Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSE BAY
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to SSD Application: 2–16 Spencer Street, Rose Bay
I am a local resident writing to object to the proposed State Significant Development at 2–16 Spencer Street. After reviewing the material on exhibition, I have serious concerns about the height, scale, environmental impacts, and the pressure this project will place on already strained local infrastructure. I respectfully request that the Department defer determination until these issues are properly addressed.
1. Exhibition Period Too Short for a Complex Proposal
Given the number of technical documents included in the EIS - particularly around geotechnical conditions, traffic, contamination and hydrology - the shortened exhibition period has not given residents a reasonable chance to obtain advice or properly understand the risks.
Request: I ask that the standard 28-day exhibition period as a minimum, be applied so the community can meaningfully participate.
2. Groundwater, Excavation and Potential Settlement
The EIS acknowledges that the site sits in a sensitive groundwater environment and that the excavation will require significant dewatering. As many neighbouring homes are older and built on shallow footings, any groundwater drawdown could have real impacts on structural stability for both existing homes and future surrounding developments.
I am concerned that the modelling provided so far does not give residents confidence that settlement risks have been fully explored.
Request: Further detailed groundwater and settlement assessment should be required before determination, along with independent dilapidation reports for all surrounding properties.
3. Wind Impacts from a 9-Storey Building
A building of this height is completely out of scale with the existing character of Spencer Street. The proposal is likely to create wind and downdraft issues for pedestrians and neighbours, especially given the site’s exposure to coastal conditions.
The desktop wind analysis provided feels inadequate for a development of this size.
Request: More robust wind assessment should be undertaken before any approval is considered.
4. Acid Sulfate Soils & Flood Risk
The EIS identifies the presence of acid sulfate soils on the site. Excavation in a known flood-prone area creates a genuine risk of these materials being mobilised into the environment if not properly managed.
Request: A more detailed, site-specific management plan should be required up front, not deferred to conditions after approval.
5. Traffic, Construction Access & Servicing
Spencer Street is a narrow residential street already struggling with congestion and limited manoeuvring space. The traffic study seems to assume ideal conditions that do not reflect daily reality, especially when considering construction vehicles, delivery trucks and the number of apartments proposed. In addition, there is currently major sewerage works being undertaken on Carlisle street, and I do not think any development works can even be considered until that is entirely complete in the first instance.
Request: A full construction traffic plan should be provided now, demonstrating how the development can be built and serviced without blocking residents, public transport, or emergency vehicles.
6. Height, Bulk, Overshadowing & Privacy
My strongest concern is the sheer height and bulk of the proposal. A nine-storey tower is completely uncharacteristic for Rose Bay and the local area. It would have major impacts on neighbouring homes, and the character of the local area.
• Overshadowing: The winter shadow diagrams show a significant loss of sunlight to surrounding residences, potentially falling below Apartment Design Guide requirements.
• Privacy: The upper levels appear to directly overlook private outdoor areas and living spaces of nearby properties, with minimal effective screening.
This level of impact is inconsistent with the existing lower-scale residential character of Spencer Street and the broader neighbourhood.
7. Infrastructure Capacity & Cumulative Impact
The EIS seems to consider this development in isolation, yet there are numerous other potential projects now being explored within the Rose Bay area. Without assessing these collectively, the true impact on infrastructure is impossible to understand.
• Sewer and stormwater systems in the area already experience pressure during heavy rain
• Electricity and schooling capacity have not been confirmed by the relevant authorities.
• Traffic and parking pressures will grow substantially if multiple large developments proceed simultaneously
Request: A cumulative infrastructure capacity assessment is essential before any decision is made.
Rose bay is enjoyed by both local residents and as a destination for tourists and visitors both locally and internationally. It is essential that any development in the area is considered in a broader future focussed, placemaking perspective from both a design and functionality perspective.
