Mixed use development with affordable housing, Parramatta and Queens Roads, Five Dock

I object to the proposal on the basis of the proposed height of the towers and its impact on our amenity and that of our neighbours. Our residence is located on the southern side of Parramatta Road in Croydon. The EIS indicates that our property will be overshadowed until 11 am during the winter months. We currently rely on the early morning sun in the winter months to warm our house, reducing the use of electricity and hence natural resources.
The EIS indicates that that a height incentive bonus is being sought as the proposal includes a minimum 15% of the gross floor area as affordable housing. A number of us residents on the southern side of Parramatta Road have lived in the area for decades and are on low incomes or pensions. It is not considered fair or reasonable that our amenity will be impacted and the developer profit by building higher towers, allowed through proposing to provide for affordable housing. It is recommended that if the proposal is to be approved, the approval limit the height of the towers to the point where residents on the southern side of Parramatta Road are not overshadowed.
In addition, any approval of the project should include the provision of a pedestrian overbridge from the southern to the northern side of Parramatta Road in the vicinity of Short or Lang Street so that residents in the Burwood LGA can safely and easily access the retail facilities, open space and amenities being provided as part of the proposal.

I object the development, Application No: SSD-73228210, as proposed. Pleas see Attached Letter for details.

Broadly speaking I am supportive of a development that will gentrify the proposed development site. However, I object to the development application currently proposed on the basis of the following points.

1. Building Height
The proposal involves considerably higher buildings than surrounding residents understood was to be provided under the exhibited Canada Bay controls. We understand that this was allowable due to the delivery of affordable housing under State controls. However, the height difference is extreme (compared to the local controls). This is one of the first developments in the area. Is this the scale of development we want for the ‘village’ of Kings Bay? Does this scale reflect the objectives of the planning controls?

Park K of the Canada Bay Development Control Plan which contains objectives for Kings Bay indicates that development should: ‘encourage and facilitate development on the site which, in terms of scale, bulk, form and character reflects the physical context of the site and is sympathetic to surrounding residential development’. The height of the towers will dwarf many of the existing lower density housing areas. The documentation appears preoccupied with the development and housing uplift. What they can ‘have’ rather than how it is sensitive to the context or how it really gives back in terms of area support, landscaping and local infrastructure or open space.

2. The Development Proposal fails to adequately address the increased traffic congestion that will be caused by the Development
The traffic report is not considered to accurately assess traffic impacts on William Street North. This section is already fast moving, dangerous, parked out and curved road (with constrained visibility). The commercial component of the development would be attracting residents from further afield. William Street North is problematic, congested and noisy for Kings Bay residents and this would be made worse and effect commute/access times.

There is currently gridlock, particularly during school times and peak hours in this local area. Kings Bay Estate Residents already suffer from traffic congestion, including additional traffic throughout the estate and the traffic impact assessment is not considered to adequately address the cumulative effects of increased traffic resulting from this high density development with supermarket/commercial during peak hours in the broader area.

Concern is raised in relation to the impact of large trucks for the supermarket, delay times and peak times which are associated with supermarket developments. There would be peaks likely with the employment users as well.

The traffic impact assessment underestimates the additional traffic movements and consequently the impact on the already problematic traffic situation which current residents suffer. There are currently already considerable traffic delays experienced in the area.

The fact that drivers will seek alternative routes in the local road network when congestion occurs should be considered. Traffic impacts such as these will impact existing residents in terms of emergency response times which should also be considered for residents and emergency personnel.

Increased risks at intersections, and risks to the elderly and children, should be considered in relation to increased problem traffic, increase in larger delivery vehicles, hazards and driver impatience.

How will local infrastructure be upgraded to support this and potential other larger developments than anticipated?

Whilst no objection is proposed to the affordable housing, the area needs to be able to support it. It needs to be supported by a liveable environment and supportive/capable roads and transport.

3. Parking Challenges
It is noted that the proposal only just complies with the minimum/maximum code requirements for parking so it is assumed that there would be spill on effects to the already congested and parked out surrounding areas. Kings Bay Estate is already impacted by people from the broader area parking within its local road network and this implicates available visitor parking for visitors of the Kings Bay Estate residents. This is a serious issue for visitors who require accessible access. There are generally no, or very few opportunities to park within the estate due to broader community members using the area for parking. This situation will only be worsened by the current development proposal.

