Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I am an Eastlakes resident living directly opposite the proposed development, with my apartment facing the site. As someone who will be directly affected every day by this project, I STRONGLY object to the application in its current form.
While I support the need for more housing (I’m a first home buyer myself), this proposal is a substantial increase in scale compared to what was previously approved. It seeks buildings of up to 18 storeys and 62.9 metres in height, compared with the existing approval of 7–12 storeys and 40.8 metres, and increases the number of dwellings from 425 to between 736 and 877. This level of overdevelopment will have significant impacts on nearby residents like myself and decreased livability in a beloved suburb of Eastlakes.
My concerns include:
1. Excessive Height and Bulk – The proposed buildings are far taller and denser than the previously approved development and are out of character with Eastlakes. Living directly opposite the site, I will be confronted by an overwhelming building mass that will permanently change the character of the area.
2. Traffic and Access – Evans Avenue is already busy, particularly during peak hours. The developer’s own assessment predicts an additional 246 vehicle trips in the morning peak and 332 in the afternoon peak. As my apartment and car park entry are directly opposite the development, I am extremely concerned that entering and exiting my building’s driveway will become increasingly difficult and unsafe due to the additional traffic.
3. Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight – The increased height will result in greater overshadowing of surrounding properties. My apartment directly faces the site, and I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight and the impact this will have on my home’s liveability and overall amenity.
4. Loss of Privacy – With buildings up to 18 storeys directly opposite my home, there will be a significant loss of privacy. Residents in the new towers will have direct views into neighbouring apartments that currently do not exist, substantially affecting the enjoyment of my home.
5. Noise and Amenity – The increased density and traffic will inevitably result in more vehicle noise, delivery vehicles, servicing, and general activity. Living directly opposite the development means I will bear the brunt of these impacts on a daily basis.
6. Insufficient Landscaping and Open Space – Despite the significant increase in density, deep soil planting accounts for only 595m² (3.3% of the site area). This is inadequate for a development of this scale and does little to offset its environmental and visual impacts.
7. 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 improvements.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse this application in its current form or require significant reductions in the height, density and traffic impacts before any approval is granted. The current proposal places an unfair burden on existing residents and prioritises development intensity over the amenity and liveability of the surrounding community.
Yours faithfully,
The Grand Eastlakes Resident
I am an Eastlakes resident living directly opposite the proposed development, with my apartment facing the site. As someone who will be directly affected every day by this project, I STRONGLY object to the application in its current form.
While I support the need for more housing (I’m a first home buyer myself), this proposal is a substantial increase in scale compared to what was previously approved. It seeks buildings of up to 18 storeys and 62.9 metres in height, compared with the existing approval of 7–12 storeys and 40.8 metres, and increases the number of dwellings from 425 to between 736 and 877. This level of overdevelopment will have significant impacts on nearby residents like myself and decreased livability in a beloved suburb of Eastlakes.
My concerns include:
1. Excessive Height and Bulk – The proposed buildings are far taller and denser than the previously approved development and are out of character with Eastlakes. Living directly opposite the site, I will be confronted by an overwhelming building mass that will permanently change the character of the area.
2. Traffic and Access – Evans Avenue is already busy, particularly during peak hours. The developer’s own assessment predicts an additional 246 vehicle trips in the morning peak and 332 in the afternoon peak. As my apartment and car park entry are directly opposite the development, I am extremely concerned that entering and exiting my building’s driveway will become increasingly difficult and unsafe due to the additional traffic.
3. Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight – The increased height will result in greater overshadowing of surrounding properties. My apartment directly faces the site, and I am concerned about the loss of natural sunlight and the impact this will have on my home’s liveability and overall amenity.
4. Loss of Privacy – With buildings up to 18 storeys directly opposite my home, there will be a significant loss of privacy. Residents in the new towers will have direct views into neighbouring apartments that currently do not exist, substantially affecting the enjoyment of my home.
5. Noise and Amenity – The increased density and traffic will inevitably result in more vehicle noise, delivery vehicles, servicing, and general activity. Living directly opposite the development means I will bear the brunt of these impacts on a daily basis.
6. Insufficient Landscaping and Open Space – Despite the significant increase in density, deep soil planting accounts for only 595m² (3.3% of the site area). This is inadequate for a development of this scale and does little to offset its environmental and visual impacts.
7. 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 improvements.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse this application in its current form or require significant reductions in the height, density and traffic impacts before any approval is granted. The current proposal places an unfair burden on existing residents and prioritises development intensity over the amenity and liveability of the surrounding community.
Yours faithfully,
The Grand Eastlakes Resident
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Comment
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
Bus Errors.
1. There is now an additional bus route, 301, operating infrequently through Eastlakes about six times a day, but not on Sundays. It goes from Rosebery to Eastgardens via Eastlakes and Mascot. If this service started at Green Square, about 3 km before Rosebery, & operated every 30 minutes during shopping hours, its huge population would have a quick access to the Eastlakes Shopping Centre, (ESC) especially to a full-size Woolworths. There is no such supermarket anywhere near it and this would be a great selling point in attracting many more customers to our new ESC.
2. The shortest gap between two 303 buses is 15 minutes, not 5 as shown in your bus survey. Also, there are hardly any customers on the 303 between the UNSW and the Prince of Wales Hospital. They could easily change from the 303 to the very regular 358 at the the common bus stop located at the corner of Tunstall Avenue and Gardeners Rad, Eastlakes. It also stops at the 303's terminus at the hospital and goes to it via the Randwick Shopping Centre, which the 303 does not do..
Then, the 303 could be diverted left into Anzac Parade at the corner of Day Avenue and re-routed so it continues along Anzac Parade to the city via Taylor Square. The present Light Rail and existing bus service along Anzac Parade between Kingsford and the city can hardly cope now. In about 3 years time, there will be at least 12 high-rise blocks of units (say, up to 16 storeys) along Anzac Parade between Kingsford and Moore Park. Public transport to the city will not be able to cope. Therefore, this diverted 303 route would be a real boon to residents in the area. It would also give them a direct bus service to the ESC.
My point is that there is no major shopping centre in that locality with a full-size supermarket, let alone Woolworths. Our new ESC's Woolworths, would surely benefit from having this direct bus service. I understand, at least some, of these blocks have, or will not have, parking facilities, so a direct bus service, i.e. the 303, to Eastlakes would be a great asset for them.
