Skip to main content

State Significant Development


Ivanhoe Estate redevelopment - Stage 1

City of Ryde

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Ivanhoe Estate State 1 comprising new internal road network and construction of Buildings A1 and C1.

Consolidated Consent

Consolidated Conditions Holder - Ivanhoe Mod 7


Request for SEARs (1)

SEARs (2)

EIS (73)

Response to Submissions (36)

Agency Advice (4)

Additional Information (40)

Determination (8)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (7)

Notifications (17)

Other Documents (5)

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.


Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint


There are no enforcements for this project.




Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.


Showing 1 - 20 of 31 submissions
Yoanna Dragostinov
NORTH RYDE , New South Wales
I object to the Ivanhoe Estate redevelopment - Stage 1.
My main concerns are:
The traffic and parking issues related to the development
The lack of community consultation with regards to the development.
This objection is based on traffic and parking observations and analysis of the planning application of this redevelopment.
The size of the car park is inadequate for the units that will be developed.
The flow of traffic on Lane Cove road and Epping road in peak hours is over capacity and a development of this size will have a disastrous effect on traffic coming from and to the city, as well as traffic getting on and off M2.
The traffic lights at Epping and Lane cove road, as well as Herring road and Epping road are already over capacity and will become severely congested as a result of additional cars coming in and out of the new estate.
I request that the developer works on a revised application which takes into account the concerns raised.
Yoanna Dragostinov
64 Beswick Ave
North Ryde 2113 NSW
Phillip Ward
NORTH RYDE , New South Wales
I object to the current proposal, because the development plans specify an access road which will destroy a significant section of the forest and break up the wildlife corridor.
As a long-time local resident I have been pleased to see how the section of forest between the Ivanhoe Place estate and Epping Road has remained unspoilt as an effective buffer between the road and the existing low-rise housing units.
It is a Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest. All such forests are classified by both NSW and Australian Governments as Critically Endangered Ecological Communities because only 0.5% of these forest areas remain. The NSW Biodiversity Offset Policy for Major Projects cannot make amends for destruction of any part of this forest because it would further reduce the remaining total.
Even if the development goes ahead, this planned access road is unnecessary. The plans also specify two-way access to Lyon Park Road, so traffic wishing to enter the estate could use Lyon Park Road which has an existing well-designed exit point from Epping Road.
If the access road through the forest is essential to this development, then the development should not go ahead as presently proposed. The welfare of the forest must take priority.
Name Withheld
MARSFIELD , New South Wales
The developments and added population in recent years around Macquarie University and Macquarie Center have already worsened traffic (over capacity on roads during peak hours per Appendix Q) and increased pollution and noise, while straining available infrastructure and public spaces in the area. An additional 3000+ dwelling will only make matters worse, not to mention the size of this development is an eyesore in what was once a leafy suburb for families. The increase in dwellings also brings into question potential increase in crime and anti social behaviour.
My family has lived in the area for over a decade and moved here to escape city living. This is no longer the environment we're used to and the council should refrain from approving this development to maintain some standard of the previous tranquillity for existing residents.
Name Withheld
RYDE , New South Wales
Being a resident in the nearby community, I am really sick & tired of seeing numerous high-rise buildings, high cost of living, more traffic due to increased population & cars, streets parked on both sides that it is so difficult for passing through cars in secondary streets, natural Habitats for small native birds destroyed, more bin birds & magpies, less small colourful birds seen lately, numerous empty or unsold units, increase in crime, rubbish, etc.
Name Withheld
MASCOT , New South Wales
I object to the design of Tower A1. The floor plate is too large.
ADG requirements are listed below:
"The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight"
"Where design criteria 1 is not achieved, no more than 12 apartments should be provided off a circulation core on a single level"
A 75 meter tall tower with 13 units on some of its floors will create bad amenity for its own residents and a bulky, visually bad looking tower for the public.
The building footprint of this A1 tower should be reduced.
Name Withheld
rhodes , New South Wales
1) It's a Ecological disaster. They should not do anything in Stage 1 until their masterplan has a satisfactory outcome. What's more important, any tree should not be removed until they get approval.
2) Their Tower A1 in Stage 1 is a monster which is rarely seen across Sydney. How come it occur in a remote suburb Ryde?
3) I saw they set up fencing and some big truck but not sure if they removed any tree inside (which we don't know). I urge authority to inspect if they have done any removal of trees before their masterplan is accepted. I strongly doubt what are they doing now in their site.
4) How come that they lodge Stage 1 before masterplan is accepted? Are they getting any indication of approval already?
5) Saving Trees !!! It's a disaster.
Name Withheld
MACQUARIE PARK , New South Wales
For visitor parking spaces, the proponent is proposing 1 space per 20 units, which is half DCP requirement.
City of Ryde, DCP 2014, Park 9.3 requires 1 visitor space per 10 units. If all the other projects within Macquarie Park Corridor (as shown on RLEP 2014 Centres Map) are complying with this requirement, there is no ground to make exception for Ivanhoe. The parking rate for visitor parking spaces should be increased to comply with DCP.
Living in Macquarie Park for the past few years, I have noticed that visitor spaces in developments in Macquarie Park are quite helpful and it is never a waste of space by providing visitor parking spaces.
Name Withheld
Crows Nest , New South Wales
(1) Tower A1 is so huge and obstruct my future apartment's sunshine.I have never seen such a big building across Sydney, not to say in such a remote suburb from CBD.
(2) Trees were significantly removed. I want to keep trees along the northern boundary facing Herring Road, they are tall and nice to create a buffer between Ivanhoe and my future apartment. Ivanhoe should not only selfishly consider the deep soil in its own site, it should definitely consider a deep soil to be provided along the boundary with neighbors. Only by considering a deep soil zone along boundary (especially that there is less set back from neighbors) could create a better open space for a larger Macquarie Park area.
(3) No setback between Ivanhoe and my apartment, especially that there seems to be no setback from its basement /Tower A1.
(4) It's podium is very strange, because I have never seen podium in a non-CBD area. What's even worse is that it's too close to my community which is already under construction, nearly no setback.This kind of plan will also kill trees there.
(5) I noticed that there are different maps / drawings in different documents showing tree removal, but they are not talking the same trees to be either kept or removed. This really confuses me and I believe it could also hugely mislead different planning authorities who might only look at their own interested document (not the whole package). It seems to me that it's not an honest planning proposal (a little tricky), or maybe it's in worse order and need to be better organized given it's such a big masterplan.
(6) I do like trees. They are not only too close to us, and remove trees between us as well.
I object and wish to see further improvement.
Name Withheld
MACQUARIE PARK , New South Wales
I am deeply concerned about the proposed density of the units. The floor plate indicates there is going to be 13 units on each level of the residential tower which will sit on Herring Road. Just imagine the traffic it is bringing to the major Road. I think more density should be pushed away from Herring and Epping road.

