205-213 Euston Road Alexandria NSW 2015

APPEAL TO THE LAND & ENVIRONMENT COURT – RE-NOTIFICATION OF AMENDED PLANS: Construction of eight mixed use buildings comprising residential apartments, commercial uses, two basement levels, services, utilities, landscaping and roof top energy generation. The application is integrated development requiring the approval of Water NSW under the Water Management Act 2000 and the Roads and Maritime Service under the Roads Act 1993. Proposed changes are to building design including height and setbacks, landscaping, and Euston Road traffic design.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 3 years ago. It was received by them almost 3 years earlier.

(Source: City of Sydney, reference D/2018/907)

86 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Barton Barrack commented

    390 units adjacent to a feeder road from the new Westconnex interchange represents a gross over development of the site. The deceleration lane referred to will not stop gridlock on Euston Road for many hours a day .
    Any development on site should be smaller and have a much larger green space adjacent to Sydney Park.

  2. Rene Michaels commented

    Too many apartments within close vicinity to this development. Gross over-development with no contribution to green space. Being so close to Westconnex will only add to the gridlock. A big rethink of better balance is needed.

  3. Joe levitt commented

    This is still gross overdevelopment without adequate green space for the area. It seems this will be modified/resubmitted with minor tweaks until people are worn down. It is tiresome to have to keep reiterating these obvious and legitimate concerns.

  4. Andrew Bassett commented

    Oh come on! This block should have been purchased by the state and included in Sydney Park as some sort of salve for the havoc and bitumenisation WestConnex is bringing to this area. Also with the rapid increase in density in this and surrounding suburbs people NEED parkland and greenery for their sanity. So it was not purchased but the LEAST the council or planning dept. could now do would be not to roll over and allow such a huge development to dominate one of the most beautiful parks in Sydney. This masterpiece of naturalistic landscaping will now be lit up day and night by theses apartment blocks, losing much of it’s gentle, million miles from anywhere character.

    Incredible that you can allow developers to use precious public land as their front yard. I am disgusted by the lack of proper town planning and community consideration that is occurring in Sydney at the moment. It seems nobody making these decisions has any idea how to make a great, civilised city. Who benefits? The developers, the big building companies, future residents(coming from where…very few locals will be able to afford these apartments ??), the current State governments balance sheets …not any of the locals or current park users. They just can’t resist a dollar or the current growth and development zeitgeist.

    Take this as an objection to the size and location of this development.

  5. Jessica Januszewski commented

    Far too much residential over development in an area which is already struggling to cope with a massive increase in residents and new accommodation. This land should be returned to parkland. The park is already going to be surrounded by cars, traffic and a new motorway. It sets a precedent to developers that with the right amount of cash they can build on Greenland.

  6. Michael Dandy commented

    Completely agree with previous comments, gross overdevelopment and should be rejected.
    How much more of this do we have suffer as a community - Sydney really has become a developers playground do we have any control at all over what happens in our community anymore. Apologies everyone for the rant but enough is enough !!

  7. Rebecca Ames commented

    This area doesn't need more apartments, especially not ones abive a feeder road and a conglomeration of roads spewing out pollution. Instead, you should preserve this precious green space for the surrounding residents.
    This is just gross overdevelopment by greedy developers.

  8. alex willis commented

    More units, more traffic, more people living in a concrete, polluted, noisy environment. Another example of developers and the greedy state government doing whatever will win them the next election and fill their bank accounts instead of listening to the people who live here. Shameful. Just shameful.

  9. Karen commented

    Objecting to this gross overdevelopment! The area is already overcrowded with too many units, too many cars. Our roads cannot cope with existing traffic levels.
    Syd Park is an oasis, a beautiful green space. This development will ruin the park. Stand up city of Sydney council, protect the park, stop this greedy madness. Please.

  10. Peter Ross commented

    This is development gone mad. The city has to breathe. More trees, fewer apartments and cars and trucks is what we need, not more money channelled into the pockets of greedy developers who have bought off the major political parties.

  11. Catherine Kennedy commented

    This is gross overdevelopment and does no favours for the future buyers and Sydney Park users. The last census showed 1,000,000 empty dwellings in Australia. Who benefits? The developers.
    This development will downgrade beautiful Sydney Park, once an oasis for birdlife and residents but now damaged by Westconnex and unsympathetic apartments.

  12. Margaret Hogg commented

    Surely City of Sydney has an obligation to protect the public from such living conditions. With research indicating a 17 percent increase in Diabetics instances with every 500 metres you get closer to a Magor road, due to the particulates impact on the body (causing adrenal regulation in the body) With other linked negative impacts in health and well being to individuals and the State budget THIS area is inappropriate for living.
    I urge the council to refuse this monstrous "caged or Cubicle" style development in the public interest and our future generations who will be forced to live in it. The entire area fronting Euston Rd. should be planted with significant trees to buffer the residents from this horrid infrastructure project.

  13. M Boothroyd commented

    It's hard to be polite when commenting on this madness. It follows a week of insanity in parliament! City of Sydney - Ms Clover Moore will no doubt approve this whilst she is also out pretending to campaign against West Connex (and spending our hard earned money on lawyers doing so). I say pretend because how can you be "apparently" anti-West Connex at the same time approving such developments that a great many on the street are against? If they bother to listen to the repeated complaints about size of developments, the best they will probably manage is a reduction by 20 units. SHAME needs to graffiti'd on this development proposal!
    I say spend money buying this block and making the park bigger - preserve it from being more crowded. But oh no, it's okay for City of Sydney to approve this and make our parks crowded but it is not okay for State Government to build roads. MADNESS. Not a legacy Clover Moore will be proud to look back on - her part in over crowding the area.

