Mixed-use development, 51-55 Parramatta Road

While I understand the need to provide additional housing and improve Parramatta Road over time, I do not believe this proposal appropriately considers the existing constraints, specifically to Courland St, Lavender St, York Ave, and Arlington St, or the impacts it will have on current residents. The proposal appears to priortise increased density without adequately addressing the local road network, parking demand, traffic safety and supporting infrastructure.
One of my primary concerns is that this proposal introduces a substantial increase in residential density before the supporting infrastructure needed to accommodate that growth has been delivered. The Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy has long promoted the concept of increased housing alongside improved transport, infrastructure and public amenity. However, this proposal appears to bring forward high density development without first delivering the road upgrades, public transport improvements and supporting infrastructure required to make that level of development sustainable.
Residents will experience the impacts immediately, increased traffic, parking shortages, congestion and pressure on local services, while the infrastructure intended to support that growth remains uncertain or deferred.
Could NSW Department of Planning explain why higher density development is being introduced ahead of the infrastructure improvements that were intended to support it, and how the existing road network and local services are expected to safely accommodate this increase in population.
My additional concerns are outlined below:
1. Building height is excessive and out of character
a. The proposed buildings of up to 12 meters (approximately four story’s) area significantly out of scale with the existing low density residential character. The proposal will:
i. Overwhelm neighbouring single story and two story homes.
ii. Create increased overshading and reduced privacy for existing residents.
iii. Change the established streetscape and neighbourhood character.
iv. Result in a bulky built form that is inconsistent with the surrounding residential area.
Although the proposal attempts to transition heights towards existing hours, a four story street wall is still an enormous visual impact for residents.
2. York Avenue and parallel streets are already unsuitable for additional traffic
a. York Avenue is simply not capable of accommodating the significant increase in vehicle movements this proposal will generate. The street already functions under difficult conditions:
i. It is a two lane road with limited width.
ii. Parking along one side of the street frequently reduces it to what is effectively a single lane.
iii. Vehicles regularly need to stop, pull into resident driveways and wait for opposing traffic to pass.
iv. The road is already heavily used by residents, visitors, deliveries and service vehicles, so there is barely ever any parking currently.
Introducing hundreds of additional residents together with commercial premises will substantially increase vehicle numbers and further reduce the safety and functionality of the street.
3. Dangerous access from Parramatta Road
The intersection of York Avenue and Parramatta Road is already difficult and at times dangerous. Turning into York Ave from Parramatta Road is extremely tight. When another vehicle is exiting the street, it is impossible for two vehicles to safely maneuver simultaneously. Visibility is poor already and there are existing blind spots, which the development will worsen. Residents regularly experience near misses due to:
a. Limited turning space.
b. Restricted sight lines.
c. Vehicles attempting to enter and leave simultaneously.
d. Traffic travelling at speed.
The proposal appears to significantly increase traffic movements and worsen blind spots without demonstrating how this intersection will safely operate after redevelopment.
4. York Avenue and parallel streets are already used as a traffic bypass
York Avenue, Lavender Street and Courland Avenue has increasingly become a shortcut for motorists attempting to avoid congestion and traffic lights on Arlington and Parramatta Road.
Many vehicles travel through the street at excessive speeds despite it being a narrow residential road.
Additional residential and commercial development will increase local traffic, through traffic, delivery vehicles, rideshare services, visitor parking and commercial servicing.
This combination will create an unacceptable safety risk for residents, pedestrians and children.
5. Parking is already at capacity
Parking is already a major issue within York Avenue and surrounding parallel streets.
Residents frequently park on the street because many existing properties have limited off street parking.
Vehicles commonly remain parked well beyond the posted time limits.
As a result, the street effectively operates as a one way road for much of the day.
The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how parking demand generated by new apartments, commercial premises, visitors, staff, deliveries and services vehicles will be accommodated.
If sufficient basement parking is not provided, overflow parking will inevitably spill into surrounding residential streets.
I request DPHI clearly identify:
a. The number of residential parking spaces proposed.
b. Visitor parking provision.
c. Commercial parking allocation.
d. Loading zones.
e. How overflow parking has been assessed.
6. Traffic modelling does not reflect lived experience
I question whether the traffic studies adequately reflect current conditions experienced by residents.
York Ave experiences congestion throughout the day and regularly becomes constrained by parked vehicles.
Any modelling should account for:
a. Existing parking behavior.
b. School traffic.
c. Delivery vehicles.
d. Rideshare activity.
e. Future commercial traffic.
f. Emergency vehicles access.
g. Cumulative impacts from surrounding PRCUTS developments.
Without this level of assessment, the impacts are likely to be significantly underestimated.
7. Infrastructure appears inadequate
The proposal introduces a significant increase in population yet provides little reassurance regarding supporting infrastructure.
I request clarification on:
a. Whether existing overhead power lines along York Avenue will remain or be undergrounded.
b. Whether electrical capacity is required.
c. Sewer and stormwater capacity.
d. Water infrastructure.
e. Waste collection arrangements.
f. Telecommunications upgrades.
g. Emergency service access.
8. Pressure on local services
Additional residents will place increased demand on local parks, schools, childcare centers, medical services, public transport and community facilities.
The proposal does not provide sufficient confidence that these facilities will expend proportionately with the proposed increase in population.
9. Construction impacts
Should this proposal proceed, construction will likely continue for many years. Beyond the years of stage 1 currently underway.
York Ave is already narrow, making it difficult for normal traffic.
Construction vehicles, cranes, deliveries and road closures will significantly disrupt resident access, parking, pedestrian safety and local amenity.
DPHI should explain how these impacts will be managed.
I strongly object to the proposal in its current form.
While I acknowledge the need for additional housing across Sydney, development should occur only where the surrounding infrastructure, road network and local environment can safely accommodate it.
The proposal is introducing substantial density before any significant improvement to public transport along Parramatta Road has been delivered. PRCUTS has long envisaged improvement transport as part of the corridor’s transformation, yet residents will experience the impacts of increased traffic and parking demand immediately, while transport upgrades remain uncertain or stage for the future. DPHI to explain why higher density is being introduced ahead of the infrastructure intended to support it.
In my view, this proposal does not adequately address the exiting issues already experienced by local residents, and the potential issues which will be caused / heighted by the proposed developments, particularly:
• Excessive building height relative to surrounding homes;
• Increased traffic congestion;
• Unsafe road conditions;
• Inadequate parking;
• Pressure on infrastructure and services; and
• Deterioration of residential amenity.
I request that the NSW Department of Planning respond to the above and revise the proposal before any rezoning proceeds, with particular emphasis on reducing development intensity along York Ave, Lavender St, Courland St and Arlington St, undertaking more detailed traffic and parking investigations, and demonstrating how supporting infrastructure will be delivered.

