Please see attached objection to this SSD.

Dear Mr Spinks,

As a long term resident of Rose Bay, I would like to lodge an objection to this proposal. The scale of the development, both above ground and below, is ill-suited to the location, practically and aesthetically. The site proposed is inappropriate for a development this bulky. It will negatively impact the amenity and safety of the neighbourhood, both during an extended period of construction and upon completion.

The geotechnical investigations that have been conducted to support the proposal are inadequate for a project of this scale. More information about the potential impacts on groundwater and the stability of surrounding land is required before the feasibility of the project can be properly assessed. Consideration of the potential risks to neighbours, including those in surrounding streets not just immediately adjacent properties, cannot be deferred until a later stage of the project. The proposers of this project must be required to respond to the numerous expert reports, commissioned by Woollahra Council and others, detailing the particular flood risks and water table vulnerabilities associated with developments involving deep excavation in Rose Bay.

In addition to concerns relating to the appropriateness of this single project, the cumulative impacts of the significant amount of development being proposed in Rose Bay must be properly assessed. It is a suburban neighbourhood on a peninsula. Rose Bay is the proposed location of four SSD projects and numerous other developments responding to the State Government's LMR policy. These individual developments cannot be looked at meaningfully in isolation. The cumulative geotechnical and hydrogeological risks, as well as the increased pressures on constrained community infrastructure, must be assessed. These aren't minor details that can addressed after projects have been approved. They create significant longterm risks for the community & the local environment. The potential interactions between all these developments needs to studied closely.

Given the position of the site and the likely price point of the apartments, the residents are likely to rely on private transport. For elderly residents or less mobile residents, the location, up a steep hill from the local shops, means that they will depend on cars to run errands and access local services or open spaces and recreational facilities. It is not a flat easily walkable location as described in the documentation.

The cumulative traffic and public transport impacts must be referred to Transport for NSW. It is not possible that the combined effects of all these SSD / LMR projects in a small area will be 'statistically insignificant'. Narrow local roads are not designed to accomodate either the volume of construction-related road usage required or the long term increases in daily traffic upon completion. The location is nearby a number of local schools which already generate significant amounts of traffic, especially at peak hours (pick-up and drop off). Bus services are often at capacity. Consideration of bus utilisation data needs to make sure it accounts for the small proportion of school students who tap on/off when using these services. As a regular user of bus services, they are often full by the time they reach further along New South Head Road. The position of bus stops returning from the city or Bondi Junction is not ideal for accessing the site.

The scale of the development is out of proportion with its neighbours. It does not take the local context into account and will diminish the experience of local streets.

Smarter developments, more responsive to the constraints and advantages of the local area would make much more sense.

Thank you for considering my objection. I look forward to following the progress of the determination.

Amy Denmeade

I object to the proposed development.

The proposal seeks an 8-storey building (plus rooftop) with 70 apartments and 2–3 basement levels providing 130 car spaces, involving excavation of up to approximately 9 metres below ground level within a small residential cul-de-sac in a known groundwater-sensitive coastal basin.

In my view, the consent authority cannot be satisfied under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that the site is suitable or that likely impacts have been adequately assessed.

1. Site suitability and groundwater risk

The extent of deep excavation in marine sands raises serious concerns about groundwater interception, settlement and impacts to surrounding properties. Groundwater modelling and dewatering impacts do not appear to be fully resolved, and cumulative basin-wide impacts have not been properly assessed. These matters should be comprehensively addressed and independently reviewed before any approval is contemplated.

2. Scale and character

An 8-storey building in this location represents a substantial increase in height and bulk within a low-rise residential context. The development presents as an over-intensification of the site, forming a hard edge against surrounding housing rather than providing an appropriate transition in scale. The visual and amenity impacts are significant and inconsistent with the established character of the area.

3. Traffic and construction impacts

The inclusion of 130 car spaces will generate a substantial increase in vehicle movements within a confined cul-de-sac and narrow surrounding streets. There is insufficient clarity regarding cumulative traffic impacts, peak periods and the broader local road network.

Construction impacts associated with bulk excavation, heavy vehicle movements, noise, vibration, dust and diesel emissions will be considerable. These impacts should be fully assessed prior to determination and not deferred to post-approval management plans.