4. The Proposal does not balance the need for open, public space with the need for high density living
This site is 31,300m2 in area and is to be developed with an affordable housing development to increase homes in accordance with FSR and height uplifts. The bare minimum open space is provided yet the density is so much higher. Development of this large site provides the opportunity to provide improved open space, more than just the minimum. This would provide appropriate public interest benefits and provide the type of liveability desired by all planning controls. The development should provide appropriate landscaping and open space to balance the scale, in accordance with the Canada Bay Development Control Plan and to provide a desirable living environment.

The documents state that only 12% of soft landscaping is provided at the ground plane and only 15% of deep soil planting/zones for the site. In the context of a 31,300m2 site and a large scale development, development is supposed to allocate a park and create a village. Street trees and improved planting would benefit the scale, create the village character and improve the pedestrian experience for residents and visitors.

I object to the development as proposed on the following grounds:

- I object to the height of the proposed towers. The height far exceeds the height of surrounding buildings and is not in keeping with the local area. There is nothing of the height proposed within Five dock. There already appears to be an oversupply of units in the Sydney area. The number of units proposed is excessive.

- I am particularly concerned with regard to the impact such a development would have on the surrounding area and in particular the amount of extra traffic which would be generated. There are already traffic snarl ups at peak times, particularly with the proximity of Parramatta Road and local schools. Five Dock is not very well serviced by buses and our metro station is not due to be completed until 2032.

- The metro station is not really within walking distance to the proposed development necessitating the use of either public transport or private car to get to it. Where will everyone park? There is no multi storey car park proposed for the station.

- KIngs Bay Estate has limited visitor parking and William Street is very congested with cars parked either side of the road. It already feels overcrowded.

- I do not believe there is enough open green space proposed within the proposed development. People living in units need green spaces to relax and enjoy. They need to enjoy nature.

- I do not oppose providing affordable housing but I do object to the scale of it. It needs to be within an area that is capable of supporting it with appropriate infrastructure - roads and transport.

The proposal poses to cause disruption and unwelcome changes to the to the local area. The height of the proposed buildings, added congestion and strain to the traffic network, further issues with parking availability, and disturbances to local convenience and facilities are some of the chief concerns. The area has become an inviting and appealing suburb to residents based on years of considerate planning and preservation of local heritage and high standards for the local community. This proposal does not seem aligned with these values in its practicality.

As a local resident in William St, I provide the following as objections to the proposed development:
- The height of the developments will dwarf the current existing dwellings and nearby buidlings
- The proposal only just complies with the minimum code requirements for parking. The current parking in and around William Street is already beyond capacity. Visitors wishing to park to visit us are often required to park a significant distance from our unit.
- The motor vehicle traffic has increased exponentially since we moved in twenty-three years ago. The volume of traffic along William St increased significantly after the traffic lights were installed at the corner of William and Queen Sts. William Street is quite narrow and has parking on both sides and has a bend which makes exiting into William Street very difficult due to poor visibility as well as the sheer number of cars and trucks that use the road. This will only be made worse both during the construction phase as well as with all of the additional vehicles the proposed development will house.
- I am aware that the new metro will be located within walking distance, however, they are not scheduled to be operational until at least 2032. In the interim, there is insufficient public transport.
-

The proposal involves considerably higher buildings than surrounding residents understood was to be provided under the exhibited Canada Bay controls.

I understand that this allowable due to the delivery of affordable housing under State controls. However, the height difference is extreme (compared to the local controls). This is one of the first developments in the area.

Does this scale reflect the objectives of the planning controls?

Park K of the Canada Bay Development Control Plan which contains objectives for Kings Bay indicates that development should: ‘encourage and facilitate development on the site which, in terms of scale, bulk, form and character reflects the physical context of the site and is sympathetic to surrounding residential development’.

The height of the towers will dwarf many of the existing lower density housing areas. The documentation appears preoccupied with the development and housing uplift.

What they can ‘have’ rather than how it is sensitive to the context or how it really gives back in terms of area support, landscaping and local infrastructure or open space.

Clause 8.3 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan, 2013 indicates that ‘(e) for Area 32—at least 2,290m2 of public open space on land at 57 Queens Street, Five Dock that fronts William Street, Five Dock.

This site is 31,300m2 in area and is to be developed with an affordable housing development to increase homes in accordance with FSR and height uplifts. The bare minimum open space is provided yet the density is so much higher.

Development of this large site provides the opportunity to provide improved open space, more than just the minimum. This would provide appropriate public interest benefits and provide the type of liveability desired by all planning controls.

The development should provide appropriate landscaping and open space to balance the scale, in accordance with the Canada Bay Development Control Plan and to provide a desirable living environment. The documents state that only 12% of soft landscaping is provided at the ground plane and only 15% of deep soil planting/zones for the site. In the context of a 31,300m2 site and a massive built development.

