Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
RHODES
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Planning Portal Team,
I am writing as a resident at 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes. I wish to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23-29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), particularly any shared connections to existing common areas and inaccuracies in the EIS traffic data.
As Stage 2 residents, we strongly oppose any interconnection allowing Stage 3 residents to access our common property, including the fourth-floor podium and basement car park. We have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities.
1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium:
Maintenance, surveillance cameras (approximately $50,000) and ongoing costs for the podium have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing Stage 3 to connect without fair contribution is inequitable and risks increasing our financial burden and future disputes.
Furthermore, since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced numerous ongoing issues that highlight the challenges of managing even the current user base:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding.
b. unauthorized non-residents flying drones
c. photographing intimate apparel.
d. doors inappropriate design in high winds causing resident injuries.
e. unexplained static electricity hazards.
f. widespread littering including discarded baby diapers, ballons, foods.
g. large, unauthorized parties.
h. damaged dog park turf.
i. abandoned toys/floatation devices in pool/spa areas.
j. lacks a booking system, lead to resident-visitor conflicts.
Stage 2 is already struggling to manage these issues internally and simply cannot accommodate additional residents from Stage 3 without exacerbating chaos, safety risks, and maintenance demands.
2. Connection to the Basement Car Park:
The existing car park suffers frequent roller shutter door damage, motor power shortage and recurring storage thefts. Interconnection with Stage 3 would increase usage, wear, security risks and disruptions, compromising safety and functionality for current residents without robust mitigation.
3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions:
Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely limited and difficult to manage. With the completed development ultimately accommodating over 1,600 apartments (potentially housing around 3,500 residents), the shared visitor parking—believed to be limited to a very small number of spaces (far fewer than needed for such density)—is entirely insufficient and unrealistic. Forcing thousands of residents and their visitors to compete for minimal spaces will result in chronic congestion, unauthorized parking, resident frustration, and conflicts. The proposal must provide substantially more dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to prevent overburdening existing provisions.
4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data:
The EIS references outdated 2021 data on Rhodes residents’ travel habits, which no longer reflects current realities due to post-pandemic changes in commuting patterns, remote work, and local development.
Additionally, the reported traffic flow data, including peak hour volumes of 50–60 vehicles, does not reflect actual operating conditions. Evidence from Stage 2 indicates that the frequent roller shutter faults are attributable to excessive motor usage. Over a period of 426 days, the shutter motor has operated more than 500,000 cycles, equating to an average of approximately 1,173 operations per day.
On this basis, and assuming traffic demand is distributed evenly between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 would be expected to generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. Furthermore, during peak periods, usage would reasonably account for at least half of daily movements, indicating an estimated 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.
Accordingly, the traffic volumes reported in the assessment appear to significantly underestimate actual and likely future traffic conditions.
This starkly contrasts with the EIS peak hour estimates, proving even existing Rhodes Central Stage residents generate far higher usage than projected.
5. Increased complexity on Building Management Committee (BMC):
Under the current Strata Management Statement (SMS), Stages 1 and 2, the retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts. Even with only eight accounts shared between Stage 1 and Stage 2, coordinating budgets, allocating costs fairly, and resolving disputes is already highly challenging.
For this reason, Stage 2 does not support any additional shared facilities with Stage 3, other than the existing shared accounts. Introducing further shared facilities would significantly increase the complexity of BMC operations and make effective account management, accurate budgeting, and fair cost allocation extremely difficult.
In summary, we reject any sharing of our common areas and do not want reciprocal access. We urge the Department to prohibit these interconnections or mandate strict safeguards, including proportional cost-sharing, comprehensive security/maintenance upgrades and significant additional visitor parking. Furthermore, the EIS traffic assessments should be updated with current data to accurately reflect impacts.
I hereby claim all the above statements are truly presented and if you will require any confirmation, feel free to contact the building management Team via: [email protected]
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Resident
35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, NSW 2138
I am writing as a resident at 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes. I wish to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23-29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), particularly any shared connections to existing common areas and inaccuracies in the EIS traffic data.
As Stage 2 residents, we strongly oppose any interconnection allowing Stage 3 residents to access our common property, including the fourth-floor podium and basement car park. We have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities.
1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium:
Maintenance, surveillance cameras (approximately $50,000) and ongoing costs for the podium have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing Stage 3 to connect without fair contribution is inequitable and risks increasing our financial burden and future disputes.
Furthermore, since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced numerous ongoing issues that highlight the challenges of managing even the current user base:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding.
b. unauthorized non-residents flying drones
c. photographing intimate apparel.
d. doors inappropriate design in high winds causing resident injuries.
e. unexplained static electricity hazards.
f. widespread littering including discarded baby diapers, ballons, foods.
g. large, unauthorized parties.
h. damaged dog park turf.
i. abandoned toys/floatation devices in pool/spa areas.
j. lacks a booking system, lead to resident-visitor conflicts.
Stage 2 is already struggling to manage these issues internally and simply cannot accommodate additional residents from Stage 3 without exacerbating chaos, safety risks, and maintenance demands.
2. Connection to the Basement Car Park:
The existing car park suffers frequent roller shutter door damage, motor power shortage and recurring storage thefts. Interconnection with Stage 3 would increase usage, wear, security risks and disruptions, compromising safety and functionality for current residents without robust mitigation.
3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions:
Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely limited and difficult to manage. With the completed development ultimately accommodating over 1,600 apartments (potentially housing around 3,500 residents), the shared visitor parking—believed to be limited to a very small number of spaces (far fewer than needed for such density)—is entirely insufficient and unrealistic. Forcing thousands of residents and their visitors to compete for minimal spaces will result in chronic congestion, unauthorized parking, resident frustration, and conflicts. The proposal must provide substantially more dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to prevent overburdening existing provisions.
4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data:
The EIS references outdated 2021 data on Rhodes residents’ travel habits, which no longer reflects current realities due to post-pandemic changes in commuting patterns, remote work, and local development.
Additionally, the reported traffic flow data, including peak hour volumes of 50–60 vehicles, does not reflect actual operating conditions. Evidence from Stage 2 indicates that the frequent roller shutter faults are attributable to excessive motor usage. Over a period of 426 days, the shutter motor has operated more than 500,000 cycles, equating to an average of approximately 1,173 operations per day.
On this basis, and assuming traffic demand is distributed evenly between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 would be expected to generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. Furthermore, during peak periods, usage would reasonably account for at least half of daily movements, indicating an estimated 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.
Accordingly, the traffic volumes reported in the assessment appear to significantly underestimate actual and likely future traffic conditions.
This starkly contrasts with the EIS peak hour estimates, proving even existing Rhodes Central Stage residents generate far higher usage than projected.
5. Increased complexity on Building Management Committee (BMC):
Under the current Strata Management Statement (SMS), Stages 1 and 2, the retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts. Even with only eight accounts shared between Stage 1 and Stage 2, coordinating budgets, allocating costs fairly, and resolving disputes is already highly challenging.
For this reason, Stage 2 does not support any additional shared facilities with Stage 3, other than the existing shared accounts. Introducing further shared facilities would significantly increase the complexity of BMC operations and make effective account management, accurate budgeting, and fair cost allocation extremely difficult.
In summary, we reject any sharing of our common areas and do not want reciprocal access. We urge the Department to prohibit these interconnections or mandate strict safeguards, including proportional cost-sharing, comprehensive security/maintenance upgrades and significant additional visitor parking. Furthermore, the EIS traffic assessments should be updated with current data to accurately reflect impacts.
I hereby claim all the above statements are truly presented and if you will require any confirmation, feel free to contact the building management Team via: [email protected]
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Resident
35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, NSW 2138
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
RHODES
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Planning Portal Team,
I am writing as a resident of 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, and as a representative of the Building Management Committee (BMC) for our property.
