Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent, North Ryde

I object to this project submission for the following reasons
1) The concerns raised by residents in the last round of submissions have not been considered by Stockland or discussed in this revised proposal - It is not acceptable for Stockland or Government to ignore the valid concerns of residents.
2) Stockland is trying to misuse Cl 6.9 to increase the height of the project above current zoning.
3) New Link Road is an important community asset that was provided as a condition to Triniti 1 project going ahead.
4) New Link Road must not be closed to traffic as it is an important thoroughfare for residents vehicles to access the local arterial road access points.
5) Using New Link Road square meters to contribute to the floor space ratio of the project is unacceptable given it was provided as a community benefit as a road and the plan is to hand it over to council for ongoing management.
6) No vehicle access should be planned off Rennie street and removing parking spaces on the street for this plan is unacceptable. The local childcare facilities rely on these spaces to allow for young children to be dropped off and picked up after care. All vehicle access should be well planned off Rivet Road.
7) A walking bridge off the bottom of Rennie Street over Epping road/ M2 to the newly funded Blenheim community park would be a genuine community benefit to consider and would also provide vastly increased bicycle access.
8) The land area is zoned for commercial space at 37Mtrs and should remain that way. Once all surrounding residential buildings are completed the area will require a commercial hub as envisaged in the recent Ryde future plan.

I object to the project in its current form with Building C as I foresee issues with unreasonable height and units proposed to be build.

Units in Rydn Gardens facing building C will have their entire view completely blocked by this new building. This is unacceptable and it does not amount to view sharing. I worry for my neighbours' having to compromise receiving natural light vs privacy in their own homes. This cannot be good for long-term mental wellbeing and resident happiness.

The metro line will also be affected. There is already an enormous amount of projects proposed for all the suburbs along the metro line. With this development of multiple units and over height, it will cause strain on the commuters going into the city with the sheer amount of additional residents here alone.

There are already issues with green space and lighting within the complex. This proposal will only further cause strain and issues, affecting living conditions.

The building needs to be of a reasonable height, this is unreasonable for the living conditions for the current residents.

It is not meet the zoning rule.

As a local resident, I am deeply disappointed to see that Stockland have made no meaningful effort to respond to the substantial and substantive concerns raised by the local community to this development in this amended proposal. Please find attached an updated letter of objection to this development.

The project is yet to address the following points:

- New Link road needs to be available to all residents in North Ryde. Closing this road will cause significant delays to get to critical places like the RNS hospital, City and Airport through M1. Time will increase by at least 10 min as it will take 3 extra traffic lights to get to the same spot when driving through Delhi/Epping road when compared to New Link/Rivett road (in peak hour it will be worse).
New link road is included in the Gross Floor Area

- Parking around the area is already very hard, having such density will make street parking impossible

-Ryde Garden green space will become their only green space, which will become overcrowded and brings the possibility of Trinity residents not looking after the space as it is not under their strata

- Proposed Building A has not been modified which will cast extreme shadows on the childcare, kids won't have sun in their playground meaning it will be extremely cold and dark. Additionally shadow on the Ryde Garden apartments could cause mental health issues on some residents as sunsets and sunrises are part of our lifestyle

- Neighbour's past objections have not been taken into account, which doesn't seem the right approach.

I understand there is a dwelling crisis in Sydney, however areas that have the capacity to take such volume of residence should be explored instead of overpopulating North Ryde. I suddenly feel my future may not be here in the apartment I bought after seeing the overdevelopment that is proposed for my beautiful suburb.

Environmental impact to North Ryde

I am writing to object the proposed development.

Amended Development Overview:
The amended proposed development includes the construction of three buildings, with a total of 510 Build-to-Rent (BTR) residential units.

The project also proposes a pedestrian link intended to enhance connectivity within the area. However, there are concerns that this link does not sufficiently contribute to public amenities or improve the pedestrian experience in a meaningful way and has not fully address CPTED principles.