As far as I can tell, there is no full-size Woolworths north at least to Surry Hills, east to Randwick, south to Maroubra Junction & west to Botany Road at the Mascot shops. Eastgardens, Mascot Train Station & Bondi Junction do have such a facility. So the new one at ESC will be centrally located to cater for far more customers than just those from Eastlakes. Yes, there are numerous Coles supermarkets in the eastern suburbs but almost no Woolworths.
Traffic congestion around the new ESC.
The "Rat Run" during morning peak hours can stretch back from the corner of Barber Avenue and St Helena Parade to the corner of Racecourse Place & Gardeners Road; also from Coward Street, along Maloney Street to Gardeners Road, especially between Mondays & Thursdays. Since timing at both these intersections has been changed, it can currently take 5 minutes, or longer, enter Gardeners Road or to cross it.
To lessen the traffic congestion in Evans Avenue outside the ESC, I suggest a two-lane road tunnel or, at least, a pedestrian underpass below Evans Avenue between the two sides of the ESC. This would eleviate shoppers having to exit one side of the ESC, drive a a couple of metres and then enter the other side. Local traffic would therefore flow much more smoothly in this facility.
Thank you for reading my comments.
1. There is now an additional bus route, 301, operating infrequently through Eastlakes about six times a day, but not on Sundays. It goes from Rosebery to Eastgardens via Eastlakes and Mascot. If this service started at Green Square, about 3 km before Rosebery, & operated every 30 minutes during shopping hours, its huge population would have a quick access to the Eastlakes Shopping Centre, (ESC) especially to a full-size Woolworths. There is no such supermarket anywhere near it and this would be a great selling point in attracting many more customers to our new ESC.
2. The shortest gap between two 303 buses is 15 minutes, not 5 as shown in your bus survey. Also, there are hardly any customers on the 303 between the UNSW and the Prince of Wales Hospital. They could easily change from the 303 to the very regular 358 at the the common bus stop located at the corner of Tunstall Avenue and Gardeners Rad, Eastlakes. It also stops at the 303's terminus at the hospital and goes to it via the Randwick Shopping Centre, which the 303 does not do..
Then, the 303 could be diverted left into Anzac Parade at the corner of Day Avenue and re-routed so it continues along Anzac Parade to the city via Taylor Square. The present Light Rail and existing bus service along Anzac Parade between Kingsford and the city can hardly cope now. In about 3 years time, there will be at least 12 high-rise blocks of units (say, up to 16 storeys) along Anzac Parade between Kingsford and Moore Park. Public transport to the city will not be able to cope. Therefore, this diverted 303 route would be a real boon to residents in the area. It would also give them a direct bus service to the ESC.
My point is that there is no major shopping centre in that locality with a full-size supermarket, let alone Woolworths. Our new ESC's Woolworths, would surely benefit from having this direct bus service. I understand, at least some, of these blocks have, or will not have, parking facilities, so a direct bus service, i.e. the 303, to Eastlakes would be a great asset for them.
As far as I can tell, there is no full-size Woolworths north at least to Surry Hills, east to Randwick, south to Maroubra Junction & west to Botany Road at the Mascot shops. Eastgardens, Mascot Train Station & Bondi Junction do have such a facility. So the new one at ESC will be centrally located to cater for far more customers than just those from Eastlakes. Yes, there are numerous Coles supermarkets in the eastern suburbs but almost no Woolworths.
Traffic congestion around the new ESC.
The "Rat Run" during morning peak hours can stretch back from the corner of Barber Avenue and St Helena Parade to the corner of Racecourse Place & Gardeners Road; also from Coward Street, along Maloney Street to Gardeners Road, especially between Mondays & Thursdays. Since timing at both these intersections has been changed, it can currently take 5 minutes, or longer, enter Gardeners Road or to cross it.
To lessen the traffic congestion in Evans Avenue outside the ESC, I suggest a two-lane road tunnel or, at least, a pedestrian underpass below Evans Avenue between the two sides of the ESC. This would eleviate shoppers having to exit one side of the ESC, drive a a couple of metres and then enter the other side. Local traffic would therefore flow much more smoothly in this facility.
Thank you for reading my comments.
Joseph El-Badawi
Object
Joseph El-Badawi
Object
Eastlakes
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
Yours faithfully,
Joseph El-Badawi
508/16A Evans Avenue Eastlakes NSW 2018
Eastlakes Resident
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.
Yours faithfully,
Joseph El-Badawi
508/16A Evans Avenue Eastlakes NSW 2018
Eastlakes Resident
Elvis Oramieh
Object
Elvis Oramieh
Object
Eastlakes
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
Yours faithfully,
Elvis Oramieh
508/16A Evans Avenue Eastlakes NSW 2018
Eastlakes Resident
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.
Yours faithfully,
Elvis Oramieh
508/16A Evans Avenue Eastlakes NSW 2018
Eastlakes Resident
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes
,
New South Wales
Message
I have concerns due to the increased height of buildings and number of units as part of this proposal (compared to previous proposals).
Firstly, I'm concerned about the increased height of the buildings and number of apartments compared to previous proposals. The proposal places buildings of up to 18 storeys beside existing buildings of only 3-4storeys. This will result in a significant LOSS OF WINTER SUNLIGHT for apartments in our building. The overshadowing information indicates that east-facing apartments and approximately half of the north-facing apartments in our building may receive only about two hours of direct sunlight during winter. Only approximately six apartments may receive more than three hours of direct winter sunlight. This may affect homes, balconies, mental well-being and quality of life for residents- for example growing plants on balconies, having a light filled apartment for mental well-being (which is an important aspect I considered when buying my apartment) and helping keep apartments warm in the winter particularly for vulnerable residents who may already be reducing their use of appliances for heating to keep down bills
Secondly, due to the number of proposed apartments, I have concerns about TRAFFIC AND PARKING. It can already be congested at times in the morning leaving Eastlakes via Racecourse Place or Evans Avenue due to the limited ways out to head east or north and this will only exacerbate the problem. Furthermore, parking on the surrounding streets will be significantly impacted due to increased traffic and number of cars- Residents will likely need permits. I would also hope that with the reduced availability for parking on the streets that there would be leniency for cars parked in driveways on St Helena Parade where parking the car will encroach on the footpath to mitigate the reduced parking availability.
Finally, I wanted to check about potential damage from VIBRATION during construction. I building was assessed prior to demolition of the old shopping center so that if damage occurs from the demolition this would be compensated for. There has been no such re-assessment prior to digging/drilling and construction starting which I think is warranted.
