Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent, North Ryde

1746

New South Wales 2113

23/06/2025

Object

Website

As a resident in a neighbouring building to this project site, I strongly oppose to this proposal for the following reasons: 1)Stockland’s BTR project does not fit in the “commercial development” concept to gain the incentives to increase the height or FSR. BTR is of residential purposes, whilst commercial development would be offices or retail spaces which boosts jobs and GDP. So that they are not compliant per the clause 7.7 (or old 6.9) of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan. 2)The BTR project intends to build multiple 20-story buildings with very minimum recreation areas (less than 3ha) for the public to use. This proposed recreation area per Stockland’s plan would be shared by the existing Ryde Garden and Centrale residents and the Trinity Business Park workers, plus the future Stockland BTR residents as well as the another proposed 20-story project at 1 Epping Road, which appears unreasonable and overcrowded. 3)The questioned site is in a pocket between the Delhi Rd and the Epping Road. I saw no plans for additional open roads leading access to or from the area. This would add more pressure to the already congested roads and rare to find parking spaces. Though the Metro encourages residents to take public transport, there would still be considerate portion of residents who can only drive to work. Speaking of the Metro, it is already running at its very full capacity in peak hours. It is a huge question if the public transport can serve thousands more units, especially given the rezones granted further northwest. 4)The exisiting Ryde Garden and Centrale residents enjoy a view of landmarks including the harbour bridge. The proposed BTR project would cause devastating view loss to the current residents, instead of sharing the views with neighbours via skilful designs.

1796

Redacted

23/06/2025

Object

Website

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure Via NSW Planning Portal Re: Objection to SSD-55844212 – Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent, North Ryde Dear Assessment Officer, I am writing to formally object to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development (SSD-55844212) at 39 Delhi Road, North Ryde, submitted by Stockland Development Pty Ltd. 1. Misalignment with Community Needs The Bennelong community is currently underserved in critical infrastructure such as public schools, sporting facilities, and community spaces. The proposed development, which includes 510 residential units across three high-rise buildings, does not address these pressing needs. Instead, it prioritizes high-density housing for profit, without delivering the essential services that support a balanced and thriving community. 2. Overdevelopment and Strain on Infrastructure North Ryde has already experienced significant residential growth in recent years. Adding over 500 new units will place immense pressure on local roads, public transport, schools, and healthcare services, which are already operating near or over capacity. The proposal lacks a clear plan to mitigate these impacts or contribute meaningfully to local infrastructure. 3. Lack of Educational and Recreational Facilities There is a critical shortage of public school places in the area, and local sports clubs are struggling with limited access to fields and facilities. This development does not include any provision for educational or recreational infrastructure, which are vital for a growing population and especially for families. 4. Community Voice and Priorities Ignored The revised proposal appears to respond primarily to commercial interests rather than community feedback. The Bennelong community has consistently voiced the need for balanced development—one that includes schools, parks, sports grounds, and community centers, not just more apartments. 5. Environmental and Amenity Concerns The removal of trees, increased traffic, and overshadowing from 20-storey towers will negatively impact the local environment and residential amenity. The proposed landscaping and pedestrian links, while positive, do not compensate for the broader environmental and social costs of this scale of development. In Summary: I strongly object to the Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent proposal in its current form. I urge the Department to reject this application and require a revised plan that: Includes public school and sports facility provisions Addresses infrastructure strain Reflects community priorities over developer profits Ensures sustainable and balanced urban growth Thank you for considering this submission. Sincerely, Andrew

1721

New South Wales 2113

23/06/2025

Object

Website

The neighborhood is already crowded,with the numbers of units they will build is going to increased the pressure for traffic and share public facilities. And the building is too close to other neighbor buildings.

1761

Redacted

23/06/2025

Object

Website

I have considered our unit as an appropriate place to downsize to prior to this development application. When the unit was purchased I was aware that the zoning for the vacant block adjacent was for 37m and I deliberately chose to buy above that for the light/sun and the view. This development will result in a drastic loss of view and light to our unit, this would dramatically change the quality of life in an older person. I am very concerned that Rennie Street is to be used for access. It is a narrow street and becomes congested. The loss of Rivett Road will create traffic chaos and may prevent essential services such as the fire brigade or ambulance from accessing Network Place units. The supposed pedestrian throughfare has a number of hazards for an older person such as waste trucks and access for shops that cross it. Ryde Council had a clear plan for the whole area and are opposing this development quite correctly. Allowing such a development on this space is unreasonable on the grounds of traffic, view and sunlight loss, pedestrian safety. I also note that the developers have not satisfied the conditions for using clause6.9 and seem to believe that they can override a plan by Ryde Council for the entire Macquarie Park precinct even though Ryde has already provided much needed housing. If this development goes ahead I will no longer be able to live in this apartment as I age because it will receive inadequate sun and light and will not have any view and I would be extremely concerned about essential services being available with the traffic issues that will undoubtedly arise.

1776

New South Wales 2023

23/06/2025

Object

Website

We are very disappointed at the outcome of our last submission to the Environmental and Planning Department as not much changes as to the design and height allowance been made even to our objection - only the look of the three proposed buildings are modified which are not relevant. Our main concerns are the heights and designs of the 2 tall buildings which would directly block our views and sunlights into our home which in turn, affect our mental health, our property value and furthermore, our long term mental healthness - as we have already a cementary facing us - what would we be if all day sitting in the dark with a cementary on one side? The distance of the two tall buildings would have great impact especially to our Block A (1 Network Place) and Block B (3 Network Place). The two new proposed Stockland 20 plus storeys would be like a dark wall with very short distance in between facing Block A ! We will not see this design anywhere in Sydney if there is a viable and detailed Environmental and Planning Department study. Take for an example of the newly developed Zetland, it is so well planned with spacious areas in between highrises - abundant grassland and garden, new schools, roads, parking spaces, community buildings and other basic government facilities. Another example is in St Leonards region. All proposed new highrises would not directly block the existing buildings! We have a right, do we? A good precedent - Tenancity Consulting Vs Waringah (2004) - NSWLEC 140 Caselaw Dates of Hearing : 29/3/2004-31/3/2004 Date of Judgment : 04/07/2004 https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/549f893b3004262463aOcc6 - It is not view sharing, it is severe and devastating. - Not reasonable and an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls. - The Question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. - The proposed Stockland development apparently breaches its standards. The plan was built on the idea of affordable housing which we raised to Stockland at their First Zoom Meeting whether the rent would be capped by the Government: Which in a sense, our rental market and property value would be directly affected? If our views are all blocked, who is going to invest in our property? If you are potential renters, would you pay to rent our property or these 'so called' "Affordable Housing" rental? We have no objection to have more housing built for the next generation but not in the interest of the Already Built Neighbourhood - who is going to compensate our loss of views, money and mental healthiness? Whilst a Child Care Centre has been set up on our Ground Floor in Block A, no more sunshine for the kids! What is their future? Is this fair and healthy?

1751

New South Wales 2067

23/06/2025

Object

Website

I purchased an off-the -plan unit (HOME) in July 2014. It is an east facing unit at Ryde Garden. Premium price has been paid for a higher floor in order to enjoy the spectacular view and sunlight. Council has been checked, the vacant land has a height limit of 37 metre which is currently proposed to build more than the limit. Decision to buy the unit will be different, if the hidden policy risk especially clause 6.9 (now it has been updated to another clause). View: Light travels in a straight line. It is provided by nature, proven by science. Block means block. If this development will to be approved, it will leave me the view of plots of tombstone on my left, and view of busy M2 motorway/Epping Road. Finally, it is the view of gigantic concrete wall at the centre, looking the Stockland tenants' laundry at the balconies. Sunlight: Sun is a source of hope. I'm retiring in two years time. East facing is my only source of sunlight. I'm in despair if this proposed development will to go ahead. Do I have to make a decision to move, incurring hefty costs like agent fees and stamp duties? Will I be compensated for all these costs? Forever pain: There is a forever chemical issue in one of Sydney water catchment areas. Please STOP a forever view blocking issue. Please STOP Stockland's corporate financial gain (BTR's perpetual rental income) on the loss of view and sunlight from my tiny single unit (home). It's unfair, and injustice. Final words: Stop solving government housing issues, in return, it will create existing dwellers, like me, pain of losing view and sunlight. Keep the development at 37 metre height, this is the rules set at beginning. By moving the goal poles, it will attract despair, ill health, protests and anger. Thanks for your time reading my submission.

1801

New South Wales 2113

23/06/2025

Object

Website

I am a Ryde Garden east facing resident since Dec 2018, after the developer handed over to buyers. Being a registered nurse of 18 years in Australia that has to cover night shifts, it is devastating when the view and direct source of sunlight is being blocked intentionally. I fully support the government's move to create affordable housing in new developments for essential workers. However, a sudden shift of government policy, may directly affect some essential workers who have already committed to a housing block like Ryde Garden, east facing. Stockland is a public listed and profit oriented company. To help easing the housing issue, by building a concrete of more than 37metres, it has fanned the pain of view being blocked and direct sunlight exposure being cut. The pain of driving behind a big truck, leaving you with only left and right views on a scenic journey, is a torture. Driver can either overtake safely or reduce the speed to keep their distance apart. However, once two fixed buildings are built closely, a damage is forever there. Don't create a forever pain on hundreds of east facing Ryde Garden residents. Confucius has a famous saying: Do not impose on others what you do not desire for yourself. Thanks for your time reading my submission.

1726

New South Wales 2113

23/06/2025

Object

Website

No sufficient infrastructure and access in place to support such a high-density development in the area.

1766

Redacted

23/06/2025

Object

Website

Objection to SSD Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent, North Ryde (SSD-55844212) Please see the attachment.