I wish to formally object to specific aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), in particular:
• any physical or operational interconnection between Stage 3 and the existing common property of Stages 1 and 2; and
• inaccuracies and outdated assumptions within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), particularly relating to traffic and parking.
As Stage 2 residents, we strongly oppose any interconnection that would permit Stage 3 residents to access our common property, including (but not limited to) the fourth-floor podium and the basement car park. We do not seek, nor require, reciprocal access to any Stage 3 facilities.
________________________________________
1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium
All capital expenditure and ongoing costs associated with the Stage 2 podium — including approximately $50,000 invested in surveillance cameras, maintenance, and security — have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents.
Allowing Stage 3 to connect to and utilise this podium without equitable contribution would be fundamentally inequitable and would inevitably increase the financial and operational burden on existing residents, while creating long-term governance and dispute risks.
Since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced a range of ongoing and recurrent management and safety issues, demonstrating the challenges of managing even the current user base. These issues are not isolated incidents, and include:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
b. unauthorised non-residents operating drones;
c. photographing private personal items;
d. doors with inappropriate design in high-wind conditions, resulting in resident injuries;
e. unexplained static electricity hazards;
f. widespread littering, including discarded baby diapers, balloons, and food waste;
g. large unauthorised gatherings and parties;
h. damage to dog park turf;
i. abandoned toys and flotation devices in pool and spa areas; and
j. the absence of a booking or access management system, leading to frequent resident-visitor conflicts.
Stage 2 is already struggling to manage these matters internally. The addition of Stage 3 residents would materially exacerbate operational disorder, safety risks, and maintenance demands, beyond the podium’s safe and manageable capacity.
________________________________________
2. Connection to the Basement Car Park
The existing basement car park is already subject to frequent operational issues, including:
• repeated roller shutter door damage;
• motor power shortages; and
• recurring storage thefts.
Any interconnection with Stage 3 would significantly increase usage intensity, wear and tear, and security exposure, thereby compromising safety, reliability, and functionality for current residents unless extensive mitigation measures were implemented.
________________________________________
3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions
Visitor parking within the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely constrained and difficult to manage.
Once fully completed, the broader development will accommodate over 1,600 apartments, potentially housing approximately 3,500 residents. The shared visitor parking provision — understood to comprise only a very small number of spaces — is wholly inadequate for a development of this scale and density.
This represents a fundamental under-provision of visitor parking, which will inevitably result in chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and increased conflict within the precinct. The proposal must provide substantially increased dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to prevent unreasonable pressure on existing infrastructure.
________________________________________
4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data
The EIS relies on 2021 travel behaviour data, which no longer reflects current conditions following post-pandemic changes, increased remote work, and substantial population growth in Rhodes.
Furthermore, the traffic flow assumptions presented in the EIS — including peak hour volumes of 50–60 vehicles — do not align with actual operational evidence observed within Stage 2.
Based on recorded data:
• over a period of 426 days, the basement roller shutter motor has operated in excess of 500,000 cycles;
• this equates to an average of approximately 1,173 operations per day;
• assuming balanced entry and exit movements, this represents at least 586 vehicle movements per day; and
• during peak periods, it is reasonable to expect 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.
These figures materially exceed the traffic volumes assumed in the EIS, demonstrating that existing Stage residents already generate substantially higher usage than projected. Accordingly, the traffic assessment significantly underestimates both current and future impacts.
________________________________________
5. Increased Complexity for Building Management Committee (BMC)
Under the current Strata Management Statement (SMS), Stages 1 and 2, retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts.
Even with only eight shared accounts between Stage 1 and Stage 2, the coordination of budgets, fair cost allocation, and dispute resolution is already highly complex and resource-intensive.
For this reason, Stage 2 does not support the introduction of any additional shared facilities with Stage 3, beyond the existing shared accounts. Any further shared infrastructure would significantly undermine effective governance, accurate budgeting, and equitable cost management.
________________________________________
Summary and Requested Outcomes
In summary, we reject any proposal that introduces shared access to Stage 2 common property, and we do not seek reciprocal access to Stage 3 facilities.
We respectfully urge the Department to:
• prohibit physical and operational interconnections between Stage 2 and Stage 3 common areas; or, at a minimum,
• impose strict conditions, including:
o proportional capital cost reimbursement and ongoing maintenance contributions;
o independent security, access control, and surveillance systems;
o substantially increased dedicated visitor parking; and
o updated traffic and parking assessments based on current, post-2024 data and actual operational usage.
All statements above are presented truthfully and in good faith. Should further confirmation be required, please feel free to contact the building management team at:
[email protected]
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Resident and BMC Representative
35 Marquet Street
Rhodes, NSW 2138
I am writing as a resident of 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, and as a representative of the Building Management Committee (BMC) for our property.
I wish to formally object to specific aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), in particular:
• any physical or operational interconnection between Stage 3 and the existing common property of Stages 1 and 2; and
• inaccuracies and outdated assumptions within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), particularly relating to traffic and parking.
As Stage 2 residents, we strongly oppose any interconnection that would permit Stage 3 residents to access our common property, including (but not limited to) the fourth-floor podium and the basement car park. We do not seek, nor require, reciprocal access to any Stage 3 facilities.
________________________________________
1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium
All capital expenditure and ongoing costs associated with the Stage 2 podium — including approximately $50,000 invested in surveillance cameras, maintenance, and security — have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents.
Allowing Stage 3 to connect to and utilise this podium without equitable contribution would be fundamentally inequitable and would inevitably increase the financial and operational burden on existing residents, while creating long-term governance and dispute risks.
Since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced a range of ongoing and recurrent management and safety issues, demonstrating the challenges of managing even the current user base. These issues are not isolated incidents, and include:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
b. unauthorised non-residents operating drones;
c. photographing private personal items;
d. doors with inappropriate design in high-wind conditions, resulting in resident injuries;
e. unexplained static electricity hazards;
f. widespread littering, including discarded baby diapers, balloons, and food waste;
g. large unauthorised gatherings and parties;
h. damage to dog park turf;
i. abandoned toys and flotation devices in pool and spa areas; and
j. the absence of a booking or access management system, leading to frequent resident-visitor conflicts.
Stage 2 is already struggling to manage these matters internally. The addition of Stage 3 residents would materially exacerbate operational disorder, safety risks, and maintenance demands, beyond the podium’s safe and manageable capacity.
________________________________________
2. Connection to the Basement Car Park
The existing basement car park is already subject to frequent operational issues, including:
• repeated roller shutter door damage;
• motor power shortages; and
• recurring storage thefts.
Any interconnection with Stage 3 would significantly increase usage intensity, wear and tear, and security exposure, thereby compromising safety, reliability, and functionality for current residents unless extensive mitigation measures were implemented.
________________________________________
3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions
Visitor parking within the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely constrained and difficult to manage.
Once fully completed, the broader development will accommodate over 1,600 apartments, potentially housing approximately 3,500 residents. The shared visitor parking provision — understood to comprise only a very small number of spaces — is wholly inadequate for a development of this scale and density.
This represents a fundamental under-provision of visitor parking, which will inevitably result in chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and increased conflict within the precinct. The proposal must provide substantially increased dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to prevent unreasonable pressure on existing infrastructure.
________________________________________
4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data
The EIS relies on 2021 travel behaviour data, which no longer reflects current conditions following post-pandemic changes, increased remote work, and substantial population growth in Rhodes.
Furthermore, the traffic flow assumptions presented in the EIS — including peak hour volumes of 50–60 vehicles — do not align with actual operational evidence observed within Stage 2.
Based on recorded data:
• over a period of 426 days, the basement roller shutter motor has operated in excess of 500,000 cycles;
• this equates to an average of approximately 1,173 operations per day;
• assuming balanced entry and exit movements, this represents at least 586 vehicle movements per day; and
• during peak periods, it is reasonable to expect 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.
These figures materially exceed the traffic volumes assumed in the EIS, demonstrating that existing Stage residents already generate substantially higher usage than projected. Accordingly, the traffic assessment significantly underestimates both current and future impacts.