I would like to note that I appreciate the project will provide some affordable housing to help meet demand in the current housing crisis. I would also like to add that whatever is constructed should have spaces available for intergenerational social activities and engagement to better foster community and help combat the increasing epidemic of loneliness in society. Furthermore, there should be adequate disabled parking spots in the development, particularly located near entrances and lifts to the building to enable safe and easy access for those who require it.
Firstly, I'm concerned about the increased height of the buildings and number of apartments compared to previous proposals. The proposal places buildings of up to 18 storeys beside existing buildings of only 3-4storeys. This will result in a significant LOSS OF WINTER SUNLIGHT for apartments in our building. The overshadowing information indicates that east-facing apartments and approximately half of the north-facing apartments in our building may receive only about two hours of direct sunlight during winter. Only approximately six apartments may receive more than three hours of direct winter sunlight. This may affect homes, balconies, mental well-being and quality of life for residents- for example growing plants on balconies, having a light filled apartment for mental well-being (which is an important aspect I considered when buying my apartment) and helping keep apartments warm in the winter particularly for vulnerable residents who may already be reducing their use of appliances for heating to keep down bills
Secondly, due to the number of proposed apartments, I have concerns about TRAFFIC AND PARKING. It can already be congested at times in the morning leaving Eastlakes via Racecourse Place or Evans Avenue due to the limited ways out to head east or north and this will only exacerbate the problem. Furthermore, parking on the surrounding streets will be significantly impacted due to increased traffic and number of cars- Residents will likely need permits. I would also hope that with the reduced availability for parking on the streets that there would be leniency for cars parked in driveways on St Helena Parade where parking the car will encroach on the footpath to mitigate the reduced parking availability.
Finally, I wanted to check about potential damage from VIBRATION during construction. I building was assessed prior to demolition of the old shopping center so that if damage occurs from the demolition this would be compensated for. There has been no such re-assessment prior to digging/drilling and construction starting which I think is warranted.
I would like to note that I appreciate the project will provide some affordable housing to help meet demand in the current housing crisis. I would also like to add that whatever is constructed should have spaces available for intergenerational social activities and engagement to better foster community and help combat the increasing epidemic of loneliness in society. Furthermore, there should be adequate disabled parking spots in the development, particularly located near entrances and lifts to the building to enable safe and easy access for those who require it.
DIANA M ESPIRITU
Comment
DIANA M ESPIRITU
Comment
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Submission Team,
I would like to provide comments regarding an important aspect of the Eastlakes community that I hope will be considered as part of this development.
Having lived adjacent to the former Eastlakes Shopping Centre for the past five years, I witnessed the gradual decline of the centre as retail tenants slowly disappeared and the building became increasingly neglected. Despite this, one thing remained constant: the regular gathering of elderly residents at one of the last remaining cafés, with seating that extended onto Evans Avenue. This space became an informal but significant meeting place where people could socialise, connect with friends and maintain a sense of community. (Please see the attached photograph, noting that the image quality is poor.)
I have also spoken with long-term Eastlakes residents who grew up in the area, and they have shared that the shopping centre has historically been a social hub for people of many cultural backgrounds, families and older residents. This sense of community was not created through formal public spaces alone, but through the everyday interactions that occurred in and around the centre.
Another defining characteristic of the former Centre was its diverse mix of independent, culturally specific small businesses. These were not simply retail tenancies, they were an integral part of the community and reflected the multicultural identity of Eastlakes. The centre accommodated affordable local businesses including an Asian grocer, a Russian market, Indian and Greek deli, along with other independent retailers that served the everyday needs of local residents.
These businesses provided access to affordable groceries and culturally familiar foods that are not always available in larger supermarkets. More importantly, they fostered relationships between business owners and residents, creating a welcoming environment where people felt known and connected. Their presence contributed to the unique character of Eastlakes and supported the daily lives of many local families and older residents.
Since the demolition of the shopping centre, these groups have lost an important place to gather. I now occasionally see some of the same elderly residents meeting on the two bench seats outside Aldi within the new retail precinct, which suggests there is still a strong need for dedicated spaces where people can comfortably meet and spend time together.
I encourage the project team to consider incorporating spaces that support this type of informal community gathering. In particular, I believe there would be significant value in providing sheltered, semi-outdoor ("inside/outside") seating areas located adjacent to cafés or drinking water points. Spaces like these encourage social interaction, reduce isolation among older residents, and help maintain the strong sense of community that has long characterised Eastlakes.
I also encourage the project team to consider how the future tenant strategy can reflect the cultural diversity that has always been a defining characteristic of Eastlakes. While I understand that commercial leasing decisions are complex, it would be valuable to actively support opportunities for independent and culturally diverse businesses to return alongside larger retailers. Retaining a mix of affordable, locally owned businesses would help preserve the community character of Eastlakes, provide greater choice for residents, and ensure the redevelopment reflects the suburb's multicultural identity rather than becoming a generic retail precinct.
Eastlakes has always been more than a shopping centre - it has been a place where people from many cultures have met, shopped, shared meals and built lasting social connections. I hope this redevelopment not only delivers new homes and retail opportunities, but also preserves the social and cultural qualities that have made Eastlakes a unique and welcoming community for generations.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,
I would like to provide comments regarding an important aspect of the Eastlakes community that I hope will be considered as part of this development.
Having lived adjacent to the former Eastlakes Shopping Centre for the past five years, I witnessed the gradual decline of the centre as retail tenants slowly disappeared and the building became increasingly neglected. Despite this, one thing remained constant: the regular gathering of elderly residents at one of the last remaining cafés, with seating that extended onto Evans Avenue. This space became an informal but significant meeting place where people could socialise, connect with friends and maintain a sense of community. (Please see the attached photograph, noting that the image quality is poor.)
I have also spoken with long-term Eastlakes residents who grew up in the area, and they have shared that the shopping centre has historically been a social hub for people of many cultural backgrounds, families and older residents. This sense of community was not created through formal public spaces alone, but through the everyday interactions that occurred in and around the centre.
Another defining characteristic of the former Centre was its diverse mix of independent, culturally specific small businesses. These were not simply retail tenancies, they were an integral part of the community and reflected the multicultural identity of Eastlakes. The centre accommodated affordable local businesses including an Asian grocer, a Russian market, Indian and Greek deli, along with other independent retailers that served the everyday needs of local residents.
