Mod 4 - Further Design Changes

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

refer to attached

refer to attached

see attached

I am writing in regard to the modifications to the Eastlakes Shopping
Centre as proposed by the developers, Crown Group. I apologise for
emailing you directly but the new website is not responding and the
current one is quite difficult to navigate.

I am pleased to see that Crown Group has made some amendments to their
original proposal. However, I still have objections to the following:

* the height of the buildings on the southern site. The original
maximum height was 6 storeys above the podium. 11 storeys is still
excessive and nearly twice the original maximum. The original maximum
height of 6 storeys should be maintained.
* increasing the GFA by 9, 750 sq.m The GFA should remain the same as
originally proposed - 35. 743sq.m
* increasing the number of apartments from 292 to 361. Eastlakes is a
very small suburb with very a high population density per square
metre. The Crown Group development will increase traffic and
population significantly and this will impact on all residents of the
suburb. More apartments means that there will be more people living
here in a suburb which is already stretched to its limits.
* the hours of the use for the loading dock and waste removal
beginning at 5:00am. this will impact on nearby residents in terms of
noise and the use of big trucks loading and unloading. More reasonable
hours would be 6:00am to 9:00pm.
* removal of two trees. We have so little green space in this suburb
and any removal to the local tree canopy diminishes the few resources
we have.
Yours faithfully,
Megan Brooks

I am against the modification of the approved development. The request to
increase the buildings to 14 storeys is ridiculous. All the existing
buildings around are going to be marginalised. The developers first
request and get an approval and then they expand to whatever they
want. The developers don't care about people who live in the area, and
how it is going to affect them.
I hope the Department of Planning & Environment will help people in
the area by rejecting this development modification.

thank you for opportunity to make submisdion
Please accept the following
OBJECTION

The new (Modification 4) amendments are still inconsistent in its bulk
and scale with the established character of the Eastlakes Local Centre
and dominate and alter the skyline of the Eastlakes Local Centre. The
plans are still a significant departure from the a character and scale
of the Eastlakes Local Centre and from the original approved
modification

11 storeys (plus 2 storey podium) is too excessive and is inconsistent
with Bayside Council's recently exhibited draft Eastlakes Master Plan
which identifies potential for building heights of up to 9 storeys.
The amendments of the development still has a strong negative visual
and amenity impact on surrounding properties, including the shadow
impacts of the development which has decreased the solar access
considerably to existing dwellings and the reserve.

Loading dock along Barber Avenue will create serious traffic
congestion as Barber Ave (west) and Longworth Ave do not support
two-way traffic.

The latest Traffic Report does not take into consideration that
streets surrounding the development such as Longworth Ave and Barber
Ave do not allow for two way traffic, which would considerable
increase the traffic impact the proponent is suggesting when they
state "traffic generation of some 60 additional vehicles per hour
(two-way)".

The latest proposed Loading dock hours, waste removal hours and Hours
of operation have been increased which will greatly create noise and
amenity impact on residents and is highly inappropriate for a
residential area.

An increase of GFA has led to a much bulkier building, impacting on
the interface with adjoining residential and Council's open space
asset and community's public access, such a departure from the
approved modification.

The removal of two additional trees is not supported as they some of
these trees are over 50 years old, creating a negative impact on the
environment and the wildlife that call these trees home.

Therefore, there is still a significant increase in height, bulk and
scale, and apartment numbers and I feel it will have negative impacts
on the streetscape and will further increase car traffic and create
limited access to public transport. Such a departure from the original
approved modification is not supported.

I Object to the new amendments as they still are too bulky and too high
for the surrounding Eastlakes Local Centre area and if passed will
dominate and alter the skyline. Totally out of character and ambiance
that this predominantly low scale older style apartment area now
supports. Far too removed from the original approved modification

11 storeys (plus 2 storey podium) is too excessive and is inconsistent
with Bayside Council's recently exhibited draft Eastlakes Master Plan
which identifies potential for building heights of up to 9 storeys.
The amendments of the development still has a strong negative visual
and amenity impact on surrounding properties, including the shadow
impacts of the development which has decreased the solar access
considerably to existing dwellings and the reserve.

Loading dock along Barber Avenue will create serious traffic
congestion as Barber Ave (west) and Longworth Ave do not support
two-way traffic.

The amended Traffic Report does not take into consideration that
streets surrounding the development such as Longworth Ave and Barber
Ave do not allow for two way traffic, which would considerable
increase the traffic impact the proponent is suggesting when they
state "traffic generation of some 60 additional vehicles per hour
(two-way)".

The newly proposed Loading dock hours, waste removal hours and Hours
of operation have been increased which will greatly create noise and
amenity impact on residents and is highly inappropriate for a
residential area.

An increase of GFA has led to a much bulkier building, impacting on
the interface with adjoining residential and Council's open space
asset and community's public access, such a departure from the
approved modification.

As a Committee member with Saving Sydney Trees, I absolutely object to
any trees being removed but this DA applies for further removal of two
additional trees. Some of the trees earmarked are over 50 years old, &
their value in providing shade, fighting pollution, adding beauty,
supporting the Communities health and well being and supporting our
dwindling Green Canopy is immeasurable.. Further the negative impact
on the environment and the wildlife that call these trees home cannot
be overlooked.

Therefore, there is still a significant unacceptable increase in
height, bulk and scale, and too many apartment numbers incorporated
with a loss of ambiance & character & green canopy, .so I feel it will
have negative impacts on the streetscape and will further increase car
traffic which is already at serious congestion levels and create
limited access to public transport. Such a departure from the original
approved modification is not supported by myself and most of the
Community.

I oppose the MOD 4 to the Eastlakes Shopping centre.

Overall the new amendments are still inconsistent in its bulk and
scale with the established character of the Eastlakes Local Centre and
dominate and alter the skyline of the Eastlakes Local Centre. A
significant departure from the architectural character and scale of
the Eastlakes Local Centre and from the original approved modification

11 storeys (plus 2 storey podium) is too excessive and is inconsistent
with Bayside Council's recently exhibited draft Eastlakes Master Plan
which identifies potential for building heights of up to 9 storeys.
The amendments of the development still has a strong negative visual
and amenity impact on surrounding properties, including the shadow
impacts of the development which has decreased the solar access
considerably to existing dwellings and the reserve.

Loading dock along Barber Avenue will create serious traffic
congestion as Barber Ave (west) and Longworth Ave do not support
two-way traffic.

The amended Traffic Report does not take into consideration that
streets surrounding the development such as Longworth Ave and Barber
Ave do not allow for two way traffic, which would considerable
increase the traffic impact the proponent is suggesting when they
state "traffic generation of some 60 additional vehicles per hour
(two-way)".

The newly proposed Loading dock hours, waste removal hours and Hours
of operation have been increased which will greatly create noise and
amenity impact on residents and is highly inappropriate for a
residential area.

An increase of GFA has led to a much bulkier building, impacting on
the interface with adjoining residential and Council's open space
asset and community's public access, such a departure from the
approved modification.

The removal of two additional trees is not supported as they some of
these trees are over 50 years old, creating a negative impact on the
environment and the wildlife that call these trees home.

Therefore, there is still a significant increase in height, bulk and
scale, and apartment numbers and I feel it will have negative impacts
on the streetscape and will further increase car traffic and create
limited access to public transport. Such a departure from the original
approved modification is not supported.