PlanningAlerts

10 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. This DA amendment should not be approved. Rhodes does NOT need higher density, taller buildings - in particular, it is not appropriate to double the height of Tower D and increase Tower E by almost a third. It will adversely impact the look of the suburb and quality of life. There are already hundreds of apartments planned for 34 Walker St, in addition to the hundreds of apartments in the existing Rhodes Central towers, which has increased traffic and noise in the area. The trains and buses are already crowded and cannot accommodate more commuters. The tall towers cast shadows over nearby streets and buildings, and noises echo between buildings. In addition, the developer (Billbergia) should be subject to greater scrutiny due to its prior questionable dealings with government (e.g. https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2022-media-releases/public-inquiry-into-corruption-allegations-concerning-city-of-canada-bay-mayor-and-others) (e.g. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-18/nsw-auditor-general-delivers-scathing-report-over-parramatta-lan/100146234).

2. There has been many building and structural defects with the Rhodes Central buildings on 8 Walker and 21 Marquet st by Billbergia. Issues like acoustics and strong wind have not been taken into account. As a resident, the howling loud wind wakes me up in the middle of the night, shaking glass doors, lifts do not open when the wind is strong...and the list goes on. I would strongly be against the proposal of additional levels at 34 Walker at especially when acoustics have not been properly planned out. Density is also another issue and no proper walkways for residents in Rhodes, it’s a massive issue when accidents start happening and cars driving so fast.

3. The council need to make judgement on how these >40 stories high residential buildings would benefit the residents of Rhodes other than to meet the developer's commercial benefits. All factors that would affect people's life with these high rise buildings should be made known to the public and allow enough time for the public to make comments before making a decision. Approval of this record high buildings would feed the greed of Rhodes East developers to build even higher buildings.

4. The development in the area is already far exceeding what us property owners expected from planning when we bought into the area 14 years ago. 14 years of paying rates only to not be able to get out of our own streets due to the gridlock of traffic. Canada Bay Council is incapable of maintaining existing infrastructure for the residents already living here. We are now dealing with trash in the streets, traffic, overcrowded transport system. The poor construction of existing buildings on that block has us existing residents dealing with whistling sounds when the wind blows and overshadowing of existing buildings because a promise of a useless heliostat got them additional heights. Rhodes also connects public transport to Wentworth Point which is also overdeveloped. We are at gridlock and this type of development does not meet healthy living environment for anybody.
   

5. This DA amendment should not be approved. It is simply not appropriate to double the height of Tower D and increase Tower E by almost a third.
   There are already hundreds of apartments planned for 34 Walker St, in addition to the hundreds of apartments in the existing Rhodes Central towers.
   The increase in the amount of traffic by both cars and people has been horrific as it was not accompanied by appropriate infrastructure ie traffic lights, roundabouts and zebra crossings which would have helped traffic flow.
   Crossing the roads in Marquet/Mary streets and Mary/Rider Blvd/Walker streets, has become increasingly life threatening and just asking for a major accident to occur.
   Allowing even more apartments to be built with the accompanying people and traffic will make the situation even more dangerous.

6. This amendment should not be permitted to proceed. More density, less car parks v dwellings proposed. Please explain to the citizen how a Development Application gets approved, the developer sells off the plan then changes and applies for a DA amendment.? Or other people then purchase a surrounding property with an understanding what the DA approval for the given development is regarding surrounding buildings etc. Then after they purchase the developer submits an amendment that potentially changes the view, sunlight, shade of the surrounding building to what they originally based their decision off. This is just not right. Council has to stop this process and amendment

   The whole suburb/region is overpopulated, under serviced by infrastructure and lacking green space.

7. This amendment should not go ahead as it is a total overdevelopment infringing on residents of Rhodes by overshadowing and restricting views of people living around it not to mention the windtunnels that are developing even in light windconditions. How is it even possible that a building gets approved to a certain heights and then later while construction takes place an amendment gets pushed through for many more levels??? Council should not approve and stopp that overdevelopment in small area around the trainstation, as Rhodes is already quite crowded. Getting in and out of Rhodes is already congested aswell and trains are full. Parking on streets is also problematic.
   

8. The amendment does not satisfy any stakeholder need other than the developer. Council cannot support such a change in an area already suffering from lack of transport infrastructure. The population density within the Rhodes precinct is already too high. Adding floors will further extend shadowing across neighbouring properties and the limited open areas that remain. Council cannot consider such an amendment when it only serves the needs of the Developer. The area will become a ghetto as overpopulation drives values down and facilities cannot cope any longer. As a long term resident of Rhodes area from 1971 to 1994 and then 2004 to current, I initially thought the development of Rhodes precinct would be a great move although lack of forward planning and ongoing focus on high density development has created a suburb now known for all the wrong reasons. Council cannot continue down this path.

9. This amendment should NOT be approved as Rhodes is already crowded enough. Tower D will be doubled in height - how is this an amendment? This is an entirely new proposal as the impact on light, noise, and traffic is significantly different between a 20 and a 40-storey building. The same applies to Tower E with the additional 11 levels proposed. The current infrastructure is already bursting at the seams at Rhodes. The trains have been extremely crowded for the past 5 years and increasingly so. The main roads going in and out of Rhodes are mainly Walker St and Rider Blvd - both of which are packed and get jammed by residents, visitors, buses and construction vehicles already. Parking is a big issue - it used to be free street parking before all the high rise blocks went up and now, most places have a 2h limit. There are no schools in Rhodes and the ones nearby are at capacity. An additional 250+ units in an already overcrowded place will add to the issues Rhodes residents are facing. How does this proposed amendment even make sense in an area such as Rhodes? If Council wants to do the right thing by their residents, please listen to locals who live here and veto this proposal.

10. This application shall NOT be approved. The number of residents or people visited Rhodes already outnumbers the public facilities that Rhodes can offer. There are always traffic jam in both directions in and out Rhodes. The train station is packed in peak hour during weekdays. Without addressing the current issues, while approving more apartments will not only affect the current residents’ living quality but also impose significant pressure to the facilities. The Council shall listen to the locals and refuse this application. This applicant has been disregarding the local community’s interest and shall not be supported.