In addition, to have a project of its size, the community amenities and facilities shall be delivered in the first place. However, the staging plan did not say very clearly when the retail and school are going to be built out.
Name Withheld
waterloo , New South Wales
It’s a very dense project in an already over-supplied area. If they have the chance to break the FSR allowance rule, I think everyone in the area can follow the same practice as well! We obviously don’t welcome this result.
It should not be approved as Ryde Council is holding on approval of dense projects in this area!
I noticed Ryde Council and many other organizations have objections before, I do hope they are consistent at this time.
No setback from the boundary, it’s even worse from the first lodgement. Podium is too close, uncompliant with ADG.
Building separation is so bad. They have plenty room on site but are breaking the rule of separation / setback.
I want to know the nature of Tower A1, it’s a huge block.
I want to keep the trees before my units.
The Arboriculture report by Ecological is contradictory with the Ecological, Master drawings for approval. The previous report is saying they must remove all trees, but the later drawings are showing that they should keep nearly all trees. My professional advisor told me that this is a tricky play and should be investigated by planning authorities.
Their Stage 1 should include the site where Tower A1-A2-A3 are located, otherwise I will be facing the construction and hearing noise for years, it’s a nightmare. My friends told me that if the podium’s setback is compliant, it could save trees along the boundary which is beneficial to both communities.
Building setback between A2/A3 and my units build by COLI Australia & Parkview are not the same. A3 is less but A2 is more, I don’t know why but they are not the same and are all less than normal requirements.
Traffic is crowed already, I doubt the feasibility of this kind of supply in this area.
I'm not sure if their wind tunnel test includes its impact on neighbor sites, I have a sense from their high buildings would adversely affect us.
No public parking in the surrounding areas, they should provide enough parking space for the surrounding areas.
More access for cars from southern part (near Shrimpton Creek) and Eastern Part, as there are less traffic.
Their are above height limit.
Last not not least, they are proposing for far too many units than what should be looking like here. In their stage 1, it's a disaster to my community as a neighbour. How come it be proposed by a government-led team to try to apply for a non-compliant project?
Name Withheld
RHODES , New South Wales
Building A1 is huge. It is unacceptable to have a huge block at the entry to Ivanhoe. GFA of Tower A1 should be reduced and moved elsewhere.

