I wish to raise serious concerns regarding the proposed 39-storey development and the proposed connection to our existing buildings’ underground car park and Level 4 communal platform.

Our residential buildings are already experiencing increasing security issues, including parcel thefts in the lobby, break-ins to basement storage cages, and unauthorised access by non-residents. These issues indicate that existing security measures are under strain and would be significantly worsened by increased through-traffic resulting from the proposed connection.

The proposed shared access to the Level 4 communal platform is also unfair to the existing two buildings, which together comprise approximately 677 dwellings. This communal space was designed for current residents only and is already subject to misuse by non-residents, including unauthorised gatherings, noise disturbances, and antisocial behaviour.

In addition, the cumulative increase in population density would place further pressure on local infrastructure. Traffic congestion in the surrounding area is already frequent, and the proposal risks exacerbating these conditions.

For these reasons, I object to any proposal involving shared access or physical integration between the new development and our existing residential buildings and request complete separation of access, parking, and communal facilities.

Due to the already high population density in the Rhodes area, local infrastructure and community capacity are under significant pressure. In order to maintain the area’s existing residential character and preserve its local advantages, the introduction of additional affordable housing apartments in this location is not appropriate.
Traffic congestion is already a frequent and serious issue in and around Rhodes, and any further increase in population would place additional strain on the road network and public transport services. In addition, the neighbouring area of Wentworth Point relies heavily on the Rhodes train station as its primary transport hub, which is already operating at or near capacity. Further high-density residential development would therefore result in a disproportionate impact on transport infrastructure and the quality of life for existing residents.
For these reasons, we do not support the proposed affordable housing apartment development and high level apartment in the Rhodes area.

I am a local resident and property owner in Rhodes and I am writing to provide comments on the above State Significant Development application.
I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply, including affordable housing, and I generally support well-planned mixed-use developments that enhance local amenity. However, I have several concerns regarding the scale, impacts, and long-term implications of this proposal that I respectfully request the Department consider as part of its assessment.
1. Scale, Height and Density
The proposed 39-storey development represents a significant increase in height and density compared to surrounding buildings in Market Street and Walker Street. While high-density development is anticipated in Rhodes, the cumulative impact of multiple large-scale projects within a limited area raises concerns regarding:
• Visual bulk and overshadowing
• Loss of outlook and daylight for existing residential buildings
• Reduced residential amenity at street and podium levels
I request that the Department carefully assess whether the proposed height and massing are appropriate for this site, particularly in relation to neighbouring residential properties.
2. Construction Impacts and Duration
Given the size and complexity of the proposal, the construction period is likely to extend over several years. This will have unavoidable impacts on nearby residents, including:
• Noise and vibration
• Dust and air quality impacts
• Increased heavy vehicle movements on Market Street and surrounding roads
I request that strict construction management conditions be imposed, including limited construction hours, clear truck routes, and ongoing compliance monitoring.
3. Traffic, Parking and Pedestrian Safety
The proposal includes 361 apartments, 14 ground-floor retail tenancies, and shared basement parking. Market Street and nearby intersections already experience congestion during peak periods.
I am concerned that:
• Additional vehicle movements may worsen local traffic congestion
• Increased pedestrian activity may create safety issues, particularly near site access points
• On-street parking pressure may increase despite basement parking provision
I request a detailed and conservative traffic and transport assessment, including clear mitigation measures. Even the current ongoing project in Marquest street significantly impact our day to day travel experience.
4. Affordable Housing Integration and Management
While I support the inclusion of affordable housing, it is important that these dwellings are well integrated and managed to ensure long-term residential quality and community cohesion.
I request confirmation that:
• Affordable housing units will be fully integrated with no visible differentiation
• Ongoing management and maintenance arrangements are clearly defined
• Appropriate design standards are applied to all dwellings equally
Based on the Bondi tragedy, I believe the residents safety will be our first priority. If the affordable housing project initiative in Rhodes area, the local police force should be also match the requirements with the potential terror attacks. And base on the people density, any tiny mistake and gun misused will cause unpredictable consequences.
5. Cumulative Impact on Rhodes Precinct
Rhodes is currently experiencing multiple large developments simultaneously. The cumulative impact on infrastructure, open space, transport capacity, and overall liveability should be a key consideration, rather than assessing this proposal in isolation.