These businesses provided access to affordable groceries and culturally familiar foods that are not always available in larger supermarkets. More importantly, they fostered relationships between business owners and residents, creating a welcoming environment where people felt known and connected. Their presence contributed to the unique character of Eastlakes and supported the daily lives of many local families and older residents.
Since the demolition of the shopping centre, these groups have lost an important place to gather. I now occasionally see some of the same elderly residents meeting on the two bench seats outside Aldi within the new retail precinct, which suggests there is still a strong need for dedicated spaces where people can comfortably meet and spend time together.
I encourage the project team to consider incorporating spaces that support this type of informal community gathering. In particular, I believe there would be significant value in providing sheltered, semi-outdoor ("inside/outside") seating areas located adjacent to cafés or drinking water points. Spaces like these encourage social interaction, reduce isolation among older residents, and help maintain the strong sense of community that has long characterised Eastlakes.
I also encourage the project team to consider how the future tenant strategy can reflect the cultural diversity that has always been a defining characteristic of Eastlakes. While I understand that commercial leasing decisions are complex, it would be valuable to actively support opportunities for independent and culturally diverse businesses to return alongside larger retailers. Retaining a mix of affordable, locally owned businesses would help preserve the community character of Eastlakes, provide greater choice for residents, and ensure the redevelopment reflects the suburb's multicultural identity rather than becoming a generic retail precinct.
Eastlakes has always been more than a shopping centre - it has been a place where people from many cultures have met, shopped, shared meals and built lasting social connections. I hope this redevelopment not only delivers new homes and retail opportunities, but also preserves the social and cultural qualities that have made Eastlakes a unique and welcoming community for generations.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development application for Eastlakes. While sustainable growth and the provision of new housing are welcomed, the scale, density, and design of this specific proposal fail to respect the existing community, local character, and environmental standards.
The proposal should be reassessed based on the following critical planning concerns:
1. Inappropriate Scale and Loss of Visual Character
Incompatible Built Form: The proposed "concrete sky tower" is completely out of character with the low-to-medium scale of the existing Eastlakes suburb.
Visual Amenity: The sheer bulk and height of the development will create a severe visual eyesore, dominating the skyline and permanently damaging the visual amenity of the area.
Dangerous Precedent: Approving a development of this disproportionate size sets a harmful planning precedent for future over-development in the area.
2. Environmental Degradation and Severe Amenity Loss
Reduced Internal Liveability: Compared to previous iterations, the current proposal unacceptably reduces solar access and cross-ventilation, failing basic architectural design standards.
Shadowing Impacts: The height of the structures will cast significant, adverse shadows over the public domain, ruining the usability of surrounding outdoor spaces.
Deficit of Green Space: The proposal fails to provide adequate communal green space for new residents, while placing a diabolical strain on the zero green spaces currently available to the existing community.
3. Disproportionate Social and Infrastructure Impacts
Community Disregard: The submission relies on reports that feel heavily tailored to support the developer's outcome, largely neglecting the real-world, on-ground impact on current residents.
Infrastructure Strain: The plan ignores the strength and capacity of the existing community and infrastructure to safely absorb a development of this massive scale.
4. Inequitable Public Benefit (Affordable Housing Provisions)
Density vs. Benefit: The inclusion of 10% affordable housing is entirely disproportionate to the massive increase in the development's size.
Exploitation of Targets: Using affordable housing targets as a mechanism to justify an oversized, highly profitable tower feels distrustful. It disrespects the intent of Government policy, the taxpayers, and the local community.
Meeting the NSW Government’s target for 'well-located' homes must not come at the cost of destroying liveable neighborhoods. A more considered, scaled-back design is urgently required, one that respects the current character of Eastlakes and protects the quality of life for its residents. I urge the Department to reject the proposal in its current form.
The proposal should be reassessed based on the following critical planning concerns:
1. Inappropriate Scale and Loss of Visual Character
Incompatible Built Form: The proposed "concrete sky tower" is completely out of character with the low-to-medium scale of the existing Eastlakes suburb.
Visual Amenity: The sheer bulk and height of the development will create a severe visual eyesore, dominating the skyline and permanently damaging the visual amenity of the area.
Dangerous Precedent: Approving a development of this disproportionate size sets a harmful planning precedent for future over-development in the area.
2. Environmental Degradation and Severe Amenity Loss
Reduced Internal Liveability: Compared to previous iterations, the current proposal unacceptably reduces solar access and cross-ventilation, failing basic architectural design standards.
Shadowing Impacts: The height of the structures will cast significant, adverse shadows over the public domain, ruining the usability of surrounding outdoor spaces.
Deficit of Green Space: The proposal fails to provide adequate communal green space for new residents, while placing a diabolical strain on the zero green spaces currently available to the existing community.
3. Disproportionate Social and Infrastructure Impacts
Community Disregard: The submission relies on reports that feel heavily tailored to support the developer's outcome, largely neglecting the real-world, on-ground impact on current residents.
Infrastructure Strain: The plan ignores the strength and capacity of the existing community and infrastructure to safely absorb a development of this massive scale.
4. Inequitable Public Benefit (Affordable Housing Provisions)
Density vs. Benefit: The inclusion of 10% affordable housing is entirely disproportionate to the massive increase in the development's size.
Exploitation of Targets: Using affordable housing targets as a mechanism to justify an oversized, highly profitable tower feels distrustful. It disrespects the intent of Government policy, the taxpayers, and the local community.
Meeting the NSW Government’s target for 'well-located' homes must not come at the cost of destroying liveable neighborhoods. A more considered, scaled-back design is urgently required, one that respects the current character of Eastlakes and protects the quality of life for its residents. I urge the Department to reject the proposal in its current form.
Darren Dewerson
Object
Darren Dewerson
Object
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 19A Evans Avenue. While I appreciate the need for appropriate urban renewal and increased housing, I do not believe this proposal is compatible with the character, capacity, or long-term interests of our local community.
My concerns are outlined below.
Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed building is significantly out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Its height and overall scale do not reflect the existing built environment and will fundamentally alter the character of the area. Developments should complement the established streetscape rather than dominate it.
Increased Traffic and Pressure on Local Infrastructure
Traffic congestion in the area is already a significant issue, particularly during the morning peak period. Local roads regularly experience heavy congestion, and the existing transport network is already under considerable pressure.
Introducing a development of this size will increase vehicle movements and place further strain on roads, intersections, public transport, parking, and essential infrastructure that are already operating at or near capacity.
