MIXED-USE PRECINCT WITH IN-FILL AFFORDABLE HOUSING – HUGHES AVENUE, MELROSE PARK SOUTH-WEST

This submission is made by George Weston Foods Limited (GWF) in response to the State Significant Development Application (SSDA) no. 71558711 currently on exhibition that seeks approval for construction of mixed-use buildings containing 1,375 units with supporting landscaping works at Melrose Park West at 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington NSW 2115 (Holdmark West Site).
In summary, GWF does not oppose the SSDA, but considers that the following matters should be taken into account during assessment:
• GWF has substantial landholdings in Melrose Park and Ermington, including a well-established bakery site. Constructing high density residential housing adjacent to existing commercial land uses is likely to create a land-use conflict.
• During construction, traffic impacts and dust emissions associated with the SSDA must be appropriately managed to ensure that GWF’s existing bakery operations are not adversely impacted.
• The SSDA proposes a dwelling yield higher than what was initially contemplated in strategic planning documents for Melrose Park. Any increased dwelling yield for the Holdmark West Site should not negatively impact the redevelopment of the remainder of the Melrose Park precinct and must be considered in determining the orderly and economic development of the precinct.

These matters have been addressed briefly in the below attached PDF. GWF may provide further information or submissions at a later time.

This submission has been prepared by Knight Frank Town Planning on behalf of Hales and Associates Staff
Pension Fund and the Sante Group in relation to 2 (B and C) Hope Street and 65 Atkins Road Ermington in
response to the State Significant Development Application (SSDA) currently on exhibition that seeks approval
for construction of mixed-use buildings containing approximately 1,375 units with supporting landscaping works
at Melrose Park West at 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington NSW 2115.

See attached submission.

I strongly support this proposal.
The reason as to why are the following
1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. It is excellent to see what seems to be an all electric building, saving future residents money & also reducing dependency and use of fossil fuels

Andrew & Louise Buchanan
10 Massie Street
Ermington NSW 2115
[email protected]
3 August 2025
Submission to the Planning Authority
Re: Development Application - Hughes Avenue, Melrose Park South West (SSD-71558711)
Dear Sir/Madam,
We write to lodge a formal submission regarding the proposed development currently on public exhibition for the Melrose Park South West precinct, specifically concerning the application SSD-71558711. As long-term residents of the area, we have significant concerns regarding the current form of the proposal, particularly in relation to construction impacts, insufficient parking provision, the timing and location of public open space, and serious implications for privacy, amenity, and environmental sustainability.
Please note that while we are not opposed to the redevelopment of the site in principle, we do object to the scale and intensity of the proposal as currently designed.
Built Form, Scale and Site Planning
In our view, the development’s massing and building heights should be more sensitively distributed across the site to ensure an appropriate interface with the existing low-density residential neighbourhood. Specifically, the development should be weighted more heavily toward the OS4 and B2 sectors, with reduced height and scale in the B1 and B3 sectors that adjoin existing homes.
The buildings currently under construction on Hope Street already demonstrate the imposing nature and visual dominance of large-scale structures in this area. Extending this intensity to the B1 and B3 sectors, directly adjacent to established residential dwellings, would severely impact the character, privacy, and amenity of the neighbourhood.
In contrast, the Hughes Avenue frontage has no immediate residential interface and is likely to undergo future redevelopment between Hughes Avenue and Waratah Street. Concentrating greater height and density on this side would provide a more appropriate and logical urban transition and reduce the adverse impacts on existing residents. This approach would also improve connectivity to public amenities and open space, which, under the current proposal, appears hidden at the rear of the site and potentially reserved for exclusive use by new tenants.
We also encourage serious consideration of improved transport connectivity through the provision of a ferry wharf near the development. This would offer a viable and cost-effective public transport option in the absence of an operational light rail system and would significantly reduce pressure on local roads.

Privacy, Overshadowing & Solar Access
The most concerning element of the proposal is the planned seven-storey apartment block adjacent to Atkins Road, with minimal setback from existing homes. This gives rise to two serious and unacceptable issues:
• Privacy Invasion: The height and proximity of the proposed buildings will allow new residents to overlook our homes and private backyards, severely compromising our right to residential privacy.
• Overshadowing and Impact on Renewable Energy: The bulk of Block B1 will significantly reduce sunlight access to neighbouring properties, particularly impacting existing rooftop solar systems. This undermines both household sustainability and broader government policies that encourage the use of renewable energy.
Recommendation: The height of buildings fronting Atkins Road should be reduced significantly and incorporate meaningful setbacks. We propose this portion of the site be limited to four storeys or less and potentially used as public open space or low-scale development to respect the existing built form.