Conclusion
In summary, while I acknowledge the broader strategic objectives of this proposal, I request that the Department carefully consider the issues outlined above and apply appropriate conditions or design refinements to minimise negative impacts on existing residents and the surrounding area.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this application.
———————————————————————————
Declaration
I request that this submission be considered as part of the formal assessment process.

I wish to formally object to the proposed 39 storey mixed use development at 23 to 29 Marquet Street on the grounds that the existing and planned infrastructure within the precinct is demonstrably inadequate to support a further 361 apartments.

Infrastructure Capacity and Cumulative Impact

The local area is already experiencing significant strain due to recent high rise developments, additional approved towers currently under construction, and the opening of the new recreation centre. When assessed cumulatively, these developments have exceeded the carrying capacity of existing transport, road, and community infrastructure. The proposal fails to adequately address or mitigate these cumulative impacts.

Traffic Congestion and Parking Deficiency

Parking availability in the precinct is already critically insufficient. On street parking is consistently at capacity, and vehicle circulation is increasingly congested throughout the day, particularly during peak hours. The addition of hundreds of new dwellings will further exacerbate traffic congestion, reduce road safety, and negatively affect emergency vehicle access. The proposal does not provide a realistic solution to these issues.

Public Transport Constraints

Public transport infrastructure is already operating beyond acceptable limits. During peak periods, residents regularly experience extended wait times at the train station, with shuttle bus services to Wentworth Point frequently overcrowded and delayed. The proposal relies heavily on public transport usage without demonstrating how existing services can accommodate a substantial increase in population.

Lack of Educational and Social Infrastructure

There are no schools within reasonable proximity to service the growing residential population. This places undue pressure on surrounding suburbs and creates daily transport inefficiencies for families. The proposal does not include or meaningfully contribute to the provision of educational facilities, childcare capacity, or other essential community services.

Overdevelopment and Urban Amenity

The scale and height of the proposed development are excessive and inconsistent with the capacity of the surrounding area. The building bulk will contribute to overdevelopment, resulting in adverse impacts including overshadowing, wind tunnelling, loss of privacy, and reduced residential amenity for neighbouring properties.

Absence of Timely Infrastructure Delivery

There is no clear, enforceable commitment that essential infrastructure upgrades will be delivered prior to or concurrent with the occupation of the proposed apartments. Without guaranteed staging and funding of infrastructure works, approval of this development would be premature and contrary to sound strategic planning principles.

Conclusion

Given the existing infrastructure deficiencies, cumulative impacts of surrounding developments, and lack of essential services, this proposal represents an unsustainable intensification of the precinct. Approval would place unreasonable pressure on transport networks, community facilities, and existing residents.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse the proposed development application at 23 to 29 Marquet Street.

Submission Of Objection – 23 Marquet Street, Rhodes NSW 2138
To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: State Development – 23 Marquet Street, Rhodes NSW 2138
Legislation: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) – Sections 4.12 and 4.36
________________________________________
1. Introduction
I make this submission to object to the proposed State Development at 23 Marquet Street, Rhodes NSW 2138. This objection is made pursuant to sections 4.12 and 4.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act), and on broader strategic planning, environmental, amenity and public interest grounds.

The proposed development, when considered in its cumulative and ongoing impacts, will result in unreasonable and unacceptable adverse effects on existing residents, surrounding properties, and the local area. These impacts have not been adequately mitigated, justified, or balanced against the public interest.

________________________________________
2. Legislative Framework
2.1 Section 4.12 – Matters for Consideration
Section 4.12 of the EP&A Act requires the consent authority to consider:
• The provisions of any environmental planning instrument.
• Likely impacts of the development, including environmental, social and economic impacts.
• The suitability of the site for the development.
• Any submissions made in accordance with the Act.
• The public interest.

2.2 Section 4.36 – State Significant Development Considerations
Section 4.36 requires the consent authority to assess State significant development having regard to similar considerations, including whether the development is in the public interest and whether adverse impacts are acceptable when balanced against any purported benefits.

