Redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre

I strongly object to the project on the following grounds:
The subject site is constrained by a critical access vulnerability: it relies entirely on a single point of entry and exit. The only access roads serving this immediate zone are restricted to one lane in each direction.
Injecting the vehicle traffic of 700 residential units, alongside delivery vehicles, retail staff, and shoppers from the commercial precinct, onto a single-lane corridor is unsustainable. This area is already one of the most densely populated suburbs in Sydney.
In the event of an emergency, a single-lane bottleneck poses an unacceptable risk to public safety, potentially trapping residents and blocking emergency service vehicles.
The developer’s traffic assessments likely assume a high reliance on public transport. However, the existing public transport network in this immediate area is already operating at or near peak capacity. Without a significant, pre-funded upgrade to local transit services by transport authorities, the vast majority of the new population will rely on private vehicles, further exacerbating the gridlock detailed above.
Local primary and secondary schools are currently at maximum enrollment capacity. The influx of families associated with a 700-apartment development will place an unmanageable burden on local education systems. The proposal fails to demonstrate how this sudden spike in school-aged children will be accommodated without degrading the quality of education and space available to existing local residents.
The proposed height of the residential towers presents a critical airspace risk. The site sits directly beneath or adjacent to the international flight paths for Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport (Mascot). Even if the height marginally clears safety limits, residents in these 700 units will be subjected to severe, continuous aircraft noise, resulting in poor internal amenity. The development should be referred to Airservices Australia for comprehensive airspace analysis before any approval is considered.
The proposed mass and scale of the towers are entirely unsympathetic to the existing character of the neighborhood. A development of this height and bulk will impose significant negative impacts on the residential amenity of surrounding homes.
The imposing height of the structures will cast vast shadows over neighboring dwellings and low-rise properties. This will drastically reduce, and in some cases eliminate, winter solar access for existing residents, violating standard planning guidelines for minimum sunlight hours.
For a development of this scale to be viable, it must be supported by concurrent infrastructure upgrades—specifically, road widening, new public transit links, and school expansions. Proposing 700 dwellings on a single-lane bottleneck beneath an international flight path represents irresponsible planning.
I strongly urge the Planning Committee to refuse this application in its current form and require the applicant to significantly scale down the density and height of the proposal.
Thank you for considering this submission.

Submission Objecting to the Proposed Redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre (SSD-90572458)

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to object to the proposed redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre (SSD-90572458).

I support the renewal of the shopping centre and acknowledge the need for additional housing across Sydney. However, redevelopment should occur in a manner that respects established planning controls, existing infrastructure, and the amenity of the surrounding community. In my view, the current proposal represents an excessive level of development that is inconsistent with those objectives.

While investment in Eastlakes is welcome, planning decisions must balance housing delivery with the long-term interests of existing and future residents. I believe this proposal places too much emphasis on maximising development yield while giving insufficient consideration to traffic, parking, infrastructure capacity, neighbourhood character and the integrity of the planning system.

Excessive Density and Overdevelopment

The proposed development introduces approximately 736 residential apartments above a substantially expanded shopping centre. While Eastlakes is an appropriate location for urban renewal, the scale and intensity of the proposal appear excessive for the surrounding area.

Planning should ensure that population growth is supported by corresponding investment in transport, schools, healthcare, public open space, community facilities and essential infrastructure. The Environmental Impact Statement has not, in my view, adequately demonstrated that the existing infrastructure can comfortably accommodate such a significant increase in population.

Good planning is not simply about delivering more housing—it is about creating sustainable communities. Increasing residential density beyond the capacity of local infrastructure risks diminishing the quality of life for both existing and future residents.

Building Height and Departure from Planning Controls

I am particularly concerned that the proposal seeks approval for buildings that exceed the established planning controls for the site.

Height limits exist for important planning reasons. They help protect neighbourhood character, reduce visual bulk, preserve sunlight and privacy, maintain appropriate transitions between developments and provide certainty for both residents and developers.

Allowing substantial departures from these controls should only occur where there is an exceptional planning justification and a demonstrable public benefit that clearly outweighs any adverse impacts. I do not believe that threshold has been met.

Approving excessive building heights in this instance would undermine confidence in the planning system and create an undesirable precedent whereby established planning controls become negotiable rather than meaningful.

Traffic Impacts

Traffic congestion is already a significant issue around Eastlakes Shopping Centre, particularly along Gardeners Road, Evans Avenue and surrounding local streets.

The proposed development will substantially increase the number of residents, visitors, deliveries, ride-share services and service vehicles using an already constrained road network.

Although traffic modelling has been undertaken, modelling cannot always reflect real-world conditions experienced by local residents or accurately predict the cumulative impacts of continuing growth across the Bayside area.

Without significant transport improvements, I believe the proposal will increase congestion, lengthen travel times and reduce road safety for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Parking Shortages

Parking is already limited throughout Eastlakes.

Residents frequently compete with shoppers, workers and visitors for on-street parking. Even if the proposal technically satisfies minimum parking requirements, it is likely that additional demand will spill into surrounding residential streets.

This will reduce parking availability for existing residents and further increase congestion within the local road network.

Private development should not rely upon public streets to accommodate parking demand created by the project.

Cumulative Infrastructure Impacts

The proposal should not be considered in isolation.

Eastlakes and surrounding suburbs have experienced considerable residential intensification over recent years. Each additional development contributes further pressure on local roads, public transport, schools, parks, healthcare facilities and community infrastructure.

While individual developments may each appear acceptable, their combined impacts are significant.

Planning authorities should consider whether the cumulative effect of ongoing development is exceeding the capacity of the suburb to support further population growth without corresponding infrastructure investment.

Progressive Intensification of the Development

I am also concerned that the current proposal represents a significant increase in scale compared with earlier redevelopment plans for the Eastlakes Shopping Centre site.

Over time, the redevelopment has evolved into a substantially larger project with increased residential density, greater building bulk and taller buildings than were originally contemplated.

This raises concerns about "planning creep", where successive increases in development intensity gradually exceed what was initially envisaged for the site.

Residents who accepted earlier redevelopment proposals could not reasonably have anticipated a project of the current magnitude.

The Department should carefully consider whether the proposal remains consistent with the original planning vision for Eastlakes or whether it now constitutes an overdevelopment of the site.

Approving progressively larger proposals risks undermining confidence in the planning system by creating the perception that planning controls can be incrementally expanded over time.

Public Interest

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the public interest is an important consideration in determining major developments.

While the proposal would provide additional housing and retail investment, these benefits must be balanced against the impacts on existing residents, infrastructure capacity, neighbourhood amenity, traffic, parking and consistency with established planning controls.

In my opinion, the current proposal does not strike an appropriate balance and is therefore not in the broader public interest.

Conclusion

As a local resident, I am not opposed to redevelopment or additional housing in Eastlakes. I recognise that renewal of the shopping centre presents an opportunity to improve local services and contribute to Sydney's housing supply.

However, growth must occur responsibly. Development should respect established planning controls, be proportionate to the surrounding area and only proceed where supporting infrastructure can accommodate increased demand.