Non-Compliance with Local Planning Requirements:
The development is argued to be non-compliant with specific clauses in the local planning regulations that allow for increased building height and density in exchange for providing additional commercial space and public benefits. Specifically, Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 is highlighted as not being adequately satisfied by the proposal.
The minimal commercial space offered—only 780 square meters—falls well short of what would be expected to justify the additional residential density and building height. This lack of commercial contribution is seen as undermining the strategic intent to create a mixed-use area that supports both residential living and commercial activity.

Objection to the Amended Proposal:
The amended proposal has significantly increased the building heights beyond what was initially approved. This increase is seen as problematic because it will likely lead to a loss of views for residents in nearby buildings, particularly those in Ryde Gardens Buildings A and B. The obstruction of views includes key landmarks such as the Sydney CBD skyline and the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which are considered important for the existing resident’s amenities. It is important to adhere to the objectives of the original planning control height of 37m. Failure to adhere also means departure from the SEPP Apartment Design Guide in providing and preserving apartment buildings amenities.

The amended built form still fails to provide view sharing between the development, with the proposal itself obstructing majority of the prominent distant views of the existing Ryde Gardens’ residents. This also shows the importance to lower the height to preserve amenities of existing residence.

Additionally, the proposal is seen as being inconsistent with the broader strategic plans for the area, including the Macquarie Park Place Strategy and the Stage 2 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Rezoning. These plans are designed to guide growth in a balanced manner, ensuring that residential developments are complemented by adequate commercial spaces and public infrastructure.

Inadequate Public and Communal Spaces:
The development's provision for public and communal spaces is considered insufficient. The proposed communal open space amounts to about 1,380 square meters, but this area is criticized for being poorly integrated into the broader public domain. The communal space is only accessible by the residents of the project but not to the public.

Furthermore, some of the proposed "public" spaces are not truly usable or meaningful. For instance, areas that are sloped or designated for future roadways are included in the public domain calculations, but these do not provide functional open space for recreation or community use. This raises concerns about the quality and utility of the public spaces that are being offered in exchange for the increased density.

The attached markup on shadow diagrams also shows how serious the shadowing impact on ground plane within and external to the development are. Public space above ground plane or roof are generally less successful due to harder to access and runs risk of being privatised after project completion.

View Loss and Environmental Impact:
The increased height of the buildings is expected to cause significant view loss for residents in the surrounding area, particularly those in the Ryde Gardens buildings. This view loss is not just a minor inconvenience; it is seen as a substantial reduction in residential amenity, affecting views of iconic landmarks such as the Sydney CBD skyline and the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Additionally, the cumulative environmental impact of the proposed development, especially when considered alongside other BTR projects in the area. The lack of comprehensive environmental assessments that take into account the combined impact of multiple developments is seen as a critical oversight that could lead to overdevelopment and a decrease in the overall quality of life for existing residents.

Out-of-Sequence Development:
The development is viewed as being out of sequence with the planned growth for the area as outlined in the Macquarie Park Place Strategy. This strategy envisions a phased approach to growth, where increases in residential density are matched by corresponding improvements in infrastructure, commercial spaces, and public amenities.

The current proposal introduces a large number of new dwellings—510 units—without the necessary infrastructure and commercial development to support this population increase. This premature introduction of high-density residential units could place undue strain on existing services, such as transportation, parking, utilities, and public spaces, and could disrupt the intended timeline and balance of development in the area.

In conclusion, the amended proposal still fails to address a number of key issues and will result in significant negative impact to the existing community. Some fundamental principles of the proposal discussed above requires further amendments, to ensure the amenities of current and future residents are not compromised.

I object this project for the following reasons:
1. Non-Compliance with Clause 6.9: The development does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014, particularly regarding the bonus incentives for building height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR). The proposal does not adequately encourage commercial development, which is a key objective of the clause.
2. Inadequate Communal Space and Accessibility: The amended proposal does not provide sufficient communal open spaces, recreation areas, or pedestrian linkages. The adjustments made are considered minor and do not address the issues raised in previous objections.
3. Reduced Community Benefits: Without clear regulations, there is a risk that BTR projects may not provide sufficient public amenities, green spaces, or affordable housing, thereby failing to contribute to the broader social and economic needs of the community.
I particularly have concerns about the impact of the development on local planning strategies, residential amenities, and public spaces.

