Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
I formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the Eastlakes Shopping Centre at 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes.
While I recognise the need to increase housing supply, including affordable and build-to-rent housing, this proposal is excessive in scale and density and is not an appropriate outcome for the Eastlakes community. The proposed development of 736 residential units across four buildings of up to 18 storeys is out of all proportion to the existing character, built form and infrastructure capacity of the area.
The density is double the original approved maximum for this small site.
The green space is halve of what was previously approved.
My concerns are as follows:
Overdevelopment and Excessive Height
The proposal represents a level of overdevelopment that is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. Buildings of up to 18 storeys would dominate the local skyline and dramatically alter the character of Eastlakes.
The EIS statement underplays the visual impact of this proposal.
The scale of this development appears to prioritise maximising residential yield rather than achieving a balanced outcome that integrates with the surrounding community. A development of a more appropriate height and density could deliver additional housing while maintaining compatibility with the existing neighbourhood.
Parking Impacts on the Existing Community
Parking is already a significant issue in Eastlakes. Residents, visitors and local businesses regularly experience difficulty finding on-street parking, particularly around the shopping centre and surrounding residential streets.
A development of this magnitude will inevitably increase parking demand, even where on-site parking is provided. Many households own more than one vehicle, visitors require parking, and service vehicles will also add to demand. Overflow parking is likely to spill into surrounding streets, reducing parking availability for existing residents and businesses.
The proposal does not adequately address how these cumulative parking impacts will be managed over the long term.
Increased Traffic Congestion
Adding hundreds of new dwellings will substantially increase traffic movements throughout Eastlakes. Local roads and intersections already experience congestion during peak periods, and additional vehicle movements will worsen delays, reduce road safety and increase travel times for residents.
This proposal should not proceed because of unacceptable impacts.
Loss of Residential Amenity
The height and bulk of the proposed buildings are likely to result in increased overshadowing, reduced privacy, altered wind conditions and a loss of sunlight for neighbouring properties and public spaces.
These impacts would permanently diminish the amenity enjoyed by existing residents.
Eastlakes Deserves Appropriate Planning
Good planning is about achieving balanced growth. This proposal is simply too large for the site and the surrounding suburb.
Eastlakes should not be expected to absorb development that is significantly greater than the area's existing built form and infrastructure can reasonably support. Growth should occur in a way that respects neighbourhood character, protects residential amenity and ensures infrastructure keeps pace with population increases.
Approving buildings of up to 18 storeys in this location would set an undesirable precedent for future developments and fundamentally change the nature of the suburb.
Request
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require significant amendments to substantially reduce the height, density and overall scale of the development.
Given the considerable public interest and the far-reaching implications of this proposal, I also request that, if the required number of public objections is received or the relevant council objects, the application be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for determination. An independent and transparent assessment is appropriate for a development of this magnitude.
Eastlakes residents deserve development that is proportionate, well planned and supported by adequate infrastructure—not an overdevelopment that places unacceptable pressure on local roads, parking, services and the character of the community over profit.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yogi
Eastlakes resident
While I recognise the need to increase housing supply, including affordable and build-to-rent housing, this proposal is excessive in scale and density and is not an appropriate outcome for the Eastlakes community. The proposed development of 736 residential units across four buildings of up to 18 storeys is out of all proportion to the existing character, built form and infrastructure capacity of the area.
The density is double the original approved maximum for this small site.
The green space is halve of what was previously approved.
My concerns are as follows:
Overdevelopment and Excessive Height
The proposal represents a level of overdevelopment that is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. Buildings of up to 18 storeys would dominate the local skyline and dramatically alter the character of Eastlakes.
The EIS statement underplays the visual impact of this proposal.
The scale of this development appears to prioritise maximising residential yield rather than achieving a balanced outcome that integrates with the surrounding community. A development of a more appropriate height and density could deliver additional housing while maintaining compatibility with the existing neighbourhood.
Parking Impacts on the Existing Community
Parking is already a significant issue in Eastlakes. Residents, visitors and local businesses regularly experience difficulty finding on-street parking, particularly around the shopping centre and surrounding residential streets.
A development of this magnitude will inevitably increase parking demand, even where on-site parking is provided. Many households own more than one vehicle, visitors require parking, and service vehicles will also add to demand. Overflow parking is likely to spill into surrounding streets, reducing parking availability for existing residents and businesses.
The proposal does not adequately address how these cumulative parking impacts will be managed over the long term.
Increased Traffic Congestion
Adding hundreds of new dwellings will substantially increase traffic movements throughout Eastlakes. Local roads and intersections already experience congestion during peak periods, and additional vehicle movements will worsen delays, reduce road safety and increase travel times for residents.
This proposal should not proceed because of unacceptable impacts.
Loss of Residential Amenity
The height and bulk of the proposed buildings are likely to result in increased overshadowing, reduced privacy, altered wind conditions and a loss of sunlight for neighbouring properties and public spaces.
These impacts would permanently diminish the amenity enjoyed by existing residents.
Eastlakes Deserves Appropriate Planning
Good planning is about achieving balanced growth. This proposal is simply too large for the site and the surrounding suburb.
Eastlakes should not be expected to absorb development that is significantly greater than the area's existing built form and infrastructure can reasonably support. Growth should occur in a way that respects neighbourhood character, protects residential amenity and ensures infrastructure keeps pace with population increases.
Approving buildings of up to 18 storeys in this location would set an undesirable precedent for future developments and fundamentally change the nature of the suburb.
Request
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require significant amendments to substantially reduce the height, density and overall scale of the development.
Given the considerable public interest and the far-reaching implications of this proposal, I also request that, if the required number of public objections is received or the relevant council objects, the application be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for determination. An independent and transparent assessment is appropriate for a development of this magnitude.
Eastlakes residents deserve development that is proportionate, well planned and supported by adequate infrastructure—not an overdevelopment that places unacceptable pressure on local roads, parking, services and the character of the community over profit.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yogi
Eastlakes resident
Serhat Yasar
Object
Serhat Yasar
Object
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre in its current form and at its proposed scale.
I support redevelopment of the site. Eastlakes needs a modern shopping centre, improved retail services, better public spaces and stronger connections to the surrounding neighbourhood. However, this proposal is far larger and more intensive than is appropriate for the location.
The development includes four residential towers of approximately 14 to 18 storeys, 736 dwellings, potentially increasing to 877 separately occupied dwellings through dual-key apartments, and 1,223 parking spaces. This represents a major increase from the previously approved development and a substantial departure from the existing planning controls.
My objection is not to redevelopment or additional housing in principle. It is to the excessive height, density and overall intensity proposed, and the impacts this would have on the existing Eastlakes community.
-Excessive scale-
Eastlakes is already a relatively dense suburb, but it remains a local neighbourhood centre surrounded by established apartment buildings, residential streets and Jack Mundey Reserve. The shopping centre should be redeveloped in a way that complements this setting rather than overwhelms it.
The existing planning controls provide for a maximum building height of 14 metres and a floor space ratio of 1.5:1. The proposal seeks a major increase in both height and floor space to accommodate four large residential towers.