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Aideen Gallagher and I am the owner of Unit 4, 27 Byron Street, Croydon.
Thank you for opportunity to create a submission in relation to 51-55 Parramatta road. I am a supportive of new housing in Sydney to address the housing shortage and welcome the development of Parramatta Road area. I am in support of this project and we have three key objections that if addressed will ensure that we are not impacted negatively as we currently feel we will be if the plans go head in their current form.
1. Height reduction and location of Building 2 and 3
The shadowing caused by building 2 and 3, based on the environmental impact statement appendix K, will have a negative impact on us. We recognise shadowing is a part of life in a city. Whilst the loss of daytime light may not have an impact on the high number of businesses around us at 27 Byron St, it does have an impact on a family home. We live in a townhouse with no access to light on the lateral parts of our house as they are joined to others. Our window, facing 51-55 Parramatta Road is our only source of light and therefore the height and location of the building will significantly dimmish the light into our homes at the time of year when light is at a premium according to environmental impact statement appendix K. We would like the height of the building and location to be adjusted so this shadowing to 27 Byron St, a residential building in the area where the shadow falls is minimised.
2. Road flow
The development is welcomed in terms of the added amenities that are needed in the area. It it will introduce a significant amount of traffic to the area. This is all located on the Canada Bay side of parramatta road. This is going to create a problem in an already congested area, as we, on the Croydon side of Parramatta road, are currently forced to go into the Canada Bay area to access Croydon.
Figure 1: The journey from Office Works in Five Dock to 27 Byron St