Objections are lodged for the below reasons:
1. Overshadowing. The block A of 20 stories per the exhibition would definitely block the only sunlight source of those exisiting residents facing the east and would cause extreme shadow to the childcare centre. Vice versa, the future tenants of the block A of Triniti Lighthouse will be not have any light from west. This is design is humanly unhealthy.
2. NO view-sharing. The unskillful design of the Triniti Lighthouse buildings is completely taking the view away from the the current residents, instead of sharing the view. It appears irresponsible to the neighbourhood, and shows zero care about the community.
3. NOT providing enough green space. Per the proposal, Stockland only designed a minimum green space for the public to enjoy. The future residents and pets wouldn’t have sufficient space for enjoyment and would likely to increase the pressure of facilities in the surrounding area.
4. Lack of infrastructures. By increasing as many homes as this proposal is trying to, no new infrastructures or parking spaces are being provided. Such plan will only adversely impact the worsen traffic condition. Though people are encouraged to use public transport more, will limiting infrastructure input solve the congestion? Will limited parking spaces stop people having to drive? No.
We demand Stockland to stick to the current DA which is 37 metres in height with FSR 2:1.

I object this project for the following reasons:
Built Form and Urban Design: The proposal relies on incentives for building height and floor space ratio (FSR) that may not be adequately justified. The increase in height and density could lead to visual bulk. Transferring massing from one building to another, resulting in a 9-storey and a 19-storey building, it doesn't convincingly address the concern about visual bulk. The reduction in height for one building doesn't necessarily alleviate the impact of the taller building (19-storey). The design should be readdressed to ensure the height is reduced.
Visual and View Loss Impact: The development leads to a notable loss of views for surrounding properties, which is something not adequately mitigated by the current design. The cumulative impact on the visual amenity of the area is significant.
The proposal constantly relies on the fact the existing Ryde Garden buildings are of a greater heigh than the projects proposed. But this is no reason for them to seek approval to increase the authorized heigh for their project. (Not all Ryde Garden resident leave on the TOP floor).

loss of green space and unhealthy living environment

I object to the project in its current form with Building C being of extreme and unreasonable height with too many homes. I do not object to the necessity for new housing to be built, however the new buildings need to be of a reasonable height and reasonable number of units.
The current proposal for Building C will cause many issues due to the height and incremental number of people because of the additional units.

There is limited amount of green space already for the residents of Ryde Gardens and Centrale. The green space is already messy and wrecked because of over-use and the lack of cleaning up after animals. With more units comes more animals and the state of the animal mess and over-use of these green spaces will be exacerbated.

Units in Rydn Gardens facing building C will have their entire view completely blocked by this new building. This is unacceptable and it does not amount to view sharing. I worry for my neighbours' having to compromise receiving natural light vs privacy in their own homes. This cannot be good for long-term mental welbeing.

There is the childcare centre's outdoor area in the immediate vicinity of Building C. This will now extremely limit the natural light that this centre gets for the majority of the day, which is a huge detriment to the staff and children at this centre. A shorter building would allow for more light.

I also worry about the strain on the public transport network with this many new homes. At peak hour, the Metro is already extremely busy with people packed in side-by-side at North Ryde as it is only one stop from the final destination. With this many more homes and people it will create a nightmare scenario for commuters trying to get into the city using already strained services.