This is not a minor variation. It is a fundamental change in the intended scale and function of the site.
Bayside Council has raised concerns about the height, bulk, traffic, parking, public open space and poor relationship with the surrounding area. Council has also questioned the proposal proceeding ahead of a coordinated Eastlakes Town Centre planning process.
The State Significant Development pathway should not be used to avoid proper local planning or to justify development at any scale. A successful redevelopment could provide new housing and a modern shopping centre with fewer dwellings, lower buildings and a more appropriate transition to nearby properties and Jack Mundey Reserve.
-Traffic impacts-
The local road network has limited capacity. Access to and from Eastlakes depends heavily on Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue, Racecourse Place, Maloney Street and their connections with Gardeners Road.
These roads already experience congestion, difficult turning movements, queues and pressure on street parking. The Gardeners Road intersections are particularly constrained. Additional traffic from hundreds of dwellings, expanded retail and commercial uses, childcare, deliveries and service vehicles will add significantly to these problems.
The applicant's traffic assessment identifies the Maloney Street, Gardeners Road and Dalmeny Avenue intersection as the most constrained intersection in the modelled network. In some scenarios, demand reaches or exceeds the calculated capacity of the intersection. The report nevertheless concludes that the additional traffic can be accommodated, partly through assumed changes to signal timing.
A project of this scale should not be approved on the assumption that signal optimisation will resolve existing congestion. These claims should be independently verified by Transport for NSW and tested against actual conditions.
The assessment also relies on assumptions about public transport use, internal capture of retail trips and relatively low residential vehicle-trip rates. Eastlakes has bus services but is not directly served by a railway, light rail or metro station. Many residents will continue to rely on cars for work, family commitments and daily travel.
The Department should require an independent assessment of:
* cumulative traffic from the completed northern development, this proposal and other nearby projects;
* existing and future queues at Gardeners Road, Racecourse Place and Maloney Street;
* supermarket deliveries, waste collection, couriers and removal vehicles;
* construction traffic;
* pedestrian safety around Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue and Jack Mundey Reserve; and
* traffic diverting through surrounding residential streets.
The development should be reduced to a scale the existing road network can reasonably support.
-Parking-
Although the proposal includes 1,223 parking spaces, the scale and mix of uses will generate significant demand from residents, visitors, retail customers, staff, childcare users, tradespeople and delivery drivers.
Parking in nearby streets is already limited. Any underestimation of demand will lead to more vehicles circulating through local streets and occupying spaces relied upon by existing residents.
Parking demand should be assessed against the potential 877 separately occupied dwellings, not only the stated figure of 736 dwellings. The Department should also require a clear comparison with the parking rates ordinarily applied under the Bayside Development Control Plan.
Reduced parking should not be justified only by a Green Travel Plan or an assumption that future residents will use public transport. Any reliance on reduced car use should be supported by real and funded public transport improvements.
-Building height and aviation-
The site is approximately 2.5 kilometres from Sydney Airport's Runway 25 threshold. The aviation assessment states that all four buildings would penetrate the Sydney Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface.
The four construction cranes would also penetrate the TIFPOP instrument-flight procedure protection surface for periods of up to three months each. The aviation report states that this would require temporary changes to minimum approach altitudes for certain Runway 25 procedures.
I recognise that the report concludes these impacts may be manageable, subject to approval. However, the fact that all towers require aviation approval and the cranes would penetrate protected airspace demonstrates how extreme the proposed height is for this location.
Aviation approval would only establish whether the obstacles can be permitted under aviation requirements. It would not establish that the proposed height is appropriate for Eastlakes. All necessary aviation advice and approvals should be obtained before the development is determined, rather than deferred until later.
A lower development would reduce aviation complexity as well as visual, amenity and neighbourhood impacts.
-Jack Mundey Reserve and public access-
Jack Mundey Reserve is an important public space for the wider Eastlakes community. The redevelopment should improve the relationship between the shopping centre and the reserve, but the reserve must not become a private-looking landscaped frontage for the new towers.
The western edge should include welcoming and publicly accessible shops, cafes and pedestrian connections that serve existing residents as well as people living in the development.
Buildings should be lower and stepped away from the reserve to protect sunlight, openness, views of the sky and the character of the park. Private communal areas within the development should not be treated as a substitute for public open space required for the additional population.
-Community benefit-
The redeveloped centre should primarily serve Eastlakes and the surrounding community. It should provide practical retail services, community facilities and genuinely public spaces that are easy to access from surrounding streets and the reserve.
There is a risk that the proposal becomes mainly a large residential development with a retail podium serving its own occupants.
The affordable housing component should also be considered in context. The proposal includes 74 affordable dwellings, representing approximately 10 per cent of the 736-dwelling count, for a minimum period of 15 years. While this is welcome, a time-limited benefit should not automatically justify permanent increases in height and development capacity of this scale.
-Requested outcome-
I ask the Department not to approve the application in its current form. The applicant should be required to submit a revised proposal that:
* substantially reduces the number of dwellings and total floor space;
* lowers the towers and provides a better transition to surrounding buildings and Jack Mundey Reserve;
* demonstrates through independent assessment that the road network can accommodate the development;
* provides sufficient parking, loading and servicing without shifting impacts onto local streets;
* obtains all required aviation approvals before determination;
* protects sunlight, openness and public access to Jack Mundey Reserve;
* provides genuine public pedestrian connections and community-serving facilities; and
* is developed through a coordinated process involving Bayside Council and the local community.
Eastlakes Shopping Centre should be redeveloped, but the redevelopment must be proportionate to the suburb and the capacity of its roads, public transport, parking and open spaces. A lower and less intensive proposal could still deliver housing, shops and public benefits without overwhelming the surrounding community.
I support redevelopment of the site. Eastlakes needs a modern shopping centre, improved retail services, better public spaces and stronger connections to the surrounding neighbourhood. However, this proposal is far larger and more intensive than is appropriate for the location.
The development includes four residential towers of approximately 14 to 18 storeys, 736 dwellings, potentially increasing to 877 separately occupied dwellings through dual-key apartments, and 1,223 parking spaces. This represents a major increase from the previously approved development and a substantial departure from the existing planning controls.
My objection is not to redevelopment or additional housing in principle. It is to the excessive height, density and overall intensity proposed, and the impacts this would have on the existing Eastlakes community.
-Excessive scale-
Eastlakes is already a relatively dense suburb, but it remains a local neighbourhood centre surrounded by established apartment buildings, residential streets and Jack Mundey Reserve. The shopping centre should be redeveloped in a way that complements this setting rather than overwhelms it.
The existing planning controls provide for a maximum building height of 14 metres and a floor space ratio of 1.5:1. The proposal seeks a major increase in both height and floor space to accommodate four large residential towers.
This is not a minor variation. It is a fundamental change in the intended scale and function of the site.
Bayside Council has raised concerns about the height, bulk, traffic, parking, public open space and poor relationship with the surrounding area. Council has also questioned the proposal proceeding ahead of a coordinated Eastlakes Town Centre planning process.