Development is supposed to allocate a park and create a village. Street trees and improved planting would benefit the scale, create the village character and improve the pedestrian experience for residents and visitors. Tree canopy appears to be 34% when 25% is required for medium to high density.

Given the particularly high density and housing uplift, improved tree and urban canopy provision would be appropriate. This would accord with urban heat island objectives and mitigate urban climate issues. Heat, water flow over hard surfaces and reflectivity will be made worse for existing residents.

The proposal is noted not to comply with the Kings Bay Development Control Plan in relation to tree planting, landscape to balance built form and the provision of street trees. The objectives of the Kings Bay chapter include to create lively and attractive streetscapes that are safe and attractive and to improve the pedestrian experience, to increase tree canopy cover and provide for more greenery associated with the public domain.

The documents provide flood modelling. Flood modelling should be assessed on an area wide basis to address what would occur if the whole area is to be redeveloped for larger than zoned developments with minimum open space and soft/absorptive landscaped areas.

Flood and water management should assess all changes including the proposed road changes. It is noted that the proposal only just complies with the minimum/maximum code requirements for parking so it is assumed that there would be spill on effects to the already congested and parked out surrounding areas.

Kings Bay Estate is already impacted by people from the broader area parking within its local road network and this implicates available visitor parking for visitors of the Kings Bay Estate residents. This is a serious issue for visitors who require accessible access. There are generally no, or very few opportunities to park within the estate due to broader community members using the area for parking.

The traffic report refers to counts in July 2023. Was this conducted during school holiday period for State schools and independent schools?

I would like an updated report to be completed providing evidence of it being completed during the school term and at peak traffic times for the local area. For example 7am-9.30am and 2pm-6pm Monday – Friday.

Noting that covid lockdowns and work from home arrangements have been in place for the last few years. It is only just now that many people are being required to attend/commute again to offices. The traffic count is not considered to be representative of the real situation.

The traffic report refers to a strategic assessment which was done as part of the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy. However, this strategy did not envisage the additional dwellings proposed under this proposal.
The strategic study should therefore be reviewed to be current given the State Affordable Housing provisions being utilised for larger developments.

The traffic and planning assessments should assess the cumulative impact of this development in connection with other much denser developments on the broader local road network. The assessment should be revisited by Council and Transport for NSW.

The traffic and planning reports discuss this site as being ‘walking distance’ to the Metro station however the station is to be 1.2km away and is not considered to be close walking distance for the purposes of reducing traffic/reliance on cars. Park K of the Canada Bay Development Control Plan indicates that ‘existing high traffic volumes on surrounding streets; • limited north-south connections across Parramatta Road, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists; • a current lack of reliable public transport; • heritage items and sensitive uses which require appropriate setbacks and transitions; and • limited, poor quality public domain are challenges for development.

The planning and traffic report puts forward the availability of bus services. With the potential new employment zone and planned housing numbers, what is the strategic plan for additional servicing?

Has the additional pressure on the strategic road network from additional required buses been assessed?

This should occur to prevent worsening traffic issues and grid locks in this area and along Parramatta Road. The traffic report is not considered to accurately assess traffic impacts on William Street North. This section is already fast moving, dangerous, parked out and curved road (with constrained visibility).

Numerous vehicles have been hit/scratched in this section of William Street North due to speeds and being parked out either side. The commercial component of the development would be attracting residents from further afield.

William Street North is problematic, congested and noisy for Kings Bay residents and this would be made worse and effect commute/access times.

There is currently gridlock, particularly during school times and peak hours in this local area. Kings Bay Estate Residents already suffer from traffic congestion, including additional traffic throughout the estate and the traffic impact assessment is not considered to adequately address the cumulative effects of increased traffic resulting from this high-density development with supermarket/commercial during peak hours in the broader area.

Concern is raised relation as to the impact of large trucks for the supermarket, delay times and peak times which are associated with supermarket developments.

There would be peaks likely with the employment uses as well. The traffic impact assessment underestimates the additional traffic movements and consequently the impact on the already problematic traffic situation which current residents suffer.

There are currently already considerable traffic delays experienced in the area. The fact that drivers will seek alternative routes in the local road network when congestion occurs should be considered.

Traffic impacts such as these will impact existing residents in terms of emergency response times which should also be considered for residents and emergency personnel. Increased risks at intersections, and risks to the elderly and children, should be considered in relation to increased problem traffic, increase in larger delivery vehicles, hazards and driver impatience.