________________________________________
5. Increased Complexity for Building Management Committee (BMC)
Under the current Strata Management Statement (SMS), Stages 1 and 2, retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts.
Even with only eight shared accounts between Stage 1 and Stage 2, the coordination of budgets, fair cost allocation, and dispute resolution is already highly complex and resource-intensive.
For this reason, Stage 2 does not support the introduction of any additional shared facilities with Stage 3, beyond the existing shared accounts. Any further shared infrastructure would significantly undermine effective governance, accurate budgeting, and equitable cost management.
________________________________________
Summary and Requested Outcomes
In summary, we reject any proposal that introduces shared access to Stage 2 common property, and we do not seek reciprocal access to Stage 3 facilities.
We respectfully urge the Department to:
• prohibit physical and operational interconnections between Stage 2 and Stage 3 common areas; or, at a minimum,
• impose strict conditions, including:
o proportional capital cost reimbursement and ongoing maintenance contributions;
o independent security, access control, and surveillance systems;
o substantially increased dedicated visitor parking; and
o updated traffic and parking assessments based on current, post-2024 data and actual operational usage.
All statements above are presented truthfully and in good faith. Should further confirmation be required, please feel free to contact the building management team at:
[email protected]
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Resident and BMC Representative
35 Marquet Street
Rhodes, NSW 2138
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Rhodes
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Planning Portal Team,
I am writing as a resident of 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, and as a representative of the Building Management Committee (BMC) for our property. I wish to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23-29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), particularly any shared connections to existing common areas and inaccuracies in the EIS traffic data.
As Stage 2 residents, we strongly oppose any interconnection allowing Stage 3 residents to access our common property, including the fourth-floor podium and basement car park. We have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities.
1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium:
Maintenance, surveillance camera (approximately $50,000) and ongoing costs for the podium have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing Stage 3 to connect without fair contribution is inequitable and risks increasing our financial burden and future disputes.
Furthermore, since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced numerous ongoing issues that highlight the challenges of managing even the current user base:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
b. unauthorised non-residents flying drones
c. photographing intimate apparel;
d. doors inappropriate design in high winds causing resident injuries;
e. unexplained static electricity hazards;
f. widespread littering including discarded baby diapers, ballons, foods;
g. large unauthorised parties;
h. damaged dog park turf;
i. abandoned toys/floatation devices in pool/spa areas.
j. lacks of a booking system, lead to resident-visitor conflicts.
Stage 2 is already struggling to manage these issues internally and simply cannot accommodate additional residents from Stage 3 without exacerbating chaos, safety risks, and maintenance demands.
2. Connection to the Basement Car Park:
The existing car park suffers frequent roller shutter door damage, motor power shortage and recurring storage thefts. Interconnection with Stage 3 would increase usage, wear, security risks and disruptions, compromising safety and functionality for current residents without robust mitigation.
3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions:
Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely limited and difficult to manage. With the completed development ultimately accommodating over 1,600 apartments (potentially housing around 3,500 residents), the shared visitor parking—believed to be limited to a very small number of spaces (far fewer than needed for such density)—is entirely insufficient and unrealistic. Forcing thousands of residents and their visitors to compete for minimal spaces will result in chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and conflicts. The proposal must provide substantially more dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to prevent overburdening existing provisions.
4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data:
The EIS references outdated 2021 data on Rhodes residents’ travel habits, which no longer reflects current realities due to post-pandemic changes in commuting patterns, remote work, and local development.
Additionally, the reported traffic flow data, including peak hour volumes of 50–60 vehicles, does not reflect actual operating conditions. Evidence from Stage 2 indicates that the frequent roller shutter faults are attributable to excessive motor usage. Over a period of 426 days, the shutter motor has operated in excess of 500,000 cycles, equating to an average of approximately 1,173 operations per day.
On this basis, and assuming traffic demand is distributed evenly between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 would be expected to generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. Furthermore, during peak periods, usage would reasonably account for at least half of daily movements, indicating an estimated 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.
Accordingly, the traffic volumes reported in the assessment appear to significantly underestimate actual and likely future traffic conditions.
This starkly contrasts with the EIS peak hour estimates, proving even existing Rhodes Central Stage residents generate far higher usage than projected.
5. Increased complexity on Building Management Committee (BMC):
Under the current Strata Management Statement (SMS), Stages 1 and 2, the retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts. Even with only eight accounts shared between Stage 1 and Stage 2, coordinating budgets, allocating costs fairly, and resolving disputes is already highly challenging.
For this reason, Stage 2 does not support any additional shared facilities with Stage 3, other than the existing shared accounts. Introducing further shared facilities would significantly increase the complexity of BMC operations and make effective account management, accurate budgeting, and fair cost allocation extremely difficult.
In summary, we reject any sharing of our common areas and do not want reciprocal access. We urge the Department to prohibit these interconnections or mandate strict safeguards, including proportional cost-sharing, comprehensive security/maintenance upgrades and significant additional visitor parking. Furthermore, the EIS traffic assessments should be updated with current data to accurately reflect impacts.
I hereby claim all the above statements are truly presented and if you will require any confirmation, feel free to contact the building management Team via: [email protected]
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Resident and BMC Representative
35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, NSW 2138
I am writing as a resident of 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, and as a representative of the Building Management Committee (BMC) for our property. I wish to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23-29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), particularly any shared connections to existing common areas and inaccuracies in the EIS traffic data.
As Stage 2 residents, we strongly oppose any interconnection allowing Stage 3 residents to access our common property, including the fourth-floor podium and basement car park. We have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities.
1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium:
Maintenance, surveillance camera (approximately $50,000) and ongoing costs for the podium have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing Stage 3 to connect without fair contribution is inequitable and risks increasing our financial burden and future disputes.
Furthermore, since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced numerous ongoing issues that highlight the challenges of managing even the current user base:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
b. unauthorised non-residents flying drones
c. photographing intimate apparel;
d. doors inappropriate design in high winds causing resident injuries;
e. unexplained static electricity hazards;
f. widespread littering including discarded baby diapers, ballons, foods;
g. large unauthorised parties;
h. damaged dog park turf;
i. abandoned toys/floatation devices in pool/spa areas.
j. lacks of a booking system, lead to resident-visitor conflicts.
Stage 2 is already struggling to manage these issues internally and simply cannot accommodate additional residents from Stage 3 without exacerbating chaos, safety risks, and maintenance demands.
2. Connection to the Basement Car Park:
The existing car park suffers frequent roller shutter door damage, motor power shortage and recurring storage thefts. Interconnection with Stage 3 would increase usage, wear, security risks and disruptions, compromising safety and functionality for current residents without robust mitigation.
3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions:
Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely limited and difficult to manage. With the completed development ultimately accommodating over 1,600 apartments (potentially housing around 3,500 residents), the shared visitor parking—believed to be limited to a very small number of spaces (far fewer than needed for such density)—is entirely insufficient and unrealistic. Forcing thousands of residents and their visitors to compete for minimal spaces will result in chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and conflicts. The proposal must provide substantially more dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to prevent overburdening existing provisions.
4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data:
The EIS references outdated 2021 data on Rhodes residents’ travel habits, which no longer reflects current realities due to post-pandemic changes in commuting patterns, remote work, and local development.
Additionally, the reported traffic flow data, including peak hour volumes of 50–60 vehicles, does not reflect actual operating conditions. Evidence from Stage 2 indicates that the frequent roller shutter faults are attributable to excessive motor usage. Over a period of 426 days, the shutter motor has operated in excess of 500,000 cycles, equating to an average of approximately 1,173 operations per day.
On this basis, and assuming traffic demand is distributed evenly between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 would be expected to generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. Furthermore, during peak periods, usage would reasonably account for at least half of daily movements, indicating an estimated 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.
Accordingly, the traffic volumes reported in the assessment appear to significantly underestimate actual and likely future traffic conditions.