4. Cumulative impacts

This proposal must be assessed in the context of other similar developments within the Rose Bay basin. The absence of cumulative groundwater, excavation and traffic modelling is a significant deficiency in the assessment.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I request that SSD-101842729 be refused, as the consent authority cannot be satisfied as to site suitability, likely impacts or the public interest under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

re SSD-101842729

WHAT IS PROPOSED:

• Redevelopment of low-rise dwellings into an 8-storey building
• 70 apartments and 2–3 levels of basement (130 car spaces)
• Excavation up to ~9 m below existing ground level (locally deeper for pits/footings)
• Situated in a small residential cul-de-sac

This is one of several deep-basement projects proposed within Rose Bay, in particular in immediately surrounding areas - Conway St, Ian St, Carlisle St, Dover Rd, and Old South Head Rd (at least 6 major developments proposed at present)

Excessive size / height with substantial adverse impact on groundwater management, traffic flow, impediments to emergency response, and measurable danger to pedestrians
(1) Groundwater - Site NOT Suitable (EP&A Act s4.15(1)(c))
• Excavation is likely to extend to or below observed groundwater levels
• Groundwater modelling remains incomplete
• Basin-wide cumulative impacts not assessed
The Department must be satisfied the site is suitable before approval
. Specific Groundwater & Excavation Risk

Rose Bay is a groundwater-sensitive coastal basin. Reports confirm:
• Additional monitoring wells required
• Seepage analyses and dewatering management planning are still required
• Dewatering volumes not quantified

Deep excavation in marine sands can cause:
• Settlement and cracking
• Groundwater redirection
• Damage beyond site boundaries

These matters require further investigation and independent review before approval. Given the scale and groundwater sensitivity of the site, we formally request independent review of the geotechnical and hydrogeological reports (see attached locally sourced report), and re-exhibition of any revised assessments so the community can properly review and respond.

(2) Size, design & bulk
Woollahra LEP requires a “transition in scale to protect local amenity.” This proposal:
• Sits prominently on a ridge and introduces substantial height and bulk
• Creates multiple “severe” visual impacts (per applicant report)
• Forms a hard edge against lower-scale housing
• Utilises the maximum height and uplift mechanisms available, resulting in a built form that appears driven by maximum envelope rather than contextual integration

Combines maximum height, uplift and bulk mechanisms in a single location, producing a concentrated intensity that exceeds what a genuine medium-density transition would ordinarily represent.


(3) Noise impact

The noise impact of the design, and in particular rooftop pool is not properly addressed. The likely use of the area for parties and gatherings, especially at night, will inevitably lead to wide noise distribution given the height & scale of the development.

(4) Streets, Parking & Traffic flow

• 130 car spaces in a small residential cul-de-sac
• Significant increase in vehicle movements
• No cumulative traffic modelling
• Weekend & school peaks unclear
• Existing gridlock in peak hours 0730-0930 & 1500-1700 in the surrounding main arteries

The associated Appendix ‘O’ to the application addressing traffic and transport is deficient by means of

(a) Not considering the impact of other development proposals in the nearby area, and the multiplier effect

(b) All streets / Avenues are presented as equivalent – this is not true, and has been evidenced by the current work by Sydney Water

(c) In particular, Fernleigh Avenue is barely one lane wide, and has limited pedestrian safety margins. ANY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN FERNLEIGH AVENUE presents a significant additional safety risk to pedestrians and traffic. No attempt at amelioration , such as closure of the section of Fernleigh between Conway St and Chamberlain Avenue has been considered

(d) The estimate of an additional 7 vehicles an hour in peak periods (Submission Traffic Appendix ‘O’) is in any terms a gross underestimate for a property likely to house close to 200 individuals. The likely hourly additional to traffic in those hours is more likely to represent 3 times that number, with significantly increased movements at other daytime hours.

Traffic must exit via narrow suburban streets (including Fernleigh Ave) before reaching major roads. Conway Avenue is a small residential cul-de-sac, not a through road. Projected volumes in the application are a clear underestimate.


(5) Construction Impacts

• Significant truck movements will be required for bulk excavation and removal
• Heavy vehicles entering/exiting a confined cul-de-sac
• Traffic weaving through narrow surrounding streets
• Noise, vibration, diesel emissions and dust
• No cumulative construction modelling

Construction impacts must be assessed before approval — not deferred.