Loading docks should be placed in the basement and located within the building footprint to not impact on neighboring towers.

ZERO setback is proposed in the basement.
Cathy Merchant
HUNTERS HILL , New South Wales
as attached
Name Withheld
Macquarie Park , New South Wales
In front of me is nothing to be seen but trees and scattered buildings, after two years my view will full of modern designed apartment. Thanks for Frasers to deliver this huge project and deliver me the illusion of living in the city.
Name Withheld
Epping , New South Wales
Ivanhoe Estate Redevelopment Concept proposal submission

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission regarding the biodiversity impacts of the proposed development at Ivanhoe Estate SSD-8707.

The current proposal does not adequately protect and enhance the biodiversity values within the development site, nor that of the Shrimptons Creek ecological corridor, nor in particular, the remnant forest vegetation between the development and Epping Road.

It is, also, most disappointing to note the total disregard of scientific advice to preserve and plant more trees, to mitigate both the effects of Climate Change and Heat Island Effect, improve our air, quality of life, and health benefits and sustainable lifestyle in this, already, overdeveloped precinct.

Instead, the approval has been given for tree removal, by the Department of Housing, with a proposed cumulative loss of 858 or more trees from this once idyllic, sylvan, low-density public housing estate!

Moreover, such massive tree removal is, at the minimum, injudicious, as it will negatively impact the native habitat and ecological corridors of local wildlife, including the population of Powerful Owls, resident in the area.

It will also, unacceptably, impact the plant community of Sydney Turpentine and Iron Bark open forest (STIF) as well as the hallmark green, open space, landscape character of the area.

The ecological significance of this vegetation corridor must be protected. In 1998, natural bushland of this type was listed as Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest and placed on the endangered list under the then, Threatened Species Conservation Act.

Furthermore, all STIF forests are classified, by both the NSW and Australian Governments, as Critically Endangered Ecological Communities, because less than half a percent of the original distribution of this forest type remains in the Sydney basin.

And, the NSW Biodiversity Offset Policy for Major Projects cannot make amends for destruction of any part of this forest, as it would further diminish the remaining total.

Given that the NSW Government wholly own the Ivanhoe Estate development site and the NSW Land and Housing Corporation (LAHC) has been working to transform the site, it follows that the final design and form of the development is under the complete control of the NSW Government.

Thus, it could be expected that this development should have been an exemplar to the entire development industry that, of late, is too often exposed to get rich quick, shoddy, poorly planned, overdevelopments, leading to cracking buildings, whilst showing complete disregard for the natural environment.

However, instead, the Ivanhoe Estate redevelopment, appears, to be maximising overdevelopment, at the expense of open space, and the ecological values of the site, and in complete disregard to its already woefully congested Macquarie Park location, in which it is situated.

It is significant that the, astute, local federal member, John Alexander, when announcing four billion dollars funding to combat urban congestion, drew public attention to the “negative impact of local overdevelopment in our suburbs, most visibly on our congested roads at Macquarie Park.”

It is of much concern that both this state sponsored development and relevant State laws are, seemingly, failing to protect biodiversity in NSW.

Further, like so many other residents, across Sydney, who are either trying to protect their local suburbs, their local heritage, their local flora and fauna and open space etc., it is extremely disturbing, to me, to actually observe such dismal government results, when compared with Ryde Council’s proven record of prudent planning as exemplified by their laudable planning of the Macquarie business Park, due only to our duly elected Council’s undemocratic and unwarranted loss of control over environmental planning within its own LGA.

As a long-time local resident, I have always been gratified to see that the buffer of STIF forest, between the Ivanhoe Place estate and Epping Road, has remained intact and unspoilt as an effective habitat and screening buffer between the road and the existing low-rise housing units.

Moreover, having regard to relatively small area of the STIF when compared to the total 8.2 hectare area of the Ivanhoe Estate site and the fact that the NSW Government is ultimately the proponent, it is entirely reasonable that the proposed development be revised to ensure that all the STIF and more of the Urban Forest on the site is retained.

In the event that the proposed, apparent, overdevelopment were to be approved, the planned access road, and slip road is unnecessary. The plans include a two-way access to Lyon Park Road, so that traffic wishing to enter the estate could use Lyon Park Road, which has an existing well-designed, safe, exit point from Epping Road.

If the access road through the forest is essential to this development, then the development should not go ahead as presently proposed; the retention of the STIF forest must take priority.