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department either:

Refuse the proposal in its current form; or

Require substantial amendments that reduce the overall density and building heights, provide greater parking capacity, and ensure the surrounding transport and community infrastructure can adequately support the increased population.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this submission and respectfully ask that these concerns be given careful consideration before any determination is made.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I strongly support the project as I’m excited for what it will bring to the area and am excited by how it’ll help Eastlakes evolve into a more vibrant and desirable suburb.

That being said, I do have concerns about the traffic on and around Evans avenue. Already in the morning it is backed up down Evans avenue and around onto Barber avenue, with the majority of people trying to access Gardeners road. I do think that extra consideration needs to be given to the traffic management solution.

Towers are too high, 18 stories in an area where majority of houses are single dwelling is ridiculous.

Other concern is, at the moment to get out of Eastlakes in peak traffic, there is Malony st and racecourse place to get out to gardeners road, both are about 25 min wait at the traffic lights.

Where will the cars from all these towers go? How will we all get to work on time? There is no infrastructure to handle the additional cars that will be on the road in the area.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes, comprising 736 residential units (counting dual-key dwellings as a single unit), including 74 affordable housing units, 215 Build-to-Rent housing units, and 521 market housing units across four residential buildings ranging from 14 to 18 storeys in height.

While I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply and providing affordable housing options, I strongly believe that this proposal is excessive in scale, density, and height for the Eastlakes area and will have significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community and existing infrastructure.

The proposal introduces an extremely high residential density into an area that is already experiencing substantial growth and increasing pressure on local services. Accommodating 736 dwellings within four towers of up to 18 storeys represents a development intensity that is inconsistent with the established character and capacity of Eastlakes. Such a large concentration of residents will place considerable strain on roads, public transport, parking availability, schools, healthcare services, recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure.

Traffic congestion is already a significant issue in and around Eastlakes, particularly along Evans Avenue and surrounding arterial roads. A development of this magnitude will inevitably generate a substantial increase in vehicle movements, exacerbating congestion, reducing road safety, and negatively impacting the quality of life for existing residents. Parking overflow into surrounding streets is also a likely consequence, further burdening the local neighbourhood.

The proposed building heights of 14 to 18 storeys are also excessive and out of proportion with much of the surrounding built environment. Towers of this scale will fundamentally alter the character of Eastlakes and may result in overshadowing, reduced privacy, increased wind effects, and the loss of visual amenity for neighbouring properties and public spaces. Development should be appropriately scaled to integrate with its surroundings rather than dominate them.

Furthermore, the cumulative impact of adding such a significant number of dwellings in one location raises serious concerns about whether existing infrastructure can adequately support the increased population. Housing growth must be accompanied by corresponding investment in transport, open space, schools, community facilities, and essential services. Without clear evidence that this infrastructure can meet future demand, approving a development of this size would be premature and irresponsible.

I respectfully request that the consent authority carefully consider the long-term impacts of this proposal on the Eastlakes community. At a minimum, the scale, height, and density of the development should be substantially reduced to better align with the character of the area and the capacity of local infrastructure. Growth should occur in a balanced and sustainable manner that protects the amenity and liveability of the existing community.

Thank you for considering my submission. I ask that this objection be taken into account during the assessment process and that the concerns of local residents be given appropriate weight.

I write as a nearby resident to object to the Redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre, SSD-90572458, in its current form.

I am not opposed to the renewal of the shopping centre in principle. Eastlakes needs investment, a better retail environment and additional housing in appropriate locations. However, I object to this proposal as exhibited because the scale, height, density and traffic consequences have not been adequately justified for this site and its immediate low-rise residential context.

My principal concerns are the following:

The proposal is excessive in scale and height relative to the immediate neighbourhood.
The exhibited material describes a development comprising a two-storey podium with four towers of approximately 14 to 18 storeys above it. By contrast, the immediate residential context to the south and east is identified in the applicant’s own material as being predominantly three-storey brick walk-up apartments. The Visual Impact Assessment expressly states that there are three-storey brick walk-up apartment buildings immediately south and east of the site. The Design Report’s Appendix B also reproduces the State Design Review Panel comments that the “substantial uplift” sought for the site is a significant departure from the existing context and that the height strategy should be revised to better transition to the lower-scaled context to the south.

In my submission, this is the central flaw in the proposal. The bulk and height are not being introduced into a context already defined by comparable tower forms on the surrounding boundaries. The applicant’s own response material states there are currently minimal development applications proposed within the immediate locality. Accordingly, the argument that the proposal is simply responding to an already-established future high-rise character is not persuasive.

Under section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Department must consider the likely impacts of the development, the suitability of the site, submissions and the public interest. The Department must also consider the relevant planning instruments. Under Chapter 4 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, the consent authority must consider the quality of the design evaluated against Schedule 9 and the Apartment Design Guide. Schedule 9 requires good design to respond to context, achieve a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings, ensure density is appropriate to the site and its context, and positively influence amenity for residents and neighbours.

In my view, the current scheme does not satisfy those considerations.

The proposal will have unacceptable overshadowing impacts on existing low-rise neighbours.
The exhibited solar access analysis is one of the clearest examples of why the design is not acceptable as shown. The Appendix E solar analysis indicates very poor winter solar outcomes for several of the existing Barber Avenue apartment buildings. Across the nine existing Barber Avenue buildings tabulated in the solar appendix, only 54 of 112 units achieve more than two hours of direct sunlight in mid-winter.

That is not a minor or incidental impact. It is a strong indicator that the southern edge of the built form remains too tall and too bulky for its relationship to existing neighbours.

The Apartment Design Guide states that, in the Sydney Metropolitan Area, living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building should receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter, and that a maximum of 15% of apartments should receive no direct sunlight in that period. I acknowledge that those criteria apply to the design of the proposal itself, rather than directly regulating neighbouring buildings. However, they remain a highly relevant benchmark for understanding the seriousness of the shadowing now being imposed on adjoining low-rise apartments.

At minimum, the Department should require a revised built form that materially improves solar access to the neighbouring Barber Avenue apartments before any approval is considered.

The applicant has not demonstrated that the surrounding road network can accommodate the proposal at this scale.
The surrounding local road structure is constrained. Access is concentrated on Evans Avenue and Barber Avenue, with broader network connection dependent on Racecourse Place, Gardeners Road and nearby intersections including Maloney Street / Gardeners Road / Dalmeny Avenue. This is not a location with abundant alternative road access.

The exhibited Traffic Impact Assessment calculates a net increase of approximately 246 vehicle trips in the AM peak, 332 vehicle trips in the PM peak, and 291 Saturday peak trips associated with the retail component. Even after using multiple demand-reducing assumptions, the modelling still reports a 194.5 m AM queue at Gardeners Road / Racecourse Place and a DoS of 1.063 at Maloney Street / Gardeners Road / Dalmeny Avenue in the AM development scenario.

The traffic conclusion should not be accepted at face value because the modelling depends on several optimistic assumptions:
the former shopping centre was only 70% active at the time of survey,
20% of proposed retail trips will be internally captured,
no Saturday residential trip estimate is included,
only Existing Base and Existing Base + Development scenarios are modelled, and
post-development signal optimisation is assumed.