This starkly contrasts with the EIS peak hour estimates, proving even existing Rhodes Central Stage residents generate far higher usage than projected.
5. Increased complexity on Building Management Committee (BMC):
Under the current Strata Management Statement (SMS), Stages 1 and 2, the retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts. Even with only eight accounts shared between Stage 1 and Stage 2, coordinating budgets, allocating costs fairly, and resolving disputes is already highly challenging.
For this reason, Stage 2 does not support any additional shared facilities with Stage 3, other than the existing shared accounts. Introducing further shared facilities would significantly increase the complexity of BMC operations and make effective account management, accurate budgeting, and fair cost allocation extremely difficult.
In summary, we reject any sharing of our common areas and do not want reciprocal access. We urge the Department to prohibit these interconnections or mandate strict safeguards, including proportional cost-sharing, comprehensive security/maintenance upgrades and significant additional visitor parking. Furthermore, the EIS traffic assessments should be updated with current data to accurately reflect impacts.
I hereby claim all the above statements are truly presented and if you will require any confirmation, feel free to contact the building management Team via: [email protected]
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Resident and BMC Representative
35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, NSW 2138
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
RHODES
,
New South Wales
Message
Formal Objection to State Significant Development Application
Application Number: SSD-67636458
Assessment Type: State Significant Development (SSD)
Development Type: Residential & Commercial (Mixed Use)
Local Government Area: City of Canada Bay
Exhibition Period: 18 December 2025 – 21 January 2026
1. Introduction
This submission objects to Development Application SSD-67636458 for a 39-storey mixed-use development comprising residential apartments, retail uses, basement parking, publicly accessible spaces, and a pedestrian bridge connection to the Stage 2 podium development containing 677 residential lots within the City of Canada Bay Local Government Area. This objection is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 39-storey tower is excessive in height, bulk and massing and is inconsistent with the desired future character and built form objectives under the applicable LEP and DCP. When considered cumulatively with the adjoining Stage 2 development comprising 677 residential lots, and reinforced by the podium-to-podium pedestrian bridge, the development results in excessive density, visual dominance and an over-scaled podium form.
3. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impacts
Despite the direct physical and functional integration created by the pedestrian bridge, the Development Application assesses the proposal largely in isolation. The combined delivery of approximately 1,040 dwellings will place unreasonable pressure on transport, infrastructure, community facilities and public open space.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts
The height, scale and proximity of the development will result in excessive overshadowing, increased overlooking, loss of privacy and elevated noise impacts, contrary to residential amenity and building separation objectives within the Canada Bay DCP.
5. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The provision of 384 basement car spaces, when combined with parking demand from the adjoining Stage 2 development, will generate unacceptable cumulative traffic impacts, including congestion, pedestrian safety risks and pressure on local roads.
6. Pedestrian Bridge and Public Domain Concerns
The proposed pedestrian bridge prioritises private resident movement rather than delivering genuine public benefit. It contributes to excessive podium bulk and undermines ground-level pedestrian activity and public domain outcomes.
7. Infrastructure and Services Capacity
The Development Application fails to demonstrate that existing infrastructure, public transport, waste management systems and community services can adequately support the combined population generated by both developments.
8. Affordable Housing Concerns
While 72 affordable housing dwellings are proposed, insufficient detail has been provided regarding their distribution, tenure and long-term affordability. Given the scale of the overall development, the contribution is modest and inadequately justified.
9. Grounds for Refusal
The application should be refused as it is inconsistent with LEP and DCP objectives, fails to adequately assess cumulative impacts, results in unacceptable amenity and traffic impacts, and does not demonstrate sufficient infrastructure capacity. The proposal is not in the public interest and is inconsistent with orderly and economic planning.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, Development Application SSD-67636458 should be refused or substantially redesigned to address the identified planning, amenity and infrastructure deficiencies.
Application Number: SSD-67636458
Assessment Type: State Significant Development (SSD)
Development Type: Residential & Commercial (Mixed Use)
Local Government Area: City of Canada Bay
Exhibition Period: 18 December 2025 – 21 January 2026
1. Introduction
This submission objects to Development Application SSD-67636458 for a 39-storey mixed-use development comprising residential apartments, retail uses, basement parking, publicly accessible spaces, and a pedestrian bridge connection to the Stage 2 podium development containing 677 residential lots within the City of Canada Bay Local Government Area. This objection is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 39-storey tower is excessive in height, bulk and massing and is inconsistent with the desired future character and built form objectives under the applicable LEP and DCP. When considered cumulatively with the adjoining Stage 2 development comprising 677 residential lots, and reinforced by the podium-to-podium pedestrian bridge, the development results in excessive density, visual dominance and an over-scaled podium form.
3. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impacts
Despite the direct physical and functional integration created by the pedestrian bridge, the Development Application assesses the proposal largely in isolation. The combined delivery of approximately 1,040 dwellings will place unreasonable pressure on transport, infrastructure, community facilities and public open space.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts
The height, scale and proximity of the development will result in excessive overshadowing, increased overlooking, loss of privacy and elevated noise impacts, contrary to residential amenity and building separation objectives within the Canada Bay DCP.
5. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The provision of 384 basement car spaces, when combined with parking demand from the adjoining Stage 2 development, will generate unacceptable cumulative traffic impacts, including congestion, pedestrian safety risks and pressure on local roads.
6. Pedestrian Bridge and Public Domain Concerns
The proposed pedestrian bridge prioritises private resident movement rather than delivering genuine public benefit. It contributes to excessive podium bulk and undermines ground-level pedestrian activity and public domain outcomes.
7. Infrastructure and Services Capacity
The Development Application fails to demonstrate that existing infrastructure, public transport, waste management systems and community services can adequately support the combined population generated by both developments.
8. Affordable Housing Concerns
While 72 affordable housing dwellings are proposed, insufficient detail has been provided regarding their distribution, tenure and long-term affordability. Given the scale of the overall development, the contribution is modest and inadequately justified.
9. Grounds for Refusal
The application should be refused as it is inconsistent with LEP and DCP objectives, fails to adequately assess cumulative impacts, results in unacceptable amenity and traffic impacts, and does not demonstrate sufficient infrastructure capacity. The proposal is not in the public interest and is inconsistent with orderly and economic planning.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, Development Application SSD-67636458 should be refused or substantially redesigned to address the identified planning, amenity and infrastructure deficiencies.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
RHODES
,
New South Wales
Message
Formal Objection to State Significant Development Application
Application Number: SSD-67636458
Assessment Type: State Significant Development (SSD)
Development Type: Residential & Commercial (Mixed Use)
Local Government Area: City of Canada Bay
Exhibition Period: 18 December 2025 – 21 January 2026
1. Introduction
This submission objects to Development Application SSD-67636458 for a 39-storey mixed-use development comprising residential apartments, retail uses, basement parking, publicly accessible spaces, and a pedestrian bridge connection to the Stage 2 podium development containing 677 residential lots within the City of Canada Bay Local Government Area. This objection is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 39-storey tower is excessive in height, bulk and massing and is inconsistent with the desired future character and built form objectives under the applicable LEP and DCP. When considered cumulatively with the adjoining Stage 2 development comprising 677 residential lots, and reinforced by the podium-to-podium pedestrian bridge, the development results in excessive density, visual dominance and an over-scaled podium form.
3. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impacts
Despite the direct physical and functional integration created by the pedestrian bridge, the Development Application assesses the proposal largely in isolation. The combined delivery of approximately 1,040 dwellings will place unreasonable pressure on transport, infrastructure, community facilities and public open space.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts
The height, scale and proximity of the development will result in excessive overshadowing, increased overlooking, loss of privacy and elevated noise impacts, contrary to residential amenity and building separation objectives within the Canada Bay DCP.
5. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The provision of 384 basement car spaces, when combined with parking demand from the adjoining Stage 2 development, will generate unacceptable cumulative traffic impacts, including congestion, pedestrian safety risks and pressure on local roads.