I object to the removal of 858 or more trees and the destruction of the endangered ecological Urban Forest and essential habitat and corridors of local wildlife.

I object to the impact that this development will have on the Shrimptons Creek ecological corridor.

I object to the seeming overdevelopment of the site, and the additional negative impact that it will cause to the already gridlocked peak traffic conditions within the locality

I, further, object to the current proposal, because the development plans specify an access road, which would destroy a significant section of the protected STIF forest and break up the wildlife corridor.
Name Withheld
Gladesville , New South Wales
The redevelopment of the Ivanhoe Estate shows a wanton disregard for the local natural environment of Ryde and for its residents. The appalling loss of trees, including endangered Sydney Turpentine Ironback forest indicates a serious deficit in the ability of the planners and architects responsible for this site.
It is obvious that the loss of over 850 trees - which basically means the entire site is bulldozed flat - is because it makes construction and building cheaper and easy. It is sheer laziness and arrogance on behalf of the planners to not develop a new construction that incorporates and works around the existing trees or at the very least attempts to save the majority of them or perhaps even the endangered ones!
Macquarie Park is viewed as a concrete jungle as it is - these trees are not just aesthetic (and aesthetics are actually important - it is what adds ambiance and value to a suburb) but they are important wildlife corridors and most significantly absorb heat and pollution in Macquarie Park which suffers from massive traffic jams and heat spots in summer.
An Estate with established trees will be a fantastic asset - as a State initiative it can be created with just a bit more creativity and effort on behalf of the designers. So much of the recent development in Sydney has been ugly and soulless - don’t let Ivanhoe become the next Meadowbank!
Caleven Pty Ltd
Panania , New South Wales
Please review attached submission.
Jason He
MACQUARIE PARK , New South Wales
I am the resident of 120 Macquarie. And I want to express my concerns on neighbor's development. As everyone know, residents in Macquarie park face significant traffic congestion. The proposal includes a significant number of new units in the suburb, which is over the compliance and the access will have big influence on Herring Road, making the transport terrible.

As well, it is worrying that many of trees on that area will be removed, which will destroy the surrounding ecology and will hurt the rare animals and plants. I hope these concerns could be considered before approve any application.
Name Withheld
MACQUARIE PARK , New South Wales
This site sits metres from other ongoing developments in the area, particularly close to adjoining site at Herring/Epping road corner. If the site is redeveloped it will be a large construction site. It is concerning to see that the Planning Proposal documents do not consider the construction impacts of the future development in any detail. I noticed that the stage 1 basement is bordering on the neighboring site. Given the recent Mascot Tower event, I do think the construction impacts should be fully considered. In addition, adjacent properties are old apartment buildings. I am wondering if these older structures will hold without a problem with such a massive development.

It is assumed that a development of this scale will take many months or years to be completed. Before approvals being given to the proposal, the public should be given details of how construction impacts will be mitigated over this lengthy period. This should include consideration of strict conditions on construction hours, noise and vibration, as well as advanced construction traffic management. Given the proximity of some homes to the potential construction site, dedicated consultation should be undertaken with these residents about how their quality of life and amenity will be protected during any construction period.
Name Withheld
MARSFIELD , New South Wales
Please do not cut down and destroy all those trees! They are irreplaceable! We have to protect our natural environment now more than ever instead of looking for financial gains. Find another place to build or build around the trees.
Bernard Purcell
DENISTONE , New South Wales
- Loss of this native vegetation ecologically which is important as a remnant forest that should be given full protection from any clearing.
- Unique and ecologically important native vegetation including the Sydney Turpentine and Ironbark Open Forest.
- Classified by the NSW Threatened Species Committee as a Critically Endangered Ecological community.
- Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest are typically small and fragmented and are susceptible to clearing and routine land management practices
the site should be given protection and enabled to survive into the future. Instead an offset credit system or bio-banking is suggested by the State Government
- Offsets are not considered conservation. Protecting another area somewhere in regional NSW will not protect this remnant forest.
- We urge the NSW Government to consider alternative designs which protects the site in its entirety.
- The slip road that is proposed will cut into the forest and cut off an important wildlife corridor.
- There are just too many units proposed for this site.
- The proposed social housing units will limit the number of people that can be housed due to the reduced number of bedrooms in each unit. The estate that is being replaced housed over 750 people - the proposed units only offer bedrooms for a couple of hundred more with reduced amenity. Less solar exposure less cross ventilation and communal areas.


Project Details

Application Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
City of Ryde
Determination Date
Last Modified By
Last Modified On

Contact Planner

Andy Nixey