Construction Noise, Vibration & Pollution
The EIS outlines a long-term, multi-staged construction program but fails to provide adequate mitigation strategies. Our experience with the current Melrose Central development has shown that construction impacts are poorly managed, resulting in:
• Uncontrolled noise and vibration, with no communication or notice provided to surrounding residents.
• Significant dust and air quality issues arising from demolition and earthworks. Currently, we are forced to wash our vehicles multiple times per week due to dust settling from nearby works.
• Poor traffic and site cleanliness management, with roads such as Hope Street and Hughes Avenue often caked in mud, especially during wet weather, creating rural-like conditions in a suburban area.
• Lack of enforcement of construction hours, with the current Hope Street development frequently operating outside permitted times.
We respectfully request the following be enforced through the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP):
• Strict limitations on construction hours, prohibiting early morning starts, weekend, or public holiday work.
• Real-time noise and dust monitoring, with publicly available data.
• Mandatory and routine street cleaning and site maintenance.
• Clear complaint procedures and accountability for breaches.
• Restrict construction vehicle access to Hughes Avenue only, with no access via Atkins Road to protect residential amenity.

Parking Provision
The proposal’s transport strategy relies heavily on the anticipated future operation of Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2, which is not yet funded or delivered. As such, assumptions that residents will forgo car ownership are premature and unrealistic.
• The proposed development provides less than half the required number of parking spaces, based on the projected occupancy rates (at least two persons per unit). This will inevitably result in overflow parking in surrounding residential streets, increasing congestion and reducing local amenity.
• The proposal must meet or exceed the Parramatta LEP and DCP standards for parking provision in mixed-use zones.
• Additionally, providing a ferry terminal nearby would support a modal shift in transport and alleviate pressure on road infrastructure.

Public Open Space
We welcome the inclusion of 2,673 m² of public open space. However, the lack of clarity regarding delivery timing is a significant concern. If this amenity is delayed until later stages, it will fail to provide benefit during early occupation or support the existing community throughout prolonged construction.
Recommendation: Public open space should be delivered in the early phases of the development to ensure equitable access for both new and existing residents. Alternatively, we suggest relocating the public open space closer to Atkins Road and adjacent to George Kendall Riverside Park, to create a seamless green corridor and buffer between higher-density development and existing homes.

Summary of Requests
In conclusion, we respectfully request that the Department consider the following:
1. Clearly define the affordable housing component, including management, eligibility, and operational criteria, to ensure transparency and community cohesion.
2. Substantially increase parking provisions for both residents and visitors, aligned with realistic demand and current public transport limitations.
3. Strengthen and enforce conditions on construction impacts, including real-time monitoring, effective communication, and clear accountability.
4. Ensure public open space is delivered early, and consider repositioning it for maximum community benefit.
5. Reassess the height and setbacks of Blocks B1 and B3 along Atkins Road to reduce overshadowing and privacy impacts, and better integrate with the existing built environment. This area should not exceed four storeys and may serve more suitably as open space or low-density development.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this submission and trust that our concerns will be given careful consideration in the assessment of this application.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew & Louise Buchanan
0410 421 230

There is a proposed substation on Hughes Avenue along the new light rail line. Are you able to provide additional information. Would not be too comfortable having a substation built right across where I live. Please provide more info.

Please refer to the attached documents.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for SSD-71558711 – the proposed mixed-use precinct at Hughes Avenue, Melrose Park South-West.

While I support appropriate development that provides housing and public benefits, I have serious concerns regarding the current proposal, especially in relation to overshadowing my own property, affordable housing delivery, parking provision, and construction-related environmental impacts.

1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING –
The proposal includes two 2-bedroom units of affordable housing to be offered “in perpetuity” to the Council. I object having this as part of the development for below main reasons:
• There are already many housing commission units in this suburb which led to streets being unsafe and not maintained properly by the Parramatta Council, I have had submitted many complains about cleanliness of the Atkinson Road previously.
• The proposal does not detail who will manage the units, how tenant eligibility will be assessed, or long-term oversight mechanisms.