The State Significant Development pathway should not be used to avoid proper local planning or to justify development at any scale. A successful redevelopment could provide new housing and a modern shopping centre with fewer dwellings, lower buildings and a more appropriate transition to nearby properties and Jack Mundey Reserve.
-Traffic impacts-
The local road network has limited capacity. Access to and from Eastlakes depends heavily on Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue, Racecourse Place, Maloney Street and their connections with Gardeners Road.
These roads already experience congestion, difficult turning movements, queues and pressure on street parking. The Gardeners Road intersections are particularly constrained. Additional traffic from hundreds of dwellings, expanded retail and commercial uses, childcare, deliveries and service vehicles will add significantly to these problems.
The applicant's traffic assessment identifies the Maloney Street, Gardeners Road and Dalmeny Avenue intersection as the most constrained intersection in the modelled network. In some scenarios, demand reaches or exceeds the calculated capacity of the intersection. The report nevertheless concludes that the additional traffic can be accommodated, partly through assumed changes to signal timing.
A project of this scale should not be approved on the assumption that signal optimisation will resolve existing congestion. These claims should be independently verified by Transport for NSW and tested against actual conditions.
The assessment also relies on assumptions about public transport use, internal capture of retail trips and relatively low residential vehicle-trip rates. Eastlakes has bus services but is not directly served by a railway, light rail or metro station. Many residents will continue to rely on cars for work, family commitments and daily travel.
The Department should require an independent assessment of:
* cumulative traffic from the completed northern development, this proposal and other nearby projects;
* existing and future queues at Gardeners Road, Racecourse Place and Maloney Street;
* supermarket deliveries, waste collection, couriers and removal vehicles;
* construction traffic;
* pedestrian safety around Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue and Jack Mundey Reserve; and
* traffic diverting through surrounding residential streets.
The development should be reduced to a scale the existing road network can reasonably support.
-Parking-
Although the proposal includes 1,223 parking spaces, the scale and mix of uses will generate significant demand from residents, visitors, retail customers, staff, childcare users, tradespeople and delivery drivers.
Parking in nearby streets is already limited. Any underestimation of demand will lead to more vehicles circulating through local streets and occupying spaces relied upon by existing residents.
Parking demand should be assessed against the potential 877 separately occupied dwellings, not only the stated figure of 736 dwellings. The Department should also require a clear comparison with the parking rates ordinarily applied under the Bayside Development Control Plan.
Reduced parking should not be justified only by a Green Travel Plan or an assumption that future residents will use public transport. Any reliance on reduced car use should be supported by real and funded public transport improvements.
-Building height and aviation-
The site is approximately 2.5 kilometres from Sydney Airport's Runway 25 threshold. The aviation assessment states that all four buildings would penetrate the Sydney Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface.
The four construction cranes would also penetrate the TIFPOP instrument-flight procedure protection surface for periods of up to three months each. The aviation report states that this would require temporary changes to minimum approach altitudes for certain Runway 25 procedures.
I recognise that the report concludes these impacts may be manageable, subject to approval. However, the fact that all towers require aviation approval and the cranes would penetrate protected airspace demonstrates how extreme the proposed height is for this location.
Aviation approval would only establish whether the obstacles can be permitted under aviation requirements. It would not establish that the proposed height is appropriate for Eastlakes. All necessary aviation advice and approvals should be obtained before the development is determined, rather than deferred until later.
A lower development would reduce aviation complexity as well as visual, amenity and neighbourhood impacts.
-Jack Mundey Reserve and public access-
Jack Mundey Reserve is an important public space for the wider Eastlakes community. The redevelopment should improve the relationship between the shopping centre and the reserve, but the reserve must not become a private-looking landscaped frontage for the new towers.
The western edge should include welcoming and publicly accessible shops, cafes and pedestrian connections that serve existing residents as well as people living in the development.
Buildings should be lower and stepped away from the reserve to protect sunlight, openness, views of the sky and the character of the park. Private communal areas within the development should not be treated as a substitute for public open space required for the additional population.
-Community benefit-
The redeveloped centre should primarily serve Eastlakes and the surrounding community. It should provide practical retail services, community facilities and genuinely public spaces that are easy to access from surrounding streets and the reserve.
There is a risk that the proposal becomes mainly a large residential development with a retail podium serving its own occupants.
The affordable housing component should also be considered in context. The proposal includes 74 affordable dwellings, representing approximately 10 per cent of the 736-dwelling count, for a minimum period of 15 years. While this is welcome, a time-limited benefit should not automatically justify permanent increases in height and development capacity of this scale.
-Requested outcome-
I ask the Department not to approve the application in its current form. The applicant should be required to submit a revised proposal that:
* substantially reduces the number of dwellings and total floor space;
* lowers the towers and provides a better transition to surrounding buildings and Jack Mundey Reserve;
* demonstrates through independent assessment that the road network can accommodate the development;
* provides sufficient parking, loading and servicing without shifting impacts onto local streets;
* obtains all required aviation approvals before determination;
* protects sunlight, openness and public access to Jack Mundey Reserve;
* provides genuine public pedestrian connections and community-serving facilities; and
* is developed through a coordinated process involving Bayside Council and the local community.
Eastlakes Shopping Centre should be redeveloped, but the redevelopment must be proportionate to the suburb and the capacity of its roads, public transport, parking and open spaces. A lower and less intensive proposal could still deliver housing, shops and public benefits without overwhelming the surrounding community.
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Comment
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
To the Assessing Officer / Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
RE: Resident Submission regarding Eastlakes Mixed Use Development (19A Evans Avenue) – SSD-90572458
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed mixed-use development at 19A Evans Avenue. As an owner and resident of The Grand Eastlakes (the "North Site" directly across Evans Avenue), my home faces this proposed development. While I am not opposed to reasonable local upgrades, the current proposal represents a massive overdevelopment that completely disregards the daily amenity, traffic safety, and quality of life of existing residents on Evans Avenue.
I strongly request that the Department address the following severe local impacts before any approval is considered:
1. Funnelling 21,000m² of Commercial Traffic Directly onto Evans Avenue
My greatest daily concern is the developer’s vehicle access strategy, which targets my street as the primary commercial thoroughfare. The Traffic Impact Assessment states that all non-residential entry and exit movements will be routed via the Evans Avenue access point .
The proposal includes a massive 21,863 square meters of non-residential space, including a supermarket, retail, childcare, and commercial uses. Funnelling thousands of daily shopper, delivery, and childcare drop-off trips directly onto Evans Avenue will create unbearable noise, congestion, and safety hazards right outside the front doors of The Grand Eastlakes. This traffic must be equitably distributed, rather than turning Evans Avenue into a commercial loading and entry zone.
2. Severe Visual Nuisance from Flashing Aviation Lights
The developer is deliberately proposing building heights that breach the Sydney Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS). As a direct consequence, the Aviation Impact Assessment confirms that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will require these buildings and their construction cranes to be fitted with mandatory "medium intensity obstacle lights".
These lights will be flashing red or white between 20 and 60 times per minute, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and visible in all directions. As a resident living directly across the street, having four massive towers and cranes constantly flashing high-intensity warning lights right outside our windows will cause severe light pollution and disrupt sleep. It is unacceptable that the developer’s desire for excessive height comes at the cost of existing residents' nighttime amenity.
3. A 700-Space Parking Shortfall that will Choke Local Streets
The Bayside Development Control Plan (DCP) clearly states that a development of this massive scale requires 1,940 car parking spaces. However, the developer is only proposing to provide 1,223 spaces.
This unjustified shortfall of over 700 spaces will have a devastating impact on our neighborhood. Existing street parking on Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue, and Racecourse Place is already highly constrained. If this severe under-provision is approved, hundreds of vehicles will spill out onto our local streets, making it impossible for existing residents, our families, and our visitors to find parking.
4. Unprecedented 79-Metre Height and Loss of Neighborhood Character
The developer is attempting to bypass local planning laws by seeking a concurrent rezoning. The current height limit for the site is 14 meters, with a density (FSR) of 1.5:1. The proposal seeks to drastically inflate this to buildings up to 79 meters tall, with a combined FSR of up to 8:1 (5.5:1 residential and 2.5:1 non-residential).
Jumping from 14 meters to 79 meters directly across the street will completely obliterate the local character of Eastlakes. It will cast massive shadows over our street and Jack Mundey Reserve, severely impacting the sunlight and privacy my neighbors and I currently rely on.
5. Gridlock and Reliance on "Theoretical" Traffic Light Changes
We already experience extreme wait times and traffic banking up at the Racecourse Place and Gardeners Road intersection. The developer's own traffic modelling proves this will get significantly worse, projecting the morning queue on Racecourse Place to grow from 141.1 meters to a staggering 194.5 meters.
The traffic report tries to dismiss this gridlock by claiming average wait times will remain acceptable. However, they admit this conclusion is completely reliant on "optimised signal operation" being implemented. The report explicitly states that these signal changes are subject to Transport for NSW review and approval. Approving 1,000 new dwellings based on a theoretical traffic light change that hasn't been approved is incredibly reckless and will leave residents trapped in daily gridlock.
Conclusion
As a resident who will have to live with the consequences of this build every single day, I urge the Department to reject the current scale of this proposal. The building heights must be reduced to eliminate the need for flashing aviation lights, the full DCP parking requirements must be enforced to protect our local streets, and the commercial traffic must not be entirely funnelled onto Evans Avenue.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the residents who call Eastlakes home.
Sincerely,
Ash
RE: Resident Submission regarding Eastlakes Mixed Use Development (19A Evans Avenue) – SSD-90572458
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed mixed-use development at 19A Evans Avenue. As an owner and resident of The Grand Eastlakes (the "North Site" directly across Evans Avenue), my home faces this proposed development. While I am not opposed to reasonable local upgrades, the current proposal represents a massive overdevelopment that completely disregards the daily amenity, traffic safety, and quality of life of existing residents on Evans Avenue.
I strongly request that the Department address the following severe local impacts before any approval is considered:
1. Funnelling 21,000m² of Commercial Traffic Directly onto Evans Avenue
My greatest daily concern is the developer’s vehicle access strategy, which targets my street as the primary commercial thoroughfare. The Traffic Impact Assessment states that all non-residential entry and exit movements will be routed via the Evans Avenue access point .
The proposal includes a massive 21,863 square meters of non-residential space, including a supermarket, retail, childcare, and commercial uses. Funnelling thousands of daily shopper, delivery, and childcare drop-off trips directly onto Evans Avenue will create unbearable noise, congestion, and safety hazards right outside the front doors of The Grand Eastlakes. This traffic must be equitably distributed, rather than turning Evans Avenue into a commercial loading and entry zone.
2. Severe Visual Nuisance from Flashing Aviation Lights
The developer is deliberately proposing building heights that breach the Sydney Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS). As a direct consequence, the Aviation Impact Assessment confirms that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will require these buildings and their construction cranes to be fitted with mandatory "medium intensity obstacle lights".
These lights will be flashing red or white between 20 and 60 times per minute, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and visible in all directions. As a resident living directly across the street, having four massive towers and cranes constantly flashing high-intensity warning lights right outside our windows will cause severe light pollution and disrupt sleep. It is unacceptable that the developer’s desire for excessive height comes at the cost of existing residents' nighttime amenity.
3. A 700-Space Parking Shortfall that will Choke Local Streets
The Bayside Development Control Plan (DCP) clearly states that a development of this massive scale requires 1,940 car parking spaces. However, the developer is only proposing to provide 1,223 spaces.
This unjustified shortfall of over 700 spaces will have a devastating impact on our neighborhood. Existing street parking on Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue, and Racecourse Place is already highly constrained. If this severe under-provision is approved, hundreds of vehicles will spill out onto our local streets, making it impossible for existing residents, our families, and our visitors to find parking.
4. Unprecedented 79-Metre Height and Loss of Neighborhood Character
The developer is attempting to bypass local planning laws by seeking a concurrent rezoning. The current height limit for the site is 14 meters, with a density (FSR) of 1.5:1. The proposal seeks to drastically inflate this to buildings up to 79 meters tall, with a combined FSR of up to 8:1 (5.5:1 residential and 2.5:1 non-residential).
Jumping from 14 meters to 79 meters directly across the street will completely obliterate the local character of Eastlakes. It will cast massive shadows over our street and Jack Mundey Reserve, severely impacting the sunlight and privacy my neighbors and I currently rely on.
5. Gridlock and Reliance on "Theoretical" Traffic Light Changes
We already experience extreme wait times and traffic banking up at the Racecourse Place and Gardeners Road intersection. The developer's own traffic modelling proves this will get significantly worse, projecting the morning queue on Racecourse Place to grow from 141.1 meters to a staggering 194.5 meters.
The traffic report tries to dismiss this gridlock by claiming average wait times will remain acceptable. However, they admit this conclusion is completely reliant on "optimised signal operation" being implemented. The report explicitly states that these signal changes are subject to Transport for NSW review and approval. Approving 1,000 new dwellings based on a theoretical traffic light change that hasn't been approved is incredibly reckless and will leave residents trapped in daily gridlock.
Conclusion
As a resident who will have to live with the consequences of this build every single day, I urge the Department to reject the current scale of this proposal. The building heights must be reduced to eliminate the need for flashing aviation lights, the full DCP parking requirements must be enforced to protect our local streets, and the commercial traffic must not be entirely funnelled onto Evans Avenue.
Thank you for your time and consideration of the residents who call Eastlakes home.
Sincerely,
Ash
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Eastlakes
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Objection to the Proposed Redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre – 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the Eastlakes Shopping Centre at 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes.
While I recognise the need to increase housing supply, including affordable and build-to-rent housing, this proposal is excessive in scale and density and is not an appropriate outcome for the Eastlakes community. The proposed development of 736 residential units across four buildings of up to 18 storeys is out of all proportion to the existing character, built form and infrastructure capacity of the area.
My concerns are as follows:
1. Overdevelopment and Excessive Height
The proposal represents a level of overdevelopment that is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. Buildings of up to 18 storeys would dominate the local skyline and dramatically alter the character of Eastlakes.
The scale of this development appears to prioritise maximising residential yield rather than achieving a balanced outcome that integrates with the surrounding community. A development of a more appropriate height and density could deliver additional housing while maintaining compatibility with the existing neighbourhood.
2. Parking Impacts on the Existing Community
Parking is already a significant issue in Eastlakes. Residents, visitors and local businesses regularly experience difficulty finding on-street parking, particularly around the shopping centre and surrounding residential streets.
A development of this magnitude will inevitably increase parking demand, even where on-site parking is provided. Many households own more than one vehicle, visitors require parking, and service vehicles will also add to demand. Overflow parking is likely to spill into surrounding streets, reducing parking availability for existing residents and businesses.
The proposal does not adequately address how these cumulative parking impacts will be managed over the long term.
3. Increased Traffic Congestion
Adding hundreds of new dwellings will substantially increase traffic movements throughout Eastlakes. Local roads and intersections already experience congestion during peak periods, and additional vehicle movements will worsen delays, reduce road safety and increase travel times for residents.
This proposal should not proceed unless there is clear evidence that the surrounding road network can accommodate this level of growth without unacceptable impacts.
4. Pressure on Infrastructure and Community Services
An increase of this scale in population will place significant additional demand on local infrastructure, including:
• public transport
• local roads
• schools
• childcare facilities
• healthcare services
• parks and open space
• community facilities
• utilities and essential services.
There is little confidence that existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate such rapid growth without reducing service levels and quality of life for current residents.
5. Loss of Residential Amenity
The height and bulk of the proposed buildings are likely to result in increased overshadowing, reduced privacy, altered wind conditions and a loss of sunlight for neighbouring properties and public spaces.
These impacts would permanently diminish the amenity enjoyed by existing residents.
6. Eastlakes Deserves Appropriate Planning
Good planning is about achieving balanced growth. This proposal is simply too large for the site and the surrounding suburb.
Eastlakes should not be expected to absorb development that is significantly greater than the area's existing built form and infrastructure can reasonably support. Growth should occur in a way that respects neighbourhood character, protects residential amenity and ensures infrastructure keeps pace with population increases.
Approving buildings of up to 18 storeys in this location would set an undesirable precedent for future developments and fundamentally change the nature of the suburb.
Request
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require significant amendments to substantially reduce the height, density and overall scale of the development.
Given the considerable public interest and the far-reaching implications of this proposal, I also request that, if the required number of public objections is received or the relevant council objects, the application be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for determination. An independent and transparent assessment is appropriate for a development of this magnitude.
Eastlakes residents deserve development that is proportionate, well planned and supported by adequate infrastructure—not an overdevelopment that places unacceptable pressure on local roads, parking, services and the character of the community.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Katrina
Local resident
Re: Objection to the Proposed Redevelopment of Eastlakes Shopping Centre – 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the Eastlakes Shopping Centre at 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes.
While I recognise the need to increase housing supply, including affordable and build-to-rent housing, this proposal is excessive in scale and density and is not an appropriate outcome for the Eastlakes community. The proposed development of 736 residential units across four buildings of up to 18 storeys is out of all proportion to the existing character, built form and infrastructure capacity of the area.
My concerns are as follows:
1. Overdevelopment and Excessive Height
The proposal represents a level of overdevelopment that is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. Buildings of up to 18 storeys would dominate the local skyline and dramatically alter the character of Eastlakes.
The scale of this development appears to prioritise maximising residential yield rather than achieving a balanced outcome that integrates with the surrounding community. A development of a more appropriate height and density could deliver additional housing while maintaining compatibility with the existing neighbourhood.
2. Parking Impacts on the Existing Community
Parking is already a significant issue in Eastlakes. Residents, visitors and local businesses regularly experience difficulty finding on-street parking, particularly around the shopping centre and surrounding residential streets.
A development of this magnitude will inevitably increase parking demand, even where on-site parking is provided. Many households own more than one vehicle, visitors require parking, and service vehicles will also add to demand. Overflow parking is likely to spill into surrounding streets, reducing parking availability for existing residents and businesses.
The proposal does not adequately address how these cumulative parking impacts will be managed over the long term.
3. Increased Traffic Congestion
Adding hundreds of new dwellings will substantially increase traffic movements throughout Eastlakes. Local roads and intersections already experience congestion during peak periods, and additional vehicle movements will worsen delays, reduce road safety and increase travel times for residents.
This proposal should not proceed unless there is clear evidence that the surrounding road network can accommodate this level of growth without unacceptable impacts.
4. Pressure on Infrastructure and Community Services
An increase of this scale in population will place significant additional demand on local infrastructure, including:
• public transport
• local roads
• schools
• childcare facilities
• healthcare services
• parks and open space
• community facilities
• utilities and essential services.
There is little confidence that existing infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate such rapid growth without reducing service levels and quality of life for current residents.
5. Loss of Residential Amenity
The height and bulk of the proposed buildings are likely to result in increased overshadowing, reduced privacy, altered wind conditions and a loss of sunlight for neighbouring properties and public spaces.
These impacts would permanently diminish the amenity enjoyed by existing residents.
6. Eastlakes Deserves Appropriate Planning
Good planning is about achieving balanced growth. This proposal is simply too large for the site and the surrounding suburb.
Eastlakes should not be expected to absorb development that is significantly greater than the area's existing built form and infrastructure can reasonably support. Growth should occur in a way that respects neighbourhood character, protects residential amenity and ensures infrastructure keeps pace with population increases.
Approving buildings of up to 18 storeys in this location would set an undesirable precedent for future developments and fundamentally change the nature of the suburb.
Request
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require significant amendments to substantially reduce the height, density and overall scale of the development.
Given the considerable public interest and the far-reaching implications of this proposal, I also request that, if the required number of public objections is received or the relevant council objects, the application be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for determination. An independent and transparent assessment is appropriate for a development of this magnitude.
Eastlakes residents deserve development that is proportionate, well planned and supported by adequate infrastructure—not an overdevelopment that places unacceptable pressure on local roads, parking, services and the character of the community.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Katrina
Local resident
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MASCOT
,
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.
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.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
I am 100% in favour of a new shopping centre, including some restaurants, however I do NOT agree with the proposed over development that will take place in regards to the apartment buildings and unit complexes. This is way over the top for a small local area. It is going to result in excessive foot traffic as well as vehicle congestion in the area. The roads are not designed for such high traffic demands. During peak hour, it is already congested in the mornings when I drive via Evans Avenue heading towards racecourse place to turn onto Gardeners Rd. I can only imagine how chaotic it will become with thousands more people and vehicles thrown into the mix. The average family of 4 these days has 2-3 cars. If only one car space is allocated to each apartment that means those 1-2 additional cars will be parked on the street making our once peaceful area very crowded. There are not enough off street car spaces now. Where are all these additional vehicles going to be parked? Most likely they will end up parking illegally or across other residents driveways in surrounding residential streets. The streets around Eastlakes are narrow. Excessive traffic will cause vehicles to be backed up into residential streets. This can also delay and increase Emergency vehicle Response times. I have lived in Eastlakes my entire life and have always enjoyed our small community of locals. This will all be taken away if this massive over development takes place. Eastlakes has always been an affordable area, and although the old shopping centre was run down towards the end it still attracted the locals as it was reasonable, affordable for the locals and had every thing we needed under the one roof. The elderly could easily walk from their properties close by and do their shopping. Everything was in reach. However with this new proposal, apartments will not be affordable and it will most likely price the locals out of the area. The majority of small businesses that were operating in the old Eastlakes Shopping Centre have already been out priced out of the area. Many of them wanted to continue operating their businesses in Eastlakes and some attempted to set up shop in the new Grand at Easlakes, but rent prices were way too high and out of their reach. How can small businesses survive in the area if we have this over development happening? I strongly object to this over development proposal and hope that something is done to stop it before it goes ahead. I feel the local residents should be heard in this matter. After all, we are the ones that live here and will be affected by it the most.
Emma Trovas
Object
Emma Trovas
Object
ROSEBERY
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission Objecting to the Proposed Eastlakes Town Centre Redevelopment
I wish to object to the proposed amendments to the Eastlakes redevelopment.
While I recognise the importance of providing additional housing in Sydney, I do not believe this proposal achieves an appropriate balance between increasing housing supply and protecting the liveability of the existing community.
My primary concern is the substantial increase in the number of apartments compared with what was previously approved. Such a significant increase represents a major intensification of the development and will place considerable pressure on infrastructure that is already under strain.
Traffic and Road Congestion
Traffic congestion around Eastlakes is already a daily issue, particularly along Gardeners Road, Wentworth Avenue, Evans Avenue and surrounding local streets. Increasing the number of apartments by such a large amount will inevitably generate additional vehicle movements despite proposed transport initiatives. Existing intersections frequently experience delays during peak periods, and there appears to be limited capacity for meaningful road upgrades due to the established urban environment.
Infrastructure Capacity
The proposal will increase demand on local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, childcare services, medical facilities and community services. It is not clear that these essential services have sufficient capacity to accommodate the substantial increase in population.
Loss of Community Amenity
The scale and density of the revised proposal is excessive for Eastlakes. A development of this magnitude risks fundamentally changing the character of the suburb while reducing the quality of life for existing residents through increased congestion, noise, overcrowding and pressure on public open spaces.
Cumulative Impact
The assessment should consider not only the impacts of this development in isolation but also the cumulative effect of numerous developments occurring across the Bayside area. The combined increase in population requires supporting infrastructure to be delivered at the same pace as residential growth.
Public Interest
The original approval represented a balance between renewal and community impact. Increasing the apartment numbers so substantially appears to prioritise development yield over long-term community outcomes. I do not believe the revised proposal adequately demonstrates that local infrastructure and transport networks can sustainably support the increased density.
I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the proposed increase in apartment numbers or require the proposal to be substantially revised to reduce its scale to a level that better aligns with the capacity of the surrounding infrastructure and maintains a reasonable quality of life for current and future residents.
Thank you for considering my submission.
I wish to object to the proposed amendments to the Eastlakes redevelopment.
While I recognise the importance of providing additional housing in Sydney, I do not believe this proposal achieves an appropriate balance between increasing housing supply and protecting the liveability of the existing community.
My primary concern is the substantial increase in the number of apartments compared with what was previously approved. Such a significant increase represents a major intensification of the development and will place considerable pressure on infrastructure that is already under strain.
Traffic and Road Congestion
Traffic congestion around Eastlakes is already a daily issue, particularly along Gardeners Road, Wentworth Avenue, Evans Avenue and surrounding local streets. Increasing the number of apartments by such a large amount will inevitably generate additional vehicle movements despite proposed transport initiatives. Existing intersections frequently experience delays during peak periods, and there appears to be limited capacity for meaningful road upgrades due to the established urban environment.
Infrastructure Capacity
The proposal will increase demand on local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, childcare services, medical facilities and community services. It is not clear that these essential services have sufficient capacity to accommodate the substantial increase in population.
Loss of Community Amenity
The scale and density of the revised proposal is excessive for Eastlakes. A development of this magnitude risks fundamentally changing the character of the suburb while reducing the quality of life for existing residents through increased congestion, noise, overcrowding and pressure on public open spaces.
Cumulative Impact
The assessment should consider not only the impacts of this development in isolation but also the cumulative effect of numerous developments occurring across the Bayside area. The combined increase in population requires supporting infrastructure to be delivered at the same pace as residential growth.
Public Interest
The original approval represented a balance between renewal and community impact. Increasing the apartment numbers so substantially appears to prioritise development yield over long-term community outcomes. I do not believe the revised proposal adequately demonstrates that local infrastructure and transport networks can sustainably support the increased density.
I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the proposed increase in apartment numbers or require the proposal to be substantially revised to reduce its scale to a level that better aligns with the capacity of the surrounding infrastructure and maintains a reasonable quality of life for current and future residents.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSS VALE
,
New South Wales
Message
I support redevelopment of the former Eastlakes Shopping Centre and recognise the opportunity to deliver housing, affordable housing, retail services and public-domain improvements. However, from an architectural and urban-design perspective, I do not consider the proposal in its current form to respond appropriately to its context.
My concern is not simply the height of one building. It is the cumulative effect of four residential towers, a large podium, 736 dwellings and extensive non-residential floor space on a site surrounded mainly by three- and four-storey apartments, lower-scale housing and Jack Mundey Reserve. Good urban design requires more than internal compliance. It requires an appropriate relationship with surrounding buildings, streets, public spaces, infrastructure and the people who experience the development at ground level.
The proposal would introduce buildings of approximately 14 to 18 storeys into a substantially lower-scale local setting. Although taller development exists north of the site, the four-tower composition represents a significant further increase in height, density and visual presence. Variation in tower heights and separation may reduce the appearance of a continuous wall, but it does not resolve the overall scale. The complete composition (including podium height, tower width, floorplate depth, setbacks and cumulative floor spac) must be considered from nearby homes, streets and the reserve.
Compliance with Apartment Design Guide standards for separation, solar access and internal amenity does not by itself establish that the external urban-design outcome is appropriate. Contextual fit must still be assessed independently. The proposal should be reconsidered through a genuine reduction or redistribution of building mass. This could include lower tower heights, narrower floorplates, increased separation, stronger upper-level setbacks and a clearer transition towards surrounding lower-scale residential areas.
The interface with Jack Mundey Reserve is one of the most important design issues. The reserve is an existing public asset serving the wider community. It should not function primarily as borrowed landscape or open-space relief for a high-density private development. The architecture should preserve the reserve’s openness, sunlight, sky visibility, landscape character and year-round comfort. The tower and podium facing the reserve should be assessed from the perspective of a person using the park, not only through distant photomontages or numerical compliance tables. Attention should be given to apparent height and width, setbacks, overshadowing, wind, overlooking and the transition between public parkland and private residential uses.
Landscaping can improve the interface, but it should not be relied upon to conceal excessive building mass. Trees take time to mature and cannot fully offset the effect of a large podium and multiple towers. The building mass closest to the reserve should be reduced or set further back where necessary to create a more generous and durable relationship with the public space.
For pedestrians, neighbours and visitors, the podium will define the everyday experience of the development more than the upper towers. It should provide a fine-grained, active and legible frontage rather than long elevations, vehicle-dominated areas, blank servicing zones or an inward-facing shopping-centre environment. Pedestrian routes should be direct, accessible and visible, with clear connections between Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue, Jack Mundey Reserve, nearby bus stops and The Grand Eastlakes.
Residential entrances, retail frontages, loading areas, waste facilities, childcare access and vehicle crossings should be coordinated so that operational requirements do not compromise pedestrian safety or public-domain quality. The southern interface requires particular care because servicing and loading reduce pedestrian permeability. It should not become the rear or service edge of an otherwise prominent development. Any consent should require detailed resolution of the podium, entries, awnings, materials, landscaping, lighting and street interfaces. These elements should not be weakened through later value management.
The EIS identifies overshadowing, visual impact, departure from local built-form character and wind comfort among the proposal’s most significant potential negative social impacts. These matters should influence the building envelope itself rather than being treated mainly as impacts to manage after the scale has been fixed. Solar-access analysis should distinguish between compliance for apartments within the development and impacts on existing homes, streets and public open space. A development may achieve acceptable internal solar access while still producing substantial external overshadowing.
Wind mitigation should be integrated into tower placement and podium form. Screens, planting and balcony treatments may help, but should not substitute for appropriate massing. The visual assessment should consider the cumulative perception of all four towers, including views from nearby streets and within Jack Mundey Reserve, rather than focusing only on whether individual viewpoints are technically acceptable.
Architectural density cannot be separated from the infrastructure required to support it. The applicant’s traffic modelling identifies a key intersection operating at or above theoretical capacity in relevant scenarios. The proposal relies partly on optimised signal operation, internal capture between uses, reduced car use and the success of a future Green Travel Plan. Where the network has little spare capacity, those assumptions should be independently tested. If the network cannot reliably support the proposed yield under reasonable higher-demand scenarios, the density should be reduced rather than relying entirely on future behavioural change or operational adjustments.
The residential and visitor parking provision is also substantially below the Bayside DCP calculation. While reduced parking may be appropriate in highly accessible locations, Eastlakes is primarily bus-served and has no railway or light-rail station within immediate walking distance. Insufficient onsite parking could transfer demand onto surrounding streets. Parking allocations, visitor spaces, loading activity and childcare movements should therefore be tested, with enforceable monitoring and corrective measures if spillover or vehicle queueing occurs.
The architectural and public-domain quality shown at approval stage should also be protected through delivery. Large projects can be weakened through material substitutions, reduced landscaping and simplified detailing. Any consent should require design verification for significant changes to façades, podium treatment, landscaping, public-domain works, tower form and materials. Changes that materially increase visual bulk or reduce design quality should not be treated as minor amendments.
The affordable housing, childcare, community facilities, retail services and possible improvements to Jack Mundey Reserve are important benefits. However, reserve works, landscaping and community infrastructure should only be given significant weight if they are legally secured, funded, delivered at an appropriate stage and supported by long-term maintenance arrangements. Public-domain improvements should not justify excessive height or floor space where the underlying built form remains unsuitable.
I request that the proposal not be approved in its current form. The applicant should be required to:
- reduce or redistribute the overall building mass;
- create a more appropriate transition to surrounding lower-scale residential development;
- improve setbacks and reduce apparent bulk along Jack Mundey Reserve;
- demonstrate acceptable overshadowing, wind and visual outcomes;
- provide a finer-grained and genuinely pedestrian-oriented podium;
- coordinate loading, childcare, waste, vehicle access and pedestrian movement without diminishing the public domain;
- confirm that the proposed density can be supported by the road and parking network;
- legally secure promised public benefits; and
- protect approved architectural and landscape quality through construction.
I support substantial redevelopment of this site. However, the current proposal appears to have been designed around maximising development yield and then mitigating the resulting impacts. A stronger architectural response would begin with the capacity and character of the place, establish an appropriate building envelope, and then determine how much development can be accommodated within it.
A reduced and more carefully resolved scheme could still deliver significant housing and retail benefits while contributing more positively to Eastlakes over the long term.
My concern is not simply the height of one building. It is the cumulative effect of four residential towers, a large podium, 736 dwellings and extensive non-residential floor space on a site surrounded mainly by three- and four-storey apartments, lower-scale housing and Jack Mundey Reserve. Good urban design requires more than internal compliance. It requires an appropriate relationship with surrounding buildings, streets, public spaces, infrastructure and the people who experience the development at ground level.
The proposal would introduce buildings of approximately 14 to 18 storeys into a substantially lower-scale local setting. Although taller development exists north of the site, the four-tower composition represents a significant further increase in height, density and visual presence. Variation in tower heights and separation may reduce the appearance of a continuous wall, but it does not resolve the overall scale. The complete composition (including podium height, tower width, floorplate depth, setbacks and cumulative floor spac) must be considered from nearby homes, streets and the reserve.
Compliance with Apartment Design Guide standards for separation, solar access and internal amenity does not by itself establish that the external urban-design outcome is appropriate. Contextual fit must still be assessed independently. The proposal should be reconsidered through a genuine reduction or redistribution of building mass. This could include lower tower heights, narrower floorplates, increased separation, stronger upper-level setbacks and a clearer transition towards surrounding lower-scale residential areas.
The interface with Jack Mundey Reserve is one of the most important design issues. The reserve is an existing public asset serving the wider community. It should not function primarily as borrowed landscape or open-space relief for a high-density private development. The architecture should preserve the reserve’s openness, sunlight, sky visibility, landscape character and year-round comfort. The tower and podium facing the reserve should be assessed from the perspective of a person using the park, not only through distant photomontages or numerical compliance tables. Attention should be given to apparent height and width, setbacks, overshadowing, wind, overlooking and the transition between public parkland and private residential uses.
Landscaping can improve the interface, but it should not be relied upon to conceal excessive building mass. Trees take time to mature and cannot fully offset the effect of a large podium and multiple towers. The building mass closest to the reserve should be reduced or set further back where necessary to create a more generous and durable relationship with the public space.
For pedestrians, neighbours and visitors, the podium will define the everyday experience of the development more than the upper towers. It should provide a fine-grained, active and legible frontage rather than long elevations, vehicle-dominated areas, blank servicing zones or an inward-facing shopping-centre environment. Pedestrian routes should be direct, accessible and visible, with clear connections between Evans Avenue, Barber Avenue, Jack Mundey Reserve, nearby bus stops and The Grand Eastlakes.
Residential entrances, retail frontages, loading areas, waste facilities, childcare access and vehicle crossings should be coordinated so that operational requirements do not compromise pedestrian safety or public-domain quality. The southern interface requires particular care because servicing and loading reduce pedestrian permeability. It should not become the rear or service edge of an otherwise prominent development. Any consent should require detailed resolution of the podium, entries, awnings, materials, landscaping, lighting and street interfaces. These elements should not be weakened through later value management.