How will local infrastructure be upgraded to support this and potential other larger developments than anticipated?

Whilst no objection is proposed to the affordable housing, the area needs to be able to support it. It needs to be supported by a liveable environment and supportive/capable roads and transport. Any comments on the proposed road upgrades?

While the development of the proposed area is generally welcome, in my view as a local resident, this proposal would not be satisfactory.

The proposed height and volume of residences will adversely impact on the existing residents and people currently using the area for school, work and exercise, as well as the future resident of the development.

I am disappointed that, again, it seems that property investors, rather than owner occupiers, are the target buyers of these units. And it seems neither the developer nor the government is interested in what the impact will be on existing and future residents. There’s nothing in there for young families who were hoping to live in the area. Even less for existing residents. This will be another white elephant, with majority of units kept empty and held for capital gains only, at the expense of people living in the area.

The proposed height of the development is truly extreme! What will be the local environment impact? Changes in micro climate making it much colder with wind tunnels in winter and heating canyon effect in summer. Not to mention greenhouse effect of cooling and heating inside of those truly monster buildings. Overlooking of private gardens and pool areas is another concern.

There is some mention of great existing infrastructure, yet it is actually not sufficient for the existing population.
The local schools are overcrowded with demountables covering areas once used for school sport. Is there a plan for new schools and kindergartens to be built?

There is already a heavy local and through traffic in the area, it is difficult to join the traffic from side streets in the peak hour and find parking as is, let alone if another 2000-3000 cars are added by this proposed development. Who will compensate existing residents and council for the cost they will incur due to changes required to cope with this additional traffic?

The public transport in the area is near non-existent. Few buses that do exist are few and far in between, unusable for any meaningful transport, while the proposed metro line is 10+ years away from being open – and even then it would be too far away for future residents of this development to be able to walk to it.

Will the local area be upgraded to cope with this additional car, e-bike and foot traffic?

We feel that the proposed development is completely out of character with the area. The proposed building heights far exceed anything currently in Five Dock & the surrounding precinct.
Additionally we feel this development will have an adverse affect on the local residents, roads & on street parking which is already at a premium in the area.

My main objection is the height of the proposed development, which will dwarf the neighbouring low to medium density housing. The height needs to be capped at or around 6 stories. The amount of green space and tree canopy is disproportionate to the size of the proposal.

The proposal will also lead to a very sizeable increase in population with a very sizable increase in vehicle traffic to an already busy area. The phasing of the traffic lights at William and Queen Streets regularly takes multiple cycles for vehicles to cross. William and Queen Streets are already a rat run and will only get worse.

With limitted off street parking, parking will spill onto William Street.

The proposal involves substantially higher buildings . The height of the towers will dwarf many of the existing lower density housing areas. The proposal focuses on the development and housing uplift. What they can ‘have’ rather than how it is sensitive to the context or how it really gives back in terms of area support, landscaping and local infrastructure or open space.

- The proposal only just complies with the minimum code requirements for parking, so the assumption is there will be spill on effects to the already congested and parked out surrounding areas.

o Kings Bay Estate is already impacted by people from the broader area parking within its local road network and this implicates available visitor parking for visitors of the Kings Bay Estate residents.
o There are generally no, or very few opportunities to park within the estate due to broader community members using the area for parking.
o This is a serious issue for visitors who require accessible access.

- Key information about how the Government will deliver infrastructure such as new and upgraded schools, transport, roads, and health facilities is missing.
o How will local infrastructure be upgraded to support this and potential other larger developments than anticipated?

- There is current traffic gridlock, especially during peak hours and school times in this local area. Kings Bay Estate Residents already suffer from traffic congestion, including additional traffic throughout the estate and the traffic impact assessment is not considered to adequately address the cumulative effects of increased traffic resulting from this high density development with supermarket/commercial during peak hours in the broader area.

- The traffic impact assessment underestimates the additional traffic movements and consequently the impact on the already problematic traffic situation which current residents suffer. There is currently already considerable traffic delays experienced in the area.

Whilst no objection is proposed to the affordable housing, the area needs to be able to support it. Infrastructure needs to be updated and need to be supported by a liveable environment and supportive/capable roads and transport.

I have concerns about the shadow cast over my property and the area where I live. In the winter my property only receives limited sunlight about half of the nabers in the area. On the northern side of my property a3.5 metres high wall separates Phill Gilbert Toyota business from me.
Perhaps on a map it is noted the low ark of the sun at that time of the year. So me living in a 1920s single level house where that could be a problem. Thanks for the opportunity to enter my concerns. Yous faithful Mr Barry piggott.