The applicant has therefore not demonstrated, in a sufficiently conservative way, that the local road network can absorb the full demand of the development. That is especially so when the Design Report also states that dual-key units could increase the total number of dwellings from 736 to as many as 877.

In my view, the Department should require a revised Traffic Impact Assessment that includes:
a cumulative future background traffic scenario,
sensitivity testing at the possible higher dwelling count,
Saturday residential trip assessment,
sensitivity testing with reduced or no internal capture,
a more robust justification for the existing retail deduction, and
independent agency confirmation that any assumed signal optimisation is feasible.

Servicing and loading are not adequately resolved.
The exhibited servicing analysis indicates a substantial servicing task, with 503 daily vehicle arrivals through the Freight Forecaster. The initial loading scenario tested on the current arrangement has only 74.94% average efficacy, with 74 rejected vehicles per day and 12 rejected vehicles in the peak hour. It improves only if small vehicle spaces are increased to 14.

This suggests that the current servicing arrangement is not properly resolved. For nearby residents, the consequence is obvious: more risk of kerbside friction, waiting vehicles, informal loading behaviour and additional traffic pressure on the surrounding streets.

Construction impacts are significant and not properly pinned down in the exhibited material.
The exhibited construction traffic material is only preliminary. It says construction traffic volumes are unknown, staging is to be confirmed, and the final routes and access arrangements via Evans Avenue and/or Barber Avenue will be settled later by the contractor. That is not sufficient for a project of this scale in close proximity to existing apartments.
The Noise and Vibration Assessment also concludes that construction noise management levels are expected to be exceeded during all construction stages. This means the construction impact is not hypothetical. It is expected.

The visual bulk and streetscape impact are unacceptable in the current form.
The Visual Impact Assessment itself identifies moderate-to-severe visual impacts from close public viewpoints, including Evans Avenue and Jack Mundey Reserve. At the Evans Avenue viewpoint, the report says the proposal would significantly change the apparent height, scale and enclosure of the immediate streetscape and transform the existing low- to mid-rise character into a much denser urban edge condition. It is a fundamentally different order of scale.

Requested outcome
For the reasons above, I request that the Department:
Refuse the proposal in its current form, or alternatively require a substantially revised scheme and re-exhibition before any approval is considered.
Require reduced height and bulk, especially along the southern and eastern boundaries adjoining the existing low-rise apartment context.
Require increased setbacks, deeper landscape buffers and a more meaningful transition to neighbouring three-storey apartments.
Require a revised Traffic Impact Assessment with cumulative growth, sensitivity testing and a conservative approach to trip generation.
Require a redesigned loading and servicing strategy that demonstrably avoids spillover and rejected vehicles.
Require a final detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan and Construction Management Plan before any consent is granted or relied upon, including quantified truck movements, routes, staging and resident protection measures.
Require revised overshadowing analysis and built form changes that materially improve solar access to affected neighbouring apartments.
Require exhibition and review of any stand-alone wind assessment and any other technical material not presently available in a full and accessible form to the public.

I therefore object to the proposal in its current form and request that the Department refuse it, or require a materially reduced and redesigned proposal before any approval is considered.

Kind Regards,
Kelly Dos Santos

I support SOME features of the redevelopment project for the following reasons:
- provides a range of housing types that are hopefully affordable
- will enhance the local surrounds
- generates employment opportunities through the retail
- retail and other services will encourage residents to minimise their travel elsewhere for regular shopping and other needs

However, the proposal has some problematic features that must be addressed:

Issue 1: Insufficient approaches to traffic movement
As a resident in a block of apartments nearby, I am acutely aware of the traffic chaos at peak times in particular. This is especially evident on the corner of Racecourse Place and Evans Ave. Between 8 – 8.20am, buses stopping at the Evans Ave stop near Racecourse Place (routes 303, 306 and special school buses), struggle to reach the bus stop due to the number of cars moving through the roundabout. These buses are often extremely delayed and therefore inefficient in getting people to their destination in a reliable manner. On weekends, there is also significant traffic chaos around Racecourse Place, Evans Lane and Evans Ave as a result of people visiting the Greek bakery on Gardeners Rd.
The desire to reduce individual car ownership is just that – a desire. Whilst the traffic report indicates that a Green Plan is a good idea, these are merely a series of suggestions. If effective and safe movement of cars and people is not addressed at the planning phase, it will be too late to remediate once construction occurs. People in the surrounding areas are then left with the consequences of poor planning decisions.
The traffic report asserts that "the vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development is expected to be accommodated by the surrounding road network, subject to the signal optimisation assumptions adopted for the development scenarios and the proposed access arrangements being implemented as modelled." Signal optimisation alone (which is not guaranteed to occur as suggested by the phrase ‘subject to’) does not sufficiently address the increased traffic as a direct result of the development proposal including residents, non-residents and service vehicles.

Issue 2: Placement of the non-resident car park entry
The proposal indicates that the main carpark entry for non-residents will be Evans Ave. There is currently already a carpark entry and exit as well as a loading dock for The Grand apartments across from the proposed entry and exit. As there is only one lane in either direction, the proposed development will most certainly negatively impact on traffic flow and vehicular and pedestrian safety. The modelling does not take into consideration the type of people who live in a particular area with many families and elderly people living in this area adding further risk to both pedestrian and vehicular movement along Evans Ave and Racecourse Place in particular.

Issue 3: Public transport provision
Whist there are a number of bus routes nearby to the proposed development, An injection of possibly 2000 residents alone, not including workers, resident visitors and non-residents will add a significant strain to already full buses.
What guarantee is there that there will be more frequent buses to service the increase in people?
Expanding the operating hours (currently 10AM to 5PM) and frequency of the newly reinstated 301 bus routes would support the increased numbers as a result of the proposed development.

Issue 4: Increasing the rezoning standards regarding building height
The current surrounding area mostly features low rise apartments. The proposed increase of maximum building height from 14m to 69m (sometimes also indicated as 77m) will significantly impact on the aesthetic of the area with the proposed development sticking out on the skyline. The shadowing on surrounding areas as a result of this significant increase in building heigh increases the inability for areas to sufficiently dry up after rain increasing risk of slips and falls and encouraging mould formation.

Issue 5: Safe pedestrian passage
If residents are to be encouraged to walk and take public transport, then the footpaths in the surrounding areas especially those on both side of Racecourse Place must be expanded to accommodate safe passage of pedestrians particularly those with accessibility requirements. Currently, it is difficult for people to pass each other on the path, driving people to walk on the road or cross the road to the opposite side away from safe pedestrian crossings. This is intensified at times when buses (358 and 343 on Gardeners Rd) drop off passengers. People using prams, trolleys and assistive walking devices are particularly at risk of injury on there footpaths. Increasing the foot traffic to the area demands better solutions for pedestrians.

