Residential development with infill affordable housing, Herring Road and Lachlan Avenue Macquarie Park

https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/residential-development-infill-affordable-housing-herring-road-and-lachlan-avenue-macquarie-park

I support his proposal and have some commentary to provide.


1. Gas is a fossil fuel, as there are more efficient and less costly to the environment and for people who will live in the apartments, its use should be reconsidered. If gas is to be used for cooktops and hot water, then apartment owners will be forced to pay for a separate daily connection fee to use the gas cooktop and for hot water they will be paying an estimated additional $479 a year (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-sydneysiders-could-save-730-a-year-by-ditching-gas-20240325-p5feyf.html). You can find evidence to show that hot water heat pumps are more efficient than gas hot water heating and that induction cooktops are more efficient than gas cooktops. Gas is also a fossil fuel, has potential health impacts when used as part of cooking and using it goes against the SDRP Review Summary stated goal of “Commit to a 100% electric building”.

2. The parking rate found in the transport impact assessment I will suggest is rather odd & the number of parking spaces should be revisited as there is potential to reduce the number.
As it refers to what the Council has specified in terms of maximum parking rates versus what the Housing SEPP 2021 “requires” for the non-affordable housing portion.
The Ryde Council 2014 DCP ( https://www.ryde.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/development/dcp/dcp-2014-9.3-parking-controls.pdf) specifies in section 2.2 - that the maximum parking rates for the Macquarie Park Corridor (as shown on RLEP 2014 Centres Map) (https://eplanningdlprod.blob.core.windows.net/pdfmaps/6700_COM_CEN_004_010_20140508.pdf - via https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/publications/environmental-planning-instruments/ryde-local-environmental-plan-2014 ) would permit a maximum of
~138 (rounded up from 137.8) parking spaces for the non-affordable housing dwellings. However, the traffic impact assessment and other documents are providing 149 market (non-affordable dwelling) car parking spaces. I will note that I did not see any provision for car share spaces in the transport impact assessment document.

In this case the difference in terms of the amount of parking is not that large as the proposal elected to use 5 visitor car parking spaces instead of the maximum of ~ 18 visitor spaces. In terms of expressing the absolute maximum differences in car parking spaces, the standard Ryde DCP would permit a maximum of 161 spaces for dwellings, a maximum 18 visitor spaces, and ~ 3 car share spaces for a combined maximum of 182 car spaces. The proposed number of car spaces for dwellings is 190 with 5 visitor spots for a total of 195 spaces. This exceeds the Ryde DCP by 13 car parking spaces. If we use the Ryde DCP for the market apartments and the Housing Sepp for the non-market apartments we would have 138 + 14 = 152, adding in the maximum number of visitor spaces we end up with 170 and then adding in the car share spaces we have 174 (rounding up the number of car share spaces). 174 is 21 fewer car spaces than the proposed 190 car spaces. At an estimated cost of $100,000 each as per https://sydney.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Committee-for-Sydney-Better-Parking-for-Better-Places-August-2022.pdf the excess parking spaces above the Ryde Council DCP should be revisited.

The 2021 Housing Sepp contains the following

“ 19 Non-discretionary development standards—the Act, s 4.15
(1) The object of this section is to identify development standards for particular matters relating to residential development under this division that, if complied with, prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards for the matters.
Note— See the Act, section 4.15(3), which does not prevent development consent being granted if a non-discretionary development standard is not complied with.
…
(e) the following number of parking spaces for dwellings used for affordable housing—
(i) for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom—at least 0.4 parking spaces,
(ii) for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms—at least 0.5 parking spaces,
(iii) for each dwelling containing at least 3 bedrooms— at least 1 parking space,
(f) the following number of parking spaces for dwellings not used for affordable housing—
(i) for each dwelling containing 1 bedroom—at least 0.5 parking spaces,
(ii) for each dwelling containing 2 bedrooms—at least 1 parking space,
(iii) for each dwelling containing at least 3 bedrooms—at least 1.5 parking spaces,
“

Arguably “The object of this section is to identify development standards for particular matters relating to residential development under this division that, if complied with, prevent the consent authority from requiring more onerous standards for the matters” does hold here because Ryde Council has less onerous standards for the matters, the applicant could otherwise provide 0 or effectively 0 parking. Notably as per the NSW government’s practice note https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/in-fill-affordable-housing-practice-note.pdf
“For example, the in-fill affordable housing provisions include a non-discretionary development standard for minimum parking rates. The consent authority cannot refuse a DA based on parking rate if these minimum rates are met. If another planning instrument contains a more permissive standard, or the consent authority is of the opinion that a lower parking rate is justified on merit, it is not intended that a written variation request pursuant to clause 4.6 should be required for the non-discretionary parking standard under the Housing SEPP.”






