I strongly object to this proposal for Conway Avenue, Fernleigh Avenue and Carlisle Street, Rose Bay. This is a quiet suburban area full of families, long term residents and children, and not a high density precinct. An 8 storey building with 70 apartments and 130 car spaces is completely out of scale for a small residential cul de sac.
The traffic alone will change the safety and feel of the area. With McAuley being so close, and traffic already being terrible, this development will worsen already bad conditions. Conway Avenue is not a through road, yet this development would funnel significant vehicle movements through narrow local streets, including during weekend and school peak times. During construction, heavy trucks removing excavated material from deep basements will add noise, dust and safety risks for families walking, cycling or driving locally. And not to mention, this has already been occurring with the recent developments with Sydney water, and has been for months now, and this new proposal I can only imagine will be worse than what is currently occurring right now.
The scale, bulk and excavation depth feel driven by maximising yield rather than respecting the existing character of Rose Bay. This proposal would permanently alter the amenity, safety and liveability of our neighbourhood. It is simply too large and too intense for this suburban setting.

As a resident of Rose Bay, I strongly object to SSD-101842729 at Conway Avenue / Fernleigh Avenue / Carlisle Street. An 8-storey building with multiple basement levels is excessive for a small residential cul-de-sac and is inconsistent with the established low-rise character of the area. The proposal fails to provide an appropriate transition in scale and appears driven by maximum height and bulk rather than contextual integration.
I am particularly concerned about the proposed deep excavation (approximately 9 metres or more) within a groundwater-sensitive coastal basin. Groundwater modelling, seepage analysis and dewatering impacts have not been demonstrated on a decision-grade basis, and cumulative basin-wide impacts have not been assessed. Without this, the consent authority cannot be satisfied that surrounding properties will not be affected.
The development would also introduce 130 car spaces and significant construction traffic into narrow residential streets, with no adequate cumulative traffic modelling.
For these reasons, I request that SSD-101842729 be refused, as the consent authority cannot be satisfied as to site suitability, likely impacts or the public interest under s4.15 of the EP&A Act.

Objection to SSD-101842729

I respectfully object to this proposal on the basis that the consent authority cannot be satisfied as to site suitability, likely impacts, or the public interest under s4.15 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

1. Inadequate Community Consultation
Notification appears limited in scope, with several directly affected residents reporting they were not notified. Low attendance at consultation sessions may reflect limited awareness rather than community support. Given the proposal’s height, bulk and excavation depth, supplementary exhibition with broader notification is warranted to ensure procedural fairness.

2. Site Suitability
The Department must be satisfied the site is suitable before approval. Key technical matters remain unresolved, including incomplete groundwater modelling and the absence of basin-wide cumulative impact assessment. Excavation is likely to extend to or below observed groundwater levels. Without decision-grade analysis, the risks cannot be properly evaluated.

3. Scale, Bulk & Character
The Woollahra LEP requires development to provide an appropriate transition in scale to protect local amenity. This proposal occupies a prominent ridgeline and introduces substantial height and bulk. The applicant’s own report acknowledges multiple “severe” visual impacts. By utilising maximum height and uplift mechanisms concurrently, the built form appears driven by maximum envelope rather than contextual integration. The result is a concentrated intensity that exceeds what would reasonably constitute a medium-density transition and creates a hard edge against lower-scale housing.

4. Groundwater & Excavation Risk
Rose Bay is a groundwater-sensitive coastal basin. The exhibited material confirms additional monitoring wells, seepage analysis and dewatering management planning are still required, and dewatering volumes remain unquantified. Deep excavation in marine sands poses risks of settlement, cracking, groundwater redirection and off-site drawdown impacts.
Independent review confirms that groundwater behaviour and off-site settlement risk have not been demonstrated on a decision-grade basis. An independent geotechnical assessment commissioned by affected residents identifies potential drawdown extending beyond the site boundary and highlights that cumulative basin-scale impacts have not been modelled. These matters should be resolved and independently peer reviewed prior to any approval.

5. Construction, Traffic & Cumulative Impacts
The proposal involves significant bulk excavation requiring heavy vehicle movements into and out of a confined residential cul-de-sac. Noise, vibration, diesel emissions and dust impacts have not been cumulatively assessed.

The inclusion of 130 car spaces in Conway Avenue will substantially increase vehicle movements in a small residential street that relies on narrow surrounding roads, including Fernleigh Avenue, before reaching arterial routes. No cumulative traffic modelling has been exhibited, and peak impacts remain unclear.

Impacts within a confined coastal basin do not occur in isolation. The absence of basin-wide groundwater modelling, cumulative excavation assessment, combined traffic modelling and aggregated visual bulk assessment prevents a full understanding of the proposal’s consequences.

For these reasons, I request that SSD-101842729 be refused.

To whom it may concern,
I have been a resident in the area for over 40 years. This submission is too large and not within keeping of the local surrounds. The local services are already inadequate for the current population. The parking in all local villages is a nightmare and if you dare try to use either New South Head RD or Old South Head road in the morning between 7:30 and 9:00am or in the afternoon between 3:00 to 5:30 you will be at an absolute standstill. There are already strained public transport services (bus only) that are at capacity. Services, such as schools and doctor’s surgeries are also at capacity. In light of the developments of apartments that are already underway in Rose Bay an additional development of apartments will only exacerbate the current pressures on the area.

I oppose this project in the strongest possible manner and request it be refused. SSD-101842729 should be refused as the consent authority cannot be satisfied as to site suitability, likely impact or public interest under s4.15 of the EP&A act. This project would be detrimental to the community in a range of different areas.

I write to formally object to the proposed development, with my primary concern being the significant traffic impact and inappropriate vehicle intensity for this location.

The proposal includes 130 car spaces within a small residential area. This represents a substantial increase in vehicle movements in an area that is not designed to accommodate such volume. Conway Avenue is a confined residential cul-de-sac, not a through road, and all traffic must filter through narrow suburban streets — including Fernleigh Avenue — before reaching major arterial roads.

The exhibited material does not adequately assess:
- Cumulative traffic impacts
- Weekend and school peak traffic volumes
- Construction vehicle movements during bulk excavation
- Traffic weaving and safety risks in surrounding narrow streets

Introducing this level of vehicle intensity without road redesign or traffic-calming upgrades will create congestion, safety risks for pedestrians and children, and significant amenity loss for existing residents.

Beyond traffic, there are additional unresolved concerns that further support refusal of this application:
- Limited community consultation, with several directly affected residents reportedly not notified
- Incomplete groundwater modelling, despite excavation likely extending to or below groundwater levels in a sensitive coastal basin
- Unresolved off-site settlement and drawdown risks, confirmed by independent review
- Excessive scale and bulk, utilising maximum height and uplift mechanisms, resulting in a built form that exceeds a genuine medium-density transition
- Construction impacts, including heavy truck movements, without cumulative modelling

The cumulative impacts of traffic, excavation, groundwater interference, bulk, and construction have not been assessed holistically. In a confined coastal basin, impacts do not occur in isolation.

For these reasons, I request that SSD-101842729 be refused, as the consent authority cannot be satisfied as to site suitability, likely impacts or the public interest under s4.15 of the EP&A Act.

By any reasonable test, this development does not fit within the walking distance test and should not qualify for the 8 storey limit.
Additionally, any approval for this site should require a sufficient setback from Fernleigh lane to permit the widening of the two-way section between Carlisle St and Chamberlain Ave. This is a serious traffic hazard.