Issue 6: Insufficient residential parking numbers
686 less parking spaces (than the Bayside DCP requirement) are proposed. Even though residents will have many amenities nearby, car ownership is still highly desirable in this area as public transport is limited to bus services only. So whilst weekday travel of resident may focus on buses, outside of these times, use of a car will be high. The proposed bicycle parking numbers are very high. Can these be reduced in favour of additional parking spaces for residents? The report indicates that ‘the combination of these factors may result in lessened need for car ownership but this is purely hypothetical. If there are insufficient car spaces for residents, they will use the already crowded surrounding streets to park their vehicles.

Issue 7: Service entry on Barber Ave
This street is very narrow which has not been documented in the traffic report. The narrowness of this street is an important factor when assessing the efficiency and safety of using this as the service vehicle entry and exit as well as an exit point for non-residents. Will this street stop street parking to accommodate the number and varied sizes of service vehicles? What assessment has been made of the noise impact for residents immediately across from the entry/exit?
Overall, the assumption that the proposed complex will not have much of an impact on the surrounding area’s transport and roads is ridiculous. The report uses hypotheticals and many caveats to avoid directly indicating how to appropriately address traffic issues and pedestrian safety. In some cases, it proposes this as something for the future without having to commit to comprehensive and meaningful solutions now.
The proposed project has many benefits for the local area and people; however, without addressing these issues, it will also pose many problems, challenges and risks for current neighbours and new residents into the future.

Submission Regarding Proposed Redevelopment

I recognise the need to redevelop the existing shopping centre and acknowledge that additional housing is needed within our community. However, I do not believe this proposal is appropriate for this location. The scale of the development, particularly the proposed 18-storey buildings and 736 residential units, is excessive for the surrounding neighbourhood and will have significant impacts on local residents and infrastructure.

My concerns are as follows:

Traffic Congestion

Traffic in the area is already a significant issue, particularly during morning and afternoon peak periods. The main exit towards Gardeners Road frequently backs up past Evans Avenue, creating long delays. The section of RaceCourse Place is relatively short, and when two buses are waiting at the traffic lights, traffic comes to a near standstill. This also restricts vehicles exiting The Grand apartment complex.
With another large car park located opposite the proposed development, all vehicles are ultimately funnelled towards Gardeners Road. The additional traffic generated by 736 new residential units, along with increased retail activity, will create unacceptable congestion and significantly worsen an already strained road network.

Road Safety
The intersection of Evans Avenue and Barber Avenue is already a busy and difficult intersection to navigate. Visibility is limited, creating a blind corner that poses safety concerns for both motorists and pedestrians. Increasing traffic volumes at this location will only heighten these risks.

Insufficient Public Transport and Infrastructure
The existing public transport network and surrounding infrastructure are not adequate to support a development of this size. Bus services are already crowded during peak periods, and there has been no demonstrated improvement to transport infrastructure that would accommodate the substantial increase in population. There needs to be an increase in services to different areas, to help reduce traffic congestion. Without significant investment in roads, public transport, schools, health services and other community infrastructure, this development places an unreasonable burden on existing residents.

Parking Pressures
Although the proposal includes additional parking, experience shows that many visitors and residents prefer to use free on-street parking where available. Street parking in the surrounding area is already heavily utilised. During busy periods, vehicles regularly park along Evans Avenue, reducing the road from two lanes to one and further contributing to congestion. An increase in residents and visitors will place even greater pressure on already limited street parking and worsen traffic flow throughout the precinct.

Building Height and Neighbourhood Character
The proposed height of 18 storeys is completely out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood. The Grand apartment complex, one of the tallest nearby developments, is only eight storeys high. An 18-storey development would dominate the local skyline, significantly alter the character of the area, and set an undesirable precedent for future development. A more appropriately scaled development would better integrate with the existing built environment while still providing additional housing.

Overshadowing and Residential Amenity
The proposed buildings will cast significant shadows over properties along Barber Avenue, reducing access to natural sunlight and negatively affecting the amenity of surrounding homes. This impact should not be underestimated, as access to daylight is an important consideration for residents' quality of life.

onclusion

While I support sensible redevelopment and understand the need for additional housing, I strongly believe this proposal is too large and too intensive for this site. The development is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, exceeds the capacity of the existing road and transport network, and will have lasting negative impacts on traffic, parking, safety, neighbourhood character and the amenity of nearby residents.
I urge the State Government to reject this proposal in its current form or require substantial modifications, including a significant reduction in building height and residential density, so that any redevelopment is better aligned with the capacity and character of the local community.

I selected "I object to the project", although, I do not object to responsible development, even the development of apartments in the area.
My main objections are as follows:
*Traffic flow and suburb connection to surrounding area - Eastlakes is a suburb that is hemmed in on its eastern boundary by the Southern Cross Drive motorway (with no immediate access available), Gardeners Road to the north and a golf course to the south.
A lot of the streets within the suburb are cul-de-sac's and no through roads, with only one small road (Race Course Pl) providing access to Gardener's Road (the main arterial road, connecting the suburb to the east and west).
The suburb is not designed for traffic through-flow and has significant bottlenecks which cannot be built around.
Eastlakes is also only connected to other rail hubs by bus, with no train, metro or light rail connection within walking distance. This severely limits how many additional people the local public transport network can handle.
*Character & integration into the local environment - the majority of the build environment in Eastlakes is 3 story walk up, red brick apartments. The size and bulk of the proposed development is completely out of character for the area and would substantially impact those living in the direct vicinity of the new build. This is in addition to the proposed retail precinct being proposed. The area is already well serviced by a Westfield in Eastgardens (less than 4km away).
Retail risks - I have deep concern over the viability of the mixed-use nature of the development as the shopping centre across the road at The Grand has not exactly succeeded in attracting viable businesses and tenants and the new shopping centre will still face many of the headwinds and challenges that led to the decline and eventual desertion of the old shopping centre. The old shopping centre failed to a local population that is over-represented by pensioners and people in lower socio-economic bracket (much of the area was, and still is, public housing), a lack of foot traffic (due to the suburb and Evans Avenue being hidden from sight from all surrounding suburbs), relative high crime rates and petty theft from already existing retail and being close enough to other destination suburbs such as Coogee, Randwick and Surry Hills to severely impact the viability of any major retail or hospitality precinct.
In my opinion, the development of this parcel of land should be much closer to the newer developments in Rosebery with a maximum height of five to six stories with the inclusion of one supermarket (Woolworths). This responsible type of development would meaningfully add to the density of the suburb while curtailing the risks of constructing a white elephant project that has very little empirical evidence to suggest it would succeed.

Severe Traffic Congestion and Bottlenecks: Local roads—including Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue, Gardeners Road, and Florence Avenue—are already heavily congested during peak morning and afternoon periods. Adding thousands of daily vehicle trips generated by high-density residential towers and expanded commercial space will severely degrade local road service levels. The proposal creates dangerous traffic bottlenecks, queues back into narrow residential side streets, increases safety risks for pedestrians, and delays emergency vehicle response times along critical corridors.