It is submitted that the proposal fails these statutory tests.

________________________________________
3. Grounds of Objection
3.1 Ongoing Construction Impacts: Dust, Noise and Disruption
Residents in the Rhodes area are already experiencing prolonged and continuous construction activity from multiple developments. The proposal will exacerbate existing impacts, including:
• Dust generation, affecting air quality, health, and residents’ ability to open windows or use balconies as well as dry clothes thereby increasing the use of electrical appliances such as driers thereby increasing the cost of living and harm to the planet by using additional power.
• Excessive construction noise, often commencing early and extending throughout the day, interfering with work-from-home arrangements, rest, and general wellbeing.
• Vibration and mechanical noise from heavy machinery that is particularly intrusive in high-density residential settings.

These impacts are not short-term or isolated but form part of an ongoing pattern of disruption that has already exceeded reasonable community tolerance.

________________________________________
3.2 Traffic Congestion and Safety Impacts
The local road network is under significant strain. The development will:
• Create safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and residents due to increased congestion and heavy vehicle interaction.
• Degrading access to free parking for residents and visitors will increase the cost of living and reduce traffic circulation as well as increase safety hazards as already residents must resort to double parking to drop off or pick up family / friends or wait for a parked vehicle to depart.
• Increase construction vehicle movements on narrow local streets. I have numerous photos which are available whereby plant and trucks routinely transgress lanes to make turns on streets that are not designed for such traffic as well as traffic banking up over multiple blocks associated with the existing construction at the corner of Marquet and Mary Streets. The honking of horns is constant due to the frustration of residents who just want to get out of the driveway let alone the suburb.
• Increasing long-term residential traffic without commensurate road upgrades further exacerbates existing limitations noting the insanity that is inhibiting movement along the Rhodes Bay Bridge to solely public transport vehicles. There is nothing in the provided plans that enables pedestrian traffic to be redirected, for example an overhead walkway from the train station to Rhodes Central Shopping Centre which is desperately required or pick up areas for non public transport vehicles for bus and train patrons.
• Worsen peak-hour congestion in and around Rhodes.

The proposal does not demonstrate that the existing road infrastructure has the capacity to safely and efficiently absorb these additional traffic demands either in the intermediate term of construction nor long term post occupation.

________________________________________
3.3 Inadequate Parking Provision
Parking in Rhodes is already severely constrained. The proposal will:
• Create enforcement and access issues for emergency and service vehicles.
• Diminish amenity for existing residents and visitors.
• Increase competition for limited on-street parking noting the preceding reference in 3.2 regarding availability of free parking.
• Lead to overflow parking in surrounding residential streets.

The lack of adequate parking provision reflects an overdevelopment of the site relative to local infrastructure capacity.

________________________________________
3.4 Loss of Sunlight, Overshadowing and Amenity Impacts
The bulk, scale and proximity of the proposed development will:
• Block sunlight to nearby apartments and common areas.
• Create a sense of overbearing built form and visual dominance over neighbouring properties.
• Reduce access to natural light, which is a critical component of residential amenity and wellbeing.
• Result in increased overshadowing, particularly during winter months.

These impacts will significantly diminish the liveability of existing dwellings and are inconsistent with principles of good urban design.

________________________________________
3.5 Encroachment and Loss of Privacy
The proposed development encroaches unreasonably on nearby apartments by:
• Creating a perception of crowding and overdevelopment.
• Increasing opportunities for overlooking and loss of privacy.
• Reducing separation distances between buildings.

Such impacts are particularly acute in high-density environments and have not been adequately addressed or mitigated. Note that there is no increasing of public thoroughfare nor creation / expansion to existing parkland.

________________________________________
3.6 Diminution of Property Values
As a direct consequence of:
• Increasing cost of living with the impending competition for existing amenities.
• Increasing noise, traffic and congestion resulting from constant disruption associated with construction.
• Loss of sunlight and outlook.
• Reducing amenities and privacy.

Existing properties in the vicinity are likely to suffer a measurable diminution in value. This represents an inequitable transfer of burden onto existing residents for the benefit of a private development.