Figure 1 below shows a route from office works in Five Dock to our block at 27 Byron Street. Although we are based on the southern side of Parramatta Road, there is no right turn off Parramatta Road travelling east between office works and us. Whilst we can go up Shaftsbury road or Frederick street, these are significantly congested because Frederick street is already the main access route south from Anzac bridge and Shaftsbury road is the main route into Westfield, a shopping centre that causes significant traffic in peak times of the year.
In the absence of these main routines, it shows, to access 27 Byron Street we have to either:
a) Drive by spencer street past the new development of Kings Bay in Five Dock. With 1185 apartments planned, there are likely to be 1,185 more cars in the area already before 51-55 Parramatta Road is considered.
b) Complete a loop around, past the development site of 51-55 Parramatta Road.
This area can become significantly congested around school drop off and pick up as Rosebank college has approximately 1440 students. With the added traffic from the development both in construction and on completion, this area is going to become a significant hot spot for us. Whilst Rosebank college students and 51-55 Parramatta road go about their business we will have to pass enter into their zone just to get home on the completely other side of the Parramatta road. As well as impacting us, it is will your development and Rosebank also.
I would suggest that an additional right turn is inserted off Parramatta Road when travelling east between Shaftsbury Road and Frederick Street. This will mean the residents of the area around Byron Street and other areas of Croydon, won’t have to join the added traffic on the Five Dock side to get to our residences on the Croydon side.
3. Public Transport
This development is advertised as being located close to public transport – that is the metro. However, the metro brings a person to certain areas of the city. In turn it is a long walk from 51-55 Parramatta Road to the metro. Given this distance and the specific locations the metro goes to, many of the residents of this development coupled with Kings Bay development will be seeking an alternative public transport option to the city. The current bus route offers services every 15 minutes in peak and 30 minutes in late night hours. These services would need to be increased to accommodate the additional people taking public transport to allow the correct number of buses to accommodate this additional number of people.
Similarly, buses travelling into the city start at Burwood. After passing Kings Bay development and 51-55 Parramatta Road, the bus is likely then to stop at a significant amount of stops before we get to the city. Given many of these residents have the aim of getting to the city, an express bus option we a number of key stops only, is an important addition in my opinion.
Thank you for your time in listening to the concerns I have raised in this letter, and I look forward to hearing from the development team in terms of how these problems could be solved for the overall betterment of everyone in the area.
With thanks
Aideen Gallagher

I write to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-89477725 (51–55 Parramatta Road, Five Dock). While medium-density renewal aligned with original zoning controls is supported, this 28-storey, 3.4:1 FSR proposal represents an unacceptable overdevelopment, echoing its previous rejection by Canada Bay Council. Please see the attached letter with my objection in full.

Brosnan & Moore Town Planning submits this objection on behalf of the Owners Corporation of SP83068 at 49–51 Queens Road, Five Dock, in relation to SSD-89477725 and the associated concurrent rezoning.

The Owners Corporation does not oppose well-planned housing growth or mixed-use renewal. Its principal request is that 49–51 Queens Road be included in the coordinated masterplanning exercise and considered for inclusion in the concurrent rezoning through the appropriate statutory process. This would allow the Queens Road frontage and surrounding block to be planned consistently, rather than leaving the strata property with an uncertain future planning outcome.

The applicant’s own design material depicts future development of the adjoining western land and relies on that land’s development capacity when justifying the proposed separation to Building 1. Those assumptions must be supported by a realistic and deliverable redevelopment assessment for SP83068, addressing the applicable controls, ownership boundaries, building setbacks, solar access, privacy, access, servicing, basement arrangements and independent staging.

The attached submission identifies concerns regarding Building 1’s reduced western setbacks, inconsistent assumptions about future western building heights, conflicting parking and basement particulars, loading capacity, public-domain connections and access rights, localised western flood impacts, groundwater and excavation, and construction impacts on the occupied strata property.

The Department is requested to require amended plans and further information resolving these matters before determination. The proposal should not transfer an unreasonable share of building separation, infrastructure or construction burdens onto 49–51 Queens Road, or prejudice its reasonable future redevelopment opportunities.

Should the current concurrent rezoning mechanism be unsuitable for including the strata land, the Department should identify a separate but coordinated planning pathway and ensure the SSD does not preclude that outcome. The Owners Corporation is not claiming an automatic entitlement to the applicant’s maximum height or floor space ratio, nor consenting to acquisition, dedication, access or works over its land.

Please read the attached detailed planning submission, including its figures, supporting references and planning issues matrix, as forming part of this objection. The Owners Corporation requests a specific response to the matters raised and consultation on any amended proposal affecting its property.

I object to State Significant Development Application SSD-89477725 and the associated rezoning proposal for the mixed-use development proposed at Five Dock. As a resident living directly opposite to the site, I will be among those most affected by both the construction and ongoing operation of the development. After reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement and supporting documentation, I strongly oppose the proposal and believe it should be refused outright rather than approved subject to conditions.