  14. Nicolas Francois commented

    I object to this development, this is absolutely not acceptable to allow such development after so much of Sydney Park has been destroyed to let the WestCONnex monstrosity through. Ideally this space would be integrated to Sydney Park, at the very least it should be acquired by City of Sydney to build low-rise community housing where all the St Peters residents that have been ripped-off by WestConnex could relocate at a fair price. I also agree with all other objections in regards to access, green space, height restriction, parking, architecture style, etc.

  15. Hammonds commented

    The construction of Westconnex resulted in land being taken away from our beloved Sydney Park, with a significant portion of trees removed and disruption to habitats for local birds and wildlife. The destruction will continue down the Euston Road-McEvoy Street corridor, with many mature trees also set to be wiped out. This development site should be given back to the park. It could easily be integrated with the busy oval to provide other sporting and recreational facilities for the community.

    Building a new unit block alongside a gridlocked road is a poor use of this space. There's a million other units going up in the area. Our families need green space and trees to combat the pollution.

  16. Josie Smith commented

    I object.
    What is the point of having height restrictions in place if they are exceeded by every developer and approved by council, same thing happened with 'arkadia' on corner Euston Road and Sydney Park Road.
    Council should adhere to the guidelines they put in place.
    There needs to be consideration regarding access to/from the development as it will cause more congestion.
    More parking should be made available within the development site. So much parking has been removed from the area that locals are already struggling with the lack of availability.

  17. Debra Miniutti commented

    I object to this development for the following reasons:
    1. There has to be a moratorium on any developments of this nature until infrastructure - particularly public transport and schools - is in place to cater for the increase in people it creates. A development such as this cannot be regarded as a local issue managed by a local council - any development of this scale in Sydney inevitably affects all people living here.
    2. A development of this nature on the edge of such a valuable green space in inner Sydney destroys the sense of open space and tranquility people get when they are there. If spaces like Sydney Park cannot remain as they are inevitably the mental health of Sydney residents will suffer.
    Current governments are creating issues that are going to adversely affect Sydney well beyond their tenure. There must be a stop to this until our governments create a coherent, sustainable master plan for the future of Sydney.

  18. Meg Rylance commented

    Our community vehemently objects to this gross overdevelopment, 390 units is insanity! On top of WestConnex this is going to have a hugely negative impact on this wonderful area. Let’s work towards Alexandria holding onto it’s individuality instead of the packed sardines vibe of Waterloo.

  19. Kylie Dyer commented

    This is gross overdevelopment and going to have a terrible impact on traffic and the local community with the lack of infrastructure

  20. Ben Farr commented

    This development must not go ahead. It’s a phenomenal over-development of a site that should be returned to parkland. Being so close to the Westconnex will create extra traffic mayhem. There has been no upgrade to St. Peter’s station this putting more pressure on an already struggling station.

  21. Alex Payne commented

    I object as this block should be incorporated into Sydney Park. It is horrifying that this is happening. Even when you’re in the park itself all you can see is sky high apartment buildings surrounding it which is a complete turn off. If it has to happen now then at least lower the height of the buildings to the height of the trees. 3 stories max!

  22. Sally Hannah commented

    This development cannot be approved. It sits right next door to the One Sydney Park development, which already will consist of 400 apartments in 8 storey blocks that actually open out onto public space in Sydney Park. This is too much overdevelopment.

    It is an excessive number of units and people and vehicles to bring to the perimeter of the only large green space in the area, already required to serve the needs of tens of thousands of local residents.

    With the incredible population figures projected in and around the area (Erskineville is to double its population in less than a decade with the currently-under-construction 'Ashmore Precinct'), City of Sydney should be absolutely focussed on safeguarding and preserving this green public space from further overdevelopment.

  23. Peter Ross commented

    This is ridiculous. WestConnex has gobbled up so much of our greenery, destroyed so many of our trees, has created traffic chaos, and will flood the streets with thousands of more vehicles each day on the project's completion, and now we have private greedy developers taking land that could be incorporated into Sydney Park and constructing a plethora of more apartments to spew even more vehicles into the local area. Stop the madness!

  24. Brett Randall commented

    I object. This land needs to be returned to Sydney Park.

  25. Heather commented

    I strongly object to this proposal and agree that this land needs to be returned to Sydney Park.

  26. Hudson commented

    This is an excessive proposal of 400 units adjacent to one of the largest parks in Sydney .
    The addition of this together with 6,000 already being added literally down the road at One Sydney park is shocking .
    Where are all these new families going to go to school ??
    The design is also shocking - resembling something from 1950’s Russia .
    Please stop this insanity and provide additional much needed public spaces & schools.

  27. Mal Eriksen commented

    If you want to build so many apartments in this area then please set up a new metro station near Sydney Park - currently there is no stop between Waterloo and Sydenham station - so how are these thousands of residents going to move around?

