Its a great project. Would like to see the completion of the town centre of Rhodes Central and exciting yo see the extra amenities in the area.

I am the owner of a property at 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes 2138, and I wish to formally lodge my strong objection to the current development proposal for 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes.

Firstly, the Level 4 podium at 35 Marquet Street forms part of the common property owned collectively by all lot owners. Any use, alteration, or physical connection to this common property should not occur without the explicit consent and formal approval of the Owners Corporation. However, the proposed development seeks to connect the new project to our Level 4 podium without the agreement of the existing owners. This connection would significantly increase the number of users, placing additional strain on shared facilities, accelerating wear and tear, and increasing long-term maintenance and financial burdens for current residents. This is neither reasonable nor equitable.

Secondly, I strongly object to the proposal to connect the basement car park of the new development to the existing underground car park of 35 Marquet Street. Our car park was designed solely to accommodate the needs, traffic volumes, and safety requirements of the existing building. Any connection would increase vehicle movements, elevate traffic conflict and safety risks, and place additional pressure on existing structural capacity, ventilation systems, fire safety provisions, and ongoing maintenance responsibilities.

In addition, the proposal raises the following serious concerns:

Traffic impacts appear to be underestimated, particularly during peak periods, which will negatively affect local road safety and accessibility;

Adverse impacts on residents’ amenity, including increased congestion in common areas, noise impacts, reduced privacy, and overuse of shared facilities;

Creation of an unacceptable precedent, whereby developers may seek to utilise or attach to neighbouring buildings’ common property without proper consent, undermining property rights and community governance.

For these reasons, I believe the proposal fails to adequately consider the rights, safety, and amenity of existing residents at 35 Marquet Street and does not align with principles of fair, orderly, and sustainable development. I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the current application, or at a minimum, require that no physical connection or shared use of common property be permitted unless formal approval is obtained from the Owners Corporation of 35 Marquet Street.

I object to this project

Whilst I support the project, I wish to see the following for the project:

More storeys

More Basement Car Parking

More units set aside for essential workers like teachers and police

the current resident payed for premium residential environment, which is why housing price remains high in rhodes, open mix usage is the first step to downgraded environment and downgraded community economy

I work in the area, and this project will bring more amenities.
I strongly support!

Dear Assessment Team,

I am writing as a local property owner in Rhodes to formally object to the proposed mixed-use development with affordable housing at 23–29 Marquet Street (SSD-67636458).

While I understand the need for housing, Rhodes is already experiencing significant strain on its infrastructure, and this proposal would further intensify these issues without any corresponding upgrades. My major concerns are outlined below:

1. Road and traffic capacity has not been upgraded
The suburb is already heavily congested, and there are no new road projects planned to support the increasing number of high-rise buildings. Existing roads cannot safely or efficiently accommodate the additional traffic this development will generate.

2. No expansion of public transport
The train line remains exactly the same as it was before the rapid growth of Rhodes. There are no additional train lines or increased rail capacity planned, despite the substantial number of new high-density developments being approved. This will worsen overcrowding and reduce service reliability.

3. Insufficient bus, medical and education services
Local buses are already overcrowded, and there are not enough medical centers, GPs, or educational facilities to support the growing population. The proposal does not address how essential services will cope with thousands more residents.

4. Over-densification of a small suburb
Rhodes is becoming increasingly crowded, with more and more high-rise towers approved without a balanced assessment of livability or long-term community impact. It appears that the priority has been to maximize development rather than ensuring residents have a sustainable and healthy living environment.

As a local owner, I strongly oppose this proposed development. Without meaningful infrastructure investment, residents’ quality of life will continue to decline. I urge the Department to reject this proposal or require significant infrastructure improvements as a condition of approval.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,
Local resident

We object to the proposal for a new residential tower to share the existing Level 4 communal facilities, including the swimming pool and spa. These facilities were approved, designed, funded, and managed solely for the existing building and its current resident population, and their capacity is already limited under normal use. Extending access to an additional development would result in over-utilisation, reduced amenity, and increased safety and maintenance risks. The existing building management structure is not resourced or contracted to manage facilities for another building, making the proposed arrangement unrealistic and impractical. Furthermore, there are unresolved operational and maintenance issues associated with the facilities that should be addressed before any consideration of increased demand. Existing residents have also made direct financial contributions toward security and infrastructure measures, including CCTV installation, and it would be inequitable for another development to benefit from these investments without equivalent contribution. The proposed shared use represents a material departure from the original approval intent and from the reasonable expectations of existing residents, and for these reasons we respectfully request that Council reject the shared-facility component of the proposal or require the new development to provide its own independent communal amenities.

I am a local resident in the neighbouring strata building and object to the proposal, particularly the plan to allow residents of the new development to access our private facilities and parking via a shared path.

Our strata complex already operates at full capacity. Visitor parking is extremely limited, and our shared facilities (including pool, spa, sauna, steam room, cinema and BBQ areas) are heavily used by existing residents. Even under current usage, the owners corporation is required to undertake repairs and maintenance at least monthly, resulting in ongoing disruption and financial burden for residents.

These facilities and parking spaces were approved, funded, and designed solely for building D and E in the original plan when I purchased the apartment. The proposal would unfairly transfer the infrastructure, maintenance, or even safety concerns onto our building , without capacity or consent.

In addition, creating an access path through our building raises serious concerns regarding security, privacy, safety, and precedent, effectively turning private residential space into a shared thoroughfare.

Given the high property values and density already present in this area, the planning justification for this form of development — particularly one that relies on neighbouring private infrastructure — is unclear. Any new development should be required to provide independent access, parking, and facilities, without reliance on other buildings

I respectfully request that Council reject or amend the proposal to remove all shared access through our building.

I strongly disagree with this proposal