IPC Submissions.pdf (PDF, 829.56 KB)

1741

New South Wales 2113

23/06/2025

Object

Website

I would like to submit my strong objection to this proposal based on the following reasons: I do not believe this development constitutes a commercial project and has minimal contribution to GDP the way that a normal commercial development does. Please also take into consideration what Ryde and the community will be like in the next 10, 20 years and beyond. The proposal also has devastating impact on sunlight for nearby residents, particularly those that bought the property with the understanding that development would be restrained to 12 storeys and below and not what is now being proposed (which is not in compliance with clause 7.7). This means that some residents may have days (particularly over Winter) where there is no direct sunlight, which would have flow on impacts around health and wellbeing as well as dealing with issues such as mould. The recreation areas being proposed and inadequate for the scale of the development, increasing the pressure on green spaces. Green space ratios elsewhere in Macquarie Park are larger than what is proposed. The connectivity and access of the precinct is disjointed and will create bottle necks and more traffic issues to what there already is. There are significant issues with getting on the Metro in peak hours which, with a residential development see more people getting on at North Ryde, then off, which would be the case if it was truly a commercial development. There is already significant residential development in Neighbourhood 6 which will significantly increase the density of the suburb, putting strain on existing infrastructure, access to schools and amenities. The City of Ryde is already on track to exceed its housing density targets without this development. The cumulative impacts of building masses have not been considered in Stockland’s application.

1786

New South Wales 2113

23/06/2025

Object

Website

To whom it may concern, I would like to make a formal submission to object the proposal of the Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent. I believe this development would severely impact the existing community in a negative manner as I believe the proposal is not an appropriate fit for the community. It would drastically increase traffic, sound pollution and the quality of life for the occupants who currently live in this area. We simply do not have enough space for such an increase in population and construction. Thank you

1716

New South Wales 2113

23/06/2025

Object

Website

As a resident of Network Pl, I have noticed considerable pressure on essential infrastructure, open space, and community facilities due to neighbouring high density developments. The proposed Triniti Lighthouse project presents a number of issues that warrant serious consideration before any approval is granted. Impact on Existing Residents The proposed scale of the development raises substantial amenity concerns for neighbouring properties, particularly at 1–3 Network Place. Residents in this location are likely to experience a marked reduction in residential amenity due to the proximity and height of the new structures. These impacts include diminished access to natural sunlight, compromised visual outlook, and significant loss of privacy. Overdevelopment and Infrastructure Capacity The local area is already approaching saturation point in terms of density. There is limited availability of green space and communal areas within comfortable walking distance, and the proposed development offers no clear or measurable contribution to remedy this deficit. Existing shortfalls in social infrastructure — including recreation, public open space, and pedestrian access — are unlikely to be alleviated by the current version of the proposal. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls The proposal exceeds the 37-metre maximum building height permitted for this site under Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014. Unless compelling justification is provided and strict planning criteria are met, such departures from the LEP should not be permitted. At present, there is no evidence that the proposal adequately addresses the necessary preconditions for variation under Clause 6.9(3), particularly in terms of delivering meaningful public benefit or improved access and recreational infrastructure. Public Benefit Claims It is noted that the development has been associated with the delivery of the New Link Road. However, this road is not a direct outcome of the Triniti Lighthouse proposal and should not be presented as a benefit arising from it. Doing so may mislead stakeholders into believing the project offers greater public utility than it in fact delivers. Parking and Transport Issues On-site parking provision appears to fall short of demand, compounding a long-standing issue in the Macquarie Park corridor. Inadequate attention to car parking will likely worsen traffic congestion and place further strain on nearby facilities. In conclusion, in its current form, the proposal does not demonstrate compliance with local planning controls, nor does it make adequate provision for the existing and future needs of the community. It contributes further to an already congested environment, both physically and socially, without delivering offsetting benefits. A revised proposal with reduced scale and genuine public benefit would be more appropriate for this location.

1756

Redacted

23/06/2025

Object

Website

SSD – Triniti Lighthouse BTR, North Ryde As both a local resident and an Architect, I want to share my concerns about the proposed Trinity Lighthouse BTR development. Please see below items as follows: 1. Macquarie Park Innovation Precinct Master Plan • I recognised that BTR is permissible on E2 zone under the Housing SEPP. However, unlike Lachlan’s Line, the Eastern side of North Ryde Station Precinct currently lacks a commercial centre, public recreational areas, or a key destination — which are essential if the goal is to boost GDP. • The Macquarie Park Innovation Precinct Place Strategy outlines a broad vision for the region. Any new development should be evaluated in context to determine whether introducing additional housing is appropriate in an already densely populated residential area. It’s also important to assess whether the existing infrastructure can support the proposed increase in housing. 2. FSR GFA transfer should be evaluated in relation to the site’s context and its potential effects on the surrounding environment. Have we taken into account the additional housing developments already underway in the Lachlan’s Line area? 3. Car Parking The proposed 319 car parking spaces fall short of the 509 spaces required under the Ryde DCP. The development should aim to enhance the area's overall parking supply, rather than diminish the existing provision.

1806

Redacted

23/06/2025

Object

Website

There are limited residential parking as is Too much traffic already on Delhi road

1731

Redacted

23/06/2025

Object

Website

This development, in its current form, does not align with the long-term interests of the North Ryde community. I urge the Planning Authority to reconsider the proposal and require significant revisions that prioritise livability, sustainability, and genuine community benefit. Please see attached

Objection to Triniti Lighthouse.pdf (PDF, 41.44 KB)

1771

Redacted

23/06/2025

Object

Website

I purchased a unit in 1 Network Place on the East side, particularly for the views from the unit along with proximity to public transport. The plan was to downsize into this unit following retirement (I am currently just over 60) . At the time of purchase, I explored the zoning of the neighboring site of proposed Stockland development which included up to 37m height development, hence my purchase on the 21st floor of Network Place, knowing my view of landmarks such as the Harbour Bridge, City skyline, North Sydney and Chatswood skylines would be preserved with future development. The main objection I have to development is the catastrophic/devastating loss of view my retirement unit will suffer with the proposed increased height of development - in particular loss of North Sydney to City (including Harbour Bridge) views, along with the associated issue of loss of privacy, having to look into other apartments directly across in the new proposed development and significant loss of light/sun with the increased height. Had I known of the increased height prior to purchase, I would not have bought this unit. There are also significant likely impacts on traffic and parking with this development (and other likely developments within the neighborhood in the near future). There is already very limited parking for both residents and visitors to the area. The proposed parking with the new development would appear to be totally inadequate even for the potential residents in the new development, let alone the increased stress on traffic (particularly during peak hour with worse access and egress to and from the area than the current situation) and parking the increased height of this development will cause. I have no objection to the concept development of the site proposed, and would infact support development with appropriate provision of parking, amenity to the area and further commercial/residential space. However, I do strongly object to the proposed scale of the development under the "Build to Rent" government incentives when there is already further significant development currently under construction in the Lachlans Line area (adjacent to the Motorway, and plans for further significant development in the already built up are of Macquarie Park. The small area here will not be able to sustain the population and size of this proposed development with the limited area and infrastructure (particularly roads and parking) which already struggles with the current population.

1706

New South Wales 2113

22/06/2025

Object

Website

I have major concerns as this proposal is non-compliant with height restrictions. It exceeds the 37-meter building height limit specified for this lot under Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014. Moving forward with this development would clearly breach the planning controls and undermine public confidence in the integrity of the planning framework. Another issue is the inadequate provision of parking. The proposal fails to offer sufficient car parking for future residents and visitors, placing further strain on an already congested local street network. This reflects a failure to meet essential planning standards, including the non-refusal benchmarks related to parking provisions. Overshadowing presents a significant and ongoing concern. The looming presence of additional high-rise buildings threatens to reduce sunlight access for existing residents, particularly those at 5 and 3 Network Place. The resulting loss of natural light would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity and quality of life. Lastly, the proposal misrepresents public infrastructure by inaccurately presenting the New Link Road as an amenity directly associated with the Triniti Lighthouse development. In reality, this infrastructure is not a direct result of the proposal and should not be considered a benefit attributable to it.

1691

New South Wales 2113

22/06/2025

Object

Website

I would like to object to the proposal as one of the residents who lives in this area and my major concerns are as attached.

Trinit BTR IPC Submission(June2025).pdf (PDF, 194.41 KB)

1711

New South Wales 2113

22/06/2025

Object

Website

Please find attached my submission

Objection - Stockland Triniti IPC_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 102.34 KB)

