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

The area around the proposed development is already very busy with traffic and people. Queens road is a major thoroughfair for cars, combined with William street that is already incredible busy, adding over 2000 apartments will completely saturate the area that is already incredible busy. The current size of the buildings in the Kings Bay Area will be dwarfed by the new development and won’t do anything to build a sense of community. This will completely saturate the area.
In addition, building predominately 1 and 2 bedroom units will only cause short term owners and renters as they are too small for a growing family. Kids and family’s need space and need to be able to make noise, none of which can be done in extreme high density apartments. So families won’t stay here, which means you wiling be building apartments for Five the people of Five Dock. You will be building apartments for people to try for a year or so, and decide they do t like them because of the lack of space and then move out to find more space. We need townhouses with sunlight and fresh air, not dark dingy prison like apartment blocks.
The other issue is there is no viable public transport options meaning people will be driving and you aren’t providing 2 car spaces for every apartment, meaning people will be parking their cars on the street, on an already impossibly busy street. This will cause them to park on side streets in other residential areas taking up the street space of the residents that live in those side streets (Kings road for example).
If this new development goes ahead it will go against everything that Canada Bay council is trying to achieve with its environmental footprint and all its doing to create a beautiful tree lined streets with open spaces for people to live on. There is no way that adding 2300 apartments on a 31,000m2 site will be able to achieve this. Simple maths show that each apartment would have to be TINY in order to have enough open space to fulfil the requirements of the council. Again, having small tiny apartments in HUGH hi rises will kill the area and only suits to benefit the developers and builders. Not the community of Five Dock.

the height difference is extreme (compared to the local controls). This is one of the first developments in the area. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.

In regard to my review of the the exhibition documents submitted for the...

NSW State Significant Development SSD-73228210,
being the -
“Excavation, tree removal, remediation, subdivision and construction of a mixed-used development with 1185 apartments including 219 affordable housing apartments and commercial, retail, an indoor recreational facility and public park land uses”

I herewith submit my proposal for it's rejection, based on the 'Preliminary Development Application' Architectural Drawings and assorted supporting documentation.


1. Deceptive Presentation:
The Cover Sheet (see Appendix 1 – Cover Sheet) shows Block A at 25 storeys, not the 31 storeys as revealed by the Sections and Elevations. Additionally, there are no major shadows for mid-summer projected from the very tallest buildings onto the site and surrounding areas included in the documentation.

2. Lack of Sustainable Design Features:
It is apparent from the Landscape Design Finishes (See Appendix 2 & 3 – Landscape Finishes) and the Architectural Materials and Finishes Board (See Appendix 4 – Materials & Finishes Board) showing just brick types and paint finishes) the construction elements have been chosen in haste with no future consideration of sustainability. Notably, all of the landscape 'Urbanstone' tile selections containing crystallised silica or 'engineered stone' are now banned. https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/hazards-a-z/hazardous-chemical/priority-chemicals/crystalline-silica/engineered-stone-ban. Additionally, there is no dedicated provision for low-e glass in these apartments to lower the thermal gain and reflectivity, on BASIX performance criteria. The current best practice benchmarks in NSW at October 2024 is achieving a 50% reduction in embodied carbon and a 50% reduction in operational energy (see Appendix 5 & 6 – Architecture & Design article from Oct – Dec 2024, pp. 12 -15).

3. Over-development of the site:
Initially, it is a massive over-development of the site regarding the total population numbers. At 1185 apartments multiplied by an average of a conservative and approximate number of 2.5 persons /apartment = 2,962.50 persons. It is nowhere in keeping with the expectations of the expected growth anticipated in the original Canada Bay Council 'Kings Bay Precinct Master Plan Report' of 2021 https://www.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Strategic%20Planning/1.%20Attachment_Masterplan%20Urban%20Design%20Report_Kings%20Bay%20Precinct%202021.pdf and the estimated growth suggested in the Canada Bay 'Five Dock Estimated Resident Population' growth estimates. https://profile.id.com.au/canada-bay/population-estimate?WebID=170 The over-development of the site is unsustainable. Many of the adjacent sites along Parramatta Road are commercially unviable and there are still many long-term untenanted vacancies surrounding the site.

4. CBC members objections to PRCUTS:
The Greens on the Canada Bay Council have recently noted and objected to the extreme “excessive height and overcrowding” regarding Canada Bay Council's adaption of the NSW Government's Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Strategy, known as PRCUTS. https://canadabaygreens.org/council-accepts-high-rise-rezoning-proposal-despite-major-flaws/ There are many clamouring official and local voices for a deescalation of these congested high-density planning proposals.