2. PARKING SHORTAGES
The EIS appears to under-deliver on resident and visitor car parking, based on proposed densities:
• The Transport Assessment assumes residents will rely heavily on future public transport infrastructure (e.g. Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2), but this is not yet operational or funded.
• The lack of sufficient parking will push overflow vehicles into nearby streets, worsening congestion and frustrating current residents.
• The development should meet or exceed Parramatta LEP/DCP minimum parking rates for mixed-use zones.

Based on the released exhibition, the provided car park spots are almost half of the demand! This is not acceptable by any means and I will take this to authorities if approved as such as short car parking allowance.

3. CONSTRUCTION NOISE, VIBRATION & POLLUTION
The EIS suggests a long construction timeline over multiple stages, yet does not adequately address:
• Noise and vibration impacts on existing residents, including elderly populations in surrounding developments
• Air quality and dust – especially during demolition, excavation, and bulk earthworks; considering our experience with the current project called melrose central, it seems the new development would be managed as bad and will cause more issues to the community. This shall be addressed properly and guaranteed that there will be effective street cleaning to mitigate dust and dirts to travel to neighboring residents. These days we have to wash our cars literally three times a week! We can’t have the same for the new developments!
The current project workers have no respect towards the resident and leave rubbish every where in the street, you can easily see this happening in Hope street every day!

• Traffic disruption from trucks and heavy machinery on Hughes Avenue and Hope Street, which are already congested. You can easily see how bad they managing the current melrose central development, streets full of dirts and when it rains it looks like livinf i. rural suburb!

The Construction Environmental Management Plan must include:
• Real-time monitoring of noise and dust
• Restrictions on construction hours (no early weekends or public holidays)
• Community hotline for complaints and quick mitigation. This is a must. Without this I will definitely will take legal action agains the council that is charging us hundreds of dollars and delivers nothing in return.

4. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
While 2,673 m² of open space is welcomed, there is no clarity on delivery timing. Will it be staged late in the development, or delivered up front? This affects the liveability of future residents and local community benefit.

5. OVERSHADOWING
Most concerning issue is how there is going to be a seven storey apartment building right next to us with not much setback, which will both overshadow our houses and the residents will be able to look over into our houses and backyards?
This is a breach of privacy which we won’t tolerate.
Also, this overshadowing would adversely impact solar panels catchment which will end up increasing our electricity bills and it’s agains the government's policies for using renewable energies!
This shall be addressed by giving enough set back from Atkins Road and lowering the block B1 height.

In summary, I request that the Department:
1. eliminate the affordable housing obligation otherwise provide the community with clear management and eligibility criteria.
2. Require greater parking provision to match demand and protect local streets.
3. Strengthen conditions on construction impacts, with clearer accountability.
4. Ensure that public open space is delivered early in the development lifecycle.
5. Increase setback from Atkins Road and lower the height of B1 block.

Thank you for considering this submission.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for SSD-71558711 – the proposed mixed-use precinct at Hughes Avenue, Melrose Park South-West.

While I support appropriate development that provides housing and public benefits, I have serious concerns regarding the current proposal, especially in relation to overshadowing my own property, affordable housing delivery, parking provision, and construction-related environmental impacts.

1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING –

The proposal includes two 2-bedroom units of affordable housing to be offered “in perpetuity” to the Council. I object having this as part of the development for below main reasons:
• There are already many housing commission units in this suburb which led to streets being unsafe and not maintained properly by the Parramatta Council, I have had submitted many complains about cleanliness of the Atkinson Road previously.
• The proposal does not detail who will manage the units, how tenant eligibility will be assessed, or long-term oversight mechanisms.

2. PARKING SHORTAGES

The EIS appears to under-deliver on resident and visitor car parking, based on proposed densities:
• The Transport Assessment assumes residents will rely heavily on future public transport infrastructure (e.g. Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2), but this is not yet operational or funded.
• The lack of sufficient parking will push overflow vehicles into nearby streets, worsening congestion and frustrating current residents.
• The development should meet or exceed Parramatta LEP/DCP minimum parking rates for mixed-use zones.

Based on the released exhibition, the provided car park spots are almost half of the demand! This is not acceptable by any means and I will take this to authorities if approved as such as short car parking allowance.