1681

New South Wales 2113

22/06/2025

Object

Website

Design flaw and accuracy of information presented to the public and panel. The design require further validation. Please refer to attached pdf showing the built form did not achieve amenities as described, particularly orientation of buildings A and C, where majority of south east facing units are no receiving direct solar access during 9am-3pm on June 21. The percentage of the 'no sun' units are should be at 29% instead of the 11% claimed, showing more than a quarter of the total units in development are in fact has poor amenity (no sun). Given there are 510 units proposed within this extra density, 148 units are compromised which is a very high number, comparing to a compliance scheme. Other key items below are also of concern: GFA Figures Are Inflated Through Misuse of Public Land Stockland’s Gross Floor Area calculations rely on including the area of the proposed New Link Road — land they intend to dedicate to council. This artificially boosts their developable area, allowing them to claim bonus height and floor space they have not earned. It’s a clear manipulation of planning rules to inflate entitlement. Height and Density Far Exceed What the Zoning Allows The site’s base zoning permits a height of 37 metres and a 2:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR). Stockland is pushing for a massive uplift to 65 metres and 3:1 FSR — a 75% increase in height and 50% more floor area — under Clause 6.9 (now Clause 7.7). Yet this clause allows such bonuses only if strict conditions are met, including commercial delivery, public recreation, and integrated access networks. Stockland’s proposal fails to meet these requirements and should not qualify for such extensive uplift. Build-to-Rent Is Misrepresented as “Commercial” to Unlock Bonuses Strong contest against Stockland’s classification of Build-to-Rent (BTR) apartments as “commercial.” This classification is clearly an attempt to satisfy Clause 7.7’s requirement for commercial development, despite BTR delivering no meaningful employment or GDP contribution. This tactic subverts the intent of the clause, which was designed to encourage a truly mixed-use, job-supportive precinct — not residential towers disguised as economic infrastructure. The Ryde LGA Has Already Exceeded Its Housing Targets The NSW Government’s housing supply targets for the Ryde Local Government Area have already been exceeded. There is no planning justification for concentrating even more high-density housing at this site — particularly without matching investment in public infrastructure or community benefit. This is overdevelopment driven by developer interests, not community need. A Broken Promise to the Community When residents purchased homes in North Ryde, they were assured of a planning framework capped at 37 m height and 2:1 FSR. Stockland’s move to apply Clause 7.7 after zoning was finalised is a betrayal of that understanding. The shift to much higher density — without community consultation or transparency — represents a breach of public trust and erodes confidence in the planning process. Clause 7.7 The Stockland North Ryde proposal seeks to invoke Clause 7.7 to justify extreme increases in building height and density — yet it flagrantly fails to meet the clause’s mandatory conditions. It delivers just 3.9% commercial floor space, a token offering that cannot be considered a serious contribution to employment or economic activity. Build-to-Rent is being falsely packaged as “commercial” to qualify for planning bonuses intended to stimulate genuine mixed-use development. The so-called public recreation space is grossly inadequate — a mere 0.3 hectares, hemmed in between towers, with significant areas lacking access to sunlight. The majority of communal areas are private and inaccessible to the public, directly contradicting Clause 7.7’s requirement for meaningful, publicly usable open space. Worse still, the access network is fractured and unsafe. Pedestrian links are forced through back-of-house service areas, loading docks, and vehicle exits — far from the “functional and safe connectivity” the clause demands. The proposed “link road” remains largely private in nature, contradicting early promises of a vibrant, public precinct. Strain on existing infrastructure (public transport) The density is excessive and adds extra strain to existing public transport (namely Metro), which is already stretched to its limits during peak periods, with no current capacity to absorb further demand. This is particularly important as BTR focuses on reduced carpark numbers, which means high reliance on public transport. Existing residents will be greatly impacted with such high density of 510 units. View Loss due to extra heights Stockland’s proposal to build towers up to 65 metres tall will completely obliterate long-standing district views of Lane Cove National Park, the Sydney skyline, and the Blue Mountains — views that are not just desirable, but deeply ingrained in the visual identity and everyday experience of the North Ryde community. The towers will form an oppressive built wall, blocking natural light, open skies, and panoramic outlooks that residents have enjoyed for decades. I sincerely hope the above concerns will be given full and careful consideration, and that an appropriate outcome will be reached — one that ensures compliance with planning policy and protects the community’s interests. Thank you for your time and attention.

TRINITI- SHADOW DIAGRAM ACCURACY.pdf (PDF, 538 KB)

1701

New South Wales 2113

22/06/2025

Object

Website

The local area is already under significant pressure from ongoing high-density developments. The current proposal will exacerbate an already critical shortfall in accessible green space, social amenities, and public facilities within walking distance. This is particularly concerning for residents of 1–3 Network Place, who have voiced strong objections to the cumulative impacts of continued vertical expansion without a balanced provision of open space and community resources. I also have below concerns against this new development: 1. Non-Compliance with Height Restrictions: The proposal exceeds the 37-meter building height limit specified for this lot under Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014. Proceeding with this development would constitute a clear breach of the Local Environmental Plan and undermine confidence in the planning framework. 2. Inadequate Provision of Parking: The proposal does not provide sufficient car parking for future residents and visitors, further burdening an already constrained local street network. This highlights a failure to meet basic planning standards, such as the non-refusal benchmarks for parking. 3. Overshadowing Concerns: The scale and positioning of the proposed buildings will cast significant shadows over existing properties, particularly at 1–3 Network Place, severely limiting natural light and impacting the amenity of current residents. 4. Misleading Representation of Public Infrastructure: The proposal inaccurately portrays the New Link Road as a project-specific amenity. In reality, this infrastructure is not a direct outcome of the Triniti Lighthouse development and should not be presented as a benefit attributable to the proposal.

1686

Redacted

22/06/2025

Object

Website

i bought a ryde garden building B unit in 2014 off the plan without any knowledge or consultation of future plans that we may be surrounded by tall structures which will have an effect on blocking out sunlight, obstructing views to the city and chatswood, dense population leading to further traffic congestion with already limited infrastructure to handle current traffic loads. i understand that additional housing is critical at the moment but ask you to seriously consider my submission for reasons stated and at worst to seriously limit the height of proposed structures. had i been aware of these future proposals i would have bought elsewhere.

1676

New South Wales 2113

21/06/2025

Object

Website

Stockland proposed to build to a height of 20 floors to build 510 BTR (Build To Rent) units in the vacant block to the east of RG (Ryde Gardens). This will cause grievances to the existing dwellers at Ryde Gardens, 1 and 3 Network Place, North Ryde, 2113. - This will cause devastating view loss of the property owners at Ryde Garden - Will shadow the existing buildings/dwellings - Ryde Garden residents expected a 12 floor, (37m) commercial building on the Stockland property vacant block. - Instead, 20 floors of Build To Rent (BTR) are proposed Hence, I humbly request that the planning commission does not grant Stockland approval to build till 20 floor, and restricts Stockland to the originally proposed height and FSI only. Best regards, K (Owner and resident of a unit at Ryde Gardens)

1661

New South Wales 2113

20/06/2025

Object

Website

Hi there, I object to the proposed development as the height and size of the building will incur an unsustainable influx of population. This will lead to public transport stresses and not enough resource to manage the influx of people - the metro is already extremely crowded and buses are also busy. There will be more litter and dog /pet waste around, leading to a negative environmental impact on an already busy area. Commercial space will also be left un-used as it is already not used. Roads in the surrounding area when people commute to and from work, even on weekends will be even more congested around an area with a child care centre so it will be more dangerous for children and their families. Thanks.

1671

Redacted

20/06/2025

Object

Website

Submission to the Independent Planning Commission of NSW Re: Objection to Stockland’s Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent Proposal (SSD-55844212) Location: North Ryde, NSW Dear IPCN, I am writing to formally object to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent (BTR) development by Stockland at North Ryde. While I acknowledge the pressing need for increased housing supply in Sydney, I believe this particular project is fundamentally flawed in its current form and is inappropriate for the North Ryde community. 1. Overdevelopment and Incompatibility with Local Character The scale and density of the Triniti Lighthouse project are inconsistent with the established character and planning vision of North Ryde. This is a predominantly low-to-medium density suburban area that values its residential feel, green spaces, and community-oriented environment. Introducing a high-density BTR complex risks creating a jarring urban enclave that conflicts with the area’s existing and planned urban fabric. 2. Absence of Affordable and Socially Inclusive Housing Outcomes The proposal makes no binding commitment to delivering genuinely affordable housing. BTR developments often command premium rents and serve a narrow market segment, benefiting institutional investors rather than addressing the broader housing crisis. Without legally enforceable affordability quotas or long-term price controls, the development cannot be justified on the basis of public benefit. 3. Infrastructure and Service Overload North Ryde is already experiencing significant pressure on transport, education, and health infrastructure. The proposed development would introduce hundreds of new residents without any proportionate investment in supporting services. Public transport routes are congested, local schools are at capacity, and the proposal provides no concrete assurances that essential upgrades will accompany the population increase. 4. Environmental and Sustainability Concerns The development site is located in close proximity to important green corridors and bushland, which play a vital role in biodiversity and community wellbeing. Large-scale construction of this kind will likely exacerbate the urban heat island effect, increase hard surface runoff, and reduce tree canopy — counter to NSW Government sustainability goals. The current environmental management plan appears insufficient in addressing the cumulative ecological impacts of the proposal. 5. Inadequate Community Consultation Many residents feel that the consultation process has been insufficient, with limited transparency and minimal incorporation of community feedback into the proposal’s design. The scale of the development warrants a much deeper and more inclusive planning process, particularly for a project of this significance in a suburban context. Conclusion The Triniti Lighthouse BTR project represents an over-scaled, investor-led development that is unsuited to the North Ryde context. It fails to meet the threshold of genuine public benefit, offers no clear affordability guarantees, and poses risks to local infrastructure and the environment. I respectfully urge the Commission to reject the proposal in its current form and request a significantly revised plan that aligns with local needs, capacity, and planning principles. Thank you for considering this submission.

1656

Redacted

19/06/2025

Object

Website

I objected because the change of the building height increase the population density which will be greatly impacted the area where there are already a lot of new residential buildings developed and this will cause overly dense population in that area

1646

New South Wales 2113

19/06/2025

Object

Website

Thankyou for the opportunity to submit opinions regarding the 39 Delhi Rd Trinity II BTR development proposal. My arguments are detailed and contained in the attached Word document. Kind regards, Nev Goodyer

IPC_Submission_NevGoodyer_redacted.pdf (PDF, 3.54 MB)

1636

New South Wales 2113

19/06/2025

Object

Website

The current public transport infrastructure simply cannot sustain this many additional residences. At peak commuter hours into the city the metro is already completely packed and often commuters have to wait for several trains to find one with space. North Ryde metro station is the last stop where commuters can just about get on, with an increased number of residents, the metro line will be completely overwhelmed. Those attempting to access from Chatswood, Crows Nest and Victoria Cross will have no chance of getting on as the metro doesn't clear until Martin Place. There is a severe lack of transparency and consideration for commuters and the practical aspect of building dense housing. Already the surrounding streets of the proposed development area is full of dog excrement and litter. This is bound to get worse too without significant collaboration with local authorities for clean-ups and regular enforcement.