My primary concern is the excessive height, bulk and density of the proposal. The development seeks substantial increases to the site's permitted building height and floor space ratio, allowing towers of up to 27 storeys in a location currently characterised by low and medium-density residential development. The scale of these buildings would significantly reduce sunlight to my property, overshadow my backyard and living areas, and compromise my ability to install and benefit from solar panels in the future. In my view, these impacts are permanent consequences of the development's scale and cannot be adequately addressed through conditions of consent.

I am also concerned that a similar proposal for the same site was previously refused by the City of Canada Bay Council. Council raised concerns regarding excessive height and density, inconsistencies with planning strategies, inadequate public open space, insufficient tree canopy, and transport-related impacts. Many of those concerns remain applicable to this proposal, and I do not believe the development should be approved simply because it has been brought forward as a State Significant Development application.

The development would also result in an unacceptable loss of privacy. With multi-storey buildings, balconies and windows directly facing neighbouring homes, there would be ongoing overlooking into my backyard and living spaces. While the applicant suggests that visual impacts are low, I do not believe the assessment adequately considers the daily privacy impacts on residents living directly across from the site.

Traffic, parking, noise and air quality are additional concerns. Local streets already experience parking shortages and congestion, and I believe a development of more than 800 residential units, together with retail uses, will place significant additional pressure on surrounding roads. Increased vehicle movements will inevitably lead to greater traffic noise and poorer air quality, affecting the liveability of the neighbourhood for existing residents.

I am particularly concerned about the impacts of construction. The project involves large-scale demolition, deep excavations and several years of intensive building activity. There is a real risk of dust, vibration and structural impacts on nearby homes, including older residential properties such as my own. While monitoring and dilapidation surveys have been proposed, these measures do not prevent damage from occurring and do not eliminate the risks associated with deep excavation close to existing dwellings.

Construction noise, traffic and working hours are also significant concerns. The project's own assessments predict noise levels above the "highly noise affected" threshold during excavation works, and the Preliminary Construction Management Plan proposes a trial of extended construction hours until 10pm on weekdays and 5pm on Saturdays. As a parent with young children, I find the prospect of years of construction activity extending into the evening completely unacceptable. I also work from home and rely on a quiet environment to participate in meetings, concentrate on complex tasks and carry out my professional responsibilities. Prolonged exposure to demolition works, excavation activities, heavy vehicle movements and construction noise throughout the day would significantly disrupt my ability to work effectively from home, while extended evening construction hours would further erode any opportunity for peace and quiet after the workday has ended. These impacts would affect not only my family's wellbeing, sleep and quality of life, but also my ability to work productively from my home. I do not believe that noise monitoring or management measures can adequately address the impacts of prolonged construction activity in a residential area.

I am equally concerned about increased heavy vehicle movements near Rosebank College and surrounding residential streets, creating additional safety risks for children and pedestrians. The transport assessments acknowledge existing crash history in the area, and I believe additional construction traffic, followed by ongoing traffic generated by the completed development, will further increase risks for local families and school-aged children.

Finally, I am not satisfied that adequate infrastructure capacity has been demonstrated to support the development. The documentation includes inconsistencies regarding the number of dwellings proposed, and Sydney Water has indicated that further investigation is required to determine whether essential services can adequately support the scale of the project. In my view, such uncertainty should be resolved before any approval is considered.

Overall, I believe this proposal would have serious and lasting impacts on sunlight access, privacy, traffic conditions, parking availability, neighbourhood character, environmental quality, and the safety and amenity of nearby residents. These impacts arise directly from the scale and intensity of the development and cannot be resolved through revised designs, additional studies, or consent conditions. For these reasons, I strongly object to SSD-89477725 and the associated rezoning proposal and request that both be refused in their entirety.

OBJECTION SUBMISSION LETTER
To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Major Development Application / State Significant Development (SSD) Submission
Location: Kings Bay Precinct / Parramatta Road Development Site
Submitter Context: Local Resident, Courland Street, Five Dock

1. Executive Summary
As a resident of Courland Street, Five Dock, I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development in its current form.

I wish to clarify at the outset that I am not opposed to the principle of urban renewal or the redevelopment of the precinct itself. However, I strongly object to the specific massing, scale, and extreme building height—specifically Buildings 3 and 4, which rise up to 27 storeys (Level 26).

The current scheme creates an unacceptable transition to the low-density residential context of Courland Street, fails to align with the overarching strategic vision of the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy (PRCUTS), and introduces severe amenity impacts regarding visual intrusion, overshadowing, privacy, and local traffic congestion.