3. The documents for the proposal seem to disagree about whether the building will use gas and for what specifically.

From Environmental Impact Statement (SSD 74319712) - January 2025
> Reduced fossil fuel usage onsite, electric heating and cooling, gas only for private cooking and hot water.

From the EIS Appendix 3 - Statutory Compliance Table


> Reduced fossil fuel usage onsite, electric heating and cooling, gas only for private cooking and hot water.

Appendix B - SDRP Review Summary

has
> 29. Commit to a 100% electric building. As there may be significant future demand on power supply in the area generally, undertake the necessary technical analysis to minimise demand on the local electricity grid.

The BASIX REPORT - FEBRUARY 3, 2025 has

> The central hot water systems is to be gas-fired storage (manifold) systems. All piping (internal and external to ringmain and supply riser) for the hot water systems are to include R1.0 (~38mm) insulation and will supply hot water to each residential dwelling

> A gas cooktop and electric oven to be installed within each residential dwelling.

but the BASIX REPORT then has
> Table 5 Ventilation Systems
> …
> RL Hot Water Heat Pump Light-emitting diode Manual on / manual off

The Community Engagement Report - October 2024 has
> Reducing onsite fossil fuel usage by using electric heating and hot water systems, with gas limited to private cooking.

I’m writing as a local owner and resident to express my concerns about the proposed development that includes 181 units, with 29 designated as affordable housing.

To be clear, I support the principle of affordable housing. However,I am concerned about the high proportion of affordable units in this particular development and whether the current local infrastructure is equipped to support this.

Our suburb is already experiencing growing challenges around:
- Concerns around safety, observing rising crime and extreme antisocial behaviour
- Overcrowded public transport, especially during peak hours
- Frequent littering, vandalism, and abandoned shopping trolleys, which reduce the quality of shared public spaces

Adding this development without clear commitments to address these issues risks placing further strain on local services and affects both current and future residents’ quality of life.

This project fits into the existing high density developments, and is located just 300m away from the Macquarie University metro station. There is no reason this should not be built.

There is enough affordable housing in Macquarie and saturation.

Macquaire Park area is already very crowded.

While I appreciate the inclusion of affordable housing within the project, I have serious concerns about the cumulative impact of ongoing and future developments in this area. Since 2019, there has been near-continuous construction along this road, resulting in persistent noise, dust, and disruption to daily life for residents. The prolonged construction activity has significantly affected the quality of life, with no foreseeable end in sight.
The proposed project adds to an already high density of apartment buildings along this stretch. This not only raises concerns about infrastructure capacity and traffic congestion, but also extends the period during which residents will be subject to construction noise and disturbances.
I respectfully request that the responsible planning authority reconsider the scale and timing of this development, and take into account the long-standing and ongoing impact on the existing community.

I object to the project based on the following reasons:
1) There are multiple ongoing developments, including Trilogy, Macquarie Rise, and the second phase of Midtown, which will provide more than 1,000 new units in the coming years.
2) Herring Road is already heavily congested and generates significant noise, especially at night.
3) Macquarie University Metro Station is overcrowded during the morning peak hours, often requiring commuters to wait for a second train to board.
4) Macquarie Centre experiences long queues during lunch and dinner times.
In conclusion, the current infrastructure is insufficient to support the rapid population growth in Macquarie Park.

Herring road is pretty busy already with daily traffic and especially during the weekend. This will bring more congestion to community.

Simply not a good decision. Macquarie is already too crowded, and don't ruin the peace here.

This building is too tall, which affects both the lighting and privacy of my room.