I object to the scale of this large-scale development due to the considerable height of the buildings compared to the surrounding buildings and height controls exhibited under Canada Bay controls. I understand that this allowed due to the delivery of affordable housing under State controls, however only 18% of the 1,185 apartments are going to be affordable housing apartments - 219 to be exact. As this is the first large scale project the height difference is extreme compared to the local controls and is not aligned with a village feel for the King's Bay area nor planning controls for Canada Bay.
I am concerned with the amount of parking available. The Canada Bay Development Control Plan states the objectives for Kings
Bay indicates that development should: ‘encourage and facilitate development on the site which, in terms of scale, bulk, form and character reflects the physical context of the site and is sympathetic to surrounding residential development’. This development is not reflective of the local character especially when compared to other developments in the area including Kings Bay and Breakfast Point developments that provide more open space, and a community feel. The height of the towers will dwarf many of the existing lower density housing areas. High rise developments detract from the area and over time their physical appearance deteriorates and seeing laundry on balconies, pop up screens for privacy and usually dumped furniture etc on the sidewalk makes them ugly.
Clause 8.3 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan, 2013 indicates that ‘(e) for Area 32—at least 2,290m2 of public open space on land at 57 Queens Street, Five Dock that fronts William Street, Five Dock.
This site is 31,300m2 in area and is to be developed with an affordable housing development to increase homes in accordance with FSR and height uplifts. The bare minimum open space is provided yet the density is so much higher and should provide the opportunity to provide improved open space, more than just the minimum. Cananda Bay is proactive in providing increased tree planting and creating a tree canopy to improve the environment and feel of the area. The development should provide
appropriate landscaping and open space to balance the immense scale of the development, in accordance with the Canada Bay Development Control Plan and to provide a desirable living environment. Therefore, the proposal does not comply with the Kings Bay Development Control Plan in relation to tree planting landscape to balance built form and the provision of street
trees. The objectives of the Kings Bay chapter include to create lively and attractive streetscapes that are safe and attractive and to improve the pedestrian experience, to increase tree canopy cover and provide for more greenery associated with the public
domain.
Of greater concern, the development proposal only just complies with the minimum/maximum code requirements for parking so it is assumed that there would be spill on effects to the already congested and parked out surrounding areas. Kings Bay Estate is already impacted by people from the broader area parking within its local road network and this implicates available visitor parking for visitors of the Kings Bay Estate residents. This is a serious issue for visitors who require accessible access. There are generally no, or very few opportunities to park within the estate due to broader community members using the area for parking and with the metro line coming there is even more concern over the lack of parking. Traffic congestion is also a major concern both Harris Road, Queens Rd, and William St are bottlenecks in peak times and school times and access to the King's Bay Estate is already impacted. Adequate overflow parking is required as well as access for delivery trucks for a proposed supermarket. The traffic report is not considered to accurately assess traffic impacts on William Street North. This section is already fast moving, dangerous, parked out and curved road (with constrained visibility). Numerous vehicles have been hit/scratched in this section of William Street North due to speeds and being parked out either side. William Street North is problematic, congested and noisy for Kings Bay residents and this would be made worse and effect commute/access times. I have already raised concerns to the local council with the roundabouts on Harris Road and Lyons Rd giving access to the Kings Bay area, I have had numerous near misses of cars not giving way and not seeing the roundabouts as we exit and enter the Kings Bay area and stated an accident is inevitable at these roundabouts due to the already increased traffic.
Thus I object to the scale of this development and this development should be reduced in scale to reflect the Canada Bay planning controls and height restrictions as well as keeping a village atmosphere. I am not against affordable housing being included as this is important but concerned the high-rise development over time will cause the following-
1. Increased traffic congestion.
2. Increase in crime.
3. Building deterioration of the facade as well as laundry and screens on balconies.
4. Shadows/glare from the height of the buildings.
5. Major parking issues for local residents already coping with lack of parking especially disabled parking.
6. Loss of property value due to the large scale development and losing the character of the area.
7. Concern of the occupancy and these buildings becoming derelict.
8. Lack of open space and trees landscaping, no inclusion of roof gardens etc
Thank you for considering my objection.

Hi all

I object to the proposal due to the scale and bulk of the buildings in the submission. I understand that Sydney needs to increase its housing density due to the housing supply / affordability crisis but the size of the buildings proposed in the submission are considerably higher and larger than any existing buildings in the surrounding area and will have a large impact on the quality of life of existing residents.