Inadequate On-Site Parking and On-Street Spillover: The proposed parking allocation fails to account for realistic vehicle ownership rates for multi-bedroom apartments, alongside visitor and retail parking demand. This shortfall will inevitably force excess parking onto surrounding residential streets where space is already severely constrained. Furthermore, constant heavy delivery, service, and waste management vehicles will cause ongoing traffic blockages and safety hazards on narrow local lanes.

Incompatibility with Established Neighborhood Character: Eastlakes is defined by a distinct low-to-medium density suburban scale, an established tree canopy, and a low-rise village layout. The excessive height, overall bulk, and floor space ratio (FSR) of the multi-story towers stand in stark contrast to surrounding single-dwelling houses and modest apartment blocks. The proposal represents an aggressive urban overdevelopment that completely ignores the established architectural context and scale of the area.

Severe Overshadowing, Microclimate, and Loss of Solar Access: Due to the excessive height and massing of the towers, adjoining residential properties and public spaces will suffer severe overshadowing. Solar access to living areas and private open spaces of neighboring homes will drop well below acceptable planning guidelines. Additionally, towering structures of this scale risk creating unpleasant microclimates, including wind-tunnel effects and heat islanding that degrade the ground-level pedestrian experience.

Loss of Privacy and Overlooking: The height and placement of upper-level residential units create direct, unmitigated sightlines into the private open spaces and windows of surrounding low-density residences. This permanent loss of visual privacy severely diminishes the amenity and quiet enjoyment of nearby homes.

Removal of Mature Tree Canopy and Loss of Green Amenity: The footprint of the proposed development requires the destruction of mature trees and existing urban greenery that provide essential shading, local biodiversity habitat, and natural heat mitigation. The replacement planting proposed in deep soil zones is insufficient to offset the loss of established canopy cover, worsening the urban heat island effect across the precinct.

Strain on Overburdened Social and Public Infrastructure: Injecting a massive new resident population into a concentrated precinct will place unsustainable strain on local public assets. Surrounding primary schools, early childhood learning facilities, healthcare providers, and local council sporting fields are already operating at or near capacity. The proposal offers no commensurate expansion of public open space or community facilities to support this dense population influx.

Inadequate Public Transport Capacity: While the proposal relies heavily on public transport assertions to justify reduced parking ratios, local bus networks along Gardeners Road and surrounding routes are already overcrowded during peak hours. Without guaranteed, funded capacity increases to state transit services, the influx of commuters will lead to overcrowded buses, missed connections, and increased reliance on private vehicles.

Inadequate Deep Soil and Environmental Design: High-density site coverage severely limits genuine deep soil zones required for large canopy trees and natural stormwater infiltration. The extensive hardscape increases surface runoff, placing additional pressure on local stormwater drainage systems during heavy rainfall events and increasing localized flooding risks.

Loss of Community-Focused, Essential Retail: Replacing an accessible, human-scale local village center with a high-density commercial complex risks pricing out essential, affordable day-to-day services. Long-term residents, low-income households, and elderly community members rely on convenient, walkable access to affordable retail, which will be displaced in favor of high-turnover commercial tenants tailored to high-density living.

Failure to Meet Design Excellence Standards: The sheer bulk, repetitive massing, and minimal building setbacks demonstrate a design driven by yield maximization rather than architectural excellence or contextual integration. The design fails to provide appropriate transitions to lower-density boundaries, creating an overbearing visual impact from all street frontages.

I request that the planning panel refuse this application in its current form and require a substantially scaled-back proposal featuring lower building heights, reduced density, increased setbacks, preserved tree canopy, and a realistic traffic management plan that protects local livability.

Dear Sir or Madam,

RE: Eastlakes Shopping Centre redevelopment

I am writing as an Eastlakes resident to object to the redevelopment in its current form.

A new shopping centre would be welcomed by the community, but the residential development proposed above and around it appears far too intensive for the site.

The height and size of the buildings are difficult to reconcile with the surrounding area. Most nearby residential development is considerably lower, and the proposal does not appear to step down sufficiently towards its neighbours or the park. The result would be a group of buildings that dominates Eastlakes rather than becoming a considered part of it. A more moderate development could still deliver housing and retail while responding more respectfully to the area.

Jack Mundey Reserve is one of the few local places where residents can sit outdoors, meet others and enjoy some open space. The proposed buildings would reduce sunlight to the reserve and change the character of its edges. The centre should also be easy to reach on foot. Many residents approach the site from the south, yet the proposed entrances do not appear to respond conveniently to this. A clear, accessible entrance should be provided from the southern side, together with proper shelter from rain and wind.

Parking is another major concern. Local streets are already heavily parked, and public transport choices are limited. Residents cannot reasonably be expected to rely on distant rail or light rail services for everyday travel. The development includes apartments that may accommodate separate households, as well as a substantial shopping centre, but the proposed parking does not appear sufficient for the number of residents, visitors, staff and customers likely to use the site. Any shortage will inevitably affect the surrounding streets.

Traffic conditions are already difficult, particularly around the main routes leading towards Gardeners Road. Queues regularly extend through the local area even though the former shopping centre is no longer operating. I am not convinced that the assessment reflects what residents experience or the full amount of additional traffic likely to be created.

These matters should be considered together. Excessive building size leads to more dwellings, more vehicles, greater parking demand, increased shadow and added pressure on local streets and public spaces. They are not separate problems.

I ask that the proposal be redesigned with fewer dwellings, lower buildings, adequate on site parking and better protection for Jack Mundey Reserve. I support an appropriate redevelopment of the site, but not one that places an unreasonable burden on the existing community.

Yours faithfully,

Megan Tordoff

10 Grafton St, Eastlakes
NSW 2018

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Subject: Submission Objecting to SSD-90572458 – Redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a nearby resident and wish to object to the proposed redevelopment of the Eastlakes Shopping Centre (SSD-90572458) in its current form. While I support the renewal of the shopping centre and recognise the need for improved retail facilities and additional housing, I do not believe this proposal strikes an appropriate balance between redevelopment and the protection of the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The proposed scale, height and density are excessive for the site and will have significant impacts on nearby residents.

Scale and Height : The proposal includes four residential towers of approximately 14 to 18 storeys above a two-storey podium. This is a substantial contrast to the surrounding neighbourhood, which is predominantly made up of three-storey apartment buildings.
Even the applicant's documentation acknowledges that the proposed height represents a significant increase from the existing character and that stronger transitions to the surrounding low-rise development should be considered. In my view, the proposal does not respond appropriately to its context and is inconsistent with the principles of good urban design.

Traffic and Road Capacity : The surrounding road network is already constrained, with access primarily via Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue and Gardeners Road. The Traffic Impact Assessment predicts additional peak-hour vehicle movements and identifies congestion at nearby intersections, yet its conclusions rely on optimistic assumptions regarding internal trip capture, existing retail activity and future traffic conditions. It also does not adequately assess higher dwelling numbers or cumulative growth. A revised and more conservative Traffic Impact Assessment should be required before the proposal proceeds.