________________________________________
3.7 Lack of Supporting Infrastructure
The proposal fails to address the deficiency in local infrastructure, including:
• Free parking facilities.
• Road capacity and traffic management.
• Recreational infrastructure.

The cumulative effect of successive developments has not been matched by proportional infrastructure investment, rendering further intensification inappropriate.

________________________________________
3.8 Insufficient Public Transport Capacity
While Rhodes is nominally serviced by public transport, in practice:
• Access to train services is not sufficient to servicing patrons in the area during peak periods noting the afore mentioned absence of a walkway that bridges the high density Rhodes Central Shopping Centre and Rhodes Train Station. The pedestrian crossing causes massive disruption to traffic of which I am able to supply ample pictures of vehicles cueing over multiple blocks. The resulting safety implications similarly are not address by this proposal.
• Bus services are limited and unreliable.
• Increased population density will further strain existing services.

The proposal relies on theoretical access to public transport without addressing actual service capacity and user experience.

________________________________________
4. Public Interest Considerations
When assessed holistically, the proposal:
• Fails to provide adequate infrastructure or mitigation measures thereby exacerbating safety hazards and degradation to well being.
• Imposes disproportionate impacts on existing residents.
• Prioritises development yield over residential amenity.
• Undermines confidence in orderly and sustainable urban planning.

The development is therefore not in the public interest as required under sections 4.12 and 4.36 of the EP&A Act.

________________________________________
5. Conclusion and Requested Outcome
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully submit that the proposed State Development at 23 Marquet Street, Rhodes NSW 2138 should be:
• Conditional upon demonstrable upgrades to infrastructure (with particular reference to long term free parking), traffic management, parking provision, construction impact mitigation, and protection of residential amenity that is to precede the development itself.
• Refused or Substantially redesigned to substantially reduce scale and scope.

I request that this submission be given full and genuine consideration in the assessment of the proposal.

________________________________________
Submitted by:
Resident
8A Mary Street Rhodes NSW 2138
18th December 2025

Dear Planning Portal Team,

I am writing as a resident of 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), particularly any proposed shared connections to existing common areas and the inaccuracies identified in the EIS traffic data.

As a Stage 2 resident, I strongly oppose any interconnection that would allow Stage 3 residents to access Stage 2 common property, including the fourth-floor podium and basement car park. Stage 2 residents have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities, nor should reciprocal access be imposed.

1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium

The construction, maintenance, surveillance camera installation (approximately $50,000), and ongoing operational costs of the podium have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing Stage 3 residents access without fair and enforceable contribution would be inequitable and would impose additional financial and management burdens on Stage 2.

Further, since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced numerous ongoing issues, demonstrating the difficulty of managing even the current user base, including:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
b. unauthorised non-residents flying drones;
c. photography of intimate apparel;
d. inappropriate door design in high winds causing resident injuries;
e. unexplained static electricity hazards;
f. widespread littering, including discarded baby diapers, balloons, and food;
g. large unauthorised parties;
h. damaged dog park turf;
i. abandoned toys and flotation devices in pool and spa areas;
j. lack of a booking system, leading to resident–visitor conflicts.

Stage 2 residents are already struggling to manage these issues internally. Introducing additional users from Stage 3 would significantly exacerbate safety risks, maintenance demands, and community conflict.

2. Connection to the Basement Car Park

The existing basement car park already suffers from frequent roller shutter door damage, motor power shortages, and recurring storage thefts. Any interconnection with Stage 3 would increase usage, wear, and security risks, further compromising safety and functionality for existing residents unless substantial mitigation measures were implemented.

3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions

Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely limited and difficult to manage. Once fully developed, the precinct will accommodate over 1,600 apartments, potentially housing approximately 3,500 residents. The shared visitor parking provisions—believed to be limited to a very small number of spaces—are clearly inadequate for a development of this scale and density.

Requiring thousands of residents and visitors to compete for minimal parking will inevitably lead to chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and disputes. The proposal must provide substantially more dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to avoid overburdening existing infrastructure.

4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data

The EIS relies on outdated 2021 data regarding residents’ travel behaviour, which no longer reflects current realities following post-pandemic shifts in commuting patterns, remote work, and increased local activity.