2. Non-Compliance with PRCUTS Framework & Inappropriate Height Transition
The PRCUTS Planning Framework was established to guide balanced growth, providing defined height and density caps to ensure new high-density nodes transition sensitively into surrounding established neighborhoods.

Excessive Building Height: Buildings 3 and 4 (rising to 27 storeys) represent an extreme overdevelopment of the site that far exceeds the scale intended for this precinct edge.

Failure to Provide a Sensitive Transition: Standard urban design principles require high-rise elements to step down gradually toward existing low-density and medium-density residential zones. Instead, this proposal places massive 27-storey towers directly adjacent to the eastern precinct boundary, creating an abrupt, harsh "visual cliff" overlooking Courland Street rather than an appropriate stepping-down of heights.

3. Severe Visual Impact & Critical Omission in Appendix Q (Visual Impact Assessment)
A major deficiency of the applicant’s submission is the complete lack of visual assessment from the immediate eastern boundary.

Omission of Courland Street Viewpoints: Appendix Q (Visual Impact Assessment) fails to evaluate or model the visual impact from the perspective of residents on Courland Street. By omitting key viewpoints from our street, the assessment completely ignores the primary residential receivers most affected by the height of Buildings 3 and 4.

Visual Bulk & Overbearing Enclosure: The vast scale of these towers situated immediately to our west will severely dominate the skyward view, blocking western outlooks and creating an oppressive sense of enclosure ("boxing in") for local residents.

4. Unacceptable Overshadowing & Loss of Afternoon Solar Access
In Sydney's climate, afternoon solar access from the west is vital for residential living quality and thermal efficiency during cooler months.

Loss of Western Sun: Because Buildings 3 and 4 are situated directly to our west, towers of this height will cast long, sweeping shadows across Courland Street properties in the afternoon.

Impact on Solar Access: Under the current design, residents on Courland Street will experience virtually no direct sunlight after 3:00 PM, significantly diminishing outdoor living usability and indoor natural light in direct conflict with NSW residential amenity guidelines.

5. Loss of Visual Privacy & Severe Overlooking
The insertion of 27 storeys of elevated residential units and private balconies immediately adjacent to low-density single and two-storey homes completely destroys existing residential privacy.

Direct Line-of-Sight: Occupants from hundreds of elevated apartments in Buildings 3 and 4 will have direct, uninterrupted sightlines down into the private backyards, living areas, and windows of Courland Street properties.

Unmitigated Impact: No amount of perimeter landscaping can mitigate overlooking from 10 to 26 storeys high. The only viable remedy is a substantial reduction in building height and increased building setbacks.

6. Cumulative Local Traffic Congestion & Parking Pressure
Courland Street is a quiet, narrow residential street that already experiences significant traffic strain during peak hours.

Local Bottlenecks: The local road network—particularly around Queens Road—already suffers from severe traffic queues during school drop-off and pick-up hours. Adding the vehicle traffic generated by massive residential towers will exacerbate an already fragile local traffic situation.

On-Street Parking Overflow: While internal basement parking is provided, massive multi-unit developments inherently generate high volumes of visitor, delivery, service, and multi-vehicle household traffic. Courland Street will inevitably bear the brunt of this parking spillover, removing scarce on-street parking for existing residents.

7. Requested Remedies & Conclusion
To address these severe impacts and achieve a balanced development that respects the surrounding community, I respectfully request that the Department require the applicant to:

Reduce Building Heights: Significantly decrease the height and storey count of Buildings 3 and 4 to align strictly with PRCUTS guidelines and provide a genuine, stepped-down transition toward Courland Street.

Re-evaluate Visual Impact: Require an updated Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix Q) that explicitly includes key visual receptor points from Courland Street.

Increase Eastern Setbacks & Stepping: Increase physical building setbacks from the eastern site boundary and incorporate greater upper-level step-backs to mitigate afternoon overshadowing and loss of privacy.

Enforce Local Traffic & Parking Controls: Implement strict traffic management protocols to prevent precinct traffic and parking spillover from impacting Courland Street.

I trust the Department will give serious consideration to the cumulative impacts on immediate neighbours and mandate the necessary design revisions to protect community amenity.

Resident of Courland Street, Five Dock

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would however like to see the number of units and storeys significantly increased as well as units set aside for essential workers.