This is one of the first developments in the light industrial area on William Street / Queens Road / Spencer Street. If this is allowed to be built as per its current form in the submission , this will give the green light for other developments of the same scale and bulk in the surrounding light industrial area. Currently there is already another submission at the EIS Stage - SSD-78287462, this is for another building at 25 stories. If this continues along Queens Road and Spencer street where the light industrial land is turned into residential housing with 25 plus levels allowed , this could be an increase of thousands of apartments on an area that is already highly congested.

There is already gridlock, particularly during school times and peak hours in this local area. Kings Bay Estate Residents already suffer from traffic congestion, including additional traffic throughout the estate and the traffic impact assessment is not considered to adequately address the cumulative effects of increased traffic resulting from this high density development with supermarket/commercial during peak hours in the broader area.

I have read the traffic impact assessment report that was conducted by the developers consultant. This follows the time honoured tradition by consultants, of managing to find a result that suits the organisation that paid for the report. In the report it talks about no significant impact on the surrounding areas , i completely disagree with that.

The traffic impact assessment underestimates the additional traffic movements and consequently the impact on the already congested traffic situation which current residents have to deal with. There are currently already considerable traffic delays experienced in the surrounding area.

The traffic report is also not considered to accurately assess traffic impacts on William Street North. This section is already fast moving, dangerous, parked out and curved road (with constrained visibility). Numerous vehicles have been hit/scratched in this section of William Street North due to speeds and being parked out either side. The commercial component of the development would be attracting residents from further afield. William Street North is problematic, congested and noisy for Kings Bay residents and this would be made worse and effect commute/access times.

There is also the issue of parking which is already strained , on occasions you are unable to park in your own street and have to use the parking at Five dock Leisure centre or Canada bay club. The proposal only just complies with the minimum/maximum code requirements for parking so it is assumed that there would be spill on effects to the already congested and parked out surrounding areas. Kings Bay Estate is already impacted by people from the broader area parking within its local road network and this implicates available visitor parking for visitors of the Kings Bay Estate residents. This is a serious issue for visitors who require accessible access. There are generally no, or very few opportunities to park within the estate due to broader community members using the area for parking.

The traffic and planning reports discuss this site as being ‘walking distance’ to the Metro station however the station is to be 1.2km away and is not considered to be close walking distance for the purposes of reducing traffic/reliance on cars.

I believe at a minimum an independent traffic consultant not paid for by the developer should be consulted and a report produced to provide an objective analysis on not only the impact of this current submission but future submissions in the surrounding streets.

In summary, I object to the proposal in its current form due to the scale and bulk of the building which will strain existing infrastructure which will have a large impact on existing residents. I would not object if it was reduced in scale and more parking was provided for in the submission.

Thanks

Dear Sir / madam,
We are writing to object to the height of the towers proposed as part of the
Application no. SSD-73228210. As shown in the Environmental Impacts document
our house will be overshadowed until 10am during the winter months, which is
unacceptable to us.
The current direct sunlight and warmth we experience all year-around is one of the
reasons we bought this house. To have our house cast into shadow as a result of a
non-compliant proposed height is strenuously objected to. The assertion that the
non-compliant elements are mitigated by ‘the appearance of the encroaching
elements and architectural roof features have been thoughtfully integrated into the
overall design of the upper levels of the tower.’ is of no consequence to us – being
overshadowed is being overshadowed.

We also strenuously object to all the assertions in the follow two paragraphs on Page
118 of the Environment Impact Statement:
‘A Clause 4.6 Request has been prepared to address the non-compliance with the
maximum building height. Despite the minor non-compliances with the maximum
building heights, this does not result in a non- compliance with the maximum FSR
applicable to the site. In accordance with the bonus provisions, the proposed FSR for
the development is 4.095:1, and is therefore permissible.
The extent of the shadows cast by the proposal including the areas of roof
articulation which exceed the maximum building height permitted under the Housing
SEPP 2021, measured from ground level (existing), are shown at Figure 91 below.
As shown in the shadow diagrams, the extent of the variation (shown in lilac) does
not result in any unreasonable overshadowing of public or private spaces.’