I object to the project as it creates significant inspect to the North Ryde metro station precinct. My major concerns are as per below:
1) The residual housing is overcrowded around the precinct, not to mention the development by Landcom in Lachlan’s lane between M2 motorway is soon to be commenced which adds another 2700 homes. The infrastructure and urban planning in North Ryde are not sufficient to support another 510 dwellings (just along Stockland Triniti stage 2) planned for. The area does not have the infrastructure to support overflow of apartments in the area eg traffic on Delhi road, Epping road and the Metro & bus transport systems on rush hours are struggling to keep up with the exponential growth!
2) Lack of green space area, lack of sunlight and extremely poor air ventilation to the current Ryde garden resident who lives 20th floor down - that’s devastating knowing most of us will be living in the dark during the day. This itself causes significant harm to mental and physical health to the residents. No green public area as well when we live next to one of the busiest road, Epping and Delhi road, where can we go for walks with our children and dogs?
Stockland’s proposal will need be reconsidered and also addressing the objections raised by current residents!

Objection in view of below reasons:
1. Out-of-sequence development and inconsistency with Macquarie park place strategyTOD Rezoning;
2. Very little public green space;
3. Extreme overshadowing with neighbour buildings;
4. Continued non-compliance with Clause 6.9 Development in Macquarie Park corridor-Ryde LEP 2014;
5. Not enough parking spaces;
6. View loss and cumulative impacts .
6. Bring more traffic issues by blocking New Link Rd.

As resident of the neighboring apartment complex, I firmly believe that the excessive height of this development will have several negative implications for the local community. I kindly request that you consider these concerns and reassess the height of the proposed project accordingly.
Overlooking and loss of privacy: The increased height of the build to rent development will result in a significant loss of privacy for existing residents. The potential overlooking into our homes and outdoor spaces is a serious intrusion and could compromise our quality of life.
Sunlight and overshadowing: The proposed height of the development raises concerns regarding sunlight availability to surrounding properties. The overshadowing effect caused by the taller building may deprive neighboring apartments of natural light, adversely affecting our well-being and the livability of our homes.
Visual impact and character: The excessive height of the proposed build to rent development contradicts the existing aesthetic appeal and character of our neighborhood. The towering structure would disrupt the harmony of the streetscape, creating an unbalanced and visually intrusive environment that is inconsistent with the surrounding low-rise buildings.
Density and population strain: The proposed height of the development raises concerns about the potential strain it will impose on our already stretched infrastructure, amenities, and services. With increased population density resulting from the taller building, there is a risk of overwhelming local resources, leading to inadequate provision of essential services and facilities for both existing and future residents.
Traffic and parking: The height of the build to rent development will undoubtedly exacerbate existing traffic congestion and parking issues. The influx of residents and visitors associated with the taller development will put additional pressure on limited parking spaces, potentially leading to a shortage of parking options for both residents and visitors. This, in turn, would further contribute to traffic congestion in the area, making it more difficult for existing residents to navigate the neighborhood.
Given these concerns, I urge you to reevaluate the proposed height of the build to rent development. While I understand the need for housing solutions, it is crucial to strike a balance between accommodating growth and preserving the well-being and harmony of the community. I recommend exploring alternative design options that align with the existing scale and character of the neighborhood, ensuring a more harmonious integration of the proposed development.
In conclusion, I strongly object to the proposed height of the build to rent development at Triniti. The potential negative impacts on privacy, sunlight, visual appeal, density, and traffic congestion are significant concerns for the existing residents. I urge the Planning Department and City Council to reconsider the height of the development, explore alternative design options, and prioritize the well-being and harmony of the community.

This development in the North Ryde station precinct has been modified significantly to the detriment of existing residents of the area as well as the area as a whole. By requesting an increase in FSR and building heights Stockland is attempting to cram significantly more residential apartments into this site.

Traffic - Blocking of New Link Rd to vehicular traffic
There already exists significant traffic congestion on Delhi Rd during commuting hours. The development will mean the closure of New Link Rd to traffic so will block vehicular access to the North Ryde station precinct apartments via Julius Ave from Delhi Rd and the slip road from Epping Rd. Even without additional residential units being constructed, this alone would cause significant delays for residents commuting to/from workplaces, accepting deliveries and parents doing childcare pick up / drop off. This will of course compound with the additional units and even more so if the increase in FSR / total dwellings is allowed to go ahead.