For these reasons - particularly the height and scale, overshadowing and character impacts, excavation risks, and the lack of clear infrastructure capacity, I believe the development should not be approved in its current form. At minimum, significant additional information and design changes are required before the application can be responsibly assessed.
Thank you for considering this submission on behalf of the residents, citizens and visitors who will be directly affected.
I am a local resident writing to object to the proposed State Significant Development at 2–16 Spencer Street. After reviewing the material on exhibition, I have serious concerns about the height, scale, environmental impacts, and the pressure this project will place on already strained local infrastructure. I respectfully request that the Department defer determination until these issues are properly addressed.
1. Exhibition Period Too Short for a Complex Proposal
Given the number of technical documents included in the EIS - particularly around geotechnical conditions, traffic, contamination and hydrology - the shortened exhibition period has not given residents a reasonable chance to obtain advice or properly understand the risks.
Request: I ask that the standard 28-day exhibition period as a minimum, be applied so the community can meaningfully participate.
2. Groundwater, Excavation and Potential Settlement
The EIS acknowledges that the site sits in a sensitive groundwater environment and that the excavation will require significant dewatering. As many neighbouring homes are older and built on shallow footings, any groundwater drawdown could have real impacts on structural stability for both existing homes and future surrounding developments.
I am concerned that the modelling provided so far does not give residents confidence that settlement risks have been fully explored.
Request: Further detailed groundwater and settlement assessment should be required before determination, along with independent dilapidation reports for all surrounding properties.
3. Wind Impacts from a 9-Storey Building
A building of this height is completely out of scale with the existing character of Spencer Street. The proposal is likely to create wind and downdraft issues for pedestrians and neighbours, especially given the site’s exposure to coastal conditions.
The desktop wind analysis provided feels inadequate for a development of this size.
Request: More robust wind assessment should be undertaken before any approval is considered.
4. Acid Sulfate Soils & Flood Risk
The EIS identifies the presence of acid sulfate soils on the site. Excavation in a known flood-prone area creates a genuine risk of these materials being mobilised into the environment if not properly managed.
Request: A more detailed, site-specific management plan should be required up front, not deferred to conditions after approval.
5. Traffic, Construction Access & Servicing
Spencer Street is a narrow residential street already struggling with congestion and limited manoeuvring space. The traffic study seems to assume ideal conditions that do not reflect daily reality, especially when considering construction vehicles, delivery trucks and the number of apartments proposed. In addition, there is currently major sewerage works being undertaken on Carlisle street, and I do not think any development works can even be considered until that is entirely complete in the first instance.
Request: A full construction traffic plan should be provided now, demonstrating how the development can be built and serviced without blocking residents, public transport, or emergency vehicles.
6. Height, Bulk, Overshadowing & Privacy
My strongest concern is the sheer height and bulk of the proposal. A nine-storey tower is completely uncharacteristic for Rose Bay and the local area. It would have major impacts on neighbouring homes, and the character of the local area.
• Overshadowing: The winter shadow diagrams show a significant loss of sunlight to surrounding residences, potentially falling below Apartment Design Guide requirements.
• Privacy: The upper levels appear to directly overlook private outdoor areas and living spaces of nearby properties, with minimal effective screening.
This level of impact is inconsistent with the existing lower-scale residential character of Spencer Street and the broader neighbourhood.
7. Infrastructure Capacity & Cumulative Impact
The EIS seems to consider this development in isolation, yet there are numerous other potential projects now being explored within the Rose Bay area. Without assessing these collectively, the true impact on infrastructure is impossible to understand.
• Sewer and stormwater systems in the area already experience pressure during heavy rain
• Electricity and schooling capacity have not been confirmed by the relevant authorities.
• Traffic and parking pressures will grow substantially if multiple large developments proceed simultaneously
Request: A cumulative infrastructure capacity assessment is essential before any decision is made.
Rose bay is enjoyed by both local residents and as a destination for tourists and visitors both locally and internationally. It is essential that any development in the area is considered in a broader future focussed, placemaking perspective from both a design and functionality perspective.
For these reasons - particularly the height and scale, overshadowing and character impacts, excavation risks, and the lack of clear infrastructure capacity, I believe the development should not be approved in its current form. At minimum, significant additional information and design changes are required before the application can be responsibly assessed.
Thank you for considering this submission on behalf of the residents, citizens and visitors who will be directly affected.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSE BAY
,
New South Wales
Message
We’re writing to object to the proposed development at 2–16 Spencer Street. We know housing is needed and we’re not against change, but this feels too large and too intense for the spot it’s being placed. After reading what we can, we’re mainly worried about how much extra movement, construction activity and long-term pressure this will bring to a suburb that already feels like it’s reaching its limit.
Spencer Street is mostly low-rise homes — two or three storeys at most — and this part of Rose Bay has a much gentler scale. A nine-storey building would stand out dramatically and change the balance of the street, not just visually but in how it functions day-to-day. There’s a big difference between new housing that blends in naturally and a development that becomes the dominant feature of an area. This proposal feels like the latter.
Traffic is where the long-term impact hits hardest. Rose Bay isn’t a suburb with endless access roads and spare network capacity — it’s small, contained, and already busy at certain times of day. Adding 50-plus apartments and over a hundred parking spaces means more people coming and going, more cars on roads that don’t have much room to absorb extra movement, and more overall strain. When new developments all start arriving around the same period, the effects don’t just add up — they build on each other. One building might be manageable, but several in close proximity can shift the whole rhythm of the suburb.
We don’t need exact traffic counts to feel the reality of this. Residents notice queues getting longer, small delays becoming everyday ones, and formerly quiet streets turning into thoroughfares. Once a pattern like that begins, it rarely reverses. That’s why it seems important to properly understand the combined impact of multiple developments rather than looking at each one on its own.
Excavation and construction are also worrying. Going deep into groundwater means noise, vibration, dust and trucks for a long period of time, and once digging starts there’s no easy way back if things don’t go to plan. A project this size needs solid answers about how disruption will be handled before approval is given, not after.
The removal of trees adds to the concern. Mature canopy isn’t just decoration — it cools the street, absorbs rain, softens the outlook and gives Rose Bay the calm character many of us treasure. Young planting can’t replace that immediately, and once lost, we won’t get it back for decades.
Taken together — height, scale, traffic, excavation, tree loss — this development feels like it pushes well beyond what this part of Rose Bay can comfortably absorb. It may meet certain planning rules, but that doesn’t mean it suits the street or the way people actually live here.
We ask that this proposal be reconsidered unless it can genuinely be shown that the suburb can carry this scale of development without losing liveability, character, or the ease of movement that makes Rose Bay pleasant to live in.
Thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns.
Spencer Street is mostly low-rise homes — two or three storeys at most — and this part of Rose Bay has a much gentler scale. A nine-storey building would stand out dramatically and change the balance of the street, not just visually but in how it functions day-to-day. There’s a big difference between new housing that blends in naturally and a development that becomes the dominant feature of an area. This proposal feels like the latter.
Traffic is where the long-term impact hits hardest. Rose Bay isn’t a suburb with endless access roads and spare network capacity — it’s small, contained, and already busy at certain times of day. Adding 50-plus apartments and over a hundred parking spaces means more people coming and going, more cars on roads that don’t have much room to absorb extra movement, and more overall strain. When new developments all start arriving around the same period, the effects don’t just add up — they build on each other. One building might be manageable, but several in close proximity can shift the whole rhythm of the suburb.
We don’t need exact traffic counts to feel the reality of this. Residents notice queues getting longer, small delays becoming everyday ones, and formerly quiet streets turning into thoroughfares. Once a pattern like that begins, it rarely reverses. That’s why it seems important to properly understand the combined impact of multiple developments rather than looking at each one on its own.
Excavation and construction are also worrying. Going deep into groundwater means noise, vibration, dust and trucks for a long period of time, and once digging starts there’s no easy way back if things don’t go to plan. A project this size needs solid answers about how disruption will be handled before approval is given, not after.
The removal of trees adds to the concern. Mature canopy isn’t just decoration — it cools the street, absorbs rain, softens the outlook and gives Rose Bay the calm character many of us treasure. Young planting can’t replace that immediately, and once lost, we won’t get it back for decades.
Taken together — height, scale, traffic, excavation, tree loss — this development feels like it pushes well beyond what this part of Rose Bay can comfortably absorb. It may meet certain planning rules, but that doesn’t mean it suits the street or the way people actually live here.
We ask that this proposal be reconsidered unless it can genuinely be shown that the suburb can carry this scale of development without losing liveability, character, or the ease of movement that makes Rose Bay pleasant to live in.
Thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns.
Sherna Segal
Object
Sherna Segal
Object
Rose Bay
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sirs,
I write as a deeply concerned resident of Rose Bay regarding the increasing use of State-level planning powers to approve major developments while bypassing both Woollahra Municipal Council and meaningful community consultation.
Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), particularly Sections 1.3, 1.4 and 4.15, the planning system is intended to promote:
• Ecologically sustainable development
• Proper consideration of environmental, social, and economic impacts
• Public participation in planning decisions
• The orderly and economic use of land
The increasing reliance on State Significant Development (SSD) and State Significant Infrastructure (SSI)provisions under Part 4 and Part 5 of the EP&A Act is effectively overriding:
• The Woollahra Local Environmental Plan (LEP)
• The Woollahra Development Control Plan (DCP)
• Established height, floor space ratio, traffic, heritage, and environmental protections
• And most critically—the will of the local community
This approach directly undermines the intent of local strategic planning and the statutory role of councils under NSW law.
Even more troubling is the failure to uphold the consultation principles enshrined in:
• Section 2.23 of the EP&A Act (Community Participation Charter)
• The NSW Community Participation Plan (CPP)
These instruments require that communities be genuinely informed, consulted, and given real opportunities to influence decisions before major developments are approved. Current practice does not meet these obligations in any meaningful sense.
Uncontrolled Population Density and Infrastructure Strain
The cumulative impact of the State Government’s major project pipeline is driving a rapid escalation of population density in Rose Bay, without the corresponding delivery of infrastructure required under both:
• The NSW State Infrastructure Strategy
• And local infrastructure contribution frameworks
Rose Bay already experiences:
• Severe traffic congestion on New South Head Road and surrounding feeder streets
• Parking saturation
• Overstretched public transport
• Pressure on schools, medical services, coastal access, and emergency services
• Increasing threats to coastal and marine environments
There is no transparent cumulative impact assessment being provided to residents, despite such assessments being an established requirement for responsible strategic planning under NSW planning principles.
Bypassing Council Undermines Democratic Planning
Woollahra Council is the legally designated planning authority to reflect local conditions, community expectations, heritage values, and environmental capacity. When the State repeatedly overrides local planning controls through SSD and Ministerial discretion, it:
• Weakens democratic governance
• Dismantles community trust
• Erodes the legal purpose of LEPs and DCPs
• And creates an unbalanced, developer-favourable system
Residents are not opposed to sensible development. What we strongly oppose is:
• Development imposed without consent
• Population targets forced without infrastructure
• And the sidelining of community voices guaranteed under NSW law
Our Requests to the NSW Government
I formally call on the Government to:
1. Reinstate the authority of local councils in accordance with the EP&A Act
2. Halt the misuse of SSD and SSI pathways for projects that clearly belong under normal council assessment
3. Mandate cumulative population, traffic, and infrastructure impact studies for Rose Bay
4. Demonstrate compliance with the NSW Community Participation Charter
5. Protect coastal and heritage environments from irreversible overdevelopment
Final Statement
If the State Government proceeds with its major project development program in Rose Bay without addressing these failures, the damage—to infrastructure, environment, heritage, and community cohesion—will be permanent.
Residents should not be forced to bear the economic, environmental, and social cost of decisions made without proper legal process, local authority involvement, or genuine public consent.
I expect a written response detailing:
• How NSW planning law is being complied with
• Why council controls are being overridden
• And what safeguards will be implemented for Rose Bay’s future
Yours sincerely,
Sherna Segal
I write as a deeply concerned resident of Rose Bay regarding the increasing use of State-level planning powers to approve major developments while bypassing both Woollahra Municipal Council and meaningful community consultation.
Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), particularly Sections 1.3, 1.4 and 4.15, the planning system is intended to promote:
• Ecologically sustainable development
• Proper consideration of environmental, social, and economic impacts
• Public participation in planning decisions
• The orderly and economic use of land
The increasing reliance on State Significant Development (SSD) and State Significant Infrastructure (SSI)provisions under Part 4 and Part 5 of the EP&A Act is effectively overriding:
• The Woollahra Local Environmental Plan (LEP)
• The Woollahra Development Control Plan (DCP)
• Established height, floor space ratio, traffic, heritage, and environmental protections
• And most critically—the will of the local community
This approach directly undermines the intent of local strategic planning and the statutory role of councils under NSW law.
Even more troubling is the failure to uphold the consultation principles enshrined in:
• Section 2.23 of the EP&A Act (Community Participation Charter)
• The NSW Community Participation Plan (CPP)
These instruments require that communities be genuinely informed, consulted, and given real opportunities to influence decisions before major developments are approved. Current practice does not meet these obligations in any meaningful sense.
Uncontrolled Population Density and Infrastructure Strain
The cumulative impact of the State Government’s major project pipeline is driving a rapid escalation of population density in Rose Bay, without the corresponding delivery of infrastructure required under both:
• The NSW State Infrastructure Strategy
• And local infrastructure contribution frameworks
Rose Bay already experiences:
• Severe traffic congestion on New South Head Road and surrounding feeder streets
• Parking saturation
• Overstretched public transport
• Pressure on schools, medical services, coastal access, and emergency services
• Increasing threats to coastal and marine environments
There is no transparent cumulative impact assessment being provided to residents, despite such assessments being an established requirement for responsible strategic planning under NSW planning principles.
Bypassing Council Undermines Democratic Planning
Woollahra Council is the legally designated planning authority to reflect local conditions, community expectations, heritage values, and environmental capacity. When the State repeatedly overrides local planning controls through SSD and Ministerial discretion, it:
• Weakens democratic governance
• Dismantles community trust
• Erodes the legal purpose of LEPs and DCPs
• And creates an unbalanced, developer-favourable system
Residents are not opposed to sensible development. What we strongly oppose is:
• Development imposed without consent
• Population targets forced without infrastructure
• And the sidelining of community voices guaranteed under NSW law
Our Requests to the NSW Government
I formally call on the Government to:
1. Reinstate the authority of local councils in accordance with the EP&A Act
2. Halt the misuse of SSD and SSI pathways for projects that clearly belong under normal council assessment
3. Mandate cumulative population, traffic, and infrastructure impact studies for Rose Bay
4. Demonstrate compliance with the NSW Community Participation Charter
5. Protect coastal and heritage environments from irreversible overdevelopment
Final Statement
If the State Government proceeds with its major project development program in Rose Bay without addressing these failures, the damage—to infrastructure, environment, heritage, and community cohesion—will be permanent.
Residents should not be forced to bear the economic, environmental, and social cost of decisions made without proper legal process, local authority involvement, or genuine public consent.
I expect a written response detailing:
• How NSW planning law is being complied with
• Why council controls are being overridden
• And what safeguards will be implemented for Rose Bay’s future
Yours sincerely,
Sherna Segal
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Rose Bay
,
New South Wales
Message
1.Excavation is directly into the groundwater table.
2.Multiple DAs are proposed in this unstable area and each will contribute to cumulative effect of destabilization
3.The site is in a high risk floodway
4.Consultant reports are all DEVELOPER FUNDED and offer no protection to surrounding properties
5.Housing SEPP uplift does NOT APPLY on HIGH RISK LAND
6. Mature trees on the PAVEMENTS are being removed......against the Councils PRINCIPLES
7. The site is within close proximity to Pre SCHOOL AND PRIMARY SCHOOL AND A CHURCH. SPENCER LANE IS NARROW with no pavement Spencer St is used for pedestrian pick up of SCHOOLCHILDREN and the increased traffic is a DANGER to them.
8.Once the AQUIFER is disturbed THE IMPACT IS PERMANENT and IRREVERSIBLE
2.Multiple DAs are proposed in this unstable area and each will contribute to cumulative effect of destabilization
3.The site is in a high risk floodway
4.Consultant reports are all DEVELOPER FUNDED and offer no protection to surrounding properties
5.Housing SEPP uplift does NOT APPLY on HIGH RISK LAND
6. Mature trees on the PAVEMENTS are being removed......against the Councils PRINCIPLES
7. The site is within close proximity to Pre SCHOOL AND PRIMARY SCHOOL AND A CHURCH. SPENCER LANE IS NARROW with no pavement Spencer St is used for pedestrian pick up of SCHOOLCHILDREN and the increased traffic is a DANGER to them.
8.Once the AQUIFER is disturbed THE IMPACT IS PERMANENT and IRREVERSIBLE
Jill Margo
Object
Jill Margo
Object
ROSE BAY
,
New South Wales
Message
I have lived in the same house in Rose Bay for 39 years, during which the suburb has undergone accelerated development with accompanying density but without a single improvement in infrastructure to enable residents to get in and out. Some new traffic measures, such as the combined traffic circle and pedestrian crossing in Dover Road, have been spectacularly detrimental and frankly dangerous. If the State Government wants to increase the density further, the responsible thing would be to improve infrastructure first. Already, traffic is so unmanagable , I carefully plan the times I leave and return home. I understand the need for more housing, and for affordable housing, but this development is way out of line.
Elizabeth Mahony
Object
Elizabeth Mahony
Object
ROSE BAY
,
New South Wales
Message
1. Excavation goes directly into the groundwater table
Groundwater is shallow in this area, yet excavation will intersect the water table in “very loose to loose
sands”, where there is a real risk of destabilising neighbouring buildings, long-term settlement due to
groundwater interference and even some liquefaction risk.
2. No cumulative risk assessment — despite multiple DAs being proposed in the area
This is a serious omission. The technical reports treat the site in isolation, despite:
• previous significant structural damage reported in the Rose Bay settlement area
• other deep excavations proposed (amalgamated LMR sites immediately adjacent to this one –
potentially ~16,000 sq metres of side-by-side deep basements in this ONE STRIP alone in the
settlement area!)
• the low-lying streets of Rose Bay acting as one connected groundwater system.
3. The site is a mapped high-risk floodway
Basements in floodway’s are extremely dangerous – inundation risk, pedestrian hazards and flood
obstruction impacts need to be thoroughly addressed.
4. Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) risk
Deep excavation + groundwater drawdown can:
• activate acid sulphate soils, releasing toxic, acidic contaminants into the aquifer
• flow toward the foreshore and harbour – irreversibly harming ecosystems
🔸 5. Consultant reports contain disclaimers — no practical guarantees
Reports are developer-funded, contain disclaimers, are often limited in scope and offer no practical
protection for surrounding properties. Once damage occurs, residents bear the cost.
6. Housing SEPP uplift (LMR) does not apply on high-risk land
Although the site is R3 zoned and within 400m of shops, SEPP uplift is prohibited on high-risk sites –
such as this one (geotechnically unstable land; groundwater-affected; a floodway and subject to cumulative
excavation risk).
🔸 7. 27 mature trees will be removed
Loss of shade + heat + flood buffering + biodiversity. Tree removal also destabilises surrounding soft soils.
No analysis of how groundwater interference & disturbance of acid sulphate soils will affect remaining
trees.
8. Once the aquifer is disturbed — the impacts are PERMANENT
Subsidence, structural damage, groundwater drawdown, ASS activation and foreshore impacts cannot be
reversed.
9. 11 Affordable units 49 units that will be sold for $4 million to $8 million WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE JUST MAKING DEVELOPERS RICH AND DESTROYING A SUBURB. OLDER AFFORDABLE HOUSES AND APARTMENTS ARE BEING KNOCKED DOWN FOR DEVELOPER GREED
10. YOU CALL ROSE BAY A TOWN CENTRE - THERE IS LIMITED PUBLIC TRANSPORT - 1 PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL AND LIMITED INFRASTRUCTURE
Groundwater is shallow in this area, yet excavation will intersect the water table in “very loose to loose
sands”, where there is a real risk of destabilising neighbouring buildings, long-term settlement due to
groundwater interference and even some liquefaction risk.
2. No cumulative risk assessment — despite multiple DAs being proposed in the area
This is a serious omission. The technical reports treat the site in isolation, despite:
• previous significant structural damage reported in the Rose Bay settlement area
• other deep excavations proposed (amalgamated LMR sites immediately adjacent to this one –
potentially ~16,000 sq metres of side-by-side deep basements in this ONE STRIP alone in the
settlement area!)
• the low-lying streets of Rose Bay acting as one connected groundwater system.
3. The site is a mapped high-risk floodway
Basements in floodway’s are extremely dangerous – inundation risk, pedestrian hazards and flood
obstruction impacts need to be thoroughly addressed.
4. Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) risk
Deep excavation + groundwater drawdown can:
• activate acid sulphate soils, releasing toxic, acidic contaminants into the aquifer
• flow toward the foreshore and harbour – irreversibly harming ecosystems
🔸 5. Consultant reports contain disclaimers — no practical guarantees
Reports are developer-funded, contain disclaimers, are often limited in scope and offer no practical
protection for surrounding properties. Once damage occurs, residents bear the cost.
6. Housing SEPP uplift (LMR) does not apply on high-risk land
Although the site is R3 zoned and within 400m of shops, SEPP uplift is prohibited on high-risk sites –
such as this one (geotechnically unstable land; groundwater-affected; a floodway and subject to cumulative
excavation risk).
🔸 7. 27 mature trees will be removed
Loss of shade + heat + flood buffering + biodiversity. Tree removal also destabilises surrounding soft soils.
No analysis of how groundwater interference & disturbance of acid sulphate soils will affect remaining
trees.
8. Once the aquifer is disturbed — the impacts are PERMANENT
Subsidence, structural damage, groundwater drawdown, ASS activation and foreshore impacts cannot be
reversed.
9. 11 Affordable units 49 units that will be sold for $4 million to $8 million WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE JUST MAKING DEVELOPERS RICH AND DESTROYING A SUBURB. OLDER AFFORDABLE HOUSES AND APARTMENTS ARE BEING KNOCKED DOWN FOR DEVELOPER GREED
10. YOU CALL ROSE BAY A TOWN CENTRE - THERE IS LIMITED PUBLIC TRANSPORT - 1 PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL AND LIMITED INFRASTRUCTURE
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSE BAY
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the project on the following grounds:
A 9 storey building comprising 54 residential units excluding the 3 underground car parking levels for 120 vehicles, an indoor swimming pool and wellness centre is totally unsuited to the environment for the following reasons:
1. Excessive traffic in the immediate area making it difficult (it is already at times very difficult) to access the only 2 arterial roads being New and Old South Head Roads. This increased traffic will adversely affect the flow of buses being the only public transport in this area. The additional vehicles adds to noise and the level of pollution from such increased traffic. I consider there should be a reduction in the number of storeys for car parking and the number of car parking spaces. We have been notified of new developments in the surrounding area which will add approximately 500 car parking spaces to a confined area of quiet residential roads all feeding into Old and New South Head Roads and traffic jams along Dover Road.