Lack of Open Space for a Growing Population
The surrounding neighbourhood already has a high residential population relative to the amount of available public open space. Parks, recreational areas, and community facilities are heavily used by existing residents.
Adding a substantial number of additional residents without providing meaningful new recreational space will reduce the quality of life for both existing and future residents. The community requires additional green space—not simply increased residential density.
Departure from the Original Vision
Many residents supported earlier concepts because they appeared to offer improvements to the local area while remaining sensitive to the surrounding community.
The current proposal appears to depart significantly from those original concepts. Rather than delivering a balanced outcome, it prioritises development intensity over community benefit and no longer reflects the vision that many residents understood would guide redevelopment of the site.
Unacceptable Shadowing
The proposed building will create unacceptable levels of overshadowing for neighbouring apartments and nearby public open space.
Access to sunlight is essential for residents’ wellbeing and for the enjoyment of local parks and recreational areas. Increased shadowing will negatively affect the amenity of neighbouring properties and reduce the usability of public open space, particularly during the cooler months when sunlight is most valuable.
Request to Reduce the Scale of the Development
I respectfully urge the consent authority to require the proposal to be substantially scaled back. A reduced building height and overall density would better respect the surrounding neighbourhood, lessen traffic impacts, improve solar access, reduce overshadowing, and create a more appropriate balance between development and community amenity.
Our community deserves thoughtful development that enhances the area rather than placing additional pressure on infrastructure, public spaces, and the quality of life enjoyed by current residents.
I respectfully request that these concerns be given careful consideration during the assessment process and that the proposal be significantly amended before any approval is granted.
My concerns are outlined below.
Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed building is significantly out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Its height and overall scale do not reflect the existing built environment and will fundamentally alter the character of the area. Developments should complement the established streetscape rather than dominate it.
Increased Traffic and Pressure on Local Infrastructure
Traffic congestion in the area is already a significant issue, particularly during the morning peak period. Local roads regularly experience heavy congestion, and the existing transport network is already under considerable pressure.
Introducing a development of this size will increase vehicle movements and place further strain on roads, intersections, public transport, parking, and essential infrastructure that are already operating at or near capacity.
Lack of Open Space for a Growing Population
The surrounding neighbourhood already has a high residential population relative to the amount of available public open space. Parks, recreational areas, and community facilities are heavily used by existing residents.
Adding a substantial number of additional residents without providing meaningful new recreational space will reduce the quality of life for both existing and future residents. The community requires additional green space—not simply increased residential density.
Departure from the Original Vision
Many residents supported earlier concepts because they appeared to offer improvements to the local area while remaining sensitive to the surrounding community.
The current proposal appears to depart significantly from those original concepts. Rather than delivering a balanced outcome, it prioritises development intensity over community benefit and no longer reflects the vision that many residents understood would guide redevelopment of the site.
Unacceptable Shadowing
The proposed building will create unacceptable levels of overshadowing for neighbouring apartments and nearby public open space.
Access to sunlight is essential for residents’ wellbeing and for the enjoyment of local parks and recreational areas. Increased shadowing will negatively affect the amenity of neighbouring properties and reduce the usability of public open space, particularly during the cooler months when sunlight is most valuable.
Request to Reduce the Scale of the Development
I respectfully urge the consent authority to require the proposal to be substantially scaled back. A reduced building height and overall density would better respect the surrounding neighbourhood, lessen traffic impacts, improve solar access, reduce overshadowing, and create a more appropriate balance between development and community amenity.
Our community deserves thoughtful development that enhances the area rather than placing additional pressure on infrastructure, public spaces, and the quality of life enjoyed by current residents.
I respectfully request that these concerns be given careful consideration during the assessment process and that the proposal be significantly amended before any approval is granted.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of Mascot Drive, Eastlakes, directly south of the development site, and I object to the proposed development. My objection rests on the excessive height, scale and bulk of the proposal relative to its low-rise surroundings; its traffic and parking impacts on streets already at capacity in peak periods; the overshadowing of neighbouring residences and public open space, which the applicant’s own drawings show to be severe for some adjoining buildings; and the repeated, substantial changes to the proposal over five years, which mean the scheme on exhibition bears little resemblance to what the community was told to expect.
1. Excessive height, scale and bulk
The proposal comprises four residential towers of 14 to 18 storeys above a two-level podium, on a site where the Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021 sets a maximum building height of 14 metres and a floor space ratio of 1.5:1. The concurrent uplift sought — a height limit of 79 metres and an FSR of 5.5:1 — represents more than a five-fold increase in permissible height and more than a tripling of permissible density. Buildings of this scale would be roughly four times the height of the tallest existing structures south of the site.
The surrounding context on Barber Avenue, Mascot Drive and Longworth Avenue consists overwhelmingly of two- and three-storey brick walk-up apartment buildings and low-rise dwellings. While the applicant’s Architectural Design Report points to the “evolving character of the locality towards increased residential intensification” (Appendix B, p. AP-13), that evolution — with the sole exception of the towers at “The Grand” on the northern site — is being driven by the replacement of single-family dwellings with low-rise semi-detached housing. Four towers of up to 18 storeys are in no reasonably interpretable way in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, and the Visual Impact Assessment itself concedes that from Evans Avenue the development would significantly change the apparent scale and enclosure of the streetscape.
Bayside Council’s advice on the draft SEARs (25 August 2025) is emphatic: the proposal exceeds Council’s adopted height and FSR controls, is premature in the context of the Eastlakes Town Centre Master Plan, over-emphasises residential floor space contrary to the objectives of the E1 Local Centre zone, and would set an undesirable precedent. I share each of these concerns. Approval of this scheme would establish a benchmark against which every subsequent over-scaled proposal in the precinct will be argued.
2. A constantly changing proposal that departs from the developer’s public commitments
Residents have now been asked to respond to fundamentally different versions of this project over five years, and the scheme on exhibition differs materially from what the developer publicly announced:
• The former Crown Group approval (MP09_0146) provided for approximately 450 dwellings in six buildings of modest scale, before that company’s collapse into liquidation in August 2023 left the site idle.
• On acquiring the site in May 2025, Conquest publicly announced a scheme of approximately 800 homes across six towers with a rebranded “Queensbridge” retail centre, stating that construction would commence within weeks and be completed in 2028.
• The scoping report lodged with the Department only months later sought 1,000 dwellings — more than double the approved scheme — with a commitment to 10 per cent affordable housing.
