can't be negligent to this.

Without rail then how can this increase in population be supported? It
is too far to walk to Mascot station. Will the light rail be extended
from Kingsford to Eastlakes?

My second objection is on the potential tower heights. 6 to 14 storeys
above the podium is a massive difference, and completely out of
character with the Eastlakes area and surrounds. Keep Eastlakes green
and leafy and not the eyesores of mega structures which dilute the
unique multicultural character of an amazing, suburban neighbourhood.

See attached submission

PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH MY OR MY COMPANY NAME

Please see attached

Please see attached

I live in the building just next to this development.
I am happy for the development to take place, however, I am concerned
about the water supply to the existing buildings post the new
development. It is always observed that old buildings face water
shortage due to newly constructed buildings.

Dear Sir/ Madam

The appliocation for higher density is absurd as this I grossly over
development of such a small area.

1. It is already above the LEP height.
3. It is already grossly over the Floor Space Ratio
4. There isn't enough on site basement parking provide.
5. There is already an oversupply of apartments in the area.
6. There will be too many and too small apartments that aren't big
enough to house a cat.
7. The apartments are shoe boxes in design.
8, The veranda's are too small.
9. This will create too much congestion ie traffic jams
10. Most families have 2 cars and half these units don't have any
parking facilities. This will create street parking congestion.
11. These units are reminiscent of Melbourne style apartments that are
insufficient in size.
12. The Public Transport facilities will not support the increased
number of housing applied.
13. There is already too much crime and drug related issues in the
area
14. This is an old established area with many elderly people over the
age of 60. These people will be threatened by more overcrowding and
crime related problems.
15. The streets will not be able to cope with the over crowdedness and
car problems.

Do not allow this construction to take place. The roads are already past
choking point. The roads are not wide enough to accommodate more
traffic. There are already delays from Woolworths trucks unloading,
dangerous blind spots caused by the number of residents cars parked as
well as uneven roads.

This development was already illegally pushed through against the then
City of Botany Bay council. The area is already a slum, any increase
in residential units will result in increased road accidents and loss
of any remaining ease of access for existing residents.

To the Minister of Planning, Anthony Roberts
I have lived in Eastlakes for many years. I went to Eastlakes Infants
School and can remember Eastlakes shopping Centre when it was Rosebery
Racecourse. So I am very familiar with the development of the area and
it's need for considered redevelopment.
The increase of building heights from 2 to 6 storeys to 4 to 14
storeys above "the podium" is excessive. There are three tall
buildings in the Racecourse precinct: one on the west border on
Maloney St; one on the east perimeter on Florence Ave, and the third
faces Gardners Rd, and towards the east near the community centre.
Remaining buildings are 3 and 4 storeys. It is a multi-ethnic, family
area. It is not an affluent area. This will hardly be in keeping with
the area, as suggested by Crown, the developer. The proposed
modification does not include the northern site, also being developed,
and which contains three eight story blocks.
The increase in the number of apartments from 292 to 468 on the
southern site alone means a significant increase in population in the
area on a relatively small footprint. This will impact on surrounding
streets as well as available public transport and other services such
as schools.
The increase in parking from 700 to 1,077 spaces is an indication of
the anticipated number of people accessing the area by car for living,
shopping or working in a relatively confined area.
Opening hours from 6 to 10 pm with the loading dock available 24 hours
will impact on surrounding buildings and homes with traffic, noise and
artificial light. The streets have long been too narrow with parking
on both sides. Deliveries are now difficult and living with the sound
through the night would be a challenge
Eastlakes is due for renewal. I think most people in the area would
agree.
I have read a number of documents supplied online. One, "Eastlakes:
Urban context Report August 2018" for Crown Group by Urbis puts some
questionable arguments, for example:
* Eastlakes has excellent proximity to jobs. The details note a
significant majority would be accessible by car. P24-5 This at a time
when road congestion and public transport are constant issues in the
press.
* Eastlakes has excellent connectivity to district and regional
transport links. Recent changes to the bus timetables mean two buses
(301, 302, 303) are diverted from the City to Redfern Station. This
change does provide train access from Redfern to the city hubs of
Parramatta and Liverpool. Are residents of Eastlakes being directed in
a more westerly direction?
* Only the 343 travels to the City but it also travels on to
Chatswood, making it a high use service. This means two or more modes
of transport will become the norm to travel, (P24-25) defeating the
purpose of a thirty-minute city.
* There is considerable effort to justify the redevelopment by placing
it in the context of plans for three city hubs, this being part of the
Eastern City District. On p 26 -27 there are comparisons with other
local centres such as Double Bay, Bondi, Leichhardt and Balmain which
is very misleading. Eastlakes in no way compares with these areas
unless it is the developers' ambition for their project to be seen
like these socially and culturally significant and desirable areas.
* An analysis of housing supply forecasts is also used to justify such
a radical modification to the original development plan, significantly
increasing the number of apartments to be built on a small footprint
when planning could be more central and development occur over a much
broader area over time. This seems to be a developer maximising their
opportunities from the purchase of an already tired existing
development.
* Page 50 suggests living areas need to have `markers', such as the
proposed 14 storey towers, for `legibility' or `wayfinding'.
* Connected to this is a new concept to me: `viewshed', which is
related to building height and context. "The scale and dimensions of
the public realm such as the widths of roads and the scale of parks,
play a key role in informing appropriate building heights..." This
small park and a reserve and a mesh of narrow streets apparently
justify tall towers of 14 storeys.
A second document, Eastlakes: Visual Context, again prepared by Urbis
for Crown Group, 10 views of the site as it now, with the approved
scheme and, lastly, with the proposed scheme from a range of vantage
points. In nearly all the images trees disguise the proposed
constructions. Only in view 7 and especially view 8 is it clear how
out of proportion the new development will be. Trees will only be
there as long as they are allowed to be. The former Botany Council had
a plan to replace local trees systematically with natives in
particular. It would take time for new trees to reach the same height.
These modifications beg the question, what will happen to the
surrounding buildings, equally old and tired. Will they be bought,
redeveloped at greater than their existing heights, thus moving the
development of Rosebery, Zetland and Waterloo further south. What will
happen to the families currently living in the area should this
happen?