  28. Campbell McCauley commented

    This proposal is ridiculous ! far to large and a stupid place to build more residential. If it cant be returned to Sydney park (and its not a very nice area of park surround by all the roads and overpasses) what amount it becomes Light Industry to give all then businesses forced out by all the other apartments somewhere to operate . They actually can use being near a major

  29. Jessica Pickford commented

    This is obviously going to have a negative impact on the park, the community, and traffic in the surrounding area! An obvious example of the governments tendancy to side with developers over communities. Too big, too high, too in the park! This area should be restored to parkland for all to enjoy not turned into apartments for the few. Parks are not empty spaces for development, they are precious and need to be preserved if we want to have healthy and vibrant urban areas.

  30. Maureen Mulquiney commented

    Totally object to this development. The size of the development is excessive for the area. The impact of this development on Sydney park will be immense. There is not enough green space in the area at present. If the apartments are occupied ( many apartments around the area are left vacant)the birdlife and wetlands will be negatively impacted. I dont understand why this development is allowed at all the pollution from Westconnex along with height and pollution risks from the airport will surely not make it suitable for people to live in. The development should have become green space. This overdevelopment will increase traffic and pollution on an area that is already suffering.

  31. Stephen Goddard commented

    I object to this proposal. The rate and density of development in St Peters and surrounding areas is out of balance with what is needed for good urban management. The addition of this many apartments given the surrounding areas of additional development is untenable. This is adjacent to a significant parkland area which benefits a wide community. Any loss of amenity cannot be recovered. The entire suburb is being grossly overdeveloped.

  32. Daniel Reyes commented

    This is overdevelopment next to public parkland for the benefit for the few, and not for the many.

    It is irresponsible to have zoned this land for residential use, and the council should do the right thing by declining this development.

  33. Roger Trumpy commented

    Although I’m opposed to this, Euston Road and McEvoy Street are already being turned into major feed roads for the St Peters interchange. In some respects this development- although grossly over height and way too dense -may provide a small buffer between the continuous traffic that will be funnelled down this way and that bottom end of the park. If the future residents of this development are going to be fooled by attractive artists’ impressions of apartment blocks draped with greenery and cough up millions to live on a four lane feeder road within 500 metres of a spaghetti junction, I hope they enjoy their park views along with the diesel emissions and micro particulates - blown directly at them by prevailing winds - that will inevitably enter their systems. The State Government should be held accountable for letting new developments be built anywhere near this Westconnex abomination. Shame on them. An unnecessary development to the detriment of current and future residents.

  34. Matt Cleary commented

    I object to this proposal. Over development is already rife in this area. Further, a sense of ownership of Sydney Park will develop and conflicts will inevitably occur with those who use the park already. Coupled with the major arterial that surrounding roads will become post WCX I can only see this adding to an already diabolical traffic situation in this area.

  35. Andrew Chuter commented

    The Friends of Erskineville is holding a 'Community Inspection' of the site on Sat 22nd at 9am. We'll be meeting in between the two lower wetlands in Sydney Park. We'll be joined by local activists, Clr Linda Scott, representatives of the developer Hailiang Property Group and other guests to be confirmed.

    Join us and learn more about how you can object to this inappropriate development: https://www.facebook.com/events/715115665507062

  36. Fraser Stewart commented

    Speechless!

  37. Adrian Cave commented

    Gimme my park back !
    Should never have been sold to developers, how did that happen? it was always supposed to be returned to the people as park land
    Royal commission ? anyone
    Now 390 apartments to be built! that's just what the community needs, nice one..
    The current DA appears not to comply, they want to go even higher than allowed,
    I object to the development its too high, wide and deep and ugly.
    Sorry to future generations, your park was flogged off on the cheap

  38. Tina Tran commented

    This land should have been kept to be part of Sydney Park.
    I concur with other residents that this overdevelopment next to public parkland for the benefit for the few, and not for the many.

    The density is getting too much for such a small space and not to mention the traffic this will cause to the area.

  39. Colin Sutton commented

    I also object to this development. The land should be part of the park.

  40. Lesley Watson commented

    I object to this development on the basis that it is overdevelopment of the site, and I have serious concerns about the ability of existing infrastructure to support it. I also object to land in close proximity to Sydney Park being appropriated by a private developer. The land should be given back to the community and be part of the park. We have lost significant chunks of Sydney Park to the eyesore and white elephant also known as WestConnex.

  41. Catherine Gemmell commented

    This is a gross and inappropriate overdevelopment which should be rejected. The existing commercial properties and residents will be unacceptably impacted by the addition of this development due to additional traffic it will create in an area starved of public transport. In addition proximity to the St Peters interchange is a health risk for residents due to the unfiltered stacks and increased traffic.

  42. Amy Howard commented

    I object to this development. The current infrastructure cannot cope with an extra 390 apartments. We need more green space, schools, community facilities in the area.

  43. Alison Barker commented

    I strongly object. Sydney Park has already sacrificed land to westconnex and this development will further detract from the park. There is already gridlock on nearby Sydney Park Road, Mitchell Rd and Euston/McEvoy Rds. Further excessive development of this space will add to that gridlock, regardless of what small measures the developers will put in place.

  44. Hannah B commented

    This is gross overdevelopment of the site. This land should have been returned to Sydney Park as had been historically planned. The proposed development is too large; too many apartments and too many buildings, too high for the available space. The proposal should be for a much smaller number of buildings of a shorter height, fewer apartments, and should provide amenities and landscaped parkland accessible to Sydney Park users to at least attempt to make up for the public losing this land to developers.

    Further, there should be no special extra height privileges to the developer for having used good design principles - any possible gains from the use of good design would be obliterated by the additional levels.