In addition, 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 frequent roller shutter failures are attributable to excessive motor usage. Over a period of 426 days, the shutter motor has operated more than 500,000 cycles, averaging approximately 1,173 operations per day.

On this basis, and assuming traffic demand is evenly distributed between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 alone would be expected to generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. During peak periods, usage would reasonably account for at least half of daily movements, indicating an estimated 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.

These figures starkly contrast with the EIS peak hour estimates and demonstrate that actual and future traffic conditions are being materially underestimated.

5. Increased Complexity of Shared Management

Under the current Strata Management Statement, Stages 1 and 2, retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts. Even with a limited number of shared accounts between Stage 1 and Stage 2, coordinating budgets, allocating costs fairly, and resolving disputes is already highly complex.

For this reason, Stage 2 residents do not support the introduction of any additional shared facilities with Stage 3 beyond the existing shared arrangements. Expanding shared facilities would significantly increase management complexity and make fair cost allocation and effective administration extremely difficult.

Conclusion

In summary, I oppose any proposal that would require Stage 2 residents to share common areas with Stage 3 or allow reciprocal access. I respectfully urge the Department to prohibit these interconnections or, at a minimum, impose strict safeguards, including enforceable proportional cost-sharing, comprehensive security and maintenance upgrades, and substantially increased visitor parking provisions. I also request that the EIS traffic assessments be updated using current data to accurately reflect actual and future impacts.

I confirm that the above statements are made truthfully to the best of my knowledge. Should further confirmation be required, the building management team may be contacted at: [email protected].

Thank you for considering this submission.

Kind regards,
Leon Wen

I am a resident of 36 Walker Street, Rhodes, and I write to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application No. SSD-67636458). My objection relates specifically to any proposed physical or operational interconnection with Stage 2 common property, as well as significant inaccuracies contained within the EIS traffic assessment.
As a Stage 2 resident, I strongly oppose any arrangement that would permit Stage 3 residents or visitors to access Stage 2 common areas, including the fourth-floor podium and the basement car park. Stage 2 residents have no requirement or benefit from access to Stage 3 facilities, and reciprocal access should not be imposed.
1. Fourth-Floor Podium Interconnection
The design, construction, maintenance, surveillance infrastructure (approximately $50,000), and ongoing operational costs of the fourth-floor podium have been entirely funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing access by Stage 3 residents without clearly enforceable and proportionate financial contributions would be inequitable and would impose additional financial, security, and management burdens on Stage 2 owners.
Since opening in August 2025, the podium has already experienced persistent and serious management issues, including but not limited to:
excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
unauthorised drone use by non-residents;
inappropriate photography, including of intimate apparel;
unsafe door design in high winds resulting in resident injuries;
unexplained static electricity hazards;
widespread littering, including baby nappies, food waste, and balloons;
unauthorised large gatherings and parties;
damage to dog park turf;
abandoned toys and flotation devices in pool and spa areas; and
the absence of a booking system, resulting in frequent disputes between residents and visitors.
Stage 2 residents are already struggling to manage these issues within the existing user group. Expanding access to include Stage 3 residents would significantly exacerbate safety risks, maintenance demands, and community conflict.
2. Basement Car Park Interconnection
The existing basement car park is already subject to operational and security issues, including frequent roller shutter failures, motor power capacity constraints, and recurring incidents of storage cage theft. Any interconnection with Stage 3 would materially increase usage, wear, and security risks, further compromising safety and functionality for Stage 2 residents unless substantial mitigation measures were introduced.
3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provision
Visitor parking within the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely constrained. Upon full completion, the precinct will contain over 1,600 apartments and an estimated resident population of approximately 3,500 people. The proposed shared visitor parking provision—understood to be limited to a very small number of spaces—is clearly inadequate for a development of this scale and density.
Insufficient visitor parking will inevitably result in congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and increased disputes. The proposal must provide substantially increased dedicated visitor parking or alternative measures to prevent overburdening existing infrastructure.
4. Inaccurate and Outdated EIS Traffic Assessment
The EIS relies on resident travel behaviour data from 2021, which no longer reflects current conditions following post-pandemic changes in commuting patterns, remote work, and increased local activity.
Furthermore, the traffic flow estimates presented in the EIS materially understate actual usage. Peak hour volumes of 50–60 vehicles are inconsistent with observed conditions at Stage 2. Over a 426-day period, the basement roller shutter motor recorded more than 500,000 operational cycles—an average of approximately 1,173 operations per day—directly contributing to frequent mechanical failures.
Assuming traffic demand is evenly split between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 alone would reasonably generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. During peak periods, this would equate to approximately 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour. These figures are fundamentally inconsistent with the EIS estimates and demonstrate a significant underestimation of actual and future traffic impacts.
5. Excessive Complexity of Shared Management Arrangements
Under the current Strata Management Statement, Stages 1 and 2, retail areas, and council-related entities already share more than 200 accounts. Even with the limited shared arrangements that currently exist, coordinating budgets, allocating costs equitably, and resolving disputes is already highly complex.
For this reason, Stage 2 residents do not support the introduction of any additional shared facilities or services with Stage 3 beyond those already established. Expanding shared arrangements would substantially increase administrative complexity and undermine effective governance and fair cost allocation.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I oppose any proposal that would require Stage 2 residents to share common property with Stage 3 or permit reciprocal access to Stage 2 facilities. I respectfully request that the Department prohibit such interconnections or, at a minimum, impose strict conditions, including enforceable proportional cost-sharing, enhanced security and maintenance measures, and significantly increased visitor parking provisions. I further request that the EIS traffic assessment be revised using current data to accurately reflect actual and future impacts.
I confirm that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Should further verification be required, the building management team may be contacted at [email protected]