1651

Redacted

19/06/2025

Object

Website

object to this application

1641

Redacted

19/06/2025

Object

Website

Existing community facilities are already operating at capacity and there are limited public open spaces per capita in this immediate vicinity. The proposed high-rise will cause significant overshadowing to north-facing windows and balconies of 1-3 Network Place, particularly during winter solstice, reducing solar access. The close proximity and height of the new building will result in direct overlooking into living areas and bedrooms of 1-3 Network Place, leading to an unacceptable loss of privacy.The proposed development's car parking provision is inadequate for its scale, failing to meet the relevant parking rates outlined in the Ryde Development Control Plan (DCP). This will exacerbate existing parking pressures on local streets surrounding 1-3 Network Place, impacting resident and visitor parking. The Triniti Lighthouse Build proposal appears to claim the New Link Road as an amenity offered by the proposal. This cannot be legitimately presented as a benefit attributable to the Triniti Lighthouse project. The current proposal, particularly with the misrepresentation of the New Link Road, demonstrably fails to meet the fundamental requirements of Clause 6.9(3)(a), (b), and (c) to justify any increased height or FSR. Approving this development in its current form would further exacerbate the critical shortage of these essential elements, contrary to the overall objective of Clause 6.9(1) to ensure 'adequate access network and recreation areas' are 'co-ordinated' with additional development.

1631

Redacted

18/06/2025

Object

Website

the proposed development is very high density and the height of the blocks are unbelievably tall. This will severely block our views and cause traffic jams to our living community. I am strongly object to the proposed development.

1616

New South Wales 2113

17/06/2025

Object

Website

The community area is currently saturated from high-density development. The new project, in its current version, will lead to a critical shortage of essential community spaces, social infrastructure, and green areas within walking distance. Residents at 1-3 Network Place are particularly concerned about the impacts of the project. Key concerns include: - Privacy: Residents face concerns about privacy as the proposed project directly faces the apartments in 1-3 Network Place. - View Blockage of View: Residents fear they will no longer have access to sky view as the residents anticipate complete blockage by the new project. - Overshadowing: The looming threat of overshadowing from new high-rises jeopardizes sunlight access for existing residents in 1-3 Network Place. - There is already insufficient parking in the area and the new project will further exacerbate existing issues. - Exceeding Height Limits: The proposal outlines a building height exceeding the 37 meters specified as the maximum for this lot under Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014. The proposal, therefore, does not comply with the LEP plan. Regarding Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014 ("Development in Macquarie Park Corridor"): While Clause 6.9 (3) allows for the consent authority to approve development with increased height and floor space ratio if satisfied about adequate provision for recreation areas and an access network. Our concern highlights that these provisions are already critically low. Therefore, even if the proposal attempts to leverage this clause, it must demonstrate how it will adequately provide for these elements, especially given the existing saturation and critical shortage.

1621

New South Wales 2113

17/06/2025

Object

Website

Subject: Concerns Regarding the Revised Triniti Lighthouse BtR Development (SSD-55844212) To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure 1. Height and Visual Disruption The updated plans still allow buildings up to 20 storeys high—far beyond the 37-metre limit usually set for this area. While Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP does allow for some flexibility, this feels like a stretch, especially for a Build-to-Rent project. These taller buildings would take away some of the most valued views in the area, including glimpses of the city and Harbour Bridge. It's a big change to the skyline that many locals rely on for a sense of place and enjoyment. 2. Traffic Pressure and Access Issues One of the most troubling aspects is the planned closure of New Link Road. That road was meant to be a key access point to help people move through the area, particularly near North Ryde Station. Without it, traffic is likely to become much worse on Delhi Road and surrounding streets—especially during busy hours. Using Rennie Street as the only main access route for more than 500 units could cause serious safety problems and lead to more congestion and parking pressure. 3. Community Feedback Overlooked During the original consultation period, over a hundred people submitted feedback. It’s disappointing to see that the updated proposal hasn’t taken many of those concerns into account. The main worries—loss of views, traffic buildup, and cutting off New Link Road—still haven’t been properly addressed. It feels like the community’s input was heard, but not really listened to. 4. Doesn’t Fit the Area’s Long-Term Strategy This development doesn’t seem to match what the Macquarie Park Innovation Precinct strategy has in mind. That strategy looks at the area as a space for commercial growth and innovation. Introducing a major residential block in the middle of that plan could throw the balance off and slow progress in making the precinct a business and tech hub. 5. Environmental and Heritage Impacts Still an Issue Cutting down 26 trees and not fully addressing the heritage value of the site is a real concern. Green space and local history help define our area, and losing them for this development could have lasting effects on the local environment and community identity. Final Thoughts Given all these issues, I ask the Department to seriously reconsider approving the revised Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development. This area needs thoughtful, well-balanced growth that respects both the planning framework and the people who live here. A scaled-down and better-integrated proposal would go a long way toward achieving that.

1611

New South Wales 2113

17/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally object to the proposed building development by Stockland. The development, which is planned to be just 20 meters apart from existing residential buildings, raises several serious concerns related to solar access, traffic congestion, and community impact. 1. Solar Access The proposed development would severely reduce sunlight exposure for Buildings A and B, particularly during the winter months, when sun access is already limited. This lack of sunlight will significantly impact residents’ quality of life, energy consumption, and property value. Additionally, the NSW Apartment Design Guide requires that at least 70% of apartments receive a minimum of 2 hours of direct sunlight between 9 AM and 3 PM in midwinter. The current proposal does not sufficiently meet these standards. Furthermore, the Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure (DPHI) has misrepresented the impact by grouping Buildings A, B, and C as one entity, rather than evaluating them separately. This approach dismisses the unique challenges each building faces due to overshadowing. The Findings and conclusions from Stockland states that "no overshadowing occurs to the adjacent residential properties to the north and north-west at Ryde Gardens and Centrale due to the orientation of the site and siting of the proposal to the south of these residential properties" Stockland’s statement selectively focuses on north and north-west properties, conveniently avoiding the issue for south and south-east properties, which are actually more affected by overshadowing due to the building's orientation. - The impact on south and south-east properties is completely ignored in Stockland’s findings. - The orientation of the proposal directly affects these properties, potentially reducing solar access and overall livability. - Stockland’s response is incomplete and misleading, failing to provide a comprehensive shadow analysis for all affected residences 2. Privacy Issue Stockland's response states that "the Department finds that the proposed building separation distances maintain reasonable levels of visual privacy to surrounding properties." However, this claim is inconsistent, as there are clear exceptions to this supposed standard. These exceptions are dismissed as "minor" or insignificant because they affect "only two levels." However, the impact on affected residences should not be ignored simply because the number of affected floors is limited. Every resident's right to privacy should be respected, regardless of how many levels are impacted. The proposal fails to provide adequate compensation or mitigation measures for these affected properties, effectively disregarding their legitimate concerns. The expectation that impacted residents should accept a reduction in their privacy without recourse is unfair and unacceptable. A proper review and redesign should be required to ensure all residents maintain reasonable visual privacy. 3. Traffic Concerns Existing Congestion The area already experiences heavy traffic jams during peak hours, even with diversions via New Link Road and Rivet Road. The addition of a 20-level building will exacerbate congestion, increasing travel times and reducing road safety. Stockland’s amended proposal references the Advice Summary from TfNSW, which states that the project is "unlikely to have a significant impact on the classified road network." However, this statement fails to define the scope of the classified road network, leaving uncertainty about which roads were assessed. Additionally, it underestimates the existing traffic difficulties faced by community members, dismissing them as an "unlikely" concern. A comprehensive traffic condition report should be required to properly evaluate the long-term impact of the development on local roads, intersections, and peak-hour congestion. Parking Issue The amended proposal highlights 319 new parking spaces, but the allocation is insufficient given the scale of the development: - 80% (256 spaces) are designated for residential use. - 13% for residential visitors (42 spaces). - 5% for retail use (16 spaces). - 1.5% for car share port (5 spaces). With approximately 500 households in the future Triniti building, the parking allocation falls short, forcing residents to seek off-street parking, which is already scarce for current residents in Ryde Garden and Delhi Road buildings. Additionally, the retail parking allocation is only 16 spaces, which is insufficient to accommodate their customers, leading to increased demand for street parking. This will contribute to traffic congestion, as drivers circle the area searching for parking, further disrupting traffic flow and pedestrian safety. 4. Built-to-Rent Impact on the Community The proposed built-to-rent model encourages short-term tenancies, reducing the stability and cohesion of the community. A transient population can weaken neighborhood bonds, making the area less socially connected and engaged. Additionally, there has been a noticeable increase in crime rates, particularly theft, in the area. Short-term tenancy may contribute to a lack of accountability and neighborhood security. The proposal should consider strategies to foster long-term residency and maintain community integrity. 5. Issues not addressed or very little mention of them during the construction period. The traffic congestion in the neighborhood will worsen due to the influx of construction vehicles and workers, yet Stockland’s Assessment Report fails to outline any clear strategies to mitigate this issue. This concern is particularly critical given the presence of multiple childcare centers and a high volume of pedestrians under the age of 18 in the area. Increased traffic without a proper management plan will heighten safety risks, exposing children to hazardous road conditions. Additionally, construction projects often lead to temporary road closures, detours, and parking shortages, further disrupting daily commutes for residents and businesses. A comprehensive construction traffic management plan should be required to: - Minimise disruptions to local roads and pedestrian pathways. - Ensure safe crossings and traffic control measures near childcare centers and schools. - Limit construction vehicle access during peak hours to reduce congestion. 6. Wind Damage Recently, a strong gust of wind caused structural damage in Ryde Garden, highlighting the significant impact of wind tunneling in areas with clusters of high-rise buildings. The wind report for Stockland’s Triniti buildings mentions their balconies but fails to address the funneling effect on existing Ryde Garden balconies, which are directly affected by the site's orientation. As a resident, I have personally experienced devastating wind noise and pressure, not only on the balconies but also on the windows, creating serious concerns about safety, comfort, and long-term durability. It is disappointing to see that this critical issue has been overlooked, despite the clear real-world impact. A comprehensive wind study should be conducted to evaluate how the development intensifies wind forces on surrounding buildings and implement necessary mitigation measures to protect residents. 7. Effect on Public Utility Infrastructure Both Ausgrid and the NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water (NSW DCCEEW Water Group) have expressed concerns regarding Stockland’s proposed development. Last summer, residents of Ryde Gardens and Delhi Road experienced frequent blackouts, highlighting the existing strain on the electrical grid. With the completion of Stockland’s project, energy consumption in the area will likely to increase significantly, further exacerbating the risk of power outages. The current Electrical Utility Report provides only a generalised overview of consumption rates, relying on average values rather than a detailed assessment of peak demand and infrastructure capacity. This approach fails to account for real-world fluctuations and underestimates the potential impact of the new development. Additionally, the last power outage affected traffic lights, leading to traffic delays and unsafe conditions for pedestrians. Given the volume of residents living around the area, any future disruptions could pose serious safety risks. 8. Ambiguous and Inaccurate Reporting Several reports submitted for the proposed development contain misinformation and inconsistencies, raising serious concerns about their accuracy and reliability. This calls into question the integrity of the assessments used to justify the project. For example, the Environmental Impact Report, Ryde Garden Building B is incorrectly described as a 28-level building, which is factually inaccurate. While this may seem like a minor error, such discrepancies suggest that key aspects of the investigation were either rushed or based on incorrect data. These inaccuracies undermine trust in the thoroughness of Stockland’s assessments and create significant concern among existing residents. It is crucial that all reports undergo a comprehensive review to ensure that no misinformation is used to justify the approval of this project. While I recognise the need for additional housing in the Sydney Metropolitan area, I urge a thorough and detailed investigation to ensure that new developments foster a strong, sustainable community. It is essential that the quality of life for existing residents is not diminished and that their concerns are fully considered in the planning process. A well-balanced approach is necessary to support growth while preserving the integrity of the neighborhoods that people proudly call home.