    Not to mention that the proposed location adjacent to the off ramp/roads of westconnex and unfiltered stacks is hardly favourable for the health and well-being of future residents of the proposed development.
    The development should be stopped, or at the very least amended to be significantly smaller.

  45. Victor Pinkerton commented

    The current building is an encroachment on the ever shrinking Sydney Parkland and should have been folded into the park years ago. As for seeking greater height this is adding salt to the wound and should be denied, regardless of the spin that it will rival the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Advertising in all major Chinese news outlets warning of the dangers of particulate matter that will be released by the unfiltered exhaust stacks of WestCONnex to all potential purchasers is only fair. These people are trying to escape from the intolerable air pollution they have been forced to endure
    and will surely feel cheated when the reality of the mess that they will find they have bought into.

  46. Mark Marusic commented

    This site should be added as parkland to Sydney Park, as the park has been much reduced due to Westconnex. With a 7 lane motorway going by, the edge of the park should be a green zone with extensive tree cover to act as a buffer for the park

  47. Matt Sawdon commented

    The development is totally unsuitable from many perspectives. It encroaches on, and interrupts the green space of Sydney Park which is needed for the health and wellbeing of local residents, flora & fauna. It will overburden the local infrastructure and amenities.
    The development should be stopped, any future residential applications should be declined, and it should be rezoned and reintegrated back as public green space to improve Sydney Park.

  48. John Zucco commented

    The last thing we need is a huge development on the park. It's another case of money over common sense. This area should be parklands and not another developer free for all.

  49. Matt demaere commented

    As a daily park user for years, the substantial amount of development nearby has already lead to a large increase in usage rate. The park is going to suffer critical problems in the future even without such large new developments.

    It’ll be solvable if we don’t do foolish things like forfeit contiguous pieces of land to more housing; compounding the problem. This piece of land should become park, or some associated recreational facility.

  50. Francine Hawker commented

    This proposed development is completely inappropriate.
    Too much of Sydney Park has been taken already for road widening to accommodate heavy motor vehicle traffic caused by Westconnex.
    Sydney Park is precious and necessary for the mental and physical wellbeing to the large population of the area.
    The proposed development should be rejected.

  51. K McIntosh & B Stanton commented

    Please make this site an extension of the existing park. The council will be applauded for this decision, as it will continue a tradition of great park lands. Be the council who gave us the next Hyde Park or Botanical Gardens. Please don’t water down the Park’s impressive stature and presence with apartments. We look forward to enjoying the park again this weekend. Thank you for your time and consideration.

  52. Janet Dandy-Ward commented

    Let’s face it, Sydney Park is not going to be the wonderful green urban canopy it used to be, so much hard work put into the area by City of Sydney and volunteers-trees chopped down for WestCONnex and now this greedy overdevelopment - which this area does not need. The land should be used for more suitable planning for the inner cities needs - affordable housing with outdoor green space!

    Having read through these comments, I can tell i’m not the only person objecting to this. I wish we had a proper say in planning developments-this is wrong and I strongly object.

    So sad!

  53. Wendy Bacon commented

    Green roofs are a great idea but not if they are designed to encourage residents including children to walk on a roof where the air quality ( as acknowledged by the proponent) is likely to be at its worst in a development. This development is close to two ventilation stacks. The M4M5 unfiltered stack, which is closest, is at the end of a long 7-kilometre tunnel between St Peters and Haberfield. The New M5 stack is further away on Canal Road.

    ROADSIDE POLLUTION
    There appears to be only six metres of set back from the 6 lane motorway. Even if it is slightly more than this, residents and customers will be exposed to roadside pollution. This has barely been discussed at all in this report. Surely this is something that would concern designers who care about the environment.
    The noise assessment correctly predicts that to bring the noise within acceptable limits windows will need to be closed and glazed. This means that air must be introduced from the roof. The annual PM 2.5 level of this air is predicted to be 9.1 which is above national goals. There are no safe known levels of PM 2.5,which is a carcinogen that is linked to lung and heart disease and diabetes. It is remarkable that developers that claim to pride themselves on their sustainable values see no problem with pumping this air inside a building. What if the average values are even higher?

    The assessment acknowledges that the air could be at its poorest quality at the highest levels on the parkside of the development as a result of the stacks.

    “Buildings can have a significant effect on the dispersion of pollutants. If tall buildings are close to a stack, the plume can be entrained in the cavity zone downwind of the building. This can lead to higher ground concentrations near the stack than would be expected in the absence of buildings and can affect the dispersion of pollutants in the atmosphere.”

    I cannot see any justification for allowing the building to go higher than was previously approved. How can something be considered top quality in design or sustainable terms when it does not even consider such an issue up front? Visual techniques to soften the building aesthetically, should not overwhelm safety concerns which should be at the forefront of considerations. The planning committee should definitely apply the precautionary principle, especially as the actual levels recorded recently in St Peters show a higher annual level of PM 2.5 and PM 10 than that applied in the assessment.

    Within 12 months, the M4 M5 conditions mean that development controls will need to be put in place that limit heights around the stacks, as has occurred in Lane Cove near the Lane Cove Tunnel. Although that deadline has yet to arrive, you would expect architects to be aware of the issues.

    I have read the Air quality assessment for this project and do not believe that it should be accepted without further study, critique and investigation. For this reason alone, this project DA should not be passed.