Servicing and Construction: The servicing arrangements do not appear to be fully resolved. The applicant's own assessment identifies rejected loading vehicles under the current design, raising concerns about additional congestion and unsafe loading activity on surrounding streets. Construction impacts are also significant. The exhibited material confirms that construction traffic arrangements have not been finalised and that construction noise levels are expected to exceed recommended limits throughout the project. Residents deserve greater certainty about how these impacts will be managed. ### Visual Impact The proposal would fundamentally alter the character of the area by introducing towers that dominate the existing low-rise streetscape. The applicant's Visual Impact Assessment acknowledges significant visual impacts from surrounding streets and public spaces. This level of change is not appropriate without a more sensitive transition to neighbouring residential buildings.
Requested Outcome For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department:
1. Refuse the proposal in its current form, or require a substantially revised design before any approval is considered.
2. Reduce the height and overall bulk of the development, particularly along the southern and eastern boundaries.
3. Increase setbacks and landscaping to provide a more appropriate transition to neighbouring low-rise apartments.
4. Require a revised Traffic Impact Assessment that includes cumulative traffic growth and more conservative modelling assumptions.
5. Require improved servicing and loading arrangements that avoid impacts on surrounding streets.
6. Require detailed construction management plans before approval, including measures to minimise traffic, noise and disruption.
7. Require design changes that significantly improve solar access to neighbouring properties. I support the redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre in principle. However, the current proposal is too large for its location and does not adequately address its impacts on surrounding residents.
I respectfully request that the Department require a substantially reduced and redesigned proposal before any approval is granted.

Thanks

Kind Regards
JB

Submission Objecting to SSD-90572458 – Eastlakes Mixed Use Development (19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes)

I wish to formally object to the proposed redevelopment at 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes.

While I support the delivery of additional housing in appropriate locations, this proposal represents a significant over-intensification of the already approved development. It seeks buildings of up to 18 storeys (62.9 metres), compared to the current approval of 7–12 storeys (40.8 metres). It also increases the floor space ratio from 2.11:1 to 5.29:1 and raises the number of dwellings from 425 to between 736 and 877.

Key Concerns

1. Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed increase in height and density is substantial and would be inconsistent with the existing character and built form of Eastlakes and the surrounding area.

2. Traffic and Congestion Impacts
The applicant’s own traffic assessment identifies an additional 246 vehicle movements in the morning peak and 332 in the afternoon peak. Local roads, including Evans Avenue and Gardeners Road, as well as nearby intersections, already experience congestion, and this increase would further exacerbate existing traffic issues.

3. Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity
The proposal acknowledges increased overshadowing impacts on surrounding properties and Jack Mundey Reserve. Reduced sunlight and diminished amenity for residents and users of this public open space is an unacceptable outcome of excessive development.

4. Insufficient Open Space and Landscaping
Despite the scale of the project, only 595 square metres of deep soil planting is provided, equating to just 3.3% of the site area. This is inadequate to deliver meaningful landscaping, urban cooling, or environmental benefits for a development of this magnitude.

5. Pressure on Local Infrastructure
The significant increase in dwellings will place additional strain on local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, health services, and community facilities. There is no clear commitment to corresponding infrastructure upgrades to support this growth.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form. Alternatively, any approval should only be considered if the proposal is substantially revised to reduce its height, density, and associated traffic and infrastructure impacts.

Yours faithfully
Eastlakes Resident

I object to the proposed development at 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes.

I have lived in Rosebery then Eastlakes since 2002. During that time, there has been a lot of redevelopment in these suburbs. While I am aware the need for additional housing increasing increasing the development from 425 dwellings to between 736 and 877 dwellings, with buildings up to 18 storeys in height will create chronic traffic congestion and parking issues for the area.
1. Traffic and Congestion
The applicant predicts an additional 246 morning peak and 332 afternoon peak vehicle trips. Leaving Eastlakes has become increasingly difficult in recent year due to increased traffic flow. There are only two traffic lights that allow drivers to cross Gardeners Road between Southern Cross Drive and Botany Road, Maloney Street and Racecourse Place. These intersections are heavily congested at peak hour already and will not be able to cope with the additional traffic without severe congestion and delays. The developments will create massive traffic jams at these times as the lights do not allow many cars to cross at each change
2. Everyday Impact
Congestion is no longer limited to peak hours. Weekend sport and activities is often affected by heavy traffic, reflecting the cumulative impact of ongoing residential growth.
3. Parking, Roads and Public Transport
On-street parking has become increasingly scarce, local roads have deteriorated under increased traffic, and buses serving Eastlakes are already overcrowded during peak periods. Further growth should not occur without corresponding improvements to transport and infrastructure. On-street parking is already becoming harder to find.
4. Scale of the Development
The proposed height and density are well beyond the approved scheme and risk setting a precedent for even greater overdevelopment in Eastlakes. Growth should be balanced with the capacity of the surrounding community and infrastructure.
I support sensible, well-planned development that provides housing while maintaining a functional and liveable neighbourhood. In my view, this proposal does not achieve that balance.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application or require significant reductions in its height, density and associated impacts before any approval is considered. Given the scale of the proposal and the level of community concern, I also believe it should be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for independent determination.

While I support additional housing in appropriate locations, this proposal represents a significant increase in scale beyond the previously approved development. The application seeks buildings of up to 18 storeys and 62.9 metres in height, compared to the existing approval of 7–12 storeys and 40.8 metres. It also increases the floor space ratio from 2.11:1 to 5.29:1 and the number of dwellings from 425 to between 736 and 877 dwellings.

My concerns include:

1. Excessive Height and Bulk – The proposal is substantially larger than the approved development and is out of character with the surrounding Eastlakes area.
2. Traffic and Congestion – The developer’s own assessment predicts an increase of approximately 246 vehicle trips in the morning peak and 332 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak. Local roads, particularly Evans Avenue, Gardeners Road and surrounding intersections, already experience congestion.
3. Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity – The proposal acknowledges increased shadow impacts on neighbouring properties and Jack Mundey Reserve. Residents and park users should not bear the cost of excessive overdevelopment.
4. Insufficient Open Space and Landscaping – Despite the scale of the project, deep soil planting is limited to only 595m² (3.3% of the site area), which is inadequate for a development of this size.
5. Pressure on Local Infrastructure – Hundreds of additional apartments will place further strain on local roads, public transport, schools, health services and community facilities without corresponding infrastructure upgrades.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require significant reductions in height, density and traffic impacts before any approval is considered.

I support redevelopment of the former Eastlakes Shopping Centre and recognise the opportunity to deliver housing, affordable housing, retail services and public-domain improvements. However, from an architectural and urban-design perspective, I do not consider the proposal in its current form to respond appropriately to its context.

My concern is not simply the height of one building. It is the cumulative effect of four residential towers, a large podium, 736 dwellings and extensive non-residential floor space on a site surrounded mainly by three- and four-storey apartments, lower-scale housing and Jack Mundey Reserve. Good urban design requires more than internal compliance. It requires an appropriate relationship with surrounding buildings, streets, public spaces, infrastructure and the people who experience the development at ground level.