Dear Planning Portal Team,

I am writing as a resident of 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), particularly any proposed shared connections to existing common areas and the inaccuracies identified in the EIS traffic data.

As a Stage 2 resident, I strongly oppose any interconnection that would allow Stage 3 residents to access Stage 2 common property, including the fourth-floor podium and basement car park. Stage 2 residents have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities, nor should reciprocal access be imposed.

1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium

The construction, maintenance, surveillance camera installation (approximately $50,000), and ongoing operational costs of the podium have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing Stage 3 residents access without fair and enforceable contribution would be inequitable and would impose additional financial and management burdens on Stage 2.

Further, since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced numerous ongoing issues, demonstrating the difficulty of managing even the current user base, including:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
b. unauthorised non-residents flying drones;
c. photography of intimate apparel;
d. inappropriate door design in high winds causing resident injuries;
e. unexplained static electricity hazards;
f. widespread littering, including discarded baby diapers, balloons, and food;
g. large unauthorised parties;
h. damaged dog park turf;
i. abandoned toys and flotation devices in pool and spa areas;
j. lack of a booking system, leading to resident–visitor conflicts.

Stage 2 residents are already struggling to manage these issues internally. Introducing additional users from Stage 3 would significantly exacerbate safety risks, maintenance demands, and community conflict.

2. Connection to the Basement Car Park

The existing basement car park already suffers from frequent roller shutter door damage, motor power shortages, and recurring storage thefts. Any interconnection with Stage 3 would increase usage, wear, and security risks, further compromising safety and functionality for existing residents unless substantial mitigation measures were implemented.

3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions

Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely limited and difficult to manage. Once fully developed, the precinct will accommodate over 1,600 apartments, potentially housing approximately 3,500 residents. The shared visitor parking provisions—believed to be limited to a very small number of spaces—are clearly inadequate for a development of this scale and density.

Requiring thousands of residents and visitors to compete for minimal parking will inevitably lead to chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and disputes. The proposal must provide substantially more dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to avoid overburdening existing infrastructure.

4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data

The EIS relies on outdated 2021 data regarding residents’ travel behaviour, which no longer reflects current realities following post-pandemic shifts in commuting patterns, remote work, and increased local activity.

In addition, 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 frequent roller shutter failures are attributable to excessive motor usage. Over a period of 426 days, the shutter motor has operated more than 500,000 cycles, averaging approximately 1,173 operations per day.

On this basis, and assuming traffic demand is evenly distributed between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 alone would be expected to generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. During peak periods, usage would reasonably account for at least half of daily movements, indicating an estimated 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.