    For a start the PM 10 annual limit is quoted as 30 u/gm3. ( reference is to 2005). In fact the national standard adopted in NSW is 25 u/gm3. This national 25 u/gm3 standard is adopted throughout the WestConnex EIS. This appears to be a basic error which affects the discussion and conclusions about the lquality of air at the development site.

    Three monitors are discussed in the assessment. The assessment acknowledges that the one at St Peters school is likely to be representative of the area. This is by far the closest of the three monitors. It is not true as stated that the WestConnex monitoring at St Peters station was only conducted until October 2017. It has continued until at least August this year meaning that ARUP which completed its assessment in May, did not use the most up to date local data available. PM 10 average for St Peters School, for example, was 29.1 u/gm3 in July and 29.7 in August. I have discussed some other aspects of the air quality at St Peters School in this story http://www.wendybacon.com/2018/dangerous-pollution-at-st-peters-school/.

    There are also worrying national daily exceedances at St Peters, which can not always be explained as linked to broader regional patterns.These are ignored in this report completely.

    A glance at Table 7 in Appendix Y shows that the recent monitoring at St Peters has recorded levels well above those at Randwick and Earlwood. This is ignored.
    Why wasn’t this raised and discussed by the Arup consultants? Given the higher levels at St Peters why was a simple averaging approach adopted and then used to state that the background concentrations in Table 6 are comparable. There is no reason to think that if the current monitoring at St Peters is accurate that the background concentrations used in the WestConnex EIS should necessarily be adopted. You would expect that independent consultants would at least consider these issues. if there is no independent investigation in assessing the air quality of individual developments, there is a danger that previous under predictions could be confirmed.

    I quote from page 14. “For ….24 hour PM10 and PM2.5, monitored background concentrations are significantly lower than those included in the WestConnex EIS, however it should be noted that the background concentrations presented in Table 6 represent a future scenario which account for traffic growth as well as changes as a result of WestConnex.

    Is the Committee considering this application sure that the above paragraph is correct ?

    The average for PM 2.5 for 24 hours on Table 7 is 50.7. This is far higher than 23.5 in Table 6. The average of the PM 10 over 24 hours on Table 7 is 62.9 compared to 47.7 on Table 6. The average PM 10 over a year is 20.2 in Table 7 ( 24.8 for St Peters) and 18.7 ug/m3 on Table 6. 24.

    The 24.8 at St Peters was high for Sydney overall over that period. Given that the consultants understood that St Peters is likely to be representative of the area then surely it should have been considered whether even a minor increase from the ventilation stacks or along the road was putting the development at risk of exceeding national pollution limits. It is really hard to predict what will happen after construction (which is unlikely to be less that six years given the Sydney Gateway) because when the St Peters Interchange opens a torrent of traffic (71,000 extra cars) will descend on the area. The WestConnex EIS did predict that air quality would deteriorate with WestConnex along the roads near the portals. Given current levels at St Peters this should be of concern to all planners.

    Page 10 of the Air quality report states:

    “The contribution to short-term concentrations are higher at upper levels of the buildings compared to ground level, this is due to the release height of the source being 20m above ground level. “

    It is then concluded that there will be no 24 hour exceedances of PM 10 due to the ventilation stacks. The adoption of 47.8 as the background concentration would seem to be very conservative when there have been quite a few exceedances well beyond that at St Peters, OEH monitors and Ecotech monitors along the M4 East this year. If on a certain day, for example, the PM 10 was 48.5 without the stack, then the contribution of another 2 u/gm3 could push it over the limit.

    If the PM 10 annual result was to be closer to St Peters 24.8 u/gm3 then another 0.3 from the ventilation stacks ( Table 9) would put it over the limit of 25 u/gm3.

    The goal of this assessment appears to be to show that the stacks will make only a minor contribution to the overall air quality experienced by the residents. But in reality, there is the interchange, roads, stacks and other developments including the expansion of a nearby concrete facility. Surely the assessment should consider whether hundreds of residents should be living in roadside developments, including unfiltered stacks.

    I wasa also surprised that 2031 was the only year at which it was considered appropriate to model the air quality. Why was this?

    Overall, I agree with other residents who have made submissions that this development should not be happening on land that should have been set aside to become part of Sydney Park. As someone who has walked in this area of Sydney Park a lot, I notice that the entire southern end of the park has been degraded through the loss of beautiful paperbarks along the edge of the park and the removal of land from the southern and eastern edges of the park. Intense construction and tunnelling will continue for at least another four to six years close to this development. As well there are other nearby proposed developments such as an expanded concrete facility that generate more pollution including PM 10. There is also a possibility that Transgrid will be digging a trench for a cable during this period. I do not believe that the impact of the cumulative impact of all this construction on park users and residents on Campbell Road has been adequately assessed at all. The noise alone will obliterate any sense of quiet in the entire south end of the park.

    ARUP ( who has worked for NSW Planning on the assessment of the New M5 design) assumes that the RMS view that unfiltered ventilation stacks for long tunnels are safe. But recently Noel Child who is an independent consultant has been expressing his strong view that the longitudinal ventilation and unfiltered stacks for such long tunnels ( the M4/M5 is 7) have not been proved to be safe. I can supply material if necessary but I am sure he would be available to discuss this with the committee. If Mr Child should prove to be correct the residents in One Sydney Park would find themselves in a very unsafe situation. An independent assessment would explore and acknowledge this uncertainty.

    I was concerned when I attended a sale session for this development that the sales consultant had no knowledge of the stack near the corner of Barwon Park Road at all. Residents who were interested in buying were not being given any information about it. The company has now said that this situation has now changed but why was this hidden, even after the M4 M5 was approved.