6. Pedestrian Bridge and Public Domain Concerns
The proposed pedestrian bridge prioritises private resident movement rather than delivering genuine public benefit. It contributes to excessive podium bulk and undermines ground-level pedestrian activity and public domain outcomes.
7. Infrastructure and Services Capacity
The Development Application fails to demonstrate that existing infrastructure, public transport, waste management systems and community services can adequately support the combined population generated by both developments.
8. Affordable Housing Concerns
While 72 affordable housing dwellings are proposed, insufficient detail has been provided regarding their distribution, tenure and long-term affordability. Given the scale of the overall development, the contribution is modest and inadequately justified.
9. Grounds for Refusal
The application should be refused as it is inconsistent with LEP and DCP objectives, fails to adequately assess cumulative impacts, results in unacceptable amenity and traffic impacts, and does not demonstrate sufficient infrastructure capacity. The proposal is not in the public interest and is inconsistent with orderly and economic planning.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, Development Application SSD-67636458 should be refused or substantially redesigned to address the identified planning, amenity and infrastructure deficiencies.
Application Number: SSD-67636458
Assessment Type: State Significant Development (SSD)
Development Type: Residential & Commercial (Mixed Use)
Local Government Area: City of Canada Bay
Exhibition Period: 18 December 2025 – 21 January 2026
1. Introduction
This submission objects to Development Application SSD-67636458 for a 39-storey mixed-use development comprising residential apartments, retail uses, basement parking, publicly accessible spaces, and a pedestrian bridge connection to the Stage 2 podium development containing 677 residential lots within the City of Canada Bay Local Government Area. This objection is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 39-storey tower is excessive in height, bulk and massing and is inconsistent with the desired future character and built form objectives under the applicable LEP and DCP. When considered cumulatively with the adjoining Stage 2 development comprising 677 residential lots, and reinforced by the podium-to-podium pedestrian bridge, the development results in excessive density, visual dominance and an over-scaled podium form.
3. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impacts
Despite the direct physical and functional integration created by the pedestrian bridge, the Development Application assesses the proposal largely in isolation. The combined delivery of approximately 1,040 dwellings will place unreasonable pressure on transport, infrastructure, community facilities and public open space.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts
The height, scale and proximity of the development will result in excessive overshadowing, increased overlooking, loss of privacy and elevated noise impacts, contrary to residential amenity and building separation objectives within the Canada Bay DCP.
5. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The provision of 384 basement car spaces, when combined with parking demand from the adjoining Stage 2 development, will generate unacceptable cumulative traffic impacts, including congestion, pedestrian safety risks and pressure on local roads.
6. Pedestrian Bridge and Public Domain Concerns
The proposed pedestrian bridge prioritises private resident movement rather than delivering genuine public benefit. It contributes to excessive podium bulk and undermines ground-level pedestrian activity and public domain outcomes.
7. Infrastructure and Services Capacity
The Development Application fails to demonstrate that existing infrastructure, public transport, waste management systems and community services can adequately support the combined population generated by both developments.
8. Affordable Housing Concerns
While 72 affordable housing dwellings are proposed, insufficient detail has been provided regarding their distribution, tenure and long-term affordability. Given the scale of the overall development, the contribution is modest and inadequately justified.
9. Grounds for Refusal
The application should be refused as it is inconsistent with LEP and DCP objectives, fails to adequately assess cumulative impacts, results in unacceptable amenity and traffic impacts, and does not demonstrate sufficient infrastructure capacity. The proposal is not in the public interest and is inconsistent with orderly and economic planning.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, Development Application SSD-67636458 should be refused or substantially redesigned to address the identified planning, amenity and infrastructure deficiencies.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
RHODES
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Planning Portal Team,
I am writing as a resident of 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes. I wish to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23-29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), particularly any shared connections to existing common areas and inaccuracies in the EIS traffic data.
As Stage 2 residents, we strongly oppose any interconnection allowing Stage 3 residents to access our common property, including the fourth-floor podium and basement car park. We have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities.
1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium:
Maintenance, surveillance camera (approximately $50,000) and ongoing costs for the podium have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing Stage 3 to connect without fair contribution is inequitable and risks increasing our financial burden and future disputes.
Furthermore, since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced numerous ongoing issues that highlight the challenges of managing even the current user base:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
b. unauthorised non-residents flying drones
c. photographing intimate apparel;
d. doors inappropriate design in high winds causing resident injuries;
e. unexplained static electricity hazards;
f. widespread littering including discarded baby diapers, ballons, foods;
g. large unauthorised parties;
h. damaged dog park turf;
i. abandoned toys/floatation devices in pool/spa areas.
j. lacks of a booking system, lead to resident-visitor conflicts.
Stage 2 is already struggling to manage these issues internally and simply cannot accommodate additional residents from Stage 3 without exacerbating chaos, safety risks, and maintenance demands.
2. Connection to the Basement Car Park:
The existing car park suffers frequent roller shutter door damage, motor power shortage and recurring storage thefts. Interconnection with Stage 3 would increase usage, wear, security risks and disruptions, compromising safety and functionality for current residents without robust mitigation.
3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions:
Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely limited and difficult to manage. With the completed development ultimately accommodating over 1,600 apartments (potentially housing around 3,500 residents), the shared visitor parking—believed to be limited to a very small number of spaces (far fewer than needed for such density)—is entirely insufficient and unrealistic. Forcing thousands of residents and their visitors to compete for minimal spaces will result in chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and conflicts. The proposal must provide substantially more dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to prevent overburdening existing provisions.
4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data:
The EIS references outdated 2021 data on Rhodes residents’ travel habits, which no longer reflects current realities due to post-pandemic changes in commuting patterns, remote work, and local development.
Additionally, the reported traffic flow data, including peak hour volumes of 50–60 vehicles, does not reflect actual operating conditions. Evidence from Stage 2 indicates that the frequent roller shutter faults are attributable to excessive motor usage. Over a period of 426 days, the shutter motor has operated in excess of 500,000 cycles, equating to an average of approximately 1,173 operations per day.
On this basis, and assuming traffic demand is distributed evenly between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 would be expected to generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. Furthermore, during peak periods, usage would reasonably account for at least half of daily movements, indicating an estimated 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.
Accordingly, the traffic volumes reported in the assessment appear to significantly underestimate actual and likely future traffic conditions.
This starkly contrasts with the EIS peak hour estimates, proving even existing Rhodes Central Stage residents generate far higher usage than projected.
5. Increased complexity on Building Management Committee (BMC):
Under the current Strata Management Statement (SMS), Stages 1 and 2, the retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts. Even with only eight accounts shared between Stage 1 and Stage 2, coordinating budgets, allocating costs fairly, and resolving disputes is already highly challenging.
For this reason, Stage 2 does not support any additional shared facilities with Stage 3, other than the existing shared accounts. Introducing further shared facilities would significantly increase the complexity of BMC operations and make effective account management, accurate budgeting, and fair cost allocation extremely difficult.
In summary, we reject any sharing of our common areas and do not want reciprocal access. We urge the Department to prohibit these interconnections or mandate strict safeguards, including proportional cost-sharing, comprehensive security/maintenance upgrades and significant additional visitor parking. Furthermore, the EIS traffic assessments should be updated with current data to accurately reflect impacts.
I hereby claim all the above statements are truly presented and if you will require any confirmation, feel free to contact the building management Team via: [email protected]
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Resident
35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, NSW 2138
I am writing as a resident of 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes. I wish to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23-29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), particularly any shared connections to existing common areas and inaccuracies in the EIS traffic data.
As Stage 2 residents, we strongly oppose any interconnection allowing Stage 3 residents to access our common property, including the fourth-floor podium and basement car park. We have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities.
1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium:
Maintenance, surveillance camera (approximately $50,000) and ongoing costs for the podium have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing Stage 3 to connect without fair contribution is inequitable and risks increasing our financial burden and future disputes.