I’ve been living in Macquarie Park for almost a year now, and it’s a great place because it’s really near the metro station and the bus interchange at Macquarie Centre. Despite this fact, I notice that a lot people still prefer to drive their own car. I still see a lot of cars with only one driver. Another thing that’s very particular to Macquarie Park that catches my attention is parking issues. Since the first day, I notice a lot of people that don’t live in my building or the surrounding building are parking their cars in the street parking spot and the visitors’ spot. This makes the “real” visitors of the residents have nowhere to park their car in, and this seems to be a pattern around the buildings around Macquarie Park. The whole point about writing about this story is to point out that this project is going to add to this problem in Macquarie Park.

I’ve read most of the publications for this project and one thing that really stood out is the fact that not all residents will have their own spot. This means that a lot of residents will be forced to find parking elsewhere because of the fact that almost every single person in this new building will have his/her own vehicle. Which then leads to the same problem that not everyone will have his/her own parking spot.

I take the Metro to work everyday so I pass Windsor Drive everyday as well. Windsor Drive is a favorite spot for people from Herring Rd to perform an illegal U-turn. There’s a silver Alfa Romeo hatchback that has been left on Windsor Drive for at least two months now (it will probably still be there by the time you read this). In my opinion, this car tried to do an illegal U-turn but the driver was going too fast and hit the turning sign that once was upright in between the pedestrian crossing island. I could say that confidently because of the tire marks that were left on the road. I also often see cars blocking the entrance to Windsor Rd because it’s waiting for a spot to park in. This caused vehicles that tried to turn into Windsor Rd from Herring Rd no choice but to block the traffic or forced its way in and blocked pedestrian access. This poses a big safety hazard since a lot of school kids are crossing Windsor Rd. Once this project is finished and its buildings are fully occupied, these problems will only get worse.

There is a huge amount of construction noise already happening in the area. Traffic coming into Herring Rd from Epping Road is very congested. Use of the Metro and Buses are at very full capacity. We strongly object to building more apartments on Herring Rd.

I strongly oppose the development of affordable housing near my apartment due to concerns about increased congestion, strain on local infrastructure, and potential changes to the character of the neighbourhood. The area is already facing challenges such as limited parking, overcrowded public services, and rising safety concerns, which could be exacerbated by high-density housing. While I support initiatives for housing accessibility, it is crucial to ensure that developments are carefully planned in locations that can sustain them without negatively impacting existing residents' quality of life.

Dear,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed construction of a residential flat with infill affordable housing. While I appreciate the need for affordable housing, I strongly believe that this development will have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood and the quality of life for residents in the area.

Key Concerns:

The area is already facing congestion, and the addition of a high-density residential building will put further strain on local roads and parking availability. This will make commuting more difficult for residents and increase safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

The current infrastructure, including schools, medical facilities, public transport, and utilities, is already at capacity. A sudden influx of new residents will add further pressure, reducing the quality and accessibility of these essential services.

The introduction of a high-density residential flat will significantly alter the character of our neighborhood, which is primarily composed of flat buildings. This could lead to a decline in property values and diminish the sense of community that residents have worked hard to build.

Rapidly introducing a large number of new residents without proper long-term planning may lead to social and security challenges, including an increase in anti-social behavior. This could create unease among existing residents and affect the overall safety of the area.

The development may result in the removal of green spaces, increased noise pollution, and additional strain on waste management and drainage systems. These factors could contribute to long-term environmental degradation in the neighborhood.

Given these concerns, I strongly urge the government to reconsider this proposal and explore alternative locations better suited for high-density housing—ones with the necessary infrastructure and capacity to support such a development. I also request a transparent consultation process with residents to ensure our voices are heard.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response.
Best regards,

It will increase the crime rate in this area and reduce the suburb value. Other groups of people might find it inconvenient to live around this area. Also 181 apartments will make this area even more crowded with difficulty in finding parking. Not sustainable for the future development of this area.

There is far too much ongoing development in this area with unbearable noise and congestion. Constant disruptions to normal life and over done amount of build up in the area. There has been removal of services and facilities to make way for too many new high rise building and the neighbourhood has become a jungle of ugly towering high rise buildings.

I object to the project in its current form mainly due to the set back from Windsor Drive. It should be set further in to provide the necessary land for Windsor Road to be widen to cater for the potential increase in the volume of traffic using this road. The whole area will be developed with high rise buildings in the very near future.
This is the main road in for vehicles to the area if they are coming from Epping Road, and vice versa.