    Another issue that concerns me is that while the company is telling residents that the building will not tower over the eastern side of the park but will instead be hidden by vegetation, the diagrams in the report and the some of the promotional photos show the the trees are below the top of the buildings and that the buildings can clearly be seen from the park. it also seems that the amount of retail has expanded in the development.

    Overall this assessment should not be passed by the Committee.

  54. Zio Ledeux commented

    Where does this overdevelopment end? So now it's encroaching on public park. And who benefit the most ? The developers. Despite the location surrounded by park, there is also the wcx project to consider, with 70,000+ cars rushing past on a daily basis there is also the unfiltered exhaust stacle right next to it. Then there is the inadequate public transport issue. Is this just giving them a shoe in to build anything anywhere. I am 100% opposed to this project

  55. Olivia blackmore commented

    The small roads around this area were never meant to house this many people. The train station is already heaving with an influx of people from every factory that was closed down make way for apartment complexes and the channel 7 building .The schools are full and there are no available car parks.
    I recently moved away from the area right opposite Erskineville oval.
    What was once a charming community is now one giant traffic jam and beeping horns.
    Why has this area been turned into a new Zetland?
    It seems the developers run away with the cash whilst we are left to put up and deal with the consequences

  56. Simon taylor commented

    I dont mind that apartments are built here. After all the site is already concreted over with existing buildlings and any building will shield the park from additional noise albeit minimally. I do object to building residential buildings next to major roads. I think it is unfair for people to have to live so close to major raods with all the noise and pollution (don't tell me people 'choose' to live there as given the choice no one would choose that). To that end I'd prefer the road was not expanded here. Failing that if somehow this development can leverage the addition of filtering the nearby to-be-constructed stacks then I think that would be of benefit to most.

  57. Bob Fawcett commented

    Inappropriate development. The NSW government should buy the land and incorporate it into Sydney Park.

  58. Amy Jackson commented

    Agree with all of the other comments, far too much residential over development in an area which is already struggling to cope with a massive increase in residents and new accommodation. The traffic is horrendous already. This land should be returned to parkland. The park is already going to be surrounded by cars, traffic and a new motorway. The developers keep modifying their plans and it was way too high already and now they want an extra 6 metres. It’s needs to be returned to the parkland, it will stick out like an eye sore, have a negative impact on the environment and the area in general and is absolutely not needed. There are way too many apartments in the area already.

  59. Matthew Perkins commented

    There are already enough apartments in this area and too many cars with not enough infrastructure and too few green spaces. This land should be returned to Sydney Park, and the planning authority should concentrate on providing better infrastructure, including bicycle and pedestrian friendly projects, to provide better services for the people already living or already soon to live in this fast-growing area.

  60. Angel Antoun commented

    Too many apartments within close vicinity to this development. Gross over-development with no contribution to green space. Being so close to Westconnex will only add to the gridlock. A rethink of better balance is required. Please see how you are destroying the wellbeing of all residents in this area , local business are affected , mental health of residents from the strain of excessive traffic, congestion , bulging primary schools , gridlock , local health services Enough !

  61. Andrew Chuter commented

    Friends of Erskineville submission on Development Application D/2018/907

    The Friends of Erskineville raised concerns about this development at 205 Euston Rd, Alexandria at the previous Stage 1 concept design which was approved in 2017 and we remain concerned with this Stage 2 application. Our view is that this DA should be rejected.

    Along with approximately 70,000 cars a day coming along Euston Rd as a result of WestConnex, this would significantly alter the character of Sydney Park. Residential buildings with 379 car spaces and retail uses would negatively impact the peaceful enjoyment of this vital green space for the many residents who visit there regularly.

    Our view is that the land should be returned to the public as parkland. The community expectation and understanding back when the former South Sydney Council created Sydney Park was that when the lease on this site expired it would become public park. A land swap with the developer should be investigated to allow the site to be used as parkland, enlarging and strengthening the edges of Sydney Park, as a special Design Advisory Panel appointed by the City of Sydney has recommended. Community opposition to this project was further shown by many present at a recent ‘Community Inspection’ we held on site on Sept 22nd. An informal poll on the Facebook event page showed 24 in favour of the land reverting to Sydney Park as parkland against only 1 person in favour of the land being used for apartments. That person was an employee of Hailiang Property Group, the developer.

    The Sydney LEP 2012 has a maximum permissible building height of 18m, but the average height of the 8 buildings is 23.77m. We note that a 10% bonus has been awarded but in this case of a sensitive parkside location the bonus should not apply. The Sydney DCP allows 5 storey buildings but the buildings are between 6 and 7 storeys each. Again this must not be approved.

    The DA requires a 'deceleration lane' to take over some of the site because of the high speed of cars coming off WestConnex. This will make the future planned shared path along the western side of Euston Rd dangerous to traverse, particularly for children. It would also reduce the opportunity for tree plantings to act as a buffer.

    There would be pressure to remove or trim trees to allow the new residents direct access to, and views over, the wetlands area of Sydney Park. Also nearby the site to the north, there is an amphitheatre area that occasionally hosts music festivals. At other times informal parties are held where amplified music is enjoyed without trouble. We fear complaints from future residents of One Sydney Park would have such formal and informal events disallowed.

    We note that the Sustainable Sydney 2030 policy of the City of Sydney has a target of 15% social or affordable housing. This development has none.