The proposal would introduce buildings of approximately 14 to 18 storeys into a substantially lower-scale local setting. Although taller development exists north of the site, the four-tower composition represents a significant further increase in height, density and visual presence. Variation in tower heights and separation may reduce the appearance of a continuous wall, but it does not resolve the overall scale. The complete composition (including podium height, tower width, floorplate depth, setbacks and cumulative floor spac) must be considered from nearby homes, streets and the reserve.

Compliance with Apartment Design Guide standards for separation, solar access and internal amenity does not by itself establish that the external urban-design outcome is appropriate. Contextual fit must still be assessed independently. The proposal should be reconsidered through a genuine reduction or redistribution of building mass. This could include lower tower heights, narrower floorplates, increased separation, stronger upper-level setbacks and a clearer transition towards surrounding lower-scale residential areas.

The interface with Jack Mundey Reserve is one of the most important design issues. The reserve is an existing public asset serving the wider community. It should not function primarily as borrowed landscape or open-space relief for a high-density private development. The architecture should preserve the reserve’s openness, sunlight, sky visibility, landscape character and year-round comfort. The tower and podium facing the reserve should be assessed from the perspective of a person using the park, not only through distant photomontages or numerical compliance tables. Attention should be given to apparent height and width, setbacks, overshadowing, wind, overlooking and the transition between public parkland and private residential uses.

Landscaping can improve the interface, but it should not be relied upon to conceal excessive building mass. Trees take time to mature and cannot fully offset the effect of a large podium and multiple towers. The building mass closest to the reserve should be reduced or set further back where necessary to create a more generous and durable relationship with the public space.

For pedestrians, neighbours and visitors, the podium will define the everyday experience of the development more than the upper towers. It should provide a fine-grained, active and legible frontage rather than long elevations, vehicle-dominated areas, blank servicing zones or an inward-facing shopping-centre environment. Pedestrian routes should be direct, accessible and visible, with clear connections between Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue, Jack Mundey Reserve, nearby bus stops and The Grand Eastlakes.

Residential entrances, retail frontages, loading areas, waste facilities, childcare access and vehicle crossings should be coordinated so that operational requirements do not compromise pedestrian safety or public-domain quality. The southern interface requires particular care because servicing and loading reduce pedestrian permeability. It should not become the rear or service edge of an otherwise prominent development. Any consent should require detailed resolution of the podium, entries, awnings, materials, landscaping, lighting and street interfaces. These elements should not be weakened through later value management.

The EIS identifies overshadowing, visual impact, departure from local built-form character and wind comfort among the proposal’s most significant potential negative social impacts. These matters should influence the building envelope itself rather than being treated mainly as impacts to manage after the scale has been fixed. Solar-access analysis should distinguish between compliance for apartments within the development and impacts on existing homes, streets and public open space. A development may achieve acceptable internal solar access while still producing substantial external overshadowing.

Wind mitigation should be integrated into tower placement and podium form. Screens, planting and balcony treatments may help, but should not substitute for appropriate massing. The visual assessment should consider the cumulative perception of all four towers, including views from nearby streets and within Jack Mundey Reserve, rather than focusing only on whether individual viewpoints are technically acceptable.

Architectural density cannot be separated from the infrastructure required to support it. The applicant’s traffic modelling identifies a key intersection operating at or above theoretical capacity in relevant scenarios. The proposal relies partly on optimised signal operation, internal capture between uses, reduced car use and the success of a future Green Travel Plan. Where the network has little spare capacity, those assumptions should be independently tested. If the network cannot reliably support the proposed yield under reasonable higher-demand scenarios, the density should be reduced rather than relying entirely on future behavioural change or operational adjustments.

The residential and visitor parking provision is also substantially below the Bayside DCP calculation. While reduced parking may be appropriate in highly accessible locations, Eastlakes is primarily bus-served and has no railway or light-rail station within immediate walking distance. Insufficient onsite parking could transfer demand onto surrounding streets. Parking allocations, visitor spaces, loading activity and childcare movements should therefore be tested, with enforceable monitoring and corrective measures if spillover or vehicle queueing occurs.

The architectural and public-domain quality shown at approval stage should also be protected through delivery. Large projects can be weakened through material substitutions, reduced landscaping and simplified detailing. Any consent should require design verification for significant changes to façades, podium treatment, landscaping, public-domain works, tower form and materials. Changes that materially increase visual bulk or reduce design quality should not be treated as minor amendments.

The affordable housing, childcare, community facilities, retail services and possible improvements to Jack Mundey Reserve are important benefits. However, reserve works, landscaping and community infrastructure should only be given significant weight if they are legally secured, funded, delivered at an appropriate stage and supported by long-term maintenance arrangements. Public-domain improvements should not justify excessive height or floor space where the underlying built form remains unsuitable.

I request that the proposal not be approved in its current form. The applicant should be required to:
- reduce or redistribute the overall building mass;
- create a more appropriate transition to surrounding lower-scale residential development;
- improve setbacks and reduce apparent bulk along Jack Mundey Reserve;
- demonstrate acceptable overshadowing, wind and visual outcomes;
- provide a finer-grained and genuinely pedestrian-oriented podium;
- coordinate loading, childcare, waste, vehicle access and pedestrian movement without diminishing the public domain;
- confirm that the proposed density can be supported by the road and parking network;
- legally secure promised public benefits; and
- protect approved architectural and landscape quality through construction.

I support substantial redevelopment of this site. However, the current proposal appears to have been designed around maximising development yield and then mitigating the resulting impacts. A stronger architectural response would begin with the capacity and character of the place, establish an appropriate building envelope, and then determine how much development can be accommodated within it.

A reduced and more carefully resolved scheme could still deliver significant housing and retail benefits while contributing more positively to Eastlakes over the long term.

Submission Objecting to the Proposed Eastlakes Town Centre Redevelopment

I wish to object to the proposed amendments to the Eastlakes redevelopment.

While I recognise the importance of providing additional housing in Sydney, I do not believe this proposal achieves an appropriate balance between increasing housing supply and protecting the liveability of the existing community.

My primary concern is the substantial increase in the number of apartments compared with what was previously approved. Such a significant increase represents a major intensification of the development and will place considerable pressure on infrastructure that is already under strain.

Traffic and Road Congestion

Traffic congestion around Eastlakes is already a daily issue, particularly along Gardeners Road, Wentworth Avenue, Evans Avenue and surrounding local streets. Increasing the number of apartments by such a large amount will inevitably generate additional vehicle movements despite proposed transport initiatives. Existing intersections frequently experience delays during peak periods, and there appears to be limited capacity for meaningful road upgrades due to the established urban environment.

Infrastructure Capacity

The proposal will increase demand on local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, childcare services, medical facilities and community services. It is not clear that these essential services have sufficient capacity to accommodate the substantial increase in population.

Loss of Community Amenity

The scale and density of the revised proposal is excessive for Eastlakes. A development of this magnitude risks fundamentally changing the character of the suburb while reducing the quality of life for existing residents through increased congestion, noise, overcrowding and pressure on public open spaces.

Cumulative Impact

The assessment should consider not only the impacts of this development in isolation but also the cumulative effect of numerous developments occurring across the Bayside area. The combined increase in population requires supporting infrastructure to be delivered at the same pace as residential growth.