• The application now on exhibition proposes 736 apartments (877 dwellings if dual-key provision is exercised) in four towers of 14 to 18 storeys.
A development of this significance cannot be assessed against a moving target. The dwelling count has travelled from 450 to 800 to 1,000 to 736-with-provision-for-877 in three years, the tower count from six to four, and the retail concept has been rebranded and revised. Early promotional material depicted a large public library in a prominent position facing Jack Mundey Reserve; no such facility appears in the exhibited scheme. The effect has been to encourage residents to view the project favourably on the basis of representations that have not survived into the application. The community’s confidence in the developer’s remaining commitments — including the affordable housing component, which is in any event time-limited (10 years in some documents, 15 in others) — is correspondingly low, and those commitments should be given little weight against the permanent impacts of the built form.
3. Traffic and parking
Local streets already fail in the morning peak. Delays approaching 20 minutes are routinely experienced driving the block around the development site to reach Gardeners Road via Racecourse Place, and illegal parking between the site and “The Grand” is already a hazard for pedestrians. The proposal would add many hundreds of dwellings, a full-line supermarket, specialty retail, commercial space and a childcare centre — potentially thousands of additional vehicle trips per day — onto this constrained network.
On-street parking is at a premium because many existing apartment buildings provide at most one space per unit. Bayside Council’s submission expressly warns that the development proposes significantly fewer parking spaces than the Bayside DCP 2022 requires, with likely overspill onto surrounding streets, including Mascot Drive. Transport for NSW has likewise identified the Gardeners Road / Racecourse Place intersection as a specific concern. I ask that the assessment require a genuinely cumulative traffic impact analysis — accounting for The Grand and all other approved and proposed development in the precinct — with intersection Level of Service modelling.
4. Overshadowing and solar access
The applicant’s own drawings demonstrate that the solar impact on southern neighbours is severe. The Neighbouring Buildings Daylight Analysis table on drawing DA403 records that at 22 Barber Avenue no units (0 per cent) would retain more than two hours of mid-winter solar access, at 24 Barber Avenue only 17 per cent, and at 20 and 28 Barber Avenue only one third of units. These outcomes fall far short of the Apartment Design Guide’s principle of retaining reasonable solar access to neighbouring dwellings, and the mid-winter sequence shows afternoon shadows sweeping south and south-east across the properties between Barber Avenue and Mascot Drive.
Residents of Barber Avenue have identified discrepancies in the solar access assessment in the EIS, which also bear on residents of Mascot Drive. Bayside Council’s SEARs advice required hourly shadow diagrams for both mid-winter and the spring equinox; the exhibited set (DA400–DA409) contains June 21 diagrams only. The solar assessment is incomplete on its face and should be completed and independently verified before determination.
5. Privacy and outlook for southern neighbours
None of the “key viewpoints” in the Architectural Design Report, and none of the nine viewpoints in the Visual Impact Assessment, presents the outlook from the residences on Barber Avenue and Mascot Drive on the southern side of the site — the dwellings most directly affected. Those households will face buildings approximately four times the height of the current tallest structures, overshadowing their homes and overlooking their private open space and living areas. The omission of the most affected receivers is a significant deficiency in the application.
6. Flooding
The site is flood affected, within a catchment subject to flash flooding with warning times under two hours, and the western end of Mascot Drive already experiences regular street flooding. Any approval must be conditioned on a comprehensive, independently reviewed 2D flood model demonstrating no adverse afflux on surrounding properties in accordance with the Bayside DCP; given our lived experience of the local drainage network, modelled assurances alone are not sufficient.
7. Noise
Beyond traffic noise, the applicant’s stated ambition of an “18-hour ground plane” (Design Report, Place Strategy – Principles, p. 32) signals activity — deliveries, patrons, waste collection, plant — continuing late into the night and resuming early in the morning, in immediate proximity to existing low-rise residences. A Plan of Management with enforceable limits on trading hours, servicing and deliveries must accompany any consent.
8. Airspace approvals should not be presumed
As Bayside Council, Sydney Airport and CASA each noted during scoping, the towers penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface for Sydney Airport (51m AHD over the site) and constitute controlled activities requiring federal approval, while the construction cranes would penetrate the PANS-OPS surface for extended periods, requiring Runway 25 instrument approach minima to be raised. These approvals rest with federal aviation authorities, not the consent authority, and are not assured. Consent should not be granted for a built form whose construction depends on airspace approvals that have not been obtained.
Conclusion
A time-limited affordable housing component does not outweigh the permanent impacts of a development of this height, scale and bulk on existing residents and Jack Mundey Reserve, nor the precedent it would set. The application is the fourth materially different version of this project in five years and departs significantly from the developer’s own public representations. I ask that it be refused, or failing that, substantially reduced in height and density to a scale consistent with Bayside Council’s adopted controls and the Eastlakes Town Centre Master Plan, with the deficiencies identified above — the incomplete solar assessment, the absent southern viewpoints, the parking shortfall and the unresolved airspace approvals — addressed before any determination.
1. Excessive height, scale and bulk
The proposal comprises four residential towers of 14 to 18 storeys above a two-level podium, on a site where the Bayside Local Environmental Plan 2021 sets a maximum building height of 14 metres and a floor space ratio of 1.5:1. The concurrent uplift sought — a height limit of 79 metres and an FSR of 5.5:1 — represents more than a five-fold increase in permissible height and more than a tripling of permissible density. Buildings of this scale would be roughly four times the height of the tallest existing structures south of the site.
The surrounding context on Barber Avenue, Mascot Drive and Longworth Avenue consists overwhelmingly of two- and three-storey brick walk-up apartment buildings and low-rise dwellings. While the applicant’s Architectural Design Report points to the “evolving character of the locality towards increased residential intensification” (Appendix B, p. AP-13), that evolution — with the sole exception of the towers at “The Grand” on the northern site — is being driven by the replacement of single-family dwellings with low-rise semi-detached housing. Four towers of up to 18 storeys are in no reasonably interpretable way in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, and the Visual Impact Assessment itself concedes that from Evans Avenue the development would significantly change the apparent scale and enclosure of the streetscape.
Bayside Council’s advice on the draft SEARs (25 August 2025) is emphatic: the proposal exceeds Council’s adopted height and FSR controls, is premature in the context of the Eastlakes Town Centre Master Plan, over-emphasises residential floor space contrary to the objectives of the E1 Local Centre zone, and would set an undesirable precedent. I share each of these concerns. Approval of this scheme would establish a benchmark against which every subsequent over-scaled proposal in the precinct will be argued.