    The noise assessment correctly predicts that to bring the noise within acceptable limits windows will need to be closed and double glazed. This means that air must be introduced through ventilation chimneys. With the WestConnex exhaust stack only 300m away, the annual PM 2.5 level of this air is predicted to exceed national goals. There are no safe known levels of PM 2.5, which is a carcinogen that is linked to lung and heart disease and diabetes. The green roof proposed would be in direct line of sight and at similar height to the WestConnex exhaust stack. This is an unacceptable health risk.

    We continue to be concerned about excessive development pressure on Erskineville, with this DA and others in Ashmore Estate which will result in the doubling of the population of our suburb in a relatively short period of time. Such development is occurring without a proportionate expansion in public infrastructure such as childcare, schools, public transport, social housing and other community facilities.

    It is for these reasons that the Friends of Erskineville requests for this DA to be rejected.

    Andrew Chuter
    Vice President and on behalf of the Friends of Erskineville

  62. Matt Costain commented

    This is a terrible idea, overdeveloped on what should be public land, and will change the character of the land, and the park and its many uses. Strongly object.

  63. Charlie Fine commented

    Thanks NSW Liberals for the white elephants. First Askin, now Baird and Gladys. What a joke. A shameful day for Sydney should this frenzy of development continue. No respect for place, history or the wishes of the community.

  64. Edwin Sutphen commented

    This development should not go ahead as it will be detrimental to Sydney Park and the surrounding neighbourhoods. There is already a substantial amount of development in the area, and no substantial new green space has been provided, putting pressure on the precious and relatively limited green space we have in Sydney Park. This site would have a serious negative impact on our neighbourhood’s cherished green space. The current buildings should be demolished and converted into parkland, extending and improving Sydney Park and its capacity for local residents and wildlife, rather than turning Sydney Park into the front yard of a massive new development.

    This DA should be rejected, and the land should be converted into public green space, for the betterment of our community.

  65. Richard Hannan commented

    What a completely inappropriate use. Can’t imagine the vehicular chaos for entry/exit onto Euston Rd. Sydney Park will now have even more noise and light pollution from adjacent boundaries. This must be overturned and the land acquired for expanding the Park.What a missed opportunity to do some public and environmental good.

  66. Gina Agresti commented

    I oppose the redevelopment of this land for eight mixed use buildings comprising residential apartments & commercial uses and the associated added vehicular congestion it will bring to the neighbourhood. A much better outcome would be for the DA to be overturned, the land acquired and added to increase the size of Sydney Park. There are so many multistorey residential/mixed use developments being approved in and around Alexandria, that adding to publicly accessible green space is vital.

  67. Sarah Laletin commented

    I object to any development that impacts the beautiful and precious greenery that is Sydney Park. This park is a priceless asset to local residents. Any parkland connected to this site needs to be returned to Sydney Park and not developed.

  68. Carrie Grimes commented

    Please purchase this land and add it to Sydney Park. Future generations will laud your foresight in securing and improving the amenity of the park in what is going to be the most densely populated areas in the country. On the other hand, allowing this development to go ahead seriously compromises the liveability of the area. Do the right thing.

  69. Chris Gerrans commented

    I object to this development wholeheartedly. The land should be returned to Sydney Park. The livability of the area needs to be developed with more open space for an already dense population.

  70. Anna Keohan commented

    Sydney Park is our much beloved, much used, hugely essential green lungs for this area. People from Erskineville, Newtown, Alexandria, St Peters, Marrickville, Enmore ... basically all the surrounding urban innercity/innerwest suburbs ... come to use and enjoy this park. The park has been severely negatively impacted by the wasteful, unnecessary, destructive, unwanted, grotesquely expensive Westconnex project, and the so-called "green space" added to the St Peters Interchange is grossly mis-named as it is and will continue to be a wasteland of contaminated soil situated in a noisy air-polluting concrete traffic spaghetti.

    The superblock development proposal in Sydney Park just adds insult to injury. It is not wanted and it will encroach on the amenity of the park. It should be refused in its entirety and the land returned to Sydney Park to add to the real green space that we desperately need to protect and increase, for the health and liveability of our community and as additional habitat for wildlife.

    In 1982, the Sydney Park Plan of Management commissioned by the NSW government recommended the purchase of all land within the 'superblock' so as to incorporate it into the park. Either that, or a land swap should be investigated, as recommended by the City of Sydney Council's expert Design Advisory Panel.

  71. Silvia Levame commented

    I object to the construction of eight mixed-use buildings comprising residential apartments, commercial uses, two basement levels, services, utilities, landscaping, and rooftop energy generation. This project is an insult to the residents/ratepayers of the inner west who love and enjoy the green spaces provided by Sydney Park. The 390 units adjacent to a feeder road from the new Westconnex interchange represent a gross over development of the site. The deceleration lane referred to will not stop the gridlock on Euston Road for many hours a day.

    This project will only benefit the developers a perhaps a few "intermediaries", but never the residents. I object wholeheartedly to this abhorrent plan to add dwellings to the detriment of free, green spaces freely used by the community and beyond.

    The excessive development pressure on Erskineville, with this DA and others in Ashmore Estate, will result in the doubling of the population in a relatively short period of time. As others have stated, such development is occurring without a proportionate expansion in public infrastructures such as childcare, schools, public transport, social housing, and other community facilities.

    This proposal should be refused in toto, as a matter of urgency for the well-being of our IW community.