1626

New South Wales 2113

17/06/2025

Object

Website

Subject: Submission – Triniti Lighthouse Development (SSD-55844212) To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure Dear Planning Department, I live at 1 Network Place in North Ryde with my husband. I’m writing to strongly oppose the revised proposal for the Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development. One of the biggest reasons we chose this apartment to live in — and hopefully raise our family in — is the view. From our windows, we can see Chatswood, North Sydney, and even the city and Harbour Bridge on a clear day. It’s a beautiful outlook that gives us light, a sense of space, and a real connection to Sydney. Losing that would be a huge personal loss for us. What’s really frustrating is how the developers tried to play down the impact of their building on these views. The photos and diagrams they’ve submitted for the view sharing assessment make it look like Chatswood and the city are tiny specks way off in the distance — barely visible, as if they don’t really matter. But in reality, those views are striking and obvious from our home. You don’t need to squint to see them. It feels like those images were carefully chosen — or even manipulated — to make the impact seem smaller than it really is. Wide-angle lenses, strange cropping, or distant perspectives — whatever they’ve done, it doesn’t reflect what we actually see every day. It’s upsetting that something so important to our lives is being minimised like that. We’re not against housing, and we understand Sydney needs more of it. But this proposal is simply too big for the area. Twenty storeys is excessive, and the scale would dominate the landscape and block out the open sky that so many of us value. We’ve built a life here based on what this place offered — not just a roof over our heads, but a home with light, outlook, and connection. Please reconsider this development. It’s not just about numbers on a page or technical drawings — it’s about real people, real homes, and quality of life. Once views like these are taken away, they’re gone for good. Thank you for your time.

1601

New South Wales 2113

16/06/2025

Object

Website

Clause 6.9 has undermined trust in planning controls for most residents Non-compliance with Clause 6.9 development in the Macquarie Park Corridor Inadequacy of communal and pedestrian areas Overdevelopment of the site - insufficient recreation space and inconsistency with the Macquarie Park Place Strategy Inadequacy of green space impacted by the additional development Inadequate prospect of community benefit Community infrastructure lacking to service eg eateries, supermarkets Massive lack of parking and overstaying current street parking is a major issue already Public transport already at capacity at peak hour Epping road and Dehli road very congested with commuters even with current residence level While Stockland's application was lodged prior to the TOD (Transport Oriented Development) rezoning, it MUST be assessed against the changed environment. Tower heights throughout the Macquarie Park rezoning area have generally been proportional to adjacent PUBLIC green space areas. The Stockland application only sites some green space on New Link Rd, which it plans to dedicate to City of Ryde Council, and which will still carry significant traffic. Additional tower density and the cumulative impacts of building masses have not been considered in the Stockland application. Manipulation of photography to create illusion the impact on views and sunlight would be minor. Stockland's application is in bad faith and undermines community trust. Lack of road access already a concern on Dehli Rd, Rennie st, network place and new link road. Congestion regarding parking and traffic is both inconvenient and unsafe. Lack of amenities to support environmental living- concerning lack of regard in the plan given to renewable energy sources like solar power. The local area is already under resourced in that way and there are no EV charging amenities nearby to serve the current population let alone the growth this development would bring. The submission is not in line with comparative green space available for community wellbeing and enjoyment. Overshadowing of high rise buildings having devestating impact on views and sunlight for many apartments in Ryde Gardens. Not only does this impact apartment resell value, it is a concern for health and wellbeing and could increase mould in the surrounding buildings which is a huge health concern. Accepting proposal on a technicality sets precedent for other companies to manipulate the process for their own financial benefit with no care or consequences due to the impact on the community. It is an unbalanced abuse of power for Stockland to sneak this in under mum and dad community members.

1591

New South Wales 2113

15/06/2025

Object

Website

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to strongly object to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development. My concerns relate to four key issues: traffic congestion, lack of parking capacity, privacy and view impacts, and non-compliance with local building height regulations. 1. Traffic Congestion and Road Network Stress The local road infrastructure is already under strain, particularly during peak commuting hours. Adding a high-density residential development will significantly increase traffic volumes, leading to further congestion. The proposal fails to demonstrate how this traffic impact will be effectively managed. This is a significant issue affecting many local areas and needs to be addressed before further development continues. 2. Inadequate Parking and No Capacity for Spillover Absolutely! Here's a polished, strategic version of that parking concern—without saying you haven’t seen the plans—while still keeping it tactful and focused: --- **Strategic Objection – Parking and Traffic Impact** The proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development appears unlikely to provide sufficient on-site parking to adequately accommodate both residents and visitors. Given the constrained nature of the surrounding area, there are no nearby residential streets with capacity to absorb any overflow parking. Existing parking availability is already significantly stretched, with local residents frequently experiencing difficulties securing parking spaces. Local developments, including Trinity Lighthouse continue to underestimate the realistic car ownership rates of its residents. Any additional parking pressure, if unaddressed before any further development, will continue to exacerbate existing challenges, leading to increased competition for limited parking resources and further contributing to traffic congestion in the area. 3. Loss of Privacy and Obstructed Views The height and massing of the proposed buildings will lead to significant privacy intrusion, with direct lines of sight into neighbouring homes and outdoor spaces. Furthermore, the development will obstruct existing views, impacting visual amenity and diminishing the overall character and openness of the area. These impacts are not adequately addressed in the application. 4. Breach of Zoning Height Limits The proposed buildings exceed the height restrictions set by current zoning regulations, directly contradicting established planning controls meant to preserve neighbourhood character, protect amenity. Approval of this over-height proposal would set a concerning precedent, encouraging further non-compliant development. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, I strongly urge the planning authority to reject the Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent proposal in its current form. The project would impose unsustainable burdens on local infrastructure, reduce livability for existing residents, and undermine the integrity of the local planning framework. Thank you for your time and consideration.

1596

Redacted

15/06/2025

Object

Website

I ask the Commission to find this development not fit to approve. I wish to raise the following concerns - This development application incorrectly relies on Cl6.9 to increase build heights significantly, without concern for the reasonable expectations of existing local residents in terms of view sharing, over shadowing and as outlined in the next point is based on a flawed proposition of adding to community benefit when it is not. - New Link Road is an essential thoroughfare linking between Network Place and Epping Road without needing to use Delhi Road. This amenity provides the existing residents with multiple access/exit choices in an area with already concerning traffic gridlock in particular at beginning and end of the work day. New Link Road was built as a community contribution at the time of approving Triniti stage 1. The proposition that closing the road or part thereof as now a public benefit for stage 2 is preposterous. This road needs to remain as a permanent vehicle link roadway and not be reduced in capacity in any way and perversely claimed as a contribution to recreation area for residents. - Removing parking on New Link Road and Rennie street will both impact residents and the many parents who use these spots for pick up and drop off from the two large childcare centres within Trinit1 and Ryde Gardens. - Placing the residents garage entry on Rennie Street is very poor planning. Increasing vehicle movements on this small laneway will put at risk the many pedestrians and parents dropping and picking up infants from the childcare centre. The new garage entrance should clearly be placed off Rivett Road. - applying Tenacity principles to view sharing has not occurred within the skill of this building design and further doesn’t consider the reasonable expectation that many residents had of any development of the site being built to 37metres per the current zoning. - A significant amount of resources went into the Place Plan for this area through to Macquarie Park - what is the point of working through a considered plan such as this if a developer can then bend the intent of cl6.9 and build BTR in the area meant for a 37mtr commerical development to support the overall Place Plan? - Lastly, a point less about specific planning regulations and more to the point of the importance that individuals can rely on our planning regulations and appropriate use in order to make considered life plans. Many individuals bought their property with a clear understanding of the zoning around their buildings with sale values reflecting what views and overall amenity they would or would not expect to enjoy longer term. To allow this development is to betray that trust in the application of our zoning laws. We are not talking about one or two people we are talking about hundreds of apartment owners affected for the economic benefit of one corporate owner of a Build to Rent scheme. This development should not be allowed to proceed in its current form.