3. CONSTRUCTION NOISE, VIBRATION & POLLUTION

The EIS suggests a long construction timeline over multiple stages, yet does not adequately address:
• Noise and vibration impacts on existing residents, including elderly populations in surrounding developments
• Air quality and dust – especially during demolition, excavation, and bulk earthworks; considering our experience with the current project called melrose central, it seems the new development would be managed as bad and will cause more issues to the community. This shall be addressed properly and guaranteed that there will be effective street cleaning to mitigate dust and dirts to travel to neighboring residents. These days we have to wash our cars literally three times a week! We can’t have the same for the new developments!
The current project workers have no respect towards the resident and leave rubbish every where in the street, you can easily see this happening in Hope street every day!

• Traffic disruption from trucks and heavy machinery on Hughes Avenue and Hope Street, which are already congested. You can easily see how bad they managing the current melrose central development, streets full of dirts and when it rains it looks like livinf i. rural suburb!

The Construction Environmental Management Plan must include:
• Real-time monitoring of noise and dust
• Restrictions on construction hours (no early weekends or public holidays)
• Community hotline for complaints and quick mitigation. This is a must. Without this I will definitely will take legal action agains the council that is charging us hundreds of dollars and delivers nothing in return.

4. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

While 2,673 m² of open space is welcomed, there is no clarity on delivery timing. Will it be staged late in the development, or delivered up front? This affects the liveability of future residents and local community benefit.

5. Most concerning issue is how there is going to be a seven storey apartment building right next to us with not much setback, which will both overshadow our houses and the residents will be able to look over into our houses and backyards?
This is a breach of privacy which we won’t tolerate.
Also, this overshadowing would adversely impact solar panels catchment which will end up increasing our electricity bills and it’s agains the government's policies for using renewable energies!
This shall be addressed by giving enough set back from Atkins Road and lowering the block B1 height.

In summary, I request that the Department:
1. eliminate the affordable housing obligation otherwise provide the community with clear management and eligibility criteria.
2. Require greater parking provision to match demand and protect local streets.
3. Strengthen conditions on construction impacts, with clearer accountability.
4. Ensure that public open space is delivered early in the development lifecycle.

5. Increase setback from Atkins Road and lower the height of B1 block.

Thank you for considering this submission.

It doesn’t seem the developers have any plan to manage the excessive number of cars that will be added to the neighborhood.
No detailed plan for managing the dusts and pollutions during construction phase.
No detailed plan for ensuring security of neighborhood when adding these many new residents!

I object to the planning proposal which includes an increase in maximum height of buildings control from 12m to a combination of heights from 25m, 31m, 34m, 68m, and 77m (equiv. up to 22 storeys). I object to buildings that are up to 22 stories in level and do not believe it fits with the low density residential area to the west of the development area. Most houses in this area are 1 or 2 story homes and the buildings should not be more than 12 m.

It's incredibly frustrating to see the continuous development of high-rise apartments in Ermington and Melrose Park without any corresponding improvements to the public transport system. As more people move into the area, the lack of accessible transport options becomes a significant issue, creating additional burdens for both new and existing residents. Affordable housing should enhance the quality of life for low income earners, not contribute to congestion and inconvenience. It's high time the authorities prioritised expanding and improving public transport to support our growing community.

This project is ridiculous. There is no mass transport system close to the area and the light rail is no where near being built through here yet. How can you think it's reasonable to add another 1375 units into the area on top of the already ridiculous number added in Melrose Park and have existing residents deal with all the additional traffic? Will there be an increase in commuter parking spaces at Meadowbank and West Ryde?
This is just another project which continues to destroy the living standards of existing residents. Meadowbank and West Ryde?

Comment on Proposed Development – Query Regarding Traffic Distribution and Access
I would like to submit a query regarding how traffic will be managed and distributed in relation to the proposed development, particularly in light of the current access limitations along Victoria Road.
As it stands, only Trumper Street and Wharf Road allow right-hand turns when travelling east on Victoria Road. Given this, I’m interested to know how traffic—especially from residents, workers, and service vehicles—will be distributed across the available road network, and whether this may result in increased volumes along Trumper Street as vehicles seek access to Hughes Street and the development site.
Could you please clarify:

What measures are being proposed to manage traffic flow to and from the development?

Whether additional access points or turning options along Victoria Road are being considered?

If there are plans to address potential traffic increases along Trumper Street?

How service and delivery vehicle access will be handled to minimise impact on surrounding residential streets?

This information would be helpful in understanding how traffic impacts are being addressed as part of the planning and design process.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.