Shadowing
The proposed increase in FSR / building heights combined with the very close building envelope to the existing Ryde Garden development at 1-5 Network Place means significant shadowing will occur for east facing apartments. In many cases it will mean no/minimal direct sunlight at any time of the year as the rising sun in the east would have been the only source of light. The Triniti Lighthouse developement directly blocks the rising sun for these apartments.
It will also have a devastating impact on natural light received by the childcare centre located in 1 Network Place as it too is east facing.

View sharing
The projected impact on view enjoyed by east facing, even relatively high level apartments in 1 and 3 Network Place is described as severe. The diagrams shown in the View Loss and Visual ImpactAssessment by Stockland themselves show near absolute, complete blocking of the existing pleasant panoramic outlook of green forest and distant Sydney skyline. The new buildings are built almost parallel to existing buildings which near maximises disruption.
Having tiered building heights as originally planned (92m for 1-5 Network Place, 37m for 39 Delhi Rd) was a reasonable plan for view sharing but the proposal is to nearly double the height, blocking the view for the majority of existing apartments. This coupled with the extremely close positioning of the new buildings compound the issue and is quite frankly put, not fair.

Commercial vs Residential development
The Macquarie Park Place Strategy labels the area of the Stockland development as a technology hub, designed to provide local jobs. The strategy highlights the importance of this but this development is seemingly ignoring this, moving to a vast majority of residential units with a token number of shops at the base.

Stockland has not fulfilled the requirements set in clause 6.9. Hence, the development should be kept at 37metre.

1. The massive block of concrete will block the view and direct sunlight forever. I will be retiring soon, there will be absolutely no joy of seeing sunrise at all. I have to wait for hours to receive direct sunlight, only to enjoy for short period of time. Soon sunlight moves to roof top and gradually moves westwards. Eastside is my only source of view that bring sunrise, sunlight, hope, joy and firework on new year eve as I'm living in a tiny apartment, like a shoes box.
2. Stockland is running the project under BTR (build to rent). As a result, this project results me getting a BTR (Burial_site on my left, Tall_building at the centre, Road_Epping Road on my right) when I'm looking out from my tiny balcony. It is a total disaster for a retiring person. It is like driving a mini Cooper following a big container truck. There is absolutely no view at all. Such view is depressing, suppressing and inhumane.
3. As a retiring person, my mini garden will only have limited sunlight although nutrient, water and air are provided. The joy of seeing juicy tomatoes, lemon, leafy vegetable growing at my own small balcony is forever gone.
4. Limited direct sunlight promotes dampness and mould in the apartment. My clothes will not be having the chance to be sun-dried.
Hence, my suggestion is please go back to the drawing board, reduce the height of building. It is the height that causes a lot of problems. Make it 37 metre, the most.

Loss of sunlight to Ryde Gardens residents is a major issue.
Not enough public green space.
Transportation issues.
Not enough infrastructure to support the impact of this development.

A 37m height, with a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2:1 are the "base" limits for E2 (Commercial Core) zoned lots such as 39 Delhi Rd next door. If anyone enquired to Council about what would be built in the vacant block, they were told a height 37m (12 floors) and FSR of 2:1, which probably only allowed 10 floors. Unfortunately, there is a Clause 6.9 which allows an "incentive" height of 65m and FSR of 3:1. The intention of the clause is to allow Council to claw back green space and "public benefit". Even with these V2 plans, Stockland is not offering much public benefit or green space. Hence, a powerful argument is that Stockland should not be eligible for Clause 6.9. The Ryde Council objection says this, as does the Chapman Planning objection lodged on behalf or Ryde Gardens last November. Denial of Clause 6.9 would curtail Stockland's development to 37m. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/epi-2014-0608#sec.6.9

• There is no set ratio of residential floor area to green space area. For the area around Stockland, it appears insufficient.
• Congestion will be considerable flowing from 1,100 new homes.
• Reduced sunlight and increased wind from additional towers.
• the overcrowding of neighbouring green recreation spaces may become stressful for some residents.
• residents would support additional clauses in the rezoning to stipulate that new towers incorporate "skilled design" which takes view sharing into account