1586

New South Wales 2113

14/06/2025

Object

Website

Due to a technicality (Clause 6.9), Stockland claims they can build to a height of 20 floors, almost double the height that is stated in the LEP (Local Environment Plan). If Stockland is deemed to satisfy Clause 6.9, it's possible the old Microsoft building at 1 Epping Rd will also rise to 20 floors.

1581

Redacted

14/06/2025

Object

Website

My main concerns are: 1) Overshadowing: New high-rises threaten to significantly reduce sunlight for existing residents at 1-3 Network Place, impacting their quality of life. 2) Privacy and Views: The proposed development raises serious concerns about loss of privacy and view sharing, with some residents anticipating complete obstruction of their outlooks. 3) Insufficient Car Parking: The area already suffers from inadequate car parking provisions. The proposal does not address this issue, reflecting a failure to meet adequate non-refusal standards. 4) Non-Compliance with Height Limits: The proposed building height exceeds the 37-meter maximum specified for this lot under Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014, and therefore does not comply with the LEP requirements. 5) Misrepresentation of Public Amenities: The Triniti Lighthouse Build proposal appears to claim the New Link Road as a project benefit, despite it not being a direct amenity provided by the development itself.

1571

Redacted

13/06/2025

Object

Website

the proposed development of the building blocks are too high and too close to my block, which will not only block the review but also impair the living privacy. such high density development will also cause traffic issue in the future. I strongly object to the proposed development.

1546

New South Wales 2113

13/06/2025

Object

Website

The local area has become saturated as a result of high-density development. The proposed project, in its existing configuration, poses a risk of exacerbating the critical shortage of essential community spaces, social infrastructure, and accessible green areas. Residents of 1-3 Network Place express significant concern regarding the impact of additional high-rise developments. Key concerns encompass the following: 1. **Overshadowing**: The construction of new high-rises may considerably diminish sunlight access for the residents at 1–3 Network Place. 2. **Privacy and View Loss**: The development raises serious apprehensions about privacy and the sharing of views, with some residents anticipating a complete loss of their current outlook. 3. **Inadequate Infrastructure Standards**: The proposal fails to provide adequate car parking, thereby compounding existing infrastructure constraints and falling short of the anticipated planning standards. 4. **Exceeding Permitted Heights**: The height of the proposed building exceeds the maximum limit of 37 meters established in Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014. Thus, it does not conform to the current planning regulations. 5. **Misrepresentation of Amenities**: The proposal inaccurately claims the New Link Road as a benefit of the project, despite its status as a separate infrastructure commitment. This misrepresentation distorts the real amenities offered by the Triniti Lighthouse development. **Clause 6.9 – Ryde LEP 2014 (“Development in Macquarie Park Corridor”)**: While Clause 6.9(3) permits potential increases in height and floor space if there is adequate provision for recreational areas and access networks, these provisions are severely lacking in the area. Any attempt to invoke this clause must clearly delineate how these deficiencies will be rectified. The current proposal does not appear to meet this requirement, particularly in its dubious representation of the New Link Road as a project benefit

1561

Redacted

13/06/2025

Object

Website

I strongly oppose the proposed Triniti Lighthouse development amendment, which seeks to significantly increase the scale and height of the project well beyond what was originally intended. This proposal represents a fundamental shift from the community’s understanding of what would be built—and it risks undermining the character, amenity, and liveability of the Macquarie Park area. Macquarie Park is already facing immense pressure from ongoing high-density development. Local infrastructure is struggling to keep pace with population growth, and open space, community facilities, and social infrastructure are falling short of what is required to support current residents—let alone absorb additional demand from another large-scale tower. This proposal would further saturate an already overstretched environment, with no meaningful contribution to offset its impact. Key concerns include: • Excessive Height and Overshadowing: The scale of the proposed development would result in extensive overshadowing of nearby residences, particularly those at 1–3 Network Place. Residents would experience a noticeable loss of natural light, especially during winter, which has direct consequences for comfort, wellbeing, and energy use. • Loss of Privacy and Irreplaceable Views: The building’s bulk and height will lead to serious privacy concerns for surrounding residents, as well as complete obstruction of expansive and iconic views currently enjoyed—including those of the Sydney CBD skyline and surrounding landmarks. These views form a vital part of the area’s residential appeal and significantly affect property values and lifestyle quality. • Breach of Planning Controls: The development exceeds the height limit specified under Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014, which clearly designates a maximum building height of 37 metres for this site. Ignoring this control not only breaches planning rules—it undermines public trust in the development process and sets a concerning precedent for future proposals. • Inadequate Infrastructure Provision: The current proposal lacks sufficient provisions for car parking, traffic mitigation, and access to essential public services. It offers no new green space, no additional community facilities, and fails to address existing shortfalls that residents are already grappling with daily. • Misrepresentation of Public Benefits: The developer’s claim that the New Link Road is a benefit of this project is misleading. This road was not proposed or delivered as a direct part of the Triniti Lighthouse development and should not be used to justify additional height or density. While Clause 6.9(3) of the LEP allows discretion for increased height if a proposal provides adequate recreational areas and access networks, this application does not meet those conditions. There is no evidence that it will deliver the public infrastructure necessary to support its scale. In fact, it relies on infrastructure already at capacity, offering no real solution to growing community needs. In conclusion, this proposal represents a disproportionate and inappropriate response to the site’s context. It would worsen existing strains on the community, reduce the quality of life for current residents, and disregard the principles of good planning. I urge Council and the consent authority to reject this amendment and instead uphold the intent of the Ryde LEP—preserving a balanced, sustainable, and community-focused vision for Macquarie Park.

1536

Redacted

13/06/2025

Object

Website

The community is already experiencing significant strain from ongoing high-density but lack of appropriate infrastruture. The current version of the proposed project risks further depleting essential community spaces, social infrastructure, and accessible green areas. This is particularly concerning for residents of 1-3 Network Place, who are directly impacted by the introduction of additional high-rise buildings. Key concerns include: Overshadowing: The proposed high-rises pose a serious risk of overshadowing, potentially depriving residents at 1-3 Network Place of natural sunlight. Insufficient Non-Refusal Standards: The proposal’s inadequate provision for car parking adds to existing infrastructure pressures, highlighting deficiencies in meeting basic non-refusal standards. Whilst there is a metro station, the station does not provide adequate volume of metros especially during peak. Many of the residents have to not only wait, but dened access onto metros and buses because they are full hence needs for cars. Privacy and View Loss: There are substantial concerns regarding loss of privacy and visual amenity, with some residents expecting their views to be entirely obstructed. Non-Compliance with Height Controls: The proposed building height exceeds the 37-meter limit stipulated for this site under Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014, and is therefore not compliant with the current planning controls. Misleading Claims About Public Amenities: The Triniti Lighthouse Build proposal appears to list the New Link Road as a benefit of the development. However, this road is not a direct outcome of the project and should not be presented as such. Re: Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014 ("Development in Macquarie Park Corridor") Clause 6.9(3) permits increased building height and floor space ratio if the consent authority is satisfied that adequate recreation areas and access networks are provided. However, given the existing shortage of these provisions, any development seeking to rely on this clause must clearly demonstrate how it will address the current deficiencies. The present proposal fails to do so—especially in light of the misleading inclusion of the New Link Road as a purported community benefit.

1576

Redacted

13/06/2025

Object

Website

I am objecting to this project, due to the fact if this is approved there is room for the Microsoft building to also further extend it's height. This 2 fold change has already been highlighted in the design provided by Stockland signififying the intent to carry out this proposal. Additionally there will be extensive view loss, blocking almost everything there is. Not only this but now becomes a massive privacy concern, where once an individual wouldn't have to worry about closing windows / blinds for basic privacy.

1551

Redacted

13/06/2025

Object

Website

I strongly object to the proposed increase in building height and density for the Triniti Lighthouse project. What was originally intended to be a moderate-scale development has now grown into an oversized and inappropriate high-rise proposal that threatens the integrity, character, and liveability of the Macquarie Park precinct. The area is already experiencing the consequences of overdevelopment, with high-density projects placing overwhelming pressure on essential infrastructure, public amenities, and green spaces. Introducing another oversized development will further strain this saturated environment and erode the quality of life for existing residents—especially those living at 1-3 Network Place, who are directly impacted. Key concerns include: • Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight: The proposed height and bulk will result in significant overshadowing, blocking natural sunlight for surrounding homes and communal areas. This directly affects the mental and physical wellbeing of current residents. • Loss of Privacy and View Sharing: Many residents will face a complete loss of iconic and long-valued views, along with serious privacy intrusions from new overlooking structures. These are not minor inconveniences—they represent a permanent and detrimental change to people’s homes and lifestyles. • Planning Non-Compliance: The proposed height exceeds the maximum specified under Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014. It clearly fails to comply with established planning controls, and approving such a breach would erode public confidence in the planning process. • Inadequate Infrastructure and Parking: The development fails to adequately account for existing transport congestion, car parking shortages, and public infrastructure demands. This reflects a short-sighted and unsustainable approach to urban growth. • Misleading Benefit Claims: The proposal misleadingly includes the New Link Road as part of its community offering, despite it not being a direct contribution of the project. This exaggeration of benefits undermines the credibility of the application. Clause 6.9(3) of the LEP allows some flexibility for increased height and floor space—but only if a development can demonstrate it provides meaningful and sufficient access networks and recreational spaces. In this case, it clearly does not. The community is already underserved in both areas, and this project offers no genuine improvement. This proposal reflects a pattern of aggressive overdevelopment that prioritizes private gain over public interest. It does not respond to the needs of the existing community, nor does it respect the planning framework that was meant to protect the liveability of Macquarie Park. I strongly urge that this proposal be rejected in its current form.