5. Site Density:
What is particularly disturbing is within the architectural documentation it claims to follow “in the spirit” of the 2021 Master Plan Report. It does so only in a limited corridor of the overall proposed PRCUTS site but exceeds the total population allowed for in that document. The resultant for this site is 378 dw/ha as opposed to 119 dw/ha in the Group GSA Report of 2021. The population density for this suburban region is totally unacceptable. Sadly, it fits more appropriately with urban high-rise in Melbourne. This calculation is relevant to the site area of 31, 346 m2 in 'Appendix 7 – Lot Consolidation' versus the 1185 total number of apartments.

6. Overshadowing:
The overshadowing of Rosebank College in mid-summer will certainly be of serious concern but there is no indication of a mid-summer calculation of shadows in the documentation. Although the architectural documents spend some 17 pages of 'Existing Context – Shadow Diagrams' and 'Amenity Diagrams (ADG) Solar' explaining the best case re mid-winter sunlight access to apartments, when there is no addressing of the worst case scenarios. It's a major oversight and right now, in summer 24/25 (see Appendix 8 & 9 re the mid-summer sunpath) - it is increasing it's span every year and in the time of worsening climate-change there has been no appreciation of this in the architectural documentation.

7. Affordable apartments:
There are 219 affordable apartments of the total 1185 apartments. Thus 219/1185 = 0.1848 or 18.48% or 219 x 2.5 = 547.5 persons. This is lower than the best average of affordable apartments in the world is currently Denmark at 20% but many EU countries have suggested that it should be closer to 30%. Now “The demand for social and affordable housing dwellings within Canada Bay (in 2024) was estimated to be 5,058.” https://www.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-11/Revised%20AHCS_incl%20RW_AdpJun21_EffOct21_percetage%20clarified(updated%2026.11.2021).pdf. This accounts for about only 10.82% of the total required within the Canada Bay Council area. As a society we should be achieving a greater percentage of affordable apartments for these NSW SSD approved projects.

8. Traffic Management, Noise, Air Quality and Vibration:
There is already traffic gridlock around Rosebank College without the added constraints of this massive local population increase on the limited existing resources and burgeoning infrastructure. Plus, the effects of the external exhausts from the M4 tunnel (See Appendix 10 – M4 Tunnel proximity) has been overlooked. Despite the BASIX documentation suggesting performance criteria for the application of external shades and facade treatments, nothing has been documented that expresses the need to control the noise that will be internally and externally generated. The inability to dampen the noise and natural wind-borne noise heard in each apartment without some further detailed absorbent finishes and further noise controls is negligent and irresponsible.

9. Air Pollution & Maintenance:
The air quality in Five Dock is prone to be a product of the worst excesses of Parramatta Road and is constantly depositing dirt and dust into the local environment. One of the priorities of any tall building should be to plan for constant building cleaning and maintenance. Alarmingly, there appears to be no in-built consideration for the care and cleaning of the buildings in this submission.

10. Heating & Cooling:
In the immediate worsening summertime requirements there is no evidentiary planning for exceptional cooling solutions. Given that this is an 'all electric building' development the costs to residents in the 219 affordable apartments (as confirmed in https://www.theurbandeveloper.com/articles/deicorp-five-dock-apartments-retail) requires some radical rethinking in regard to reducing standard costs.

11. On-Site Water Retention:
Although the SSD design cites care and consideration of the site topography with the on site water flow descriptively performance managed, there is no evidence (given the collective run-off from the assorted buildings) for any water retention? Although, this is an area in which the water flow to King's Bay is highly sensitive to flooding and the effect of pollution upon the marine environment. https://www.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/PRCUTS_Flood%20Risk%20Assessment_Burwood%20and%20Kings%20Bay%20Precincts_September%202020.pdf

12. Water and Electrical Requirements:
A fundamental concern is that there is no sign of large-scale water storage for the 2,962.5 residents in times of increasing need during summer. A large-scale community swimming pool would be of assistance for any fire-related issues. At a basic requirement the water resources would need to cope with an annual consumption of 4,000 litres per person. Similarly, a significant electrical substation would be required to service the 1,185 apartments at a conservative estimate for 2.5 people at a minimum of 900 kWh per month. https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/NSW_Electricity_Supply_and_Reliability_CheckUp_Marsden_Jacob_Report_2023.pdf
These are indicative figures, as there appears to be no lateral thinking in regard to adequate resourcing. Sadly, the provision of a supermarket and retail stores, consuming more resources are the only additions shown. My objection is that this scheme is totally unrealistic.