2. A constantly changing proposal that departs from the developer’s public commitments
Residents have now been asked to respond to fundamentally different versions of this project over five years, and the scheme on exhibition differs materially from what the developer publicly announced:
• The former Crown Group approval (MP09_0146) provided for approximately 450 dwellings in six buildings of modest scale, before that company’s collapse into liquidation in August 2023 left the site idle.
• On acquiring the site in May 2025, Conquest publicly announced a scheme of approximately 800 homes across six towers with a rebranded “Queensbridge” retail centre, stating that construction would commence within weeks and be completed in 2028.
• The scoping report lodged with the Department only months later sought 1,000 dwellings — more than double the approved scheme — with a commitment to 10 per cent affordable housing.
• The application now on exhibition proposes 736 apartments (877 dwellings if dual-key provision is exercised) in four towers of 14 to 18 storeys.
A development of this significance cannot be assessed against a moving target. The dwelling count has travelled from 450 to 800 to 1,000 to 736-with-provision-for-877 in three years, the tower count from six to four, and the retail concept has been rebranded and revised. Early promotional material depicted a large public library in a prominent position facing Jack Mundey Reserve; no such facility appears in the exhibited scheme. The effect has been to encourage residents to view the project favourably on the basis of representations that have not survived into the application. The community’s confidence in the developer’s remaining commitments — including the affordable housing component, which is in any event time-limited (10 years in some documents, 15 in others) — is correspondingly low, and those commitments should be given little weight against the permanent impacts of the built form.
3. Traffic and parking
Local streets already fail in the morning peak. Delays approaching 20 minutes are routinely experienced driving the block around the development site to reach Gardeners Road via Racecourse Place, and illegal parking between the site and “The Grand” is already a hazard for pedestrians. The proposal would add many hundreds of dwellings, a full-line supermarket, specialty retail, commercial space and a childcare centre — potentially thousands of additional vehicle trips per day — onto this constrained network.
On-street parking is at a premium because many existing apartment buildings provide at most one space per unit. Bayside Council’s submission expressly warns that the development proposes significantly fewer parking spaces than the Bayside DCP 2022 requires, with likely overspill onto surrounding streets, including Mascot Drive. Transport for NSW has likewise identified the Gardeners Road / Racecourse Place intersection as a specific concern. I ask that the assessment require a genuinely cumulative traffic impact analysis — accounting for The Grand and all other approved and proposed development in the precinct — with intersection Level of Service modelling.
4. Overshadowing and solar access
The applicant’s own drawings demonstrate that the solar impact on southern neighbours is severe. The Neighbouring Buildings Daylight Analysis table on drawing DA403 records that at 22 Barber Avenue no units (0 per cent) would retain more than two hours of mid-winter solar access, at 24 Barber Avenue only 17 per cent, and at 20 and 28 Barber Avenue only one third of units. These outcomes fall far short of the Apartment Design Guide’s principle of retaining reasonable solar access to neighbouring dwellings, and the mid-winter sequence shows afternoon shadows sweeping south and south-east across the properties between Barber Avenue and Mascot Drive.
Residents of Barber Avenue have identified discrepancies in the solar access assessment in the EIS, which also bear on residents of Mascot Drive. Bayside Council’s SEARs advice required hourly shadow diagrams for both mid-winter and the spring equinox; the exhibited set (DA400–DA409) contains June 21 diagrams only. The solar assessment is incomplete on its face and should be completed and independently verified before determination.
5. Privacy and outlook for southern neighbours
None of the “key viewpoints” in the Architectural Design Report, and none of the nine viewpoints in the Visual Impact Assessment, presents the outlook from the residences on Barber Avenue and Mascot Drive on the southern side of the site — the dwellings most directly affected. Those households will face buildings approximately four times the height of the current tallest structures, overshadowing their homes and overlooking their private open space and living areas. The omission of the most affected receivers is a significant deficiency in the application.
6. Flooding
The site is flood affected, within a catchment subject to flash flooding with warning times under two hours, and the western end of Mascot Drive already experiences regular street flooding. Any approval must be conditioned on a comprehensive, independently reviewed 2D flood model demonstrating no adverse afflux on surrounding properties in accordance with the Bayside DCP; given our lived experience of the local drainage network, modelled assurances alone are not sufficient.
7. Noise
Beyond traffic noise, the applicant’s stated ambition of an “18-hour ground plane” (Design Report, Place Strategy – Principles, p. 32) signals activity — deliveries, patrons, waste collection, plant — continuing late into the night and resuming early in the morning, in immediate proximity to existing low-rise residences. A Plan of Management with enforceable limits on trading hours, servicing and deliveries must accompany any consent.
8. Airspace approvals should not be presumed
As Bayside Council, Sydney Airport and CASA each noted during scoping, the towers penetrate the Obstacle Limitation Surface for Sydney Airport (51m AHD over the site) and constitute controlled activities requiring federal approval, while the construction cranes would penetrate the PANS-OPS surface for extended periods, requiring Runway 25 instrument approach minima to be raised. These approvals rest with federal aviation authorities, not the consent authority, and are not assured. Consent should not be granted for a built form whose construction depends on airspace approvals that have not been obtained.
Conclusion
A time-limited affordable housing component does not outweigh the permanent impacts of a development of this height, scale and bulk on existing residents and Jack Mundey Reserve, nor the precedent it would set. The application is the fourth materially different version of this project in five years and departs significantly from the developer’s own public representations. I ask that it be refused, or failing that, substantially reduced in height and density to a scale consistent with Bayside Council’s adopted controls and the Eastlakes Town Centre Master Plan, with the deficiencies identified above — the incomplete solar assessment, the absent southern viewpoints, the parking shortfall and the unresolved airspace approvals — addressed before any determination.
Suzy Forrester
Object
Suzy Forrester
Object
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the outlined project on the grounds of its negative impacts on the amenity of existing residents, and the rushed and misleading nature of the developer’s engagement with the local community.
In terms of its negative impacts on the amenity of existing residents, I would draw attention to the following:
• Traffic. There are already delays approaching 20 minutes to drive the block around the development site in order to gain access to Gardeners Road via Racecourse Drive during the morning peak hour. Illegal parking between the development site and “The Grand” development is already a hazard for pedestrians, without adding additional traffic of potentially thousands of trips per day.