  72. Chris commented

    Please do not ruin this great park.

  73. Jack Whiddon commented

    i strongly object to this project. This land should be incorporated into Sydney Park in compensation for the land carved off by WestConnex. We desperately need more trees - not 'luxury apartments' - especially in light of all the extra traffic that this destructive new motorway will deliver to the area.

  74. Chris M commented

    I whole heatedly agree with the comments below. How is it that Council can be so active and push for reclamation of golf courses for additional parklands in the Moore Park area and will let this happen in the Sydney Park area? An area that has had it far share of disruption and loss due to Westconnex- a lost battle. We need more parkland and any Council that is putting its reputation on the line (with elections looming) as a 'green' Council would not even consider this application.
    As the third largest park in the inner city- the other two being Centennial and Moore Park- it surely deserves to be extended as it is the only large parkland servicing the souther border of the Sydney Council region.
    How wonderful if we could ring Sydney with parklands and not the noose of concrete, steel and glass!

  75. Trisha Carlton commented

    So sad what has happened to our wonderful Inner West Community after the Westconnex shenanigans.
    St Peters and Erskineville have suffered greatly as has King St businesses Newtown. We lost so many beautiful trees and green areas from Sydney Park because of Westconnex. We don’t want this to become another cement city.
    The Inner West / Sydney Park deserves this land back.

  76. Melanie commented

    I object given it capitalises on public space without returning any benefit. Sydney Park is already very well used and the inclusion of a development of this size on its boundary could lead to overuse, as well as undoubtedly mean residents feel ownership of the park as their 'backyard'. To progress at this size would be detrimental to the community.

  77. Phuong nguyen commented

    This is pure greed for property developers. There is already an over supply of apartments in the area and adding another couple of hundred would be adding to the already congested area. I oppose this development

  78. Katie Thorburn commented

    Preserve the parklands !! This development is not contributing to green space and will clog an already congested roads and apartments. When will it stop? Save Sydney Park !

  79. Sally B commented

    This proposal will cause further overcrowding in our already overbuilt neighbourhood. Too many apartments already means no street parking for residents. Why arent these developments forced to provide sufficient offstreet parking for their occupants?? The addition of these 8 humongous residential buildings will cause even more traffic woes....parking and traffic congestion. It will also add to the ugliness of the medium rise buildings already surrounding Sydney Park. Please consider our future.

  80. Susan Potter commented

    This land should not be developed but incorporated into Sydney Park. There is already extensive development and apartments in this area, with other more suitable sites available. Sydney Park has been incrementally reduced in size with West Connex nibbling away it’s southern and easter edges. Given the pandemic and the climate/biodiversity emergency there is an even greater need for public green space.

  81. Matt commented

    The amended proposal does minimal changes that does not address the original reason for refusal.

    Building heights remain in excess of the approved envelope and LEP. Given the quantity of revisions, previous refusal, design excellence, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the revised submission would comply with a fundamental control.

    The poor amenity outcome of the apartment configurations as a result of the massing and siting is at odds with a design excellence scheme. Many developments in the City of Sydney LGA have successfully demonstrated their design excellence not only through the competitive design process but also through their actual design excellence. I urge all town planners at council to walk around Zetland and Mascot and compare contrasting areas of well designed urban area and apartment buildings and one of less quality. No, I'm not alluding to topical defects in the news, I refer to the overall massing configuration, articulation, variation that is evident in Zetland and not typically in the newer developments of Mascot and what this proposal appears more comparable too.

  82. Claire Louise Sheridan commented

    Please don't build more apartments in the area. There are too many unoccupied units as it is, and this housing won't even be affordable for the city's many people experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity. Leave the space as part of the park, rather than to line the pockets of rich developers who will drive rents up further and increase pressure on our roads and services.

  83. Carrie commented

    COVID has shown just how much pressure there is on Sydney Park from the already greatly increased population surrounding the park. During lockdown in 2020 when people were only allowed to leave home to grocery shop, get medical attention/supplies or to exercise, this park was over run. It was impossible to maintain a COVID-safe distance from other people because there were just SO MANY people in the park. The proposed development will negatively impact the amenity provided by the park in the ways people have already described, not least of which is simply the effect of adding a whole bunch more people into the area. Please do a brave thing! Be forward thinking, buy up these blocks from the developers and add them into the park's envelope. Once they are developed, the public green space is forever compromised, lost.

  84. Eloise Dalmas commented

    This would be a completely devastating development. How utterly disgusting. I hope that this does not get approved on appeal. This will devastate not only the natural environment and eco system but will devastate bird and plant species.

    Shame on any government that approve such a development. This is one of the few large green spaces within this LGA, this should be protected. Enough profiteering and bureaucratic BS.

    The few green spaces that exist in Sydney, in a city that already has severe over development, needs to be advocated for and protected. Sustainability of these important areas needs to outweigh any demolition and the development of cheap, shoddy buildings that show a clear disregard for animals or the environment.

  85. Mr K commented

    I do not agree with this. High density housing is going to put more health pressures and Sydney Park is getting quite crowded already.

  86. Tien commented

    I agrees with the comments above. We have too many apartments in the nearby area already. This apartment block brings no benefit to the area. It also will create huge damage to already contaminated park land and its wildlife, both during construction phase and later when the high density community commenced. It will increase congestion pressure on Sydney Park Road and Mitchell Road as well.

    The land should be taken back to the Council and return as public parkland.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts