Mod 4 - Further Design Changes

Eastlakes park and the already dense community of 1960s apartment blocks
surrounding the site will be severely impacted by this multiple
megalith. The 24 hour commercial loading dock for the shopping centre
will make life hell for the hundreds of residents directly adjacent.
Local buses, already seriously overloaded by the recently inflated
populations of the nearby Zetland and Green Square mega-developments,
will receive no financial support from Crown Group for extra services.
In its new form, the Eastlakes Shopping Centre Modification is
over-ambitious, utterly irresponsible, and will cause to a significant
loss of amenity to the entire Eastlakes community. We wanted a
shopping centre upgrade, not a get-rich-quick scheme.

This project modification is the most corrupt use of planning approval
procedures in NSW planning history.
It negates all democratic procedure, circumvents proper planning
approval guidelines and smacks of severe corruption at the highest
levels of local and state government.
The proposed modification fails the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 on multiple counts, including but not limited to:
- Overall density
- Tower height relative to surrounding residences
- Lack of sunlight to surrounding area
- Unacceptable noise levels resulting from 24hr operations
- Lack of green space in and around the development
- Massive and unaddressed impact on traffic and transport routes
- Severe negative impact on the Eastlakes Reserve
- A modified planning proposal that is of greater negative impact on
the community than the original proposal that was roundly rejected on
all these counts

If this modified planning proposal is approved it would be a clear
sign to the community of corruption of proper planning procedures,
indifference to environmental concerns and suggestive of gross
financial and political corruption and, if approved, the community
will be forced to take our fight to the highest levels of government,
and if need be, the media and the courts.

I strongly oppose this proposal for the following reasons:

1. The scale of this development does not fit with the existing
streetscape. Large structural mass will be unsightly. There are no
other buildings within the area of that size or height.

2. the majority of the apartments lack access to natural lighting
therefore will need to draw electricity. Thus place considerable
stress on the electricity grid.This is not an environmentally built
structure.

3. The area is already a highly densely populated one. The existing
utilities will not support such an increase in population.

4. The roads in the area are single lane in both directions with
parking. This development will cause greater traffic congestion within
the area .Also considering the access by large supermarket trucks that
already struggle to manoeuvre in the existing narrow streets.

5.The local residents and park will suffer from overshadowing of the
great structure.

6. The proposed change of the loading dock hours to 24hr access will
cause great noise disturbance to the residents within the close
vicinity. It will also cause their property values to considerably
drop.

7. Public transport within the area is already not supporting the
growth that has occurred along Gardeners Rd and Green Square. There
are not enough buses or trains during peak hours.

It would be ludicrous to allow such a change to a development proposal
to occur as it not only fails to provide for the existing community
but it would negatively effect this peaceful suburb.

Shame on the Crown group to even consider such an amendment. Greed is
an ugly trait!

I oppose this new submission for the following reasons:
- Create extreme traffic issues in the area as there isn't any proper
infrastructure in place
- Obstruct the views of many residents in the immediate area
- Obstruct the sunlight to Eastlakes Reserve which is very popular
with locals
- Create increased parking issues for existing residents in the area
- Create more delays to existing overcrowded public transport as no
new buses will be allocated
- Increase traffic noise due to a 24hour loading dock
- Look like an eyesore and not represent the true character of
Eastlakes

It will make the area unlivable due to the increased traffic that is
already unmanageable.

The magnitude of the proposed changes is unacceptable. The impact on
traffic,noise and general amenity will be intolerable. Eastlakes has
very few routes out of the suburb, the main one being past the
shopping centre onto Racecourse Rd onto Gardners Rd. This will be
constantly gridlocked. Infrastructure is insufficient to cope with the
proposed increase in residential density. 24 hour loading is not in
character with the residential nature of the area.

The main concern with this modification are:
1) Increase the building heights from 2 - 6 storey to 4 - 14 storey.
2) Increase the number of units from 292 to 468.

My personal comments are:

1) Eastlakes is a small residential area with small Units (3 to 4
storey) , and 1 or 2 storey houses. I believe having a 14 storey
buildings in Eastlakes is not a good idea as it will have
environmental impact on the 3 story units and houses in the area.
Those will not be receiving the good quantity of the morning sun, and
hence can increase the risk of health issues.

2) Having about 200 more apartments/units, will be adding more
pressure to the infrastructure in the small suburb of Eastlakes.
Already, we are feeling the pain with traffic and parking in the area.
Already we can hardly drive through Barber Ave, and Evans Ave. I
really can't imagine how it will be with hundreds of extra cars, and
trucks around. It is going to be a real nightmare.

3) Recently I was looking into implementing Solar Power/Panels on the
roof. When talking over the phone to one Solar specialist, and
mentioned the possibility of having a 14 storey building in the area,
he advised to not go ahead at this stage, as that might be blocking
part of the morning sun and hence affecting the Solar Power
efficiency.

With all the above, I believe this project should only remain with
what was originally approved with 6 Towers and building height from 2
to 6 storey maximum, and 292 apartments.

Regards

As residents of Eastlakes we would like to strongly object to the
proposed expansion of the development plans.
By increasing the density of the development we strongly believe there
will a negative impact on the local community .Doubling the amount of
units will increase not only the number of residents but the traffic
congestion , noise pollution and parking availability all affecting
the quality of life in this community.
The extra stories added will block light to neighbouring areas and
will be incongruous with the existing low level architecture that is
characteristic of this suburb.
We also feel there is a less tangible impact which is dilution of the
cultural , ethnic, age and social diversity which is very much the
heart and character of this area.
We would like to further add that huge areas of Sydney are being
dominated by these huge apartment complexes. This is irreversibly
changing the landscape of this city. Homogenising diverse local
communities, degrading local community culture and ultimately turning
the city into one huge apartment complex.
This seems mostly to benefit developers who are looking for the
biggest returns , rather than communities that would like to modernise
but maintain local character and quality of life.
The Eastlakes development seems like a classic example of this kind of
corporate greed. The original proposed development was strongly
opposed by local community. The result was a fair compromise of a more
modest development plan. This was agreed in good faith. Now trying to
massively expand this development purely to increase profitability for
developers is a gross abuse of the process and should be irrefutably
rebuffed by local council who's duty it is to represent the community
not the developers.

As residents of Eastlakes we would like to strongly object to the
proposed expansion of the development plans.
By increasing the density of the development we strongly believe there
will a negative impact on the local community .Doubling the amount of
units will increase not only the number of residents but the traffic
congestion , noise pollution and parking availability all affecting
the quality of life in this community.
The extra stories added will block light to neighbouring areas and
will be incongruous with the existing low level architecture that is
characteristic of this suburb.
We also feel there is a less tangible impact which is dilution of the
cultural , ethnic, age and social diversity which is very much the
heart and character of this area.
We would like to further add that huge areas of Sydney are being
dominated by these huge apartment complexes. This is irreversibly
changing the landscape of this city. Homogenising diverse local
communities, degrading local community culture and ultimately turning
the city into one huge apartment complex.
This seems mostly to benefit developers who are looking for the
biggest returns , rather than communities that would like to modernise
but maintain local character and quality of life.
The Eastlakes development seems like a classic example of this kind of
corporate greed. The original proposed development was strongly
opposed by local community. The result was a fair compromise of a more
modest development plan. This was agreed in good faith. Now trying to
massively expand this development purely to increase profitability for
developers is a gross abuse of the process and should be irrefutably
rebuffed by local council who's duty it is to represent the community
not the developers.

1. We do not support the INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHTS to 4 - 14 storeys.
Tall apartment blocks have proven to have bad medium-term social
outcomes. Height should be not noticeably taller than the surrounding
buildings. The two existing DOH multi-storeys are already too tall;
and an eyesore, out of keeping with the rest of the Eastlakes area.

2. We do not support the INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF APPARTMENTS. There
is already too much traffic around the existing Centre, and more
apartments will increase it further. Serious consideration already
needs to be given to relieving traffic flows through this residential
precinct in which there are many families with primary age children.

I am against any addition to the original plan because it would create
enormous traffic problems. There is already peak hour traffic problems
with thousands of drivers using Eastlakes roads to divert around
traffic congestion from Botany & Gardeners roads which chokes Evans
avenue at peak periods. The current entrance to Eastlakes Shopping
centre experiences traffic which banks back along Racecourse place and
onto Gardeners road (on Saturdays in particular). This will get
considerably worse with the new development as it is. It should not be
expanded!

I am against any addition to the original plan because it would create
enormous traffic problems. There is already peak hour traffic problems
with thousands of drivers using Eastlakes roads to divert around
traffic congestion from Botany & Gardeners roads which chokes Evans
avenue at peak periods. The current entrance to Eastlakes Shopping
centre experiences traffic which banks back along Racecourse place and
onto Gardeners road (on Saturdays in particular). This will get
considerably worse with the new development as it is. It should not be
expanded!

Notice of Objection of Modification Request
Eastlakes Shopping Centre - Mixed Use Development

Application No. MP 09_0146 MOD 4
Location 19A Evans Avenue and 193A Gardeners Road, Eastlakes


INTRODUCTION
We strongly argue that the development application from 6 storeys to
14 storeys should not be approved. We examine three areas of the
development application that show a detrimental impact to the
community were the development to go ahead. Our three areas of concern
are:
(i) (ii) traffic congestion at peak hours when commuters are trying to
get to work;
(ii) on-street parking congestion; and
(iii) (iii) Comparison of the approved development and the current
modification application to examine whether this application provides
increased benefits to the community.
BACKGROUND
Approved Development Project Approval (MP09_0146) was granted by the
Planning Assessment Commission on 19 September 2013 for the
construction of a mixed use development incorporating basement car
parking, ground floor retail area, and residential development above,
communal open area, public domain landscaping and associated
infrastructure works. The approved development comprised:
(i) 404 residential units;
(ii) some 14,404m2 GFA of retail and community area; and
(iii) Parking provision of 916 areas.

Subsequently a Modified Project Approval (MP_09146MOD1) was approved,
comprising:
(i) 425 residential apartments;
(ii) 14,591m2 (13,086 m2 GLA) of retail and community area;
(iii) 980 parking areas.

OBJECTION
We strongly argue that the development application from 6 storeys to
14 requested in MP 09_0146 MOD 4 should not be approved. The Section
75W proposed modifications to the southern site of the development,
include: an additional 176 residential units; it is to this that we
object to. We cite these areas of the development application and show
the detrimental impact to the community were the development given
approval.

Our three areas of concern are:
(i) on-street parking congestion;
(ii) traffic congestion at peak hours when commuters are trying to get
to work; and
(iii) (iii) community benefits


We do not agree that bus 308 route mentioned in the application is one
of four routes provided in the developer's analysis as its route does
not go through the Eastlakes area. Rather we have analysed the 343,
357, 418 and 301 bus routes to assess the impact from the increase in
the number of residents if the development were to go ahead. Basically
we have introduced the 301 route and excluded the 308 bus route from
our calculations as the 301 does go past the Development site. We then
review the current development application to determine whether there
are any community benefits above and beyond those indicated in the
Approved Development Project Approval (MP_09146MOD1).

Section 1 - Traffic Congestion re: Peak Hour traffic flow

Development report extract
"Thus the proposed modifications to the southern site would result in
an increase of some 31 trips by bus in the AM peak hour and some 30
trips by bus in the PM peak hour These trips would be spread over the
four bus routes that service the area which provide an average 16
buses per hour in the peak periods. When these additional trips are
spread across these services it would result in increases of 1 to 2
passengers per bus. Such an increase would not be noticeable in the
daily variation of demand for bus services in the area"
We disagree with the conclusion made by the developers that the impact
on traffic flow would not be noticeable in the daily variation of
demand for bus services in the area. We have undertaken an analysis of
the AM Peak hour traffic and compared our results to the developer's.
Our analysis looked at the AM peak hour flow across 4 buses (343, 301,
418 and 357). We have assessed that PM peak hour numbers would not
significantly differ from the AM peak hour traffic numbers we have
relied on the AM peak hour analysis as a proxy of the PM peak hour
traffic.
Our calculations show that the peak period in actuality only extends
for one hour between 6:30am and 7:30 am given commuters need to arrive
at their work destination by 8.30 am - 9 am. Whilst the development
application did not provide estimated number of residents that would
be using buses it did provide a rationale for allocating car spaces
and we have used this information to provide an estimate of an
increase to residents (609) (refer attachment 1 - summary BUS). Being
52 residents from 52 studios, 185 residents from 185 1 bedroom units;
342 residents from 171 bedroom units; 118 residents from 59 3 bedroom
units and 2 residents per 1 4 bedroom unit less the 90 areas allocated
to childcare.

The developers argue that the spread of bus service would result in an
increase of 1 - 2 passenger seats per bus during AM and PM peak hour.
They also indicated that on average 16 buses per hour operate in the
peak period. On a cursory look, the 1-2 seats increase is understated.
We have recalculated the amount of extra seats at 23 (609 residents
divided by 27 buses during AM peak hour) (343: 9 buses; 357:6 buses;
418:5 buses; and 301:6 buses) which is more representative than the
1-2 seats increase indicated by the developers.

The Eastlakes area is currently a high density area. The increase of 8
storeys to the development from the original approval will result in
local residents and "resident en-route" to the CBD, Burwood, Chatswood
and Bondi Junction areas to lose their seats as the buses move along
their designated route.

We have shown that the number of seats required will be 23 seats per
bus during peak hour. This is more than 10 times the amount indicated
by the developers. We argue that the logic we used to determine the 23
seats per bus is more representative to determining number of set as
per bus required as it hones in on what the relevant peak hour is for
AM peak and PM peak commuters.

The Eastlakes area already has other approved developments allowing
this application would therefore mean that the buses will have even
less current seat capacity that will be used up by the other approved
developments in the area. This development application will
detrimentally impact traffic congestion to existing transport
infrastructure.

Section 2 Traffic Congestion - On-street car parking

Development report extract:

ív) The proposed S75 modifications would result in only modest
increases in traffic on surrounding roads; and
v) The surrounding road network and intersections in the vicinity of
the site will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service
during peak periods;
We disagree with the developer's contention that the development would
result in only modest increases in traffic on surrounding roads. A
significant number of residents will have to park on the street. If we
refer to all the adjacent streets to the development site it can be
seen there currently exists a lack of car parking area on street. Per
the developer's application there are 528 car areas available for
residential use. We have calculated car spaces on-street need
conservatively at 57 (585 - 528) (Appendix 1 - Parking and peak hour
traffic - summary car park).
Table 1- resident car areas required
Type of Unit No. of Units Resident car areas required
Studio 52 52
1 Bedroom 185 185
2 Bedroom 171 (Note 1) 257
3 Bedroom 59 (Note 1) 89
4 Bedroom 1 (Note 1) 2
Total 468 585
Note 1 - The car parking spaces have been calculated by multiplying
number of studio and 1 bedroom units by a factor of 1.The number of
units for 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units by a factor of 1.5. We have chosen
these two factors to be conservat1ive at arriving at the total number
of resident car parking space that will be required.
Section 3 -Benefits to the community
Eastern City Area Plan planning, government objectives and principles
are:
(a) to improve accessibility to housing, employment and services by
walking, cycling, and public transport;
(b) improve the choice of transport and reducing dependence solely on
cars for travel purposes;
(c) moderate growth in the demand for travel and the distances
travelled, especially by car; and
(d) Support the efficient and viable operation of public transport
services.
Source: Refer Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes Ltd report August 20
18. paragraph 2.25

Assessment of above criteria:
(a) Increased housing may be a benefit to the community only where
there are no other detriments that negate the provision of said
residential spaces. Although there would be an increase to employment
in the Eastlakes area we argue that this proposal has not shown that
there has been a significant increase in employment arising from
retail. In fact, this current application indicates a drop in retail
area by 1,667m2 GLA. This translated to a lower number of retail
stores and it follows that this will translate to a decreased number
of jobs created. This shows that the increase of 176 units is
detrimental to retail space and employment.

In relation to an additional 176 residential units being created as
part of the modification to the original development application
(after the first modification) we note that Eastlakes is a high
density area that cannot burden itself with the negative impact that
would accompany an increase of the 176 residential units.
In relation to public transport we have proven that the approval of
this application would be detrimental to public transport, given the
necessary increase of 23 seats per bus during peak hour traffic (refer
to section 1 above)
(b) There is no increase to services by walking, cycling and public
transport. In fact in relation to public transport we have proven that
the approval of this application would be detrimental to public
transport, given the necessary increase of 23 seats per bus during
peak hour traffic.

(c) In relation to an additional 176 residential units being created
as part of the modification to the original development application
(after the first modification) we note that Eastlakes is a high
density area that cannot burden itself with the negative impact that
would accompany the increase from the development application by 176
residential units.