Furthermore, since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced numerous ongoing issues that highlight the challenges of managing even the current user base:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
b. unauthorised non-residents flying drones
c. photographing intimate apparel;
d. doors inappropriate design in high winds causing resident injuries;
e. unexplained static electricity hazards;
f. widespread littering including discarded baby diapers, ballons, foods;
g. large unauthorised parties;
h. damaged dog park turf;
i. abandoned toys/floatation devices in pool/spa areas.
j. lacks of a booking system, lead to resident-visitor conflicts.
Stage 2 is already struggling to manage these issues internally and simply cannot accommodate additional residents from Stage 3 without exacerbating chaos, safety risks, and maintenance demands.
2. Connection to the Basement Car Park:
The existing car park suffers frequent roller shutter door damage, motor power shortage and recurring storage thefts. Interconnection with Stage 3 would increase usage, wear, security risks and disruptions, compromising safety and functionality for current residents without robust mitigation.
3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions:
Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely limited and difficult to manage. With the completed development ultimately accommodating over 1,600 apartments (potentially housing around 3,500 residents), the shared visitor parking—believed to be limited to a very small number of spaces (far fewer than needed for such density)—is entirely insufficient and unrealistic. Forcing thousands of residents and their visitors to compete for minimal spaces will result in chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and conflicts. The proposal must provide substantially more dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to prevent overburdening existing provisions.
4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data:
The EIS references outdated 2021 data on Rhodes residents’ travel habits, which no longer reflects current realities due to post-pandemic changes in commuting patterns, remote work, and local development.
Additionally, the reported traffic flow data, including peak hour volumes of 50–60 vehicles, does not reflect actual operating conditions. Evidence from Stage 2 indicates that the frequent roller shutter faults are attributable to excessive motor usage. Over a period of 426 days, the shutter motor has operated in excess of 500,000 cycles, equating to an average of approximately 1,173 operations per day.
On this basis, and assuming traffic demand is distributed evenly between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 would be expected to generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. Furthermore, during peak periods, usage would reasonably account for at least half of daily movements, indicating an estimated 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.
Accordingly, the traffic volumes reported in the assessment appear to significantly underestimate actual and likely future traffic conditions.
This starkly contrasts with the EIS peak hour estimates, proving even existing Rhodes Central Stage residents generate far higher usage than projected.
5. Increased complexity on Building Management Committee (BMC):
Under the current Strata Management Statement (SMS), Stages 1 and 2, the retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts. Even with only eight accounts shared between Stage 1 and Stage 2, coordinating budgets, allocating costs fairly, and resolving disputes is already highly challenging.
For this reason, Stage 2 does not support any additional shared facilities with Stage 3, other than the existing shared accounts. Introducing further shared facilities would significantly increase the complexity of BMC operations and make effective account management, accurate budgeting, and fair cost allocation extremely difficult.
In summary, we reject any sharing of our common areas and do not want reciprocal access. We urge the Department to prohibit these interconnections or mandate strict safeguards, including proportional cost-sharing, comprehensive security/maintenance upgrades and significant additional visitor parking. Furthermore, the EIS traffic assessments should be updated with current data to accurately reflect impacts.
I hereby claim all the above statements are truly presented and if you will require any confirmation, feel free to contact the building management Team via: [email protected]
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Resident
35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, NSW 2138
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Rhodes
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: State Significant Development Application SSD-67636458
Mixed-Use Development with Affordable Housing – 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes
I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the above development application.
While I acknowledge the importance of housing supply and affordability, I have serious concerns about the cumulative impacts of this proposal on existing residents of Rhodes Central, particularly Stage 2, as outlined below.
1. Traffic Congestion and Basement Access Impacts
Rhodes Central Stage 2 already comprises 677 residential apartments. This proposal seeks approval for an additional 39-storey building containing 361 apartments, resulting in a combined total of 1,038 apartments sharing access through adjoining basement levels.
The concentration of such a high number of dwellings relying on shared basement vehicular access will create severe congestion, particularly during peak morning and evening hours. This raises concerns regarding:
- Traffic delays and queuing within basement levels
- Increased risk of vehicle conflicts and accidents
- Reduced amenity and safety for residents
- Emergency access constraints
The cumulative traffic impacts appear to be underestimated and have not been adequately addressed in the proposal.
2. Building Management and Maintenance Difficulties
The proposal introduces further complexity to an already large mixed-use precinct with multiple buildings and shared facilities. Existing building management is already responsible and under pressure for maintaining and operating extensive shared infrastructure.
Adding another high-rise building will significantly increase the operational burden and complexity, including:
- Management of shared services and facilities
- Increased maintenance costs and disputes
- Reduced efficiency in day-to-day building operations
There is insufficient clarity on how these challenges will be practically and equitably managed without negatively affecting existing residents.
3. Unresolved Existing Issues with the Developer
There are many significant unresolved issues associated with the existing development by the same developer. These ongoing matters raise serious concerns about the developer’s ability to responsibly deliver and manage further development on the site.
Approving additional development while existing problems remain unresolved places current residents at continued risk and undermines confidence in future project delivery, compliance, and long-term outcomes.
4. Security Risks from Proposed Pedestrian Bridge
The proposal includes a pedestrian bridge connecting the podium at 35 Marquet Street, intended to link Stage 2 and Stage 3 residents.
This connection raises significant security and privacy concerns for Stage 2 residents, including:
- Increased access by non-residents
- Difficulty controlling and monitoring movement between buildings
- Elevated risks of unauthorised entry and anti-social behaviour
The bridge fundamentally alters the security arrangements that existing residents relied upon when purchasing their homes and diminishes their reasonable expectation of safety and privacy.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I believe the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and fails to adequately address cumulative traffic impacts, building management constraints, unresolved developer issues, and resident security concerns.
I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application or, at minimum, require substantial redesign and further assessment to address these serious issues before any approval is considered.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Kind Regards
Re: State Significant Development Application SSD-67636458
Mixed-Use Development with Affordable Housing – 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes
I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the above development application.
While I acknowledge the importance of housing supply and affordability, I have serious concerns about the cumulative impacts of this proposal on existing residents of Rhodes Central, particularly Stage 2, as outlined below.
1. Traffic Congestion and Basement Access Impacts
Rhodes Central Stage 2 already comprises 677 residential apartments. This proposal seeks approval for an additional 39-storey building containing 361 apartments, resulting in a combined total of 1,038 apartments sharing access through adjoining basement levels.
The concentration of such a high number of dwellings relying on shared basement vehicular access will create severe congestion, particularly during peak morning and evening hours. This raises concerns regarding:
- Traffic delays and queuing within basement levels
- Increased risk of vehicle conflicts and accidents
- Reduced amenity and safety for residents
- Emergency access constraints
The cumulative traffic impacts appear to be underestimated and have not been adequately addressed in the proposal.
2. Building Management and Maintenance Difficulties
The proposal introduces further complexity to an already large mixed-use precinct with multiple buildings and shared facilities. Existing building management is already responsible and under pressure for maintaining and operating extensive shared infrastructure.
Adding another high-rise building will significantly increase the operational burden and complexity, including:
- Management of shared services and facilities
- Increased maintenance costs and disputes
- Reduced efficiency in day-to-day building operations
There is insufficient clarity on how these challenges will be practically and equitably managed without negatively affecting existing residents.
3. Unresolved Existing Issues with the Developer
There are many significant unresolved issues associated with the existing development by the same developer. These ongoing matters raise serious concerns about the developer’s ability to responsibly deliver and manage further development on the site.
Approving additional development while existing problems remain unresolved places current residents at continued risk and undermines confidence in future project delivery, compliance, and long-term outcomes.
4. Security Risks from Proposed Pedestrian Bridge
The proposal includes a pedestrian bridge connecting the podium at 35 Marquet Street, intended to link Stage 2 and Stage 3 residents.
