Mod 4 - Further Design Changes

Please see attached

See attached

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.

Att: Director Regional Assessments

Eastlakes Shopping Centre - Mixed use development
amendment to MP 09_0146 MOD 4


As a member of the Eastlakes community I object to the modification
request above and its response to submissions.

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 proponent is incorrect in saying "While the surrounding buildings
are one consideration in determining height at the local centre,
ultimately these buildings will be re-developed in the long term as
flagged in Bayside Council's Draft Eastlakes Local Town Centre
Masterplan" They will not be redeveloped as they are all strata
managed buildings and have several owners just for one unit block,
which was detailed in the Draft Eastlakes Local Town Centre Master
Plan.

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 hours of operation for Loading dock, waste removal
and centre operation have been increased to 5am -10pm daily which will
greatly create noise and amenity impact on residents and is highly
inappropriate for a residential area. Furthermore Protection of the
Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2017 covers
neighbourhood noise laws which states no noise in residential area
before 7am and after 8pm.

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 for many
years.

There is no infrastructure put in place to accommodate an extra 69
apartments and residents. The local schools, hospitals are at
capacity. The proponent is only investing in a community centre and
childcare centre. That does not deal with lack of infrastructure. The
area has already been overdeveloped and it does not need anymore
apartment dwellings.

The entire development does not suit the Eastlakes demographic of low
- middle class community. The proponent suggests to build high end,
prestigious million dollar apartments which does not align with the
current culture and demographics of Eastlakes. Even with the proposed
Eastlakes local town master plan which only makes improvements to the
existing area, the proposed development of the shopping centre is
totally opposite to what they community needs.

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 and I object to the MP 09_0146
MOD4.

Kind Regards,

Kelly Dos Santos

I object to the revisions on the following basis:

1. The proposed loading dock hours are still too early in the morning,
with resultant noise and air pollution impacts, and spreading of heavy
vehicle traffic hours in local streets.

2. The increased residential density will have a negative impact on an
already high-density area developed in the 1960s which was never
designed to accommodate such a high density.

3. No genuine effort appears to have been made in relation to extra
public transport and addressing impact on local traffic.

See attached

The amended proposal is still far too substantial for the area. Blocks 11
storeys high are totally inappropriate. The original submission of 2
to 6 storeys was reasonable.
The GFA of 45,493 sum sounds excessive.
The key issue is the number of apartments. As is, the residents were
extremely concerned about the impacts (traffic congestion, noise,
character of the neighbourhood) of an extra 292 apartments the area.
Reducing the number of apartments from 468 to 361 is way too many
apartments.

In sum, I see no reason why the developer should be allowed to build
more than 292 apartments or go above 6 storeys.

Overall the new amendments are still 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".
It will have 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.


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 hours of operation for Loading dock, waste removal
and centre operation have been increased to 5am -10pm daily 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, 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 for many
years.

There is no infrastructure put in place to accommodate an extra 69
apartments and residents. The local schools, hospitals are at
capacity. The area has already been overdeveloped and it does not need
anymore apartment dwellings.

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 and I object to the MP 09_0146
MOD4.

Eastlakes is such a small suburb and does not need all this amount of
extra units, the streets are far tooooo tight, most of them are one
lane each direction, how can we accommodate so many extra units in a
small area, at least 3 people per unit, with 2 vehicles , 361
apartments, extra about 1000 people, and at least 700 vehicles, lets
be logistic here, how will it happen, more congestion, more traffic,
more and more of everything.
Also too many storeys up, should be maximum 7 or 8, as all our units
around are 3 or 4 storeys only.
Also our place are facing North and these tall building will block the
sun to come to our homes, not healthy at all

Thank you for considering my feedback.

I have lived in Eastlakes for over 45 years, and although I have waited
anxiously for the re build of the shopping centre and gentrification
to come to EASTLAKES, I oppose to the dwelling height....I believe 7
stories above the podium should be the limit keeping with the current
heights of the 2 highest buildings in Eastlakes being the two housing
commission buildings which do not exceed 7 stories. I specifically
oppose the southern site buildings D J to not exceed 7 stories above
the podium.

The proposed 4-11 is simply way to high for the area.

thank you.

I have been a home owner in Eastlakes for over a decade, and I look
forward to the new shopping centre being built. I do not approve the
hight of 4-11 stories above the podium on the southern side for D J I
believe 6 stories is sufficient and acceptable.

Please see our submission on behalf of owners of SP19864

My family and myself are okay with the revised submission of the project.
However, It would be great if the street trees could be retained.

This amended proposal is substantially bigger than the approved
development. If given approval this updated submission will have an
even greater negative impact on the suburb of Eastlakes in terms of
the traffic, streetscape, recreation and amenity of local residents.
This site was originally built as a shopping centre and all residents
in the area welcome the updating of the centre but not the addition of
11 storeys above the podium, far higher than any structure in the
area. The height of the buildings is much taller than the current
streetscape and will look incongruous with the rest of the suburb.
My main objection to the increased number of units is the negative
impact on the traffic flow around the area. Apart from Gardeners Road,
all the streets in the vicinity of the development are very narrow and
mostly one car wide and will not support the increased traffic.
Currently in the morning peak, there is an overflow of cars attempting
to get onto Gardeners Road from Racecourse Avenue. This results in
limiting through traffic on Evans Avenue and creating traffic chaos. I
can't imagine what this small road will be like with the increased
population of the development.
The provision of 6 additional parking spaces for residents is a farce.
This means that 211 apartments will not have a parking space. It is
extremely unrealistic to think that the residents of the development
will not own and use cars, even though the area is serviced by public
transport. This will result in cars choking the already busy
surrounding streets, vying with current residents to find car parking.
This will have a negative impact on the amenity for current residents.
Eastlakes Reserve is currently very busy on the weekend and after
school, catering for families residing in the many surrounding unit
blocks which don't have play facilities for children. I am certain the
developers haven't seen this area on the weekend and are aware of how
much use it gets. Their original submission only commented on the
Reserve's underuse during weekdays - when parents are at work and
children at school! An increase in units will overcrowd the area,
decreasing the amenity for current residents.
The removal of two additional healthy trees is not supported. It takes
years for trees to grow to maturity and 50 year old tree removal would
be a travesty. The developers would do well to be in the area when
night is falling and see the hundreds of birds who take refuge there.
There have already been many trees taken out for this development.
A GFA of 45,493 square metres is excessive for the site.
The increase in the hours of the loading dock, waste removal and
retail hours will result in noise at unacceptable hours for the
surrounding neighbours, which includes small children. Their amenity
must be taken into consideration, particularly as they did not
purchase their properties knowing that their sleep would be affected.
If the development was kept at the current size this deleterious
impact would not occur.
Would you please consider the needs of the current residents of
Eastlakes and not the greed of the developers