13. Structural Issues:
The Sections depicting the slender concrete walls in the Architectural Drawing Sections (See Appendix 11 – Section N1) don't really indicate a real structure where there would be stiffening beams and upturns to the slabs hidden in the floor to floor height of 3.2 m to ensure that the building remains rigid and yet achieve the maximum heights required. As well as the ultra-thin podium slabs which aren't 'realistic'. There has been no serious structural design undertaken on this project.

14. Engagement Outcomes:
Given the speed with which this SSD project was approved for development the detailed Community Engagement Materials that are part of these documents (See Appendix 12 - Engagement Outcomes Report) were never ever distributed to the wider local community.

15. Conclusion:
It is my opinion that this SSD scheme is hastily assembled and should be redocumented with expert sustainability consultants. The current SSD scheme shows many fundamental weakness that should be resolved with simple, affordable solutions, leaving a legacy that is fit for future generations and isn't prone to be an ongoing headache for the citizens of Five Dock.

I strongly support this project and it should be approved as soon as possible, without restrictions, in order to help Sydney's dire housing supply crisis.
The communal open space and public recreation areas will make the development a great contribution to the local community, in addition to providing new homes for thousands of people.

I would like to lodge my concerns about this planned development for a number of reasons. More high quality residential development is generally needed across NSW but if it isn't planned carefully it will of course result in lower quality of living for new tenants and for the residents in surrounding property.

The first reason I am objecting is because, with so many apartments planned, it would very likely cause heavy traffic congestion in the area, to the point that it would become a significant bottleneck. There are multiple schools in the close vicinity including Rosebank College and Lucas Gardens School, with their associated school drop off / pick-up traffic, which is mostly on Queens Road that runs alongside these schools. Parramatta Road also has heavy traffic at these times despite the existence of the road tunnel running parallel. People travelling to/from work from this particular area of Five Dock, including myself, have few options due to the nearest train station being 30 minutes walk away (Croydon Station), and the closest planned metro station in Five Dock being 15 minutes walk away when completed around 2030-2032. Buses will only serve those who want to travel to destinations along Parramatta Road or the southern CBD, and to destinations along the L1 light rail line. But for all other destinations the only viable option is to drive either to that destination or to a nearby train station, resulting in more road traffic. With the planned 1,185 apartments, that will very likely result in many hundreds of extra vehicles each morning and evening peak, on the existing narrow Queens Road and William Street and surrounding streets, affecting tens of thousands of residents trying to drive to work or schools from Concord, Canada Bay and Five Dock.

The second reason I am objecting is due to this development being much more dense and tall compared to any other developments for at least a three kilometre radius, the closest tall residential towers over 10 storeys being in Burwood (which is served well by heavy rail and buses). Apart from the resulting traffic issues, there will be significant issues in providing enough space at existing nearby schools that are already full, as well as medical services and daycare. It is doubtful that investors would be confident that existing services in this regard would be able to sufficiently service such a uniquely dense residential development in an otherwise low-density area. The towers themselves, especially any that are over 10 storeys, will significantly affect the character of the area, which does already have residental apartment complexes, but those are of a certain lower density, in keeping with other apartment complexes not just in Five Dock, but also nearby Croydon, Canada Bay, Abbotsford, Chiswick, Concord and Cabarita. This new planned complex would be the only one of this density or height in any of these nearby suburbs, with none other coming close. Most apartment buildings in the area are between 2 and 5 storeys, so the difference in density is significant.

Thankyou for allowing me to provide feedback on this application.

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

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 that have this means walking hundreds of metres to find a crossing that would allow us to get to the development.
Kind regards,
4 Alfred Street
Croydon 2132

Hi I have concerns about this project affecting the sunlight on my property and the shadowing which will occur as a result of this proposed height of building.

I have concerns about my property and the lack of sun light for my property after this development being so high

This proposal will dramatically change the nature and style of the surrounding suburb. The scale of this building is uncharacteristic of a majority of the inner west and is excessive in nature. I am not opposed to developing the site for high density living but low rise style buildings of 10 to 15 floors should be the maximum for suburbs that have no other structures of this scale. If sky scrapper style buildings of this nature are the only solution to the current housing crisis then keep them in areas with similar or existing structures.

I am a resident at William St in Five Dock. I object because the traffic light intersection at Queens Road and William St is already so congested that it always banks up and blocks traffic, and William St and surrounding streets are already so full of cars and congestion. The proposed buildings will not have enough parking spaces for residents which will push them out onto the surrounding streets and there is no proposed infrastructure improvement for the area to accommodate the thousands of extra people and vehicles that will be circulating.