We argue that growth has not been capped at a moderate growth. We put
forward that an additional 23 seats per bus across the 343,301,357 and
418 are required to cater for all the estimated 609 new residents that
will move into the development. We state that the additional 23 seats
per bus and not the 1-2 seats per bus suggested by the developers is
the correct number that will impact the AM and PM peak hour traffic.

On that basis the development application should not go ahead. We note
that the developer's application has arrived at an incorrect number of
commuters per 4 buses at peak hour. Having for example utilised the
343 bus route for many years I contend that the bus going into the CBD
are full by the time they arrive at Joynton Avenue and Central at peak
hour. 23 seats per our calculations is indicative that this increase
in commuters cannot be met by the existing fleet of buses deployed
during the peak hour traffic.

(d) The developers have not provided a methodology by which they
propose to meet this criteria. Not only can they not support the
efficient and viable operation of public transport services but they
are in fact hindering their ability to provide an efficient service.
Outlined below is an extract of the requirements that should be
addressed by the developers, each point has been addressed below.
Refer Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes Ltd report August 2018.

"1.8 paragraph - The Modified Report shall include an updated traffic
and transport assessment taking into account any changes: details of
service vehicle movements to make sustainable transport choices."

(i) Improve public transport use and accessibility (in particular
given the site's location in relation to public transport
opportunities).

(ii) Incorporate a streetscape to promote people walking and cycling
locally (wide footpaths, wayfinding signage) and high quality public
transport facilities (shelters and interchanges).
(iii) Integrate with existing pedestrian and bicycle linkages within
the area.
(iv) Implement a new or revised location specific sustainable travel
plan.
(v) Demonstrate that both the right turn bay and left turn slip lane
on Gardeners Road into Racecourse Place will not be affected.
(vi) prepare an updated construction traffic management plan (CTMP) to
ensure construction traffic is appropriately managed and the proposed
construction works will not affect the WestConnex construction."
(vii) Prepare an updated construction traffic management plan (CTMP)
to ensure construction traffic is appropriately managed and the
proposed construction works will not affect the WestConnex
construction."
Comments on the above:
Criteria (i), we argue that delivering on this measure is not within
the capability of the developers. The development application does not
have any commentary as to a buy-in from NSW State transit authorities
that would allow to cater the extra 23 seat increase across 27 buses
during the AM and PM peak hour. To be fair, this is expected given
that the developers have assumed that the existing bus fleet across
would easily absorb their erroneous proposed increase in commuters at
1-2 seats per bus.

The developer's calculations of 1-2 passengers across 16 buses seems
short given an estimated 609 residents will move into the development
site. Even, if we tried to be conciliatory with the developers and
said that there was going to be only 1 resident per apartment unit,
this would still mean an increase of 468 (52 studios; 185 - 1 bedroom
units; 171 - 2 bedroom units; 59 units - 3 bedroom units; and 1 - 4
bedroom unit) at a minimum. This would still mean an increase of 18
seats per bus (468 residents divided by 27 bus trips at AM peak hour
period). This is still a significant increase and it is unreasonable
to believe that the existing buses have available seats totalling 18
per bus.

Criteria (ii) we argue that cycling lanes are already in existence in
some areas of the Eastlake area and the use by residents is very
minimal. The developer's ability to meet this requirement would be
unlikely. Similarly, promoting walking by providing new wide footpaths
is no guarantee that more residents will switch from driving or busing
to walking.
Criteria (iii) we argue that increased wayfinding signage will already
be provided under the modified development plan MP_09146MOD1 that was
approved at 6 storeys high. Hence no added benefit will be provided
across this category by the approval of the new development proposal.

Criteria (iv) is addressed in section 1 of this notice of objection.

Criteria (v)- (vii) the provision of this report by the developers
would represent support to back up the application by the developers.
This criterion does not need addressing as it asks for documentation.

Retail space
The increase of 176 units impacts negatively to retail business and
employment as compare to the approved development. We argue that the
existing approval includes the retail area of 14,591m2 (13,086 m2 GLA)
and although it created new jobs the current modification does not add
benefits to retail area and employment previously available with
original approval of application, MP_09146MOD1. This current
application indicates a drop in retail area by 1,667m2 GLA and this
translates to a lower number of retail stores and a decreased number
of jobs created.

The original retail centre already employs a given number of people
and therefore the increased number of jobs created by the developers
needs to be reduced by the number of current employees already working
at the site. This thus ensures that the developers in their proposal
are arriving at the correct increase in employment.