1526

New South Wales 2113

13/06/2025

Object

Website

The community area is currently saturated from high-density development. The new project, in its current version, will lead to a critical shortage of essential community spaces, social infrastructure, and green areas within walking distance. Residents at 1-3 Network Place are particularly concerned about the impacts of new high-rises. Key concerns include: - Overshadowing: The looming threat of overshadowing from new high-rises jeopardizes sunlight access for existing residents in 1-3 Network Place. - Privacy and View Sharing: Residents face concerns about privacy and view sharing, with some anticipating complete blockage of their views. - Inadequate Non-Refusal Standards: Insufficient car parking provisions in the area further exacerbate existing issues, indicating a lack of adequate non-refusal standards. - Exceeding Height Limits: The proposal outlines a building height exceeding the 37 meters specified as the maximum for this lot under Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014. The proposal, therefore, does not comply with the LEP plan. - Misrepresentation of Public Amenities: The Triniti Lighthouse Build proposal appears to claim the New Link Road as an amenity offered by the proposal. This cannot be legitimately presented as a benefit attributable to the Triniti Lighthouse project. Regarding Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP 2014 ("Development in Macquarie Park Corridor"): While Clause 6.9 (3) allows for the consent authority to approve development with increased height and floor space ratio if satisfied about adequate provision for recreation areas and an access network. Our concern highlights that these provisions are already critically low. Therefore, even if the proposal attempts to leverage this clause, it must demonstrate how it will adequately provide for these elements, especially given the existing saturation and critical shortage. The current proposal appears to fall short in this regard, particularly with the misrepresentation of the New Link Road as a project benefit.

1566

Redacted

13/06/2025

Object

Website

I wish to formally object to the proposed amendment of the Triniti Lighthouse development, which seeks to significantly increase the building height and density beyond what was originally approved. This dramatic change not only departs from the expectations set with the local community, but it also fails to respond to the real and growing challenges of overdevelopment in the Macquarie Park area. Our community is already experiencing the cumulative impacts of rapid, high-density growth. Essential infrastructure—such as public transport, local roads, green open space, and community services—is under significant strain. Instead of addressing these concerns, this proposal would intensify them. It is out of scale with the surrounding context and offers no meaningful contribution to support the growing population it would bring. Specific concerns include: • Visual and Environmental Impact: The proposed height and massing of this building will dominate the skyline and have a severe visual impact on existing residents. It will cast long shadows over neighbouring buildings, resulting in a loss of natural sunlight, particularly for those living in 1–3 Network Place. This is not just a design issue—it affects mental wellbeing, energy consumption, and the basic amenity of one’s home. • Loss of Outlook and Amenity: Many apartments currently enjoy uninterrupted views of iconic landmarks across Sydney, including the Harbour Bridge, CBD skyline, and beyond. These views, which add cultural and property value, will be permanently lost. The increased height also compromises residential privacy, with units facing direct visual intrusion from the new building. • Non-Compliance with Planning Controls: The current planning instrument, the Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2014, clearly designates a maximum height of 37 metres for this lot. This proposal exceeds that limit without sufficiently meeting the conditions under Clause 6.9, which requires developments seeking additional height to demonstrate clear benefits in public infrastructure, access, and recreation space. This proposal does none of that—it stretches the rules while offering little in return to the community. • Lack of Infrastructure and Parking: Car parking in the area is already severely constrained. The proposal does not provide adequate additional parking, traffic solutions, or public transport support to absorb the increased load. Nor does it provide any new open space or community assets—further compounding existing shortfalls. • Questionable Community Benefit Claims: The application claims that the New Link Road is part of its community contribution. However, this road is not a direct result of the Triniti Lighthouse project and should not be used to justify increased development intensity. To do so misrepresents the public benefit and misleads the assessment process. The amendment not only disregards the original intent of the planning framework, but it also places developer ambition above the needs and expectations of the community. Approving this proposal would set a damaging precedent that undermines local planning controls and community trust. For these reasons, I respectfully request that this proposal be rejected in its current form. Any future development in Macquarie Park must align with existing planning controls, provide real infrastructure benefits, and enhance—rather than erode—the quality of life for those who already call this place home.

1541

Redacted

13/06/2025

Object

Website

I’d begin my submission by saying I am not in opposition of there being a residential housing development on the proposed site - there is a housing crisis, however I am concerned that the current plans are indicative of development in a manner that causes broader environmental and social impacts to the community. The substantial increase from the originally expected 12-storey (37m) limit is not only excessive—it is out of step with the character of the area, the expectations of residents, and the environmental sensitivity of the surrounding landscape. My key concerns are as follows: 1. Disruption of the Skyline and Loss of Natural Light The introduction of 20-storey towers into an area predominantly defined by low- to mid-rise buildings will radically alter the visual character of North Ryde. These high-rise forms will dominate the skyline, creating an overwhelming built presence and disrupting the previously balanced scale of the neighbourhood. For nearby residents, the impacts will be tangible: a dramatic reduction in access to natural light, increased overshadowing throughout the day, and a significant loss of privacy. These are not minor inconveniences—they go to the heart of residential liveability. 2. Threats to Biodiversity and Environmental Balance This area contains a vital corridor of urban biodiversity, including native bird species that rely on tree canopy connectivity and green open space. The scale and density of the proposed developments will fragment these habitats. The cumulative environmental impacts must not be underestimated: - Large concrete structures reduce permeable surfaces, intensifying stormwater runoff and flood risk during peak rainfall - Wind tunnel effects—commonly associated with towers of this scale—can disrupt microclimates and threaten pedestrian comfort and safety. - There is no evidence that biodiversity-sensitive urban design principles have been meaningfully integrated into the current proposals. Once damaged, these ecological systems are difficult, if not impossible, to restore. 3. Community Expectations and Planning Integrity Residents have made housing and investment decisions based on a 12-storey height framework, which was communicated as a balanced approach to urban renewal. Revising Clause 6.9 to permit towers nearly twice that height not only violates that understanding—it sends a message that community voices and prior consultations are easily discarded. This approach fosters deep distrust in the planning process and raises serious questions about transparency, consistency, and long-term strategic planning. I am not opposed to growth. But growth must be sustainable, proportionate, and respectful of the environment and the people who already live here. The proposed 20-storey amendments represent overdevelopment that prioritises developer interests over community wellbeing, environmental health, and the visual and ecological integrity of the neighbourhood. I respectfully urge the Independent Planning Commission to reject the proposed height increases and uphold the original 12-storey limit under Clause 6.9. Doing so will protect not only the skyline and natural light, but the ecological character and long-term liveability of North Ryde.

1556

Redacted

13/06/2025

Object

Website

I wish to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed modification of the Triniti Lighthouse development, which now seeks to introduce a significantly larger and taller high-rise than originally planned. This shift in scope is deeply concerning and incompatible with the existing conditions and community needs in Macquarie Park. Our area has already endured extensive high-density growth, leading to an undeniable strain on green space, public infrastructure, and essential community facilities. Residents in 1-3 Network Place are particularly affected, and this proposal would drastically worsen an already untenable situation. My primary concerns are as follows: • Excessive Overshadowing: The building’s height and bulk will obstruct natural daylight to nearby residences, creating dark, overshadowed environments that are not suitable for healthy, comfortable living. • Loss of Amenity: Residents stand to lose both privacy and long-enjoyed panoramic views. These views are not just aesthetic—they represent a key component of property value and personal wellbeing. • Planning Non-Compliance: The development exceeds the maximum allowable height as outlined in Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014. It is crucial that planning authorities uphold these regulations to ensure consistency, transparency, and fairness. • Infrastructure Shortfalls: The proposal does not sufficiently account for increased traffic, car parking demands, or access to public facilities. Infrastructure in this area is already stretched, and further intensification will only exacerbate current challenges. • Misrepresentation of Benefits: The developer claims the New Link Road as part of the proposal’s benefits, despite it not being delivered as a direct outcome of the development. This mischaracterization should not be accepted as legitimate planning merit. Although Clause 6.9(3) allows for increased building height under certain conditions, it clearly states that adequate recreation areas and access networks must be provided. In this case, those provisions are already lacking in the broader area, and the proposal does not offer any meaningful contribution to address this shortage. This development is not aligned with responsible urban planning principles. It threatens to degrade the liveability of the area and sets a dangerous precedent of ignoring established planning controls. I strongly urge Council to reject the proposal in its current form and uphold the integrity of the Ryde LEP.

1321

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I have a few problems with this proposal - the roads aren't wide enough to accommodate so many new people - severe lack of parking spaces and this will make it worse - winter time sunlight problem leading to cold, mould and mental health concerns -

1366

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The Stockland proposal next door is NOT entitled to the additional height and FSR (Floor Space Ratio) conditional on Clause 6.9. The arguments are that the development is NOT "commercial", the public recreation area is insufficient and the access network is convoluted and through the service access. 6.9 Development in Macquarie Park Corridor (1) The objective of this clause is to encourage additional commercial development in Macquarie Park Corridor co-ordinated with an adequate access network and recreation areas. (2) This clause applies to land in Macquarie Park Corridor, identified as “Precinct 01—Macquarie Park” on the Macquarie Park Corridor Precinct Map. (3) The consent authority may approve development with a height and floor space ratio that does not exceed the increased building height and floor space ratio identified on the Macquarie Park Corridor Precinct Incentive Height of Buildings Map and the Macquarie Park Corridor Precinct Incentive Floor Space Ratio Map, but only if the consent authority is satisfied that— (a) there will be adequate provision for recreation areas and an access network, and (b) the configuration and location of the recreation areas will be appropriate for the recreational purposes of the precinct, and (c) the configuration and location of the access network will allow a suitable level of connectivity within the precinct. From <https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/epi-2014-0608#sec.6.9>

1436

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

There is currently not enough public amenities (such as parks, recreation, health facilities and schools) around the area to support the size of the development. The road leading to M2 is a very small road, which lead to severe congestion as many people drives to the city.