Whilst we support the need for new housing, including social housing we object to
the 30% ‘bonus’ height for providing social housing if it comes at the expense of our
quality of life, especially when we bought our home through years of hard work and
saving to buy it.
We suggest the overall heights of the towers is reduced to the point where we are
not overshadowed at all year-round.
In addition to our support for the development, we also believe that as residents
living across from the development we should have access to the commercial
entities that will form part of the development. We believe that an overhead
footbridge should be provided for residents on the Burwood LGA side of Parramatta
Road at Short Street as part of the building process so we can avail of any benefits
that could be reasonably expected as the result of it being built. To not have this

means walking hundreds of metres to find a crossing that would allow us to get to
the development.
Kind regards,
Lang Street resident
Croydon 2132

The proposal involves considerably higher buildings than surrounding residents understood was to be provided under the exhibited Canada Bay controls. We understand that this allowable due to the delivery of affordable housing under State controls.
However, the height difference is extreme (compared to the local controls). This is one of the first developments in the area. Is this the scale of development we want for the ‘village’ of Kings Bay? Does this scale reflect the objectives of the planning controls?
Park K of the Canada Bay Development Control Plan which contains objectives for Kings Bay indicates that development should: ‘encourage and facilitate development on the site which, in terms of scale, bulk, form and character reflects the physical context of the site and is sympathetic to surrounding residential development’.
The height of the towers will dwarf many of the existing lower density housing areas. The documentation appears preoccupied with the development and housing uplift. What they can ‘have’ rather than how it is sensitive to the context or how it really gives back in terms of area support, landscaping and local infrastructure or open space.
Clause 8.3 of the Canada Bay Local Environmental Plan, 2013 indicates that ‘(e) for Area 32—at least 2,290m2 of public open space on land at 57 Queens Street, Five Dock that fronts William Street, Five Dock.
This site is 31,300m2 in area and is to be developed with an affordable housing development to increase homes in accordance with FSR and height uplifts. The bare minimum open space is provided yet the density is so much higher. Development of this large site provides the opportunity to provide improved open space, more than just the minimum. This would provide appropriate public interest benefits and provide the type of liveability desired by all planning controls. The development should provide appropriate landscaping and open space to balance the scale, in accordance with the Canada Bay Development Control Plan and to provide a desirable living environment.
The documents state that only 12% of soft landscaping is provided at the ground plane and only 15% of deep soil planting/zones for the site. In the context of a 31,300m2 site and a massive built development. Development is supposed to allocate a park and create a village.
Street trees and improved planting would benefit the scale, create the village character and improve the pedestrian experience for residents and visitors.
Tree canopy appears to be 34% when 25% is required for medium to high density. Given the particularly high density and housing uplift, improved tree and urban canopy provision would be appropriate. This would accord with urban heat island objectives
and mitigate urban climate issues. Heat, water flow over hard surfaces and reflectivity will be made worse for existing residents.
The proposal is noted not to comply with the Kings Bay Development Control Plan in relation to tree planting, landscape to balance built form and the provision of street trees. The objectives of the Kings Bay chapter include to create lively and attractive streetscapes that are safe and attractive and to improve the pedestrian experience, to increase tree canopy cover and provide for more greenery associated with the public domain.
The documents provide flood modelling. Flood modelling should be assessed on an area wide basis to address what would occur if the whole area is to be redeveloped for larger than zoned developments with minimum open space and soft/absorptive landscaped areas.
Flood and water management should assess all changes including the proposed road changes.
It is noted that the proposal only just complies with the minimum/maximum code requirements for parking so it is assumed that there would be spill on effects to the already congested and parked out surrounding areas. Kings Bay Estate is already impacted by people from the broader area parking within its local road network and this implicates available visitor parking for visitors of the Kings Bay Estate residents. This is a serious issue for visitors who require accessible access. There are generally no, or very few opportunities to park within the estate due to broader community members using the area for parking.
The traffic report refers to counts in July 2023. Noting that covid lockdowns and work from home arrangements have been in place for the last few years. It is only just now that many people are being required to attend/commute again to offices. The traffic count is not considered to be representative of the real situation.
The traffic report refers to a strategic assessment which was done as part of the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy. However, this strategy did not envisage the additional dwellings proposed under this proposal. The strategic study should therefore be reviewed to be current given the State Affordable Housing provisions being utilised for larger developments.
The traffic and planning assessments should assess the cumulative impact of this development in connection with other much denser developments on the broader local road network. The assessment should be revisited by Council and Transport for NSW.
The traffic and planning reports discuss this site as being ‘walking distance’ to the Metro station however the station is to be 1.2km away and is not considered to be close walking distance for the purposes of reducing traffic/reliance on cars.

Park K of the Canada Bay Development Control Plan indicates that ‘existing high traffic volumes on surrounding streets; • limited north-south connections across Parramatta Road, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists; • a current lack of reliable public transport; • heritage items and sensitive uses which require appropriate setbacks and transitions; and • limited, poor quality public domain are challenges for development.
The planning and traffic report puts forward the availability of bus services. With the potential new employment zone and planned housing numbers, what is the strategic plan for additional servicing? Has the additional pressure on the strategic road network from additional required buses been assessed? This should occur in order to prevent worsening traffic issues and grid locks in this area and along Parramatta Road.
The traffic report is not considered to accurately assess traffic impacts on William Street North. This section is already fast moving, dangerous, parked out and curved road (with constrained visibility). Numerous vehicles have been hit/scratched in this section of William Street North due to speeds and being parked out either side. The commercial component of the development would be attracting residents from further afield. William Street North is problematic, congested and noisy for Kings Bay residents and this would be made worse and effect commute/access times.
There is currently gridlock, particularly during school times and peak hours in this local area. Kings Bay Estate Residents already suffer from traffic congestion, including additional traffic throughout the estate and the traffic impact assessment is not considered to adequately address the cumulative effects of increased traffic resulting from this high density development with supermarket/commercial during peak hours in the broader area.
Concern in raised relation as to the impact of large trucks for the supermarket, delay times and peak times which are associated with supermarket developments. There would be peaks likely with the employment uses as well.
The traffic impact assessment underestimates the additional traffic movements and consequently the impact on the already problematic traffic situation which current residents suffer. There are currently already considerable traffic delays experienced in the area.
The fact that drivers will seek alternative routes in the local road network when congestion occurs should be considered.
Traffic impacts such as these will impact existing residents in terms of emergency response times which should also be considered for residents and emergency personnel.

Increased risks at intersections, and risks to the elderly and children, should be considered in relation to increased problem traffic, increase in larger delivery vehicles, hazards and driver impatience.
How will local infrastructure be upgraded to support this and potential other larger developments than anticipated?
Whilst no objection is proposed to the affordable housing, the area needs to be able to support it. It needs to be supported by a liveable environment and supportive/capable roads and transport.

The project outlined has not been designed with consideration to the greater community and area:
Injecting over 1000 apartments (and therefore approx 2000 people) to an area where infrastructure, roads and schools are not able to cater to is grossly irresponsible. The roads, firstly are extremely congested especially around school times, with no ability to fix or widen them. The building is designed to absolutely tower over Rosebank high school and the neighbouring homes.
The schools in the area- concord, five Dock, rosebank, are all at capacity, with concord high struggling to fit students. There is no plan in place to add a new school to cater to over 2000 residents, many of which are families.
The apartments are not designed for long term living or for families- with 1 and 2 bedroom apartments the majority- this is not needed- the area needs medium density housing, that is, townhouses.
There has been no thought to the benefit of the community to inject this many residents. The town centre is getting apartment blocks, however not to this height nor scale, making these better suited to the area.
There is extremely poor public transport in five Dock, and the metro is 1.2km away, and uphill, not making this an ‘easy walk’ for many, meaning more cars will be on the road and less parking available in the town centre and across our streets. The proposed retail precinct once again will draw more cars to the already congested area which has not been factored in.
All round this is the most unplanned, unconsidered development that seeks to wreak havoc in and area not designed for this many residents.
Medium density housing will inject needed family homes and bring a greater community to the area, and will be less taxing on the current (poor) infrastructure.

SSD-73228210 Mixed Use development with affordable housing- 125-153 Parramatta Road and 53-75 Queens Road Five Dock
- preference for medium density housing over high density housing This will impact local character and the community
- excessive building height for 6 buildings 14-31 storeys high for 129-153 Parramatta Road Five Dock, causing over shadowing over neighbouring residential properties. This will impact local character and the community
- excessive building height for 4 buildings at 4-7 storeys high for 53-75 Queens Road Five Dock, causing over shadowing over neighbouring single level residential properties and create wind tunnels affecting the neighbouring residential properties. Privacy is also at issue when tall buildings can look into neighbouring residential properties. Medium density of 4 buildings of 2 storeys in height is better inline with neighbouring properties.
- traffic congestion on Queens Road during peak hours at the current state, building high density housing would only exacerbate situation with no solution in sight. Queens Road is a very narrow street with no room for widening/expansion.
- traffic congestion on Parramatta Road as more vehicular traffic would be generated by this high density housing
- construction noise and traffic for a number of years during construction phase.
- insufficient parking at both sites, at present, off street parking is not adequate to service the local community
- proximity of 129-153 Parramatta Road to Burwood North Metro and Five Dock Metro (projected opening in 2032) too far to walk for metro public transport
- capacity of local schools to accommodate expected high volume of 72.1% increase in population
- Rosebank College students and staff would have to suffer with noise, pollution, etc for a number of years which would affect their learning experience and mental health.