I object to the project for the following reasons
1. It is far too big;
2. Impact on local traffic and parking would be extreme. The local area of Five Dock already struggles to cope with existing local traffic and parking. This project has insufficient parking, and the extra pressure on local residents of additional vehicles and traffic would be unreasonable;
3. Gigantic walls of north facing units with attendant windows and balconies would impose excessive, uncontrolled light upon residents, and also affect insect, bird and nocturnal creatures negatively;
4. Gigantic walls of north facing units with attendant windows and balconies would impose additional and potentially unacceptable levels of noise pollution on the local residents; and
5. Gigantic walls of north facing units with attendant windows and balconies would result in loss of privacy in private living spaces and backyards of local residences.

The proposed development would place significant additional pressure on our already narrow residential road, resulting in increased traffic congestion, vehicle movements, parking pressure and associated safety concerns.

Our street is currently a low-density residential area with a quiet character and a reasonable level of privacy. The scale and height of the proposed buildings would fundamentally change that character. Large buildings immediately adjoining existing homes would overlook private properties, reduce privacy and create a sense of enclosure that is inconsistent with the established low-density residential environment.

The development would also block or significantly reduce sunlight reaching neighbouring homes and outdoor areas. The cumulative impact of increased traffic, building height, overlooking, loss of privacy and reduced sunlight would substantially diminish the amenity and liveability of existing residents.

We respectfully ask that these impacts be carefully considered and that the scale, height, density and traffic implications of the proposal be reconsidered to ensure that the existing residential character and amenity of the street are protected.

I object to the number of stories for the 2 tallest buildings. The visual impact of the 2 tallest is highly inconsiderate as they will stand out to a ridiculous degree on the skyline, looking agressive and intimidating which is completely contraray to the local character of Five Dock and will hem in Rosebank School. The currently proposed heights will also reflect glaring sunlight and road traffic noise from Queens Rd at our unit blocks down Kings Road. The rest of the project looks acceptable and considerate, but you must halve the heights of the two tallest buldings will look permamnently terrible for miles around. Please dont ruin our local area by turning it into a Macquarie Park style development.

My name is Amy McEachen and I am the owner of Unit 1, 27 Byron Street, Croydon.
I am raising an objection to the height and location of Building 2 and Building 3. The design in its current format has detrimental impact on the amenity of my dwelling. I request the design be reconsidered to minimise loss of quality of life within surrounding dwellings, particularly to the south of the development.
The large windows on the northern side of my townhouse complex provide my family’s primary source of light. My townhouse complex has minimal windows on any other side. Therefore, the shadowing caused by Building 2 and 3 shown in the Solar Access Diagrams (Environmental Impact Statement Appendix K) will significantly diminish the current enjoyment of our home and devalue its worth.
My other concern is the level of public transport provided to this location. While the development is supported by the pending Metro station at Five Dock, it is a considerable walk from the new development. Further, residents such as older people and children will be unlikely to walk that distance to access public transport.
The most convenient public transport route to this location is buses located adjacent to the new development on Parramatta Road and Harris Street. However, the frequency of the services is currently inadequate for the future volume of residents, particularly in light of the quantity of other new dwellings concurrently being developed along the Parramatta Rd corridor in Five Dock and Burwood.
I urge that an upgrade to the service frequency of buses must be provided, in light of developments of this scale.

The attached letter contains our coments.

Where our house is situated we feel that with this sort of project that our property will become fenced in by all of these high rise apartments.We’ve lived here for over 20years and have no reason to leave until now. It’s concerning how high they are, also the sun being blocked by them. The traffic we feel will also be unbearable and nothing has been made clear of whether our street is being considered for re zoning.

Looks good, hope they start construction soon to alleviate the housing shortage.

Dear Assessment Team,
Please find attached my submission regarding the proposed mixed-use development and associated rezoning at 51-55 Parramatta Road, Five Dock (SSD-89477725). The attached submission outlines my concerns regarding the scale and intensity of the proposal and its potential impacts on Courland Street and the surrounding residential community. I respectfully request that the matters raised in the submission be considered as part of the assessment and determination process for this application.
Thank you for your consideration of my submission.

Please see the attached submission for my full objection letter.

I object to SSD-89477725 and the concurrent rezoning in their exhibited form. My attached report raises eleven objections concerning flood risk, contamination, amenity, transport, enforceable public benefits and the legal requirements for approval. It identifies conflicting evidence and asks the authority to resolve those conflicts, establish the lawful basis for the proposal and secure its promised benefits. I ask that the proposal be refused in its present form, or deferred until these issues are resolved and material changes receive appropriate public scrutiny. Please treat the attached 11-page report as part of my submission and record this as an objection to both the development and the concurrent rezoning.