Public Interest

The original approval represented a balance between renewal and community impact. Increasing the apartment numbers so substantially appears to prioritise development yield over long-term community outcomes. I do not believe the revised proposal adequately demonstrates that local infrastructure and transport networks can sustainably support the increased density.

I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the proposed increase in apartment numbers or require the proposal to be substantially revised to reduce its scale to a level that better aligns with the capacity of the surrounding infrastructure and maintains a reasonable quality of life for current and future residents.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I am 100% in favour of a new shopping centre, including some restaurants, however I do NOT agree with the proposed over development that will take place in regards to the apartment buildings and unit complexes. This is way over the top for a small local area. It is going to result in excessive foot traffic as well as vehicle congestion in the area. The roads are not designed for such high traffic demands. During peak hour, it is already congested in the mornings when I drive via Evans Avenue heading towards racecourse place to turn onto Gardeners Rd. I can only imagine how chaotic it will become with thousands more people and vehicles thrown into the mix. The average family of 4 these days has 2-3 cars. If only one car space is allocated to each apartment that means those 1-2 additional cars will be parked on the street making our once peaceful area very crowded. There are not enough off street car spaces now. Where are all these additional vehicles going to be parked? Most likely they will end up parking illegally or across other residents driveways in surrounding residential streets. The streets around Eastlakes are narrow. Excessive traffic will cause vehicles to be backed up into residential streets. This can also delay and increase Emergency vehicle Response times. I have lived in Eastlakes my entire life and have always enjoyed our small community of locals. This will all be taken away if this massive over development takes place. Eastlakes has always been an affordable area, and although the old shopping centre was run down towards the end it still attracted the locals as it was reasonable, affordable for the locals and had every thing we needed under the one roof. The elderly could easily walk from their properties close by and do their shopping. Everything was in reach. However with this new proposal, apartments will not be affordable and it will most likely price the locals out of the area. The majority of small businesses that were operating in the old Eastlakes Shopping Centre have already been out priced out of the area. Many of them wanted to continue operating their businesses in Eastlakes and some attempted to set up shop in the new Grand at Easlakes, but rent prices were way too high and out of their reach. How can small businesses survive in the area if we have this over development happening? I strongly object to this over development proposal and hope that something is done to stop it before it goes ahead. I feel the local residents should be heard in this matter. After all, we are the ones that live here and will be affected by it the most.

I object to the proposed development at 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes.
While I support additional housing in appropriate locations, this proposal represents a significant increase in scale beyond the previously approved development. The application seeks buildings of up to 18 storeys and 62.9 metres in height, compared to the existing approval of 7–12 storeys and 40.8 metres. It also increases the floor space ratio from 2.11:1 to 5.29:1 and the number of dwellings from 425 to between 736 and 877 dwellings.
My concerns include:
1. Excessive Height and Bulk – The proposal is substantially larger than the approved development and is out of character with the surrounding Eastlakes area.
2. Traffic and Congestion – The developer’s own assessment predicts an increase of approximately 246 vehicle trips in the morning peak and 332 vehicle trips in the afternoon peak. Local roads, particularly Evans Avenue, Gardeners Road and surrounding intersections, already experience congestion.
3. Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity – The proposal acknowledges increased shadow impacts on neighbouring properties and Jack Mundey Reserve. Residents and park users should not bear the cost of excessive overdevelopment.
4. Insufficient Open Space and Landscaping – Despite the scale of the project, deep soil planting is limited to only 595m² (3.3% of the site area), which is inadequate for a development of this size.
5. Pressure on Local Infrastructure – Hundreds of additional apartments will place further strain on local roads, public transport, schools, health services and community facilities without corresponding infrastructure upgrades.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require significant reductions in height, density and traffic impacts before any approval is considered.

Submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Objection to the Proposed Redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre – 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the Eastlakes Shopping Centre at 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes.
While I recognise the need to increase housing supply, including affordable and build-to-rent housing, this proposal is excessive in scale and density and is not an appropriate outcome for the Eastlakes community. The proposed development of 736 residential units across four buildings of up to 18 storeys is out of all proportion to the existing character, built form and infrastructure capacity of the area.
My concerns are as follows:
1. Overdevelopment and Excessive Height
The proposal represents a level of overdevelopment that is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. Buildings of up to 18 storeys would dominate the local skyline and dramatically alter the character of Eastlakes.
The scale of this development appears to prioritise maximising residential yield rather than achieving a balanced outcome that integrates with the surrounding community. A development of a more appropriate height and density could deliver additional housing while maintaining compatibility with the existing neighbourhood.
2. Parking Impacts on the Existing Community
Parking is already a significant issue in Eastlakes. Residents, visitors and local businesses regularly experience difficulty finding on-street parking, particularly around the shopping centre and surrounding residential streets.
A development of this magnitude will inevitably increase parking demand, even where on-site parking is provided. Many households own more than one vehicle, visitors require parking, and service vehicles will also add to demand. Overflow parking is likely to spill into surrounding streets, reducing parking availability for existing residents and businesses.
The proposal does not adequately address how these cumulative parking impacts will be managed over the long term.
3. Increased Traffic Congestion
Adding hundreds of new dwellings will substantially increase traffic movements throughout Eastlakes. Local roads and intersections already experience congestion during peak periods, and additional vehicle movements will worsen delays, reduce road safety and increase travel times for residents.
This proposal should not proceed unless there is clear evidence that the surrounding road network can accommodate this level of growth without unacceptable impacts.
4. Pressure on Infrastructure and Community Services
An increase of this scale in population will place significant additional demand on local infrastructure, including:
• public transport
• local roads
• schools
• childcare facilities
• healthcare services
• parks and open space
• community facilities
• utilities and essential services.
There is little confidence that existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate such rapid growth without reducing service levels and quality of life for current residents.
5. Loss of Residential Amenity
The height and bulk of the proposed buildings are likely to result in increased overshadowing, reduced privacy, altered wind conditions and a loss of sunlight for neighbouring properties and public spaces.
These impacts would permanently diminish the amenity enjoyed by existing residents.
6. Eastlakes Deserves Appropriate Planning
Good planning is about achieving balanced growth. This proposal is simply too large for the site and the surrounding suburb.
Eastlakes should not be expected to absorb development that is significantly greater than the area's existing built form and infrastructure can reasonably support. Growth should occur in a way that respects neighbourhood character, protects residential amenity and ensures infrastructure keeps pace with population increases.
Approving buildings of up to 18 storeys in this location would set an undesirable precedent for future developments and fundamentally change the nature of the suburb.
Request
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require significant amendments to substantially reduce the height, density and overall scale of the development.
Given the considerable public interest and the far-reaching implications of this proposal, I also request that, if the required number of public objections is received or the relevant council objects, the application be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for determination. An independent and transparent assessment is appropriate for a development of this magnitude.
Eastlakes residents deserve development that is proportionate, well planned and supported by adequate infrastructure—not an overdevelopment that places unacceptable pressure on local roads, parking, services and the character of the community.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Katrina
Local resident