These figures starkly contrast with the EIS peak hour estimates and demonstrate that actual and future traffic conditions are being materially underestimated.

5. Increased Complexity of Shared Management

Under the current Strata Management Statement, Stages 1 and 2, retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts. Even with a limited number of shared accounts between Stage 1 and Stage 2, coordinating budgets, allocating costs fairly, and resolving disputes is already highly complex.

For this reason, Stage 2 residents do not support the introduction of any additional shared facilities with Stage 3 beyond the existing shared arrangements. Expanding shared facilities would significantly increase management complexity and make fair cost allocation and effective administration extremely difficult.

Conclusion

In summary, I oppose any proposal that would require Stage 2 residents to share common areas with Stage 3 or allow reciprocal access. I respectfully urge the Department to prohibit these interconnections or, at a minimum, impose strict safeguards, including enforceable proportional cost-sharing, comprehensive security and maintenance upgrades, and substantially increased visitor parking provisions. I also request that the EIS traffic assessments be updated using current data to accurately reflect actual and future impacts.

I confirm that the above statements are made truthfully to the best of my knowledge. Should further confirmation be required, the building management team may be contacted at: [email protected].

Thank you for considering this submission.

Dear Planning Portal Team,

I am writing as a resident of 35 Marquet Street, Rhodes, to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458), particularly any proposed shared connections to existing common areas and the inaccuracies identified in the EIS traffic data.

As a Stage 2 resident, I strongly oppose any interconnection that would allow Stage 3 residents to access Stage 2 common property, including the fourth-floor podium and basement car park. Stage 2 residents have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities, nor should reciprocal access be imposed.

1. Connection to the Fourth-Floor Podium

The construction, maintenance, surveillance camera installation (approximately $50,000), and ongoing operational costs of the podium have been fully funded by Stage 2 residents. Allowing Stage 3 residents access without fair and enforceable contribution would be inequitable and would impose additional financial and management burdens on Stage 2.

Further, since the podium opened in August 2025, it has already experienced numerous ongoing issues, demonstrating the difficulty of managing even the current user base, including:
a. excessive visitor traffic and overcrowding;
b. unauthorised non-residents flying drones;
c. photography of intimate apparel;
d. inappropriate door design in high winds causing resident injuries;
e. unexplained static electricity hazards;
f. widespread littering, including discarded baby diapers, balloons, and food;
g. large unauthorised parties;
h. damaged dog park turf;
i. abandoned toys and flotation devices in pool and spa areas;
j. lack of a booking system, leading to resident–visitor conflicts.

Stage 2 residents are already struggling to manage these issues internally. Introducing additional users from Stage 3 would significantly exacerbate safety risks, maintenance demands, and community conflict.

2. Connection to the Basement Car Park

The existing basement car park already suffers from frequent roller shutter door damage, motor power shortages, and recurring storage thefts. Any interconnection with Stage 3 would increase usage, wear, and security risks, further compromising safety and functionality for existing residents unless substantial mitigation measures were implemented.

3. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions

Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely limited and difficult to manage. Once fully developed, the precinct will accommodate over 1,600 apartments, potentially housing approximately 3,500 residents. The shared visitor parking provisions—believed to be limited to a very small number of spaces—are clearly inadequate for a development of this scale and density.

Requiring thousands of residents and visitors to compete for minimal parking will inevitably lead to chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and disputes. The proposal must provide substantially more dedicated visitor parking or alternative solutions to avoid overburdening existing infrastructure.

4. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data

The EIS relies on outdated 2021 data regarding residents’ travel behaviour, which no longer reflects current realities following post-pandemic shifts in commuting patterns, remote work, and increased local activity.

In addition, 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 frequent roller shutter failures are attributable to excessive motor usage. Over a period of 426 days, the shutter motor has operated more than 500,000 cycles, averaging approximately 1,173 operations per day.

On this basis, and assuming traffic demand is evenly distributed between entry and exit movements, Stage 3 alone would be expected to generate at least 586 vehicle movements per day. During peak periods, usage would reasonably account for at least half of daily movements, indicating an estimated 200–300 vehicle movements per peak hour.