(6) CRITICAL RISKS NOT CONSIDERED
At present, traffic is in virtual gridlock in peak hours, and with the multiplier effect of other large developments the road and parking infrastructure is currently inadequate to cope with likely flows.
(a) Current flows, with existing increase in residents has already resulted in accidents and near misses in the Fernleigh Ave and Carlisle Ave interface. This is of particular concerns as increased use of ‘rat runs” and increased pedestrian traffic related to medium density developments progress in the surrounding areas.

(b) The recent events at Bondi and nearby Synagogues demand a more considered approach to development. Enhanced policing has already become evident and augmentation of population in the immediate area by 1000-2000 creates additional risk considerations.

(c) Access for emergency response in peak periods will be substantially impacted – this relates to fire, ambulance, police, and emergency response needs in the Watson’s Bay and Vaucluse area, as well as the newly increased Rose Bay density. No planning or assessment has been made

These considerations are not addressed by Transport and EIS reports accompanying the application.


(7) Media and Statewide visibility, especially of adverse events / security breaches where risk management & amelioration has not considered
It is likely that adverse events will attract wide media and social media interest. Whilst considered and lower density developments offer real opportunity to enhance the community without associated risks, the current style of this and surrounding developments considered both individually and together will result in widespread visibility of impact.
(8) Community Consultation Concerns

• Notification appears limited in scope
• Several directly affected residents are said to have not had notification
• Low submission numbers may reflect limited awareness rather than community support.
Given the height and excavation depth, the proposal should be placed on supplementary exhibition with broader notification. Given the scale of this proposal, we formally request that community consultation be re-run with proper notification to all affected properties.


(9) Cumulative Impacts Ignored

The following have not been exhibited:
• Basin-wide groundwater modelling
• Cumulative excavation modelling or
• Lack of consideration of the multiplier impact of multiple surrounding development applications
• Poor combined traffic modelling
• Absent combined traffic modelling
• Inadequate safety risk evaluation
• Aggregated visual bulk assessment



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

To: The Councillors of Woollahra
From: Angela Cattana

Re: Proposed Development-2 to 6 Conway Ave,15-15A Fernleigh Ave and 38 to 40 Carlisle st
Rose Bay

I implore all the councillors to do everything in your power to revoke the above stated DA.
Three generations of my family have lived in this area and we have seen and understood many
changes made to development codes. Woollahra has shouldered its share of the growth in medium density housing.
But never have have we witnessed such ill thought out and destructive sets of DA's that
are being submitted recently.Their size and scale will ruin the functionality and safety of the
Rose Bay area.
The cumulative effect of these DA's is not being considered and analysed.


The Potential Geotechnical impacts of the above stated proposed development are damning.
Groundwater drawdown outside the proposed boundaries is materially expected to exceed the 0.3m threshold recommended by the GHD report
The amount of proposed excavation (-15000m3 of soil for the property area of -3000m2)which is 5 times the recommendations.
Many houses that will be impacted as per Geotechnical report have not been consulted, as is required by council.Community consultation was held Nov 25, impacted residents were not notified.It needs to be re-run.
These along with other dewatering concerns highlight planning controls that appear to be
inadequate to mitigate any damage and off site effects that will extend far beyond the subject
properties.

Traffic Hazards

1.The proposed DA sits between 3 schools-Kincoppal Rose Bay, Kambala and McAuley.
Living in Chamberlain Ave i see everyday how many young children walk to these Schools.
With 130 new cars spaces allocated and resulting extras road traffic will change exponentially!

Cars will access Chamberlain Ave via a narrow Fernleigh Ave that barely has a footpath.
All I see is an accident waiting to happen.

2.The area is serviced primarily by two main roads that lead in and out from Watson Bay to City and Bondi Junction-Old South Head rd and New South Head Rd.They are already struggling to cope with approved 2-3 story development which has beenoccuring in the area for years.They will implode with multiple 8 story developments adding to congestion.

Please stop this grotesque DA which will not solve affordable housing crisi its been shamelessly using to justify its construction. Greedy developers are the only people that will benefit and the community will suffer the consequences as a result

Yours Sincerely
Angela Cattana

Please see attached document with the details of reasons why I object