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.