These figures starkly contrast with the EIS peak hour estimates and demonstrate that actual and future traffic conditions are being materially underestimated.

5. Increased Complexity of Shared Management

Under the current Strata Management Statement, Stages 1 and 2, retail areas, and council-related entities already share over 200 accounts. Even with a limited number of shared accounts between Stage 1 and Stage 2, coordinating budgets, allocating costs fairly, and resolving disputes is already highly complex.

For this reason, Stage 2 residents do not support the introduction of any additional shared facilities with Stage 3 beyond the existing shared arrangements. Expanding shared facilities would significantly increase management complexity and make fair cost allocation and effective administration extremely difficult.

Conclusion

In summary, I oppose any proposal that would require Stage 2 residents to share common areas with Stage 3 or allow reciprocal access. I respectfully urge the Department to prohibit these interconnections or, at a minimum, impose strict safeguards, including enforceable proportional cost-sharing, comprehensive security and maintenance upgrades, and substantially increased visitor parking provisions. I also request that the EIS traffic assessments be updated using current data to accurately reflect actual and future impacts.

I confirm that the above statements are made truthfully to the best of my knowledge. Should further confirmation be required, the building management team may be contacted at: [email protected].

Thank you for considering this submission.

Dear Planning Portal Team,
I am writing as a resident of 8 Walker Street, Rhodes to formally object to aspects of the proposed mixed-use development at 23–29 Marquet Street, Rhodes (Application Number: SSD-67636458). My concerns relate primarily to proposed shared connections with existing common areas and significant inaccuracies within the EIS traffic assessment.

1. Proposed Connection to the Basement Car Park
Stage 1 residents strongly oppose any interconnection that would allow Stage 3 residents to access our existing common property, particularly the basement car park. The current car park already experiences frequent roller shutter door failures, motor overload issues, and recurring incidents of theft from storage areas. Any additional connection would increase usage, accelerate wear and tear, heighten security risks, and create further disruption for current residents. We have no interest in accessing Stage 3 facilities and do not support reciprocal access arrangements.

2. Inadequate Visitor Parking Provisions
Visitor parking across the Rhodes Central precinct is already severely constrained. Once fully completed, the development is expected to accommodate more than 1,600 apartments and approximately 3,500 residents. The limited number of shared visitor parking spaces currently proposed is wholly inadequate for a development of this scale. This shortfall will inevitably lead to chronic congestion, unauthorised parking, resident frustration, and ongoing conflict. The proposal must include substantially more dedicated visitor parking or provide practical alternative solutions to avoid overburdening existing facilities.

3. Inaccuracies in EIS Traffic Data
The EIS relies on outdated 2021 data regarding travel patterns in Rhodes, which no longer reflects post-pandemic commuting behaviour or the impact of subsequent local development. In addition, the reported traffic volumes—particularly peak hour estimates of only 50–60 vehicles—do not align with actual operating conditions.
Evidence from Stage 2 demonstrates significantly higher usage. Over a 426-day period, the car park roller shutter motor recorded more than 500,000 cycles, averaging approximately 1,173 operations per day. Even on a conservative basis, this equates to at least 586 vehicle movements per day, with an estimated 200–300 movements per peak hour. These figures indicate that the EIS substantially underestimates both current and future traffic demand.

4. Increased Complexity for the Building Management Committee
The existing Strata Management Statement already requires coordination between Stages 1 and 2, retail areas, and council entities across more than 200 shared accounts. Even the current limited sharing arrangements are administratively complex and difficult to manage fairly.

Introducing additional shared facilities with Stage 3 would significantly increase this burden and make effective budgeting, cost allocation, and dispute resolution even more challenging. For this reason, Stage 1 residents do not support any expansion of shared facilities beyond the current arrangements.

Conclusion
In summary, we strongly oppose any proposal that would connect Stage 3 to our existing common areas or car park. We request that the Department prohibit these interconnections or, at a minimum, mandate strict safeguards including proportional cost-sharing, enhanced security and maintenance measures, and a substantial increase in dedicated visitor parking. We also urge that the traffic assessment be updated using current and accurate data to properly reflect real impacts.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Sincerely,
Resident
8 Walker Street
Rhodes NSW 2138