• Parking. This is already at a premium in the local area given that many existing apartment buildings allow for at most one vehicle per unit. Bayside Council notes the inadequacy of the proposed parking provision in its submission (p. 4).
• Shadowing. As noted by the residents of Barber Avenue, there are discrepancies in the solar-access assessment provided in the EIS, which will also affect residents in Mascot Drive.
• Loss of privacy. None of the “key viewpoints” in the Architectural Design Report show the impacts on residents on Barber Avenue or Mascot Drive on the south side of the site, who will now have a building four times the height of the current highest structures overshadowing and looking into their residences.
• Lack of compatibility with existing streetscape. The proposed development vastly exceeds the height of existing buildings in the area, overwhelming the surrounding streets and park. While the developer draws attention to the “evolving character of the locality towards increased residential intensification” (Architectural Design Report, Appendix B, p. AP-13), with the exception of the recently constructed towers on the North Site of this development (“The Grand”), this is in fact being driven by the replacement of single-family dwellings with low-rise semi-detached housing; as such, the proposed towers are in no reasonably interpretable way in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.
• Non-compliance with Bayside Council requirements. As noted in the Council submission, the proposed development is significantly outside their guidelines, which attempt to ensure a reasonable level of consistency with existing development.
• Non-compliance with Sydney Airport and FlySafe. As noted by Bayside Council, the prposed development significantly exceeds the safe height requirements of both the Sydney Airport Corporation and FlySafe, potentially endangering residents and travellers in the case of an emergency.
• Failure to incorporate the proposed public facilities. The current proposal does not include a large public library facility in a prominent position facing Jack Mundey Reserve, as pictured in early promotional material, opening the possibility that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead local residents into viewing the development favourable and not raising concerns as the scale of the proposal was altered.
• Potential flood impacts on surrounding residences. This is of particular concern to residents on Mascot Drive, particularly those already subject to regular street flooding at the western end of the street.
• Increased noise. Apart from increased road and foot traffic, the developer’s goal of creating an “18-hour ground plane” (Design Report, Place Strategy – Principles, p. 32) suggests that the noise associated with increased movement will continue throughout the night and possibly into the early morning, further disturbing surrounding residents.
I would also like to note the lack of good faith demonstrated by the developer in their approach to community consultation. Both of the community consultation sessions mentioned in the Community Engagement Outcomes Report (p. 16) were held during business hours on the same day (10am and 12pm on Thursday 7 May 2026). The letterboxing of invitations for this event did not include residents on the southern side of Mascot Drive, whose properties face the development, despite our proximity to the development and the ease with which its impacts on our amenity could be foreseen.
Further, claims that the inclusion of affordable and social housing in this development should outweigh concerns about its scale and impact on the local area should be rejected as unconvincing attempts at positive distraction, particularly given the time-limited nature of the social housing (10 years in some documents, 15 in others). A development of this height, scale and bulk would set an undesirable precedent for the local area; the clear priority here is profit to the developers, regardless of the impact on the surrounding area and, as such, it should be rejected.
In terms of its negative impacts on the amenity of existing residents, I would draw attention to the following:
• Traffic. There are already delays approaching 20 minutes to drive the block around the development site in order to gain access to Gardeners Road via Racecourse Drive during the morning peak hour. Illegal parking between the development site and “The Grand” development is already a hazard for pedestrians, without adding additional traffic of potentially thousands of trips per day.
• Parking. This is already at a premium in the local area given that many existing apartment buildings allow for at most one vehicle per unit. Bayside Council notes the inadequacy of the proposed parking provision in its submission (p. 4).
• Shadowing. As noted by the residents of Barber Avenue, there are discrepancies in the solar-access assessment provided in the EIS, which will also affect residents in Mascot Drive.
• Loss of privacy. None of the “key viewpoints” in the Architectural Design Report show the impacts on residents on Barber Avenue or Mascot Drive on the south side of the site, who will now have a building four times the height of the current highest structures overshadowing and looking into their residences.
• Lack of compatibility with existing streetscape. The proposed development vastly exceeds the height of existing buildings in the area, overwhelming the surrounding streets and park. While the developer draws attention to the “evolving character of the locality towards increased residential intensification” (Architectural Design Report, Appendix B, p. AP-13), with the exception of the recently constructed towers on the North Site of this development (“The Grand”), this is in fact being driven by the replacement of single-family dwellings with low-rise semi-detached housing; as such, the proposed towers are in no reasonably interpretable way in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.
• Non-compliance with Bayside Council requirements. As noted in the Council submission, the proposed development is significantly outside their guidelines, which attempt to ensure a reasonable level of consistency with existing development.
• Non-compliance with Sydney Airport and FlySafe. As noted by Bayside Council, the prposed development significantly exceeds the safe height requirements of both the Sydney Airport Corporation and FlySafe, potentially endangering residents and travellers in the case of an emergency.
• Failure to incorporate the proposed public facilities. The current proposal does not include a large public library facility in a prominent position facing Jack Mundey Reserve, as pictured in early promotional material, opening the possibility that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead local residents into viewing the development favourable and not raising concerns as the scale of the proposal was altered.
• Potential flood impacts on surrounding residences. This is of particular concern to residents on Mascot Drive, particularly those already subject to regular street flooding at the western end of the street.
• Increased noise. Apart from increased road and foot traffic, the developer’s goal of creating an “18-hour ground plane” (Design Report, Place Strategy – Principles, p. 32) suggests that the noise associated with increased movement will continue throughout the night and possibly into the early morning, further disturbing surrounding residents.
I would also like to note the lack of good faith demonstrated by the developer in their approach to community consultation. Both of the community consultation sessions mentioned in the Community Engagement Outcomes Report (p. 16) were held during business hours on the same day (10am and 12pm on Thursday 7 May 2026). The letterboxing of invitations for this event did not include residents on the southern side of Mascot Drive, whose properties face the development, despite our proximity to the development and the ease with which its impacts on our amenity could be foreseen.
Further, claims that the inclusion of affordable and social housing in this development should outweigh concerns about its scale and impact on the local area should be rejected as unconvincing attempts at positive distraction, particularly given the time-limited nature of the social housing (10 years in some documents, 15 in others). A development of this height, scale and bulk would set an undesirable precedent for the local area; the clear priority here is profit to the developers, regardless of the impact on the surrounding area and, as such, it should be rejected.