2. Rose Bay is identified in studies as vulnerable to shallow and rising ground water, sediment disturbance and storm water contamination amongst other deficits. There is a creek running at the rear of my property with water running from a rock shelf which is drained by a pump running constantly - see photos attached. This area is very close to the rear of 2 Spencer Street, Rose Bay. It is very concerning for the integrity of our building should the excavation be 3 levels deep. Any prospective property damage must be taken into consideration when assessing such a large development.
3. I am concerned about any damage or cracking to my property or the collapse of my sewer system which could be caused by this ground movement / short and long term settlement risk / dewatering impacts. This prospective problem should be mitigated and taken into account in the assessment of this project.
4. I am concerned that I will lose morning sun from my north facing rear balcony as a result of this 9 storey above ground construction.
5. Drainage in this area is very poor at the best of times. With big rains the drains overflow and torrents of water run down the street. The additional 54 units together with all the new proposed developments could add to this problem which should be carefully considered.
6. I currently have a view of very old trees at the rear of this proposed development. I was advised at the community consultation that these trees will all be felled affecting the bird life and the shade that it produces. New trees are proposed to be planted and this will take a long time to replace the existing trees.
I wish to make it clear that I would not be opposed to a carefully assessed 3 or 4 storey unit development. Nor am I opposed to the affordable housing provided that rentals are not too high for such eligible occupants.
Finally, I comment that the proposed project will be very much out of character with the existing street scape which comprises many residential units in terms of height, size and scale.
A 9 storey building comprising 54 residential units excluding the 3 underground car parking levels for 120 vehicles, an indoor swimming pool and wellness centre is totally unsuited to the environment for the following reasons:
1. Excessive traffic in the immediate area making it difficult (it is already at times very difficult) to access the only 2 arterial roads being New and Old South Head Roads. This increased traffic will adversely affect the flow of buses being the only public transport in this area. The additional vehicles adds to noise and the level of pollution from such increased traffic. I consider there should be a reduction in the number of storeys for car parking and the number of car parking spaces. We have been notified of new developments in the surrounding area which will add approximately 500 car parking spaces to a confined area of quiet residential roads all feeding into Old and New South Head Roads and traffic jams along Dover Road.
2. Rose Bay is identified in studies as vulnerable to shallow and rising ground water, sediment disturbance and storm water contamination amongst other deficits. There is a creek running at the rear of my property with water running from a rock shelf which is drained by a pump running constantly - see photos attached. This area is very close to the rear of 2 Spencer Street, Rose Bay. It is very concerning for the integrity of our building should the excavation be 3 levels deep. Any prospective property damage must be taken into consideration when assessing such a large development.
3. I am concerned about any damage or cracking to my property or the collapse of my sewer system which could be caused by this ground movement / short and long term settlement risk / dewatering impacts. This prospective problem should be mitigated and taken into account in the assessment of this project.
4. I am concerned that I will lose morning sun from my north facing rear balcony as a result of this 9 storey above ground construction.
5. Drainage in this area is very poor at the best of times. With big rains the drains overflow and torrents of water run down the street. The additional 54 units together with all the new proposed developments could add to this problem which should be carefully considered.
6. I currently have a view of very old trees at the rear of this proposed development. I was advised at the community consultation that these trees will all be felled affecting the bird life and the shade that it produces. New trees are proposed to be planted and this will take a long time to replace the existing trees.
I wish to make it clear that I would not be opposed to a carefully assessed 3 or 4 storey unit development. Nor am I opposed to the affordable housing provided that rentals are not too high for such eligible occupants.
Finally, I comment that the proposed project will be very much out of character with the existing street scape which comprises many residential units in terms of height, size and scale.