This connection raises significant security and privacy concerns for Stage 2 residents, including:
- Increased access by non-residents
- Difficulty controlling and monitoring movement between buildings
- Elevated risks of unauthorised entry and anti-social behaviour
The bridge fundamentally alters the security arrangements that existing residents relied upon when purchasing their homes and diminishes their reasonable expectation of safety and privacy.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I believe the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and fails to adequately address cumulative traffic impacts, building management constraints, unresolved developer issues, and resident security concerns.
I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application or, at minimum, require substantial redesign and further assessment to address these serious issues before any approval is considered.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Kind Regards
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Rhodes
,
New South Wales
Message
This submission objects to Development Application SSD-67636458 for a 39-storey mixed-use development
comprising residential apartments, retail uses, basement parking, publicly accessible spaces, and a pedestrian
bridge connection to the Stage 2 podium development containing 677 residential lots within the City of Canada
Bay Local Government Area. This objection is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 39-storey tower is excessive in height, bulk and massing and is inconsistent with the desired
future character and built form objectives under the applicable LEP and DCP. When considered cumulatively
with the adjoining Stage 2 development comprising 677 residential lots, and reinforced by the
podium-to-podium pedestrian bridge, the development results in excessive density, visual dominance and an
over-scaled podium form.
3. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impacts
Despite the direct physical and functional integration created by the pedestrian bridge, the Development
Application assesses the proposal largely in isolation. The combined delivery of approximately 1,040 dwellings
will place unreasonable pressure on transport, infrastructure, community facilities and public open space.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts
The height, scale and proximity of the development will result in excessive overshadowing, increased
overlooking, loss of privacy and elevated noise impacts, contrary to residential amenity and building
separation objectives within the Canada Bay DCP.
5. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The provision of 384 basement car spaces, when combined with parking demand from the adjoining Stage 2
development, will generate unacceptable cumulative traffic impacts, including congestion, pedestrian safety
risks and pressure on local roads.
6. Pedestrian Bridge and Public Domain Concerns
The proposed pedestrian bridge prioritises private resident movement rather than delivering genuine public
benefit. It contributes to excessive podium bulk and undermines ground-level pedestrian activity and public
domain outcomes.
7. Infrastructure and Services Capacity
The Development Application fails to demonstrate that existing infrastructure, public transport, waste
management systems and community services can adequately support the combined population generated by
both developments.
8. Affordable Housing Concerns
While 72 affordable housing dwellings are proposed, insufficient detail has been provided regarding their
distribution, tenure and long-term affordability. Given the scale of the overall development, the contribution is
modest and inadequately justified.9. Grounds for Refusal
The application should be refused as it is inconsistent with LEP and DCP objectives, fails to adequately
assess cumulative impacts, results in unacceptable amenity and traffic impacts, and does not demonstrate
sufficient infrastructure capacity. The proposal is not in the public interest and is inconsistent with orderly and
economic planning.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, Development Application SSD-67636458 should be refused or substantially
redesigned to address the identified planning, amenity and infrastructure deficiencies.
comprising residential apartments, retail uses, basement parking, publicly accessible spaces, and a pedestrian
bridge connection to the Stage 2 podium development containing 677 residential lots within the City of Canada
Bay Local Government Area. This objection is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 39-storey tower is excessive in height, bulk and massing and is inconsistent with the desired
future character and built form objectives under the applicable LEP and DCP. When considered cumulatively
with the adjoining Stage 2 development comprising 677 residential lots, and reinforced by the
podium-to-podium pedestrian bridge, the development results in excessive density, visual dominance and an
over-scaled podium form.
3. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impacts
Despite the direct physical and functional integration created by the pedestrian bridge, the Development
Application assesses the proposal largely in isolation. The combined delivery of approximately 1,040 dwellings
will place unreasonable pressure on transport, infrastructure, community facilities and public open space.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts
The height, scale and proximity of the development will result in excessive overshadowing, increased
overlooking, loss of privacy and elevated noise impacts, contrary to residential amenity and building
separation objectives within the Canada Bay DCP.
5. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The provision of 384 basement car spaces, when combined with parking demand from the adjoining Stage 2
development, will generate unacceptable cumulative traffic impacts, including congestion, pedestrian safety
risks and pressure on local roads.
6. Pedestrian Bridge and Public Domain Concerns
The proposed pedestrian bridge prioritises private resident movement rather than delivering genuine public
benefit. It contributes to excessive podium bulk and undermines ground-level pedestrian activity and public
domain outcomes.
7. Infrastructure and Services Capacity
The Development Application fails to demonstrate that existing infrastructure, public transport, waste
management systems and community services can adequately support the combined population generated by
both developments.
8. Affordable Housing Concerns
While 72 affordable housing dwellings are proposed, insufficient detail has been provided regarding their
distribution, tenure and long-term affordability. Given the scale of the overall development, the contribution is
modest and inadequately justified.9. Grounds for Refusal
The application should be refused as it is inconsistent with LEP and DCP objectives, fails to adequately
assess cumulative impacts, results in unacceptable amenity and traffic impacts, and does not demonstrate
sufficient infrastructure capacity. The proposal is not in the public interest and is inconsistent with orderly and
economic planning.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, Development Application SSD-67636458 should be refused or substantially
redesigned to address the identified planning, amenity and infrastructure deficiencies.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
RHODES
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to SSD‑67636458. As a resident living on Marquet Street directly opposite the proposed site, my family is already experiencing compounded harm from recent high‑rise projects on this same street. This development would further degrade amenity, safety, and wellbeing without matching infrastructure.
Grounds of objection (evidence‑based and lived experience):
1. Cumulative congestion and inadequate infrastructure
- Roads: Rhodes is a small peninsula with narrow streets. Recent and ongoing towers have already pushed traffic to saturation; kerbside space for loading, ride‑share, and deliveries is insufficient. Adding 361 dwellings and retail on the same block will intensify queueing and conflict at Marquet/Walker/Gauthorpe, especially during peak retail and commute hours. This is on top of a busy and congested Marquet street due to cars queuing both ways to enter and exit the Rhodes Central car park which causes both lanes of Marquet street to be blocked and massive noise pollution due to cars beeping at each other in road rage to enter/exit the car park.
- Public transport: Trains are already congested at Rhodes Station, with platform capacity and service frequency unchanged while thousands of new residents arrive. No commensurate upgrades are proposed in the application.
- Parking: Street parking is effectively unavailable for guests. Shared basements across multiple towers concentrate vehicle movements and remove any realistic visitor parking fallback.
2. Residential amenity: sunlight loss, wind, noise
- Sunlight: My unit has already lost direct sun due to recent towers. Additional high rises means loss to sunlight to my home which adversely affects my family’s health and well being. The EIS itself admits only 58% of apartments meet the ADG minimum solar access (vs the 70% benchmark). A massing that sits at the limit of overshadowing controls increases risk of further light reduction to surrounding homes.
- Wind/microclimate: The ground plane design funnels pedestrians through narrowed desire lines and deep seating/planter zones. Without proven wind tunnel compliance at entrances and the plaza, experience suggests downdrafts and uncomfortable conditions that reduce safe usability.
- Noise: Motorist dangerous driving, speeding, and noise has increased on Marquet Street and neighbouring streets. Construction noise has been frequent—early mornings, late evenings, even weekends—with prolonged impacts on my elderly parents’ health and mental wellbeing. This project’s staging would extend that burden for years.
3. Health and wellbeing impacts on vulnerable residents
My elderly parents live with me. Persistent construction noise, reduced sunlight, and urban stressors (traffic, crowding, lack of quiet public space) materially affect their physical and mental health. Approving another 39‑storey tower in the same street worsens measurable determinants of health (sleep, mood, mobility safety).
4. Construction impacts: no enforceable limits
Past projects have worked outside standard hours and with high‑impact plant. All approvals must strictly enforce condition hours (no early mornings, late nights, or weekends), noise monitoring, complaint response SLAs, truck routing, and penalties for non‑compliance. Without these, residents face unacceptable disruption yet again.