CONCLUSION
The development proposal should not go ahead and the number of storeys
of the development should be capped at 6 storeys. We narrowed our area
of discussion to three areas, (i) car parking on-street; (ii) public
transport; and (iii) community benefits from the development. We have
shown that the increased in traffic congestion is significant enough
that it will cause detrimental impact to the Eastlakes area. Further,
that there is no community benefit from approving the additional 176
residential units and there is in fact a downside to approving the
development.

I have lived in Eastlakes for over 25 years. We all want a new shopping
centre. Something the roads can handle.
Please reject this new proposal and keep these developers hones to
their word.

Submission Letter 29 November 2018 attached

Eastlakes MOD 4 Letter 29 November 2018

To whom it may concern,

I am writing regarding the recent submission to modify the plans for
Eastlakes Shopping Centre. I am a resident at Mascot Drive Eastlakes,
near the shopping centre.

Although i support the renewal of the shopping centre, which is one of
the oldest in the country and in desperate need of refurbishment, I am
opposed to the modification of the current plans. My primary reasons
for this are due to overcrowding and congestion. The area around the
shopping centre is already densely populated, and this will increase
substantially when the almost 300 apartments are built with the
approved upgrade of the shopping village. Presently, many of the
streets surrounding the shopping centre have limited parking and are
narrow, with friends often telling me that they couldn't park on my
street when they visit. Further to this, the main road to the shopping
centre (Evans Ave) is narrow, has a single lane in either direction
and is often congested with cars. The addition of extra apartments
will make this issue significantly worse. I am aware there that there
is additional parking to be added to the new proposal, but the number
does not account to the number of extra households that is being built
in the proposal.

Lastly, is the additional pressure on the surrounding amenities and
public services to the area. This includes the parks (there are not
many in Eastlakes and they aren't large either) and transport. The
residents main source of transport in the area are buses. The 343 is
usually full during peak times by the time it turns off Gardeners Rd
into Dunning Ave and heads into Rosebery. Mascot and Green Square
train station are a fair walk away for daily commuting and each of
these suburbs have become significantly "denser" for ease of drop off
by car or bus. Green Square in particular is scheduled to become the
most densely populated suburb in Australia by 2030. What will the
added to ease the congestion pressure of the extra households in the
Eastlakes and surrounding areas? To my understanding nothing has been
proposed.

For all these reasons i am opposed to the construction of additional
apartments at Eastlakes shopping centre. I hope the Department of
Planning and Environment will accept this submission detailing the
several important reasons why many of the local residents object the
proposal.

Sincerely,

X

I strongly object to the modification request for Eastlakes Shopping
Centre - Mixed Use Development (MP 09_0146 MOD4) for the following
reasons:

1. The increase in the height of the towers above 6-storeys on top of
the podium, will be totally uncharacteristic of the surrounding area,
which is mainly composed of 3-4-5-storey residences. Having 14-storeys
above the podium will be classified as high-density living when most
of the surrounding buildings are medium-density. The new buildings
should be in line with the already existing buildings and not towering
over them.
2. The increase in height will negatively impact on the skyline for
many of the residents and also affect lighting throughout the day.
Overshadowing of such tall buildings and its impact on nearby
residences has not been made clear.
3. The greenspace available next to the site (on the west) will be
affected by overshadowing if a 14-storey tower was to be built above
the podium. There also seems to be very little green space to
accommodate the projected increase in the population.
4. The streets surrounding the shopping centre are already too narrow
(mainly single lanes) and congested to cope with the existing
population. There is also limited access to public transport in the
area to cope with the projected increase in population, which means
people will start to rely on their cars and hence increase traffic
flow. The projected increase in the population in the immediate area
following the development will no doubt cause gridlock on these same
roads.
5. I believe it is unnecessary to build high-density living in
Eastlakes. Nearby village centres such as Green Square, Kingsford and
Eastgardens all offer high-density living but they have the capacity
for the increased population with wider roads and greater access to
public transport. Eastlakes does not have the infrastructure in place
or the capacity for high-density living.
6. Eastlakes is very close to the airport and already has considerable
noise levels. Increased traffic through its tiny roads will definitely
increase noise levels.

I have lived and worked in the Rosebery/Eastlakes area for more than
forty years and know people from all different suburbs who come to
shop at Eastlakes. It is a wonderful area but traffic has made it
difficult to access and the shopping centre needs an upgrade. However,
I believe that high-density towers/buildings will negatively impact
the area and the well-being of many of the local residents.

I object to the modification on the following grounds:

1. Unacceptable noise and traffic noise impact of the 24 hour loading
dock to densely packed local area.

2. Impact of extra residents on local roads and transport
infrastructure.

3. Changed adverse building shadowing on surrounding properties.

My submission relates to the amendments to the development on the grounds
of the height and number of dwellings. There is little or no public
transport at Eastlakes at the present time, with the ridiculous
proposal being put forward this will add even more pressure to the
choked roads around the site.
There is also not enough parking allocated to the residents.
We shop in the area and use the amenities, this will cease when this
is built, as no one will be able to park or frequent the area because
of limited parking.
The height of the buildings will also cause major shadowing around the
area creating an permanent shadow on the surrounding area and housing
located near the site.
Rgeards.
Rod

I wish to strongly object to the modified planning application made for
the Eastlakes Live development based on the following reasons.

I believe that Eastakes is a multicultural and affordable
neighbourhood with a largely working class population. The shopping
centre provides a good place to see proof of this. Shops that cater
for all cultures at affordable prices, services and shops run by small
independent retailers. Will these businesses be offered tenenancies in
the new complex at similar prices and on similar terms? I suspect not.
These businesses not only supply goods but also a good neighbourhood
feel where shop keepers know their customers and customer know the
retailers, this will be lost when new more expensive tenancies are
bought up by bigger chain stores and multi national business providing
services to the new high earners in the area, disenfranchsing local
residents.

A library can be seen in one of illiustrations in the planning
application but no information on this is provided. Will the council
be able to afford to run another library? Will the community groups
based in the centre be able to afford new tenancies in the building?

Will the jobs provided by new business pay enough to live in the
apartments above it? After all, as the plan says it will bring more
jobs closer to homes.

The local park and reserve will also lose value. Especially once the
sunlight is shut out by a 14 storey building towering over it.

Transport - I do not believe the figures in your plan add up. These
are a conservative estimation, the new development will not cope with
the extra residents and shopping areas. The roads are small winding,
punctuated by crossings and roundabouts. Currently at rush hour
vehicles cannot exit the shopping centre without queuing as Racecourse
place junction onto Gardeners road is already full of queuing cars.
Sustainable transport options are limited in Sydney with it's minimal
cycing infrastructure. Currently there is only one cycle path, this
path is just a standard narrow footpath that only received a blue line
painted on it as a shared path upgrade, it is not fit for purpose and
crosses junctions with no pedestrian signals and has already been
badly dug up and not properly replaced from Bunnings on Gardeners road
through to the station. In the opposite direction this cycle path ends
abruptly after the motor way bridge throwing users onto a 3 lane
carriageway, thus having no meaningful use. Will any upgrade be made
to the poor cycle links and who will pay? Local roads will also be
receiving large 19m constuction vehicles and more private car use,
making cycing even more unappealing. An even larger building with even
more residents will only deteriorate the situation. Your plan says
that each apartment of 2 or more bedrooms will receive 2 parking
spaces, why would this be the case if you are expecting residents to
use sustainable transport?

The plan says that Mascot station is a short drive away, where does
one park when they arrive?

Buses leaving the city to Eastlakes are already leaving passengers
standing on stops due to being full to capacity, this has been an
issue ever since the new Meriton apartments in Zetland were opened.
Who will pay for more buses for the bigger development at Eastlakes?

The light rail at Kingford is mentioned, this is of no use to
Eastlakes residents, going to the city via light rail is a much longer
trip than the 343 bus route that calls at Eastlakes.

I believe that infrastructure locally does not suit an extended
development. Future infrastructure will take years to build, if it is
built at all. The extended building is totally out of character for
the area, mainly 3 storey medium density housing. The local community
will be impacted in a negative manner by loss of small retailers,
affordable retail tenancies and dwarfing of the main community open
space by a 14 storey tower.

Also, more and more vehicles will be on the local roads, through out
building works and then once the tower is opened. This will cause
deteriorated air quality, health and well being for residents.

6 storeys are pushing the boundaries, 14 will destroy the community.