The amended proposal is still unacceptable for the area. Blocks 11
storeys high are totally inappropriate. The original submission of 2
to 6 storeys was acceptable.
The main issue is the number of apartments. As is, the residents were
extremely concerned about the impacts (traffic congestion, noise,
character of the neighbourhood) of an extra 292 apartments in the
area. Reducing the number of apartments from 468 to 361 is still way
too many apartments.
There is no reason why the developer should be allowed to build more
than 292 apartments or go above 6 storeys.

This amended proposal is substantially bigger than the approved
development. The original request from the developers was for 6
storeys which, in my opinion, was to get their feet in the door. Why
have they subsequently asked for at least double that amount? I do not
feel that their dealings have been genuine. It is obvious that, if
given approval, this updated submission will have an even greater
negative impact on the suburb of Eastlakes in terms of the traffic,
streetscape, recreation and amenity of local residents.
This site was originally built as a shopping centre and all residents
in the area welcome the upgrading of the centre but not the addition
of 11 storeys above the podium, far higher than any structure in the
area. The height of the buildings is much taller than the current
streetscape and will look incongruous with the rest of the suburb.
My main objection to the increased number of units is the negative
impact on the traffic flow around the area. Apart from Gardeners Road,
all the streets in the vicinity of the development are very narrow and
mostly one car wide, and will not support the increased traffic.
Currently in the morning peak, there is already a long queue of cars
attempting to get onto Gardeners Road from Racecourse Avenue. This
results in limiting through traffic on Evans Avenue and creating very
long lines of cars. I cannot imagine what this small road will be like
with the increased population of the development.
The provision of 6 additional parking spaces for residents is
ridiculous. This means that 211 apartments will not have a parking
space. It is extremely unrealistic to think that the residents of the
development will not own and use cars, even though the area is
serviced by public transport. This will result in cars choking the
already busy surrounding streets, vying with current residents to find
car parking. This will have a negative impact on the amenity for
current residents.
Eastlakes Reserve is currently very busy on the weekend and after
school, catering for families residing in the many surrounding unit
blocks which don't have play facilities for children. I am certain the
developers haven't seen this area on the weekend and are aware of how
much use it gets. Their original submission only commented on the
Reserve's underuse during weekdays - when parents are at work and
children at school! An increase in units will overcrowd the area,
decreasing the amenity for current residents.
The removal of two additional healthy trees is not supported. It takes
years for trees to grow to maturity and 50 year old tree removal would
be a travesty. The developers would do well to be in the area when
night is falling and see the hundreds of birds who take refuge there.
There have already been many trees taken out for this development.
A GFA of 45,493 square metres is excessive for the site.
The increase in the hours of the loading dock, waste removal and
retail hours will result in noise at unacceptable hours for the
surrounding neighbours, which includes small children. Their amenity
must be taken into consideration, particularly as they did not
purchase their properties knowing that their sleep would be affected.
If the development was kept at the current size this deleterious
impact would not occur.
Please consider the needs of the current residents of Eastlakes and
not the greed of the developers. The shopping centre needs an upgrade
and the building of residential accommodation is understandable,
within reason. Any goodwill towards the developers will disappear if
this new proposal is rubber stamped. Conversely, there will be a huge
amount of goodwill towards the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces
if the wishes of Eastlakes' residents were granted.

The project has no Infrastructure changes and yet in the morning now
without 600 additional appartments there can be traffic queues for for
several hundred metres to exit from Eastlakes to Gardners Rd via both
Maloney St and Racecourse Place.

How can this proposed development go ahead without direct access to
and from Gardeners Rd and improved public transport to either the
light rail or Mascot station?

Hi Planning and Environment,

No to extend loading dock and waste removal collection hours from 7am
to 5pm. Up to 8pm is ok. Which roads are use to access the building?

The new amendments are still inconsistent in 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 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.
The surrounding streets are ill-suited to the volume of traffic that
will be generated and lead to serious congestion. Infrastructure will
not cope with the increased density. Public transport is inadequate to
cope. As a long term resident who travels past the centre daily,I
cannot support such a departure from the original approved
modification

Although the latest proposal from Crown Group does represent an increase
in the scale of the development when compared to the original
proposal, it is a sensible reduction in scale from the previous
proposal which would have placed undue pressure on existing
infrastructure, and which would have detracted from the character of
the suburb.

This latest proposal also appears to satisfactorily address the main
objections around traffic, transport, access hours and public spaces
that were raised in previous consultations. It also provides essential
amenities for our community such as medical care, child care and
potential library facilities.

Whilst not perfect, I believe that the latest proposal will deliver
net benefit to our community, and represents a sensible compromise
between commercial and community interests.