The EIS identifies overshadowing, visual impact, departure from local built-form character and wind comfort among the proposal’s most significant potential negative social impacts. These matters should influence the building envelope itself rather than being treated mainly as impacts to manage after the scale has been fixed. Solar-access analysis should distinguish between compliance for apartments within the development and impacts on existing homes, streets and public open space. A development may achieve acceptable internal solar access while still producing substantial external overshadowing.
Wind mitigation should be integrated into tower placement and podium form. Screens, planting and balcony treatments may help, but should not substitute for appropriate massing. The visual assessment should consider the cumulative perception of all four towers, including views from nearby streets and within Jack Mundey Reserve, rather than focusing only on whether individual viewpoints are technically acceptable.
Architectural density cannot be separated from the infrastructure required to support it. The applicant’s traffic modelling identifies a key intersection operating at or above theoretical capacity in relevant scenarios. The proposal relies partly on optimised signal operation, internal capture between uses, reduced car use and the success of a future Green Travel Plan. Where the network has little spare capacity, those assumptions should be independently tested. If the network cannot reliably support the proposed yield under reasonable higher-demand scenarios, the density should be reduced rather than relying entirely on future behavioural change or operational adjustments.
The residential and visitor parking provision is also substantially below the Bayside DCP calculation. While reduced parking may be appropriate in highly accessible locations, Eastlakes is primarily bus-served and has no railway or light-rail station within immediate walking distance. Insufficient onsite parking could transfer demand onto surrounding streets. Parking allocations, visitor spaces, loading activity and childcare movements should therefore be tested, with enforceable monitoring and corrective measures if spillover or vehicle queueing occurs.
The architectural and public-domain quality shown at approval stage should also be protected through delivery. Large projects can be weakened through material substitutions, reduced landscaping and simplified detailing. Any consent should require design verification for significant changes to façades, podium treatment, landscaping, public-domain works, tower form and materials. Changes that materially increase visual bulk or reduce design quality should not be treated as minor amendments.
The affordable housing, childcare, community facilities, retail services and possible improvements to Jack Mundey Reserve are important benefits. However, reserve works, landscaping and community infrastructure should only be given significant weight if they are legally secured, funded, delivered at an appropriate stage and supported by long-term maintenance arrangements. Public-domain improvements should not justify excessive height or floor space where the underlying built form remains unsuitable.
I request that the proposal not be approved in its current form. The applicant should be required to:
- reduce or redistribute the overall building mass;
- create a more appropriate transition to surrounding lower-scale residential development;
- improve setbacks and reduce apparent bulk along Jack Mundey Reserve;
- demonstrate acceptable overshadowing, wind and visual outcomes;
- provide a finer-grained and genuinely pedestrian-oriented podium;
- coordinate loading, childcare, waste, vehicle access and pedestrian movement without diminishing the public domain;
- confirm that the proposed density can be supported by the road and parking network;
- legally secure promised public benefits; and
- protect approved architectural and landscape quality through construction.
I support substantial redevelopment of this site. However, the current proposal appears to have been designed around maximising development yield and then mitigating the resulting impacts. A stronger architectural response would begin with the capacity and character of the place, establish an appropriate building envelope, and then determine how much development can be accommodated within it.
A reduced and more carefully resolved scheme could still deliver significant housing and retail benefits while contributing more positively to Eastlakes over the long term.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
EASTLAKES
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed development at 19A Evans Avenue, Eastlakes.
I have lived in Rosebery then Eastlakes since 2002. During that time, there has been a lot of redevelopment in these suburbs. While I am aware the need for additional housing increasing increasing the development from 425 dwellings to between 736 and 877 dwellings, with buildings up to 18 storeys in height will create chronic traffic congestion and parking issues for the area.
1. Traffic and Congestion
The applicant predicts an additional 246 morning peak and 332 afternoon peak vehicle trips. Leaving Eastlakes has become increasingly difficult in recent year due to increased traffic flow. There are only two traffic lights that allow drivers to cross Gardeners Road between Southern Cross Drive and Botany Road, Maloney Street and Racecourse Place. These intersections are heavily congested at peak hour already and will not be able to cope with the additional traffic without severe congestion and delays. The developments will create massive traffic jams at these times as the lights do not allow many cars to cross at each change
2. Everyday Impact
Congestion is no longer limited to peak hours. Weekend sport and activities is often affected by heavy traffic, reflecting the cumulative impact of ongoing residential growth.
3. Parking, Roads and Public Transport
On-street parking has become increasingly scarce, local roads have deteriorated under increased traffic, and buses serving Eastlakes are already overcrowded during peak periods. Further growth should not occur without corresponding improvements to transport and infrastructure. On-street parking is already becoming harder to find.
4. Scale of the Development
The proposed height and density are well beyond the approved scheme and risk setting a precedent for even greater overdevelopment in Eastlakes. Growth should be balanced with the capacity of the surrounding community and infrastructure.
I support sensible, well-planned development that provides housing while maintaining a functional and liveable neighbourhood. In my view, this proposal does not achieve that balance.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application or require significant reductions in its height, density and associated impacts before any approval is considered. Given the scale of the proposal and the level of community concern, I also believe it should be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for independent determination.
I have lived in Rosebery then Eastlakes since 2002. During that time, there has been a lot of redevelopment in these suburbs. While I am aware the need for additional housing increasing increasing the development from 425 dwellings to between 736 and 877 dwellings, with buildings up to 18 storeys in height will create chronic traffic congestion and parking issues for the area.
1. Traffic and Congestion
The applicant predicts an additional 246 morning peak and 332 afternoon peak vehicle trips. Leaving Eastlakes has become increasingly difficult in recent year due to increased traffic flow. There are only two traffic lights that allow drivers to cross Gardeners Road between Southern Cross Drive and Botany Road, Maloney Street and Racecourse Place. These intersections are heavily congested at peak hour already and will not be able to cope with the additional traffic without severe congestion and delays. The developments will create massive traffic jams at these times as the lights do not allow many cars to cross at each change
2. Everyday Impact
Congestion is no longer limited to peak hours. Weekend sport and activities is often affected by heavy traffic, reflecting the cumulative impact of ongoing residential growth.
3. Parking, Roads and Public Transport
On-street parking has become increasingly scarce, local roads have deteriorated under increased traffic, and buses serving Eastlakes are already overcrowded during peak periods. Further growth should not occur without corresponding improvements to transport and infrastructure. On-street parking is already becoming harder to find.
4. Scale of the Development
The proposed height and density are well beyond the approved scheme and risk setting a precedent for even greater overdevelopment in Eastlakes. Growth should be balanced with the capacity of the surrounding community and infrastructure.
I support sensible, well-planned development that provides housing while maintaining a functional and liveable neighbourhood. In my view, this proposal does not achieve that balance.
I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application or require significant reductions in its height, density and associated impacts before any approval is considered. Given the scale of the proposal and the level of community concern, I also believe it should be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for independent determination.