I am concerned with the height of the construction (31 stories) and also the insufficient car parking provided based on the number of apartments versus the number of car parks.
The height of the apartments blocks is significantly out of character with the surrounding buildings/ apartment blocks.
William Street is already heavily impacted by existing residences and this project will make parking even more difficult
Regards

David Meers

The density of housing with 1185 apartments in addition to the retail and commercial space is too high for the area. I consider the apartment buildings should not exceed 10 levels with a maximum of 300 apartments. The increased traffic from such a high number of apartments will turn Queens Road into the equivalent of a major highway. All traffic entries and exits from the complex should be from Parramatta Road and none from Queens Road. Parramatta Road is a major arterial road that can cope with the additional traffic but Queens Road is a narrow local road that was inappropriately categorised as a Classified Road.

I believe this project will create a major problem for the roadways around the area. There is little to no an available parking as it is and the roads around Five Dock are too narrow to support this major housing project. There is no sufficient infrastructure to support the number of residents who will occupy this development.

This project is incredibly large for the infrastructure currently in place in terms of the roads.

Normally queens road is grid locked as is, with the lack of development currently in existence. You have the school, the leisure centre and several business’ along queens road.
This road cannot handle the amount of increased traffic to the area and consideration needs to be made to this.

I do not object this being completely re-developed. However the sheer size needs to be assessed. Going ahead to with this development proposal as if would pose significant risk to current residents and their ability to move around this area. It would b a traffic hazard on an already extremely narrow road.

Queens street is already too narrow and cant handle traffic on a week day or weekend, especially around school hours, adding this many more cars to the area will be too much. Would be fine with a height limited building to maybe 6 stories.

We live at 58 Kings Road, two blocks from the proposed development. Each unit in our block of 8 2 bedroom apartments has a garage. There are an additional 3 shared car spaces. These spaces are hotly contested and street parking is quite tight.

The development is not near enough public transport to suppose that residents will not require a car. The car parking maximum allotment per unit of 0.3 per studio, 0.5 per 1 bedroom unit, 0.9 per 2 bedroom and 1.2 per 3 bedroom of this development of 1191 apartments will swamp the surrounding area with off-premises parkers.

The maximum car space allotments per unit should be lifted. An increased number of car spaces per apartment should be mandated.

Thank you.

I write to strenuously object to the proposed development in Five Dock/Parramatta Rd. I purchased a family home in the area specifically because this is a less developed and quieter area. The construction and existence of this development would make numerous disastrous impacts on the community. First on construction: the traffic conditions of streets in the area are already overburdened: the narrow streets of William St and Queens Rd (with street parking that already obscures visibility) make it already a difficult and at times dangerous place to drive, park and walk. I am deeply concerned that massive excavation, construction and truck ingress and egress will render the area even more congested and unsafe, especially for pedestrians and school children at the nearby Rosebank School. Second, the parking in the area is already overflowing: there is never any street parking for visitor and I am concerned when massive swathes of street are blocked for trucks etc there will be even less. Third, the noise of construction will be devastating for the area: I work from home and have an autistic child sensitive to noise: I am dreading deeply the constant construction noise and disruption for our family and the community, especially the intensive excavation of two basement parking areas, not to mention the longevity of the construction of the buildings themselves. Fourth in terms of the actual existence of the proposed buildings, I am outraged that a 31-storey tower has been deemed appropriate in such a low-lying suburban area. This development would severely impact the tone of the whole suburb which is max four-five storey buildings. It's putting profit over environmental impact and will be an eyesore and disastrous. Fifth, over 1100 more apartments means an enormous toll on already straining parking, traffic and crowdedness. Given this area is already under so much capacity, adding 2000+ more people is an extraordinary oversight. I understand we need more housing but this proposal is so enormously oversized for the area that I fear profit making incentives rather than thinking thoughtfully about adding value to existing suburban planning has won out. Sixth, the affordable housing component is concerning as a homeowner in the area: I fear it will negatively impact the value of homes including my own. I have fought hard to own a home in Five Dock and settled here because it is a safe, relatively quiet and kind community. I believe if this proposal is successful, it will be an enormously disruptive event, and negatively life-changing to the community. I could not object in more forceful terms.

We understand our community is in need of revitalisation as well as affordable housing but we also believe in quality of living for current and future residents as well as students/staff at Rosebank. We are highly concerned about the impact on our daily lives, air pollution, dust, noise and traffic/infrastructure/road safety a) during construction and development and b) once project is completed with the high influx of new residents and traffic in the area. We are already experiencing high traffic, unsafe roads, dust and noise currently from Queens Road/Harris Road/Parramatta Road and drivers using our Kings Road as a rat race and for school pick up/drop offs for Rosebank students. As landowners we are also concerned of our property value and privacy with our property facing the proposed high rise buildings but also concerned of our own future/where to live if our area will be subdivided as well. We have one child attending the adjacent Rosebank College and another to commence in a few years time. We are investing a lot in their education but now concerned how a major construction next door might impact the noise , danger of traffic, their daily studies and high school years. What considerations and potential compensation will be in place for residents and Rosebank students?

I object to this project as both a resident and home owner in Five Dock for more than 20 years. The specific areas I wish to object to include:
Stakeholder engagement area (figure 65) – for what is deemed a significant state development, it will certainly have a large negative impact on the suburb, traffic and permanently change the village character of Five Dock. The narrow scope of the engagement area is designed to reduce opposition to the project, particularly as the targeted area is mainly mixed-use commercial. Wider community consultation should be entered into. The residents that have already objected provide objections that echo my own.
Parking data and assumptions – this only shows the number of residences that have 1 vehicle in Five Dock. It does not show the % of residents that have multiple vehicles. This data should be added as it would better represent inter-generational households and multi-vehicle households in this area, including vehicle ownership and use in affordable housing.
Affordable housing vehicle parking allowances are low vs standard residential allowances. What data supports lower vehicle amenity/parking for affordable housing?
Only half of studio apartments have parking. However data shows that over 40% of residents will have at least 1 vehicle. How will other vehicles be accommodated? With severe parking shortages in surrounding streets, the development will place further pressure on street parking. Will parking restrictions be put in place in surrounding streets to limit parking to residents only? Residents of this development should be ineligible for street parking permits to reduce impact on amenity for existing residents.
Building height / bulk / scale / FSR is not compliant or in character
Building height with 30% bonus is up to 24 levels higher than typical maximum residential buildings in the Five Dock suburb. The height of this development is not in keeping with the character of the suburb. The maximum 31 levels (plus rooftop plant & equipment) should not be allowed. The 30% bonus should be removed to prevent a height precedent that will destroy local character amenity. The proposal is not appropriate for the area in terms of height, bulk and scale. The developer states that the 31 level towers will add a ‘cohesive and positive addition to the skyline’ – there is no evidence of this. In figures 98, 102 and 106 clearly show how the proposal is completely at odds with the local character and is a visual oddity in the Five Dock skyline. The unreasonable bulk / height / scale which is 20+ levels higher than surrounding medium density housing in Five Dock. The proposed FSR is significantly higher than the maximum allowable and the developer is using affordable housing to circumvent non-compliance for parking, height, FSR.
Traffic – Weekend and school-peak traffic periods already cause grid-lock in this area. This is a significant contributor to long-term social impact. Despite metro and bus services, local short distance travel is typically undertaken in vehicles in this area, particularly on weekends as residents shop, take children to sports and other leisure activities. Increased traffic and parking congestion will cause intense grid lock and negatively impact existing residents for the benefit of the developer. The traffic study by JMT did not consider the existing traffic congestion on Harris Road, Kings Road or Regatta Road during peak periods outside of morning/afternoon hours on school days.
Traffic – the JMT study indicates that traffic volumes were only assessed during morning and afternoon peak / school hours. No clarity is given on traffic volumes during weekend peak periods when William Street, Regatta Road, Harris Road can become most heavily congested as residents use vehicles for weekend short-trips.
The Traffic Control Plan during construction indicates signage will be placed outside of Rosebank college on Harris Road and Queens Road. Both of these locations feature narrow pedestrian footpaths and do not allow space for construction warning signage.
The proposal states that there are no unreasonable environmental impacts – this is a biased summation that ignores the reduced amenity and traffic / congestion impacts on the local communities, while providing a development of excessive bulk / height / scale that is at odds with the character of the suburb. The development proposal is using affordable housing purely as a lever to unreasonably increase the FSR / bulk / height / scale of the project.
Overshadowing assessment states that impacted properties will still receive 2hrs of winter sunlight. However, the significant reduction in sunlight for residential properties on the southern side of Parramatta Road is not detailed. Residents in the impacted zone will have a severe impact on the afternoon winter sun reaching their properties. The developer will negatively impact the amenity currently enjoyed by these residents who sit in the neighbouring local government area and whose interests may not be best represented by Canada Bay Council which administrates the Five Dock area.
Hours of construction are proposed as both Saturday and Sunday. However in the following sentence the developer states that no construction will occur on Sundays or public holidays. This is conflicting information.
I do support the rejuvenation of the development site, however I do not support the development that has been proposed for the reasons stated above.
Regards
Paul J