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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.