Grounds of objection (evidence‑based and lived experience):
1. Cumulative congestion and inadequate infrastructure
- Roads: Rhodes is a small peninsula with narrow streets. Recent and ongoing towers have already pushed traffic to saturation; kerbside space for loading, ride‑share, and deliveries is insufficient. Adding 361 dwellings and retail on the same block will intensify queueing and conflict at Marquet/Walker/Gauthorpe, especially during peak retail and commute hours. This is on top of a busy and congested Marquet street due to cars queuing both ways to enter and exit the Rhodes Central car park which causes both lanes of Marquet street to be blocked and massive noise pollution due to cars beeping at each other in road rage to enter/exit the car park.
- Public transport: Trains are already congested at Rhodes Station, with platform capacity and service frequency unchanged while thousands of new residents arrive. No commensurate upgrades are proposed in the application.
- Parking: Street parking is effectively unavailable for guests. Shared basements across multiple towers concentrate vehicle movements and remove any realistic visitor parking fallback.
2. Residential amenity: sunlight loss, wind, noise
- Sunlight: My unit has already lost direct sun due to recent towers. Additional high rises means loss to sunlight to my home which adversely affects my family’s health and well being. The EIS itself admits only 58% of apartments meet the ADG minimum solar access (vs the 70% benchmark). A massing that sits at the limit of overshadowing controls increases risk of further light reduction to surrounding homes.
- Wind/microclimate: The ground plane design funnels pedestrians through narrowed desire lines and deep seating/planter zones. Without proven wind tunnel compliance at entrances and the plaza, experience suggests downdrafts and uncomfortable conditions that reduce safe usability.
- Noise: Motorist dangerous driving, speeding, and noise has increased on Marquet Street and neighbouring streets. Construction noise has been frequent—early mornings, late evenings, even weekends—with prolonged impacts on my elderly parents’ health and mental wellbeing. This project’s staging would extend that burden for years.
3. Health and wellbeing impacts on vulnerable residents
My elderly parents live with me. Persistent construction noise, reduced sunlight, and urban stressors (traffic, crowding, lack of quiet public space) materially affect their physical and mental health. Approving another 39‑storey tower in the same street worsens measurable determinants of health (sleep, mood, mobility safety).
4. Construction impacts: no enforceable limits
Past projects have worked outside standard hours and with high‑impact plant. All approvals must strictly enforce condition hours (no early mornings, late nights, or weekends), noise monitoring, complaint response SLAs, truck routing, and penalties for non‑compliance. Without these, residents face unacceptable disruption yet again.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Rhodes
,
New South Wales
Message
Formal Objection to State Significant Development Application
Application Number: SSD-67636458
Assessment Type: State Significant Development (SSD)
Development Type: Residential & Commercial (Mixed Use)
Local Government Area: City of Canada Bay
Exhibition Period: 18 December 2025 – 21 January 2026
1. Introduction
This submission objects to Development Application SSD-67636458 for a 39-storey mixed-use development
comprising residential apartments, retail uses, basement parking, publicly accessible spaces, and a pedestrian
bridge connection to the Stage 2 podium development containing 677 residential lots within the City of Canada
Bay Local Government Area. This objection is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 39-storey tower is excessive in height, bulk and massing and is inconsistent with the desired
future character and built form objectives under the applicable LEP and DCP. When considered cumulatively
with the adjoining Stage 2 development comprising 677 residential lots, and reinforced by the
podium-to-podium pedestrian bridge, the development results in excessive density, visual dominance and an
over-scaled podium form.
3. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impacts
Despite the direct physical and functional integration created by the pedestrian bridge, the Development
Application assesses the proposal largely in isolation. The combined delivery of approximately 1,040 dwellings
will place unreasonable pressure on transport, infrastructure, community facilities and public open space.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts
The height, scale and proximity of the development will result in excessive overshadowing, increased
overlooking, loss of privacy and elevated noise impacts, contrary to residential amenity and building
separation objectives within the Canada Bay DCP.
5. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The provision of 384 basement car spaces, when combined with parking demand from the adjoining Stage 2
development, will generate unacceptable cumulative traffic impacts, including congestion, pedestrian safety
risks and pressure on local roads.
6. Pedestrian Bridge and Public Domain Concerns
The proposed pedestrian bridge prioritises private resident movement rather than delivering genuine public
benefit. It contributes to excessive podium bulk and undermines ground-level pedestrian activity and public
domain outcomes.
7. Infrastructure and Services Capacity
The Development Application fails to demonstrate that existing infrastructure, public transport, waste
management systems and community services can adequately support the combined population generated by
both developments.
8. Affordable Housing Concerns
While 72 affordable housing dwellings are proposed, insufficient detail has been provided regarding their
distribution, tenure and long-term affordability. Given the scale of the overall development, the contribution is
modest and inadequately justified.
9. Grounds for Refusal
The application should be refused as it is inconsistent with LEP and DCP objectives, fails to adequately
assess cumulative impacts, results in unacceptable amenity and traffic impacts, and does not demonstrate
sufficient infrastructure capacity. The proposal is not in the public interest and is inconsistent with orderly and
economic planning.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, Development Application SSD-67636458 should be refused or substantially
redesigned to address the identified planning, amenity and infrastructure deficiencies.
Application Number: SSD-67636458
Assessment Type: State Significant Development (SSD)
Development Type: Residential & Commercial (Mixed Use)
Local Government Area: City of Canada Bay
Exhibition Period: 18 December 2025 – 21 January 2026
1. Introduction
This submission objects to Development Application SSD-67636458 for a 39-storey mixed-use development
comprising residential apartments, retail uses, basement parking, publicly accessible spaces, and a pedestrian
bridge connection to the Stage 2 podium development containing 677 residential lots within the City of Canada
Bay Local Government Area. This objection is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposed 39-storey tower is excessive in height, bulk and massing and is inconsistent with the desired
future character and built form objectives under the applicable LEP and DCP. When considered cumulatively
with the adjoining Stage 2 development comprising 677 residential lots, and reinforced by the
podium-to-podium pedestrian bridge, the development results in excessive density, visual dominance and an
over-scaled podium form.
3. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impacts
Despite the direct physical and functional integration created by the pedestrian bridge, the Development
Application assesses the proposal largely in isolation. The combined delivery of approximately 1,040 dwellings
will place unreasonable pressure on transport, infrastructure, community facilities and public open space.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts
The height, scale and proximity of the development will result in excessive overshadowing, increased
overlooking, loss of privacy and elevated noise impacts, contrary to residential amenity and building
separation objectives within the Canada Bay DCP.
5. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The provision of 384 basement car spaces, when combined with parking demand from the adjoining Stage 2
development, will generate unacceptable cumulative traffic impacts, including congestion, pedestrian safety
risks and pressure on local roads.
6. Pedestrian Bridge and Public Domain Concerns
The proposed pedestrian bridge prioritises private resident movement rather than delivering genuine public
benefit. It contributes to excessive podium bulk and undermines ground-level pedestrian activity and public
domain outcomes.
7. Infrastructure and Services Capacity
The Development Application fails to demonstrate that existing infrastructure, public transport, waste
management systems and community services can adequately support the combined population generated by
both developments.
8. Affordable Housing Concerns
While 72 affordable housing dwellings are proposed, insufficient detail has been provided regarding their
distribution, tenure and long-term affordability. Given the scale of the overall development, the contribution is
modest and inadequately justified.
9. Grounds for Refusal
The application should be refused as it is inconsistent with LEP and DCP objectives, fails to adequately
assess cumulative impacts, results in unacceptable amenity and traffic impacts, and does not demonstrate
sufficient infrastructure capacity. The proposal is not in the public interest and is inconsistent with orderly and
economic planning.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, Development Application SSD-67636458 should be refused or substantially
redesigned to address the identified planning, amenity and infrastructure deficiencies.