1476

New South Wales 2071

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The current Microsoft building area be kept for a gardening/park as there are lack of out door area for 3 large condominiums near the North Ryde metro. Pls consider the Park with underground council car park like Lindfield. This not only address the short of parking area near North Ryde metro (highly recommended the board members to drive to this area in weekday to understand why the residents already complaining difficult to park), it also enable future underground walk towards the metro opportunity.

1246

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I am the owner of a neighbouring property to the proposed development at Ryde Garden and I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development adjacent to Ryde Garden, North Ryde. As a local resident, I am deeply concerned that this project, in its current form, will have a significant negative impact on the surrounding community and overall liveability of the area. I ask that the following issues be carefully considered before any approvals are granted: 1. Complete Loss of City Views and Overshadowing - The height, bulk, and positioning of the proposed development will directly block all existing city views from many Ryde Garden residences. This not only affects our property value but undermines the original design intent and visual amenity enjoyed by current residents. 2. Overlooking and Loss of Privacy - The proposed building faces existing apartments at an unacceptably close proximity, creating a severe privacy intrusion for Ryde Garden residents. With direct line-of-sight into living areas and balconies, this development compromises the right to residential amenity. 3. Traffic Congestion and Safety - North Ryde is already experiencing high traffic volumes, particularly during peak hours. An additional high-density residential complex of this scale will exacerbate congestion, increase pressure on local roads and intersections 4. Inadequate Parking Provision - With limited off-street parking and no clear plans to accommodate additional vehicles, this proposal will worsen the existing parking shortage. Residents and visitors will inevitably spill over into surrounding streets, creating tension and logistical issues in an already tight area. 5. Incompatible Built Form and Overdevelopment - The building’s height, bulk, and design are out of character with surrounding developments and not in harmony with the existing residential scale. It represents a form of overdevelopment inconsistent with the original planning vision of the area and the principles of sustainable urban design. 6. Detrimental Impact on Community Wellbeing - The Ryde Garden community values its open space, access to light, and a strong sense of privacy. This development threatens to undermine those qualities, affecting mental wellbeing, natural light access, and long-term residential satisfaction. I respectfully urge the planning authority to reject or significantly amend the Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent proposal. A more balanced approach that protects view corridors, respects neighbouring privacy, and addresses traffic and parking concerns is essential for maintaining the integrity and liveability of North Ryde. Thank you for considering this submission.

1341

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The development is NOT "commercial", the public recreation area is insufficient and the access network is convoluted and through the service access.

1381

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

Blocking views, noise, overcrowding

1451

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The arguments are that the development is NOT "commercial", the public recreation area is insufficient and the access network is convoluted and through the service access. The clause is quoted below because when I follow the link, I see that it's repealed! If there are any legal experts out there who can explain the implications, it would be fantastic! 6.9 Development in Macquarie Park Corridor (1) The objective of this clause is to encourage additional commercial development in Macquarie Park Corridor co-ordinated with an adequate access network and recreation areas. (2) This clause applies to land in Macquarie Park Corridor, identified as “Precinct 01—Macquarie Park” on the Macquarie Park Corridor Precinct Map. (3) The consent authority may approve development with a height and floor space ratio that does not exceed the increased building height and floor space ratio identified on the Macquarie Park Corridor Precinct Incentive Height of Buildings Map and the Macquarie Park Corridor Precinct Incentive Floor Space Ratio Map, but only if the consent authority is satisfied that— (a) there will be adequate provision for recreation areas and an access network, and (b) the configuration and location of the recreation areas will be appropriate for the recreational purposes of the precinct, and (c) the configuration and location of the access network will allow a suitable level of connectivity within the precinct.

1491

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I object. The proposal is not entitled to the additional height and FSR in accordance with Clause 6.9, the public recreational area is inadequate and the access network is convoluted.

1311

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my strong objection to Stockland's proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development in North Ryde, specifically the closure of New Link Road. The implications of these proposed changes are profoundly concerning and would bring about severe hardships for our community. 1. View Loss and Visual Impact: The proposed development threatens to obliterate the iconic views that have been cherished by residents of Ryde Gardens. These views, spanning from the Harbour Bridge and Opera House to the CBD skyline, Darling Harbour, ANZAC Bridge, and beyond, are not mere scenic pleasures. They are our connection to the heart of the city, our daily inspiration, and the soul of our community. 2. Shadowing: The proposed development threatens to cast unwelcome shadows over our community. The resultant loss of natural light and the overshadowing of our homes will dramatically affect our quality of life, leading to increased energy costs and an overall diminished living environment. 3. Macquarie Park Innovation Precinct Place Strategy: The proposed development flagrantly disregards the Macquarie Park plan, which was established after an extensive review of precincts. The North Ryde Riverside area was meant to remain a commercial core, a promise that has been broken by this development.
It is imperative that you understand that these changes stand to affect hundreds of residents who purchased their homes under the assurance that the location would remain at 37 meters for commercial development. These are not just investors; they are families, individuals, and "Mum and Dad" homeowners who have deeply invested in this community. 4. New Link Road Closure: The closure of New Link Road is a grave mistake. It will block access via the slip road onto Rivett Rd, which is currently a lifeline for residents of Ryde Gardens and Centrale, as well as the diligent staff at Triniti. This route provides a crucial escape from the daily gridlock on Delhi Rd near the M2 entry and exit. Furthermore, shutting down the exit via the slip road onto Epping Road is nothing short of an assault on our way of life. Residents of Ryde Gardens and Centrale, along with Triniti staff, depend on this route for a direct exit onto Rivett Road and then eastbound on Epping Road. The absence of traffic lights between Ryde Gardens and the Harbour Bridge via this New Link Road exit is an invaluable escape route that we refuse to relinquish. Moreover, the proposed loss of parking spaces on this road will disrupt our community's ability to host visitors and provide much-needed parking during weekdays and weekends. 5. Rennie Street Access: The plans to route all access for an additional 508 apartments through Rennie Street is not only detrimental to the existing residents and staff but also represents a complete disregard for the safety and convenience of the community. 6. Child Care Facilities: The proposed closure threatens the safety of the young children attending the existing Childcare facility within the Triniti CSR building. The drop-off zone on New Link Road is a hive of activity during morning and evening hours, and this callous decision stands to jeopardise the safety of our little ones. 7. Will it provide affordable housing? In light of the current rental crisis in Sydney, it is important to acknowledge that the proposed Build-to-Rent (BTR) development falls short of its intended purpose, which is to provide affordable housing. The economic climate in Australia, characterised by weak economic conditions and high interest rates, has created a challenging environment for renters. As a result, rental prices have been on a relentless upward trajectory, leaving many residents struggling to afford housing. The higher tenant turnover and greater vacancy rates, driven by the overall affordability issues, further exacerbate the housing crisis. The proposed BTR development, with its average apartment floor plans of 80 square meters, would not substantially address this crisis. It is clear that the proposed BTR development is not aligned with the pressing need for truly affordable rental housing in the current Sydney market Considering the potential impacts on the well-being, safety, and lifestyle of the Ryde Gardens community, we vehemently reject this development proposal. We implore you to reconsider the closure of New Link Road and any changes that would disrupt our way of life, obliterate our iconic views, and rob us of our daily sources of inspiration. Our community's identity and the very essence of what makes Ryde Gardens special are at stake. We demand that you rectify these alarming proposals before proceeding with this development. Thank you for your time and consideration!

1426

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing as a concerned resident that this development is being proposed outside of the original plans. I had purchase my residence recently in good faith, after doing my research that the proposed development was going to be no higher than 12 floors - which I was ok with, hence purchasing my residence in the existing neighboring property. The additional 8+ floors I believe will cause additional traffic in an already congested area of North Ryde causing major traffic delays and parking issues within the development area and will most likely spread outside the surrounding development area. I strongly object to the proposed development (up to 20+ levels). Please consider the original proposed development being no more than 12 levels.

1466

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I object to the additional height and land space proposed for the new Stockland development. The development does not need this addition as it is not considered commercial and already has enough space for its proposed recreational and residential purposes. There is also already extremely limited parking and high vehicle traffic during peak hours which the roads are unable to support even now.

1506

New South Wales 2112

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The purpose for this project aimed to provide rental premises for tenants. However, the density is too high and will devaluate the nearby properties. Moreover, there are additional projects already building in the nearby Laughlan’s Square and Macquarie Park. There will be oversupply of apartments in the coming years. Besides, traffic chaotic will be deepened furher.

1236

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

1. Exceeding Local Planning Controls The proposal seeks to utilize Clause 6.9 to increase the building height to 20 floors, nearly double the 12-floor limit set by the Local Environmental Plan (LEP). This approach sets a concerning precedent that could lead to similar height increases in adjacent developments, such as the former Microsoft building at 1 Epping Road 2. Insufficient Parking Provision The development plans allocate only 102 parking spaces for 510 units, equating to a ratio of 0.2 spaces per dwelling. This is significantly below the standard requirement and may exacerbate existing street parking issues, as highlighted in the City of Ryde's objection to Stockland's proposal . 3. Loss of Visual Amenity for Existing Residents Residents of Ryde Gardens, particularly those in apartments below the 22nd floor, face potential loss of views due to the proposed development. The visual impact assessment provided by Stockland fails to adequately address these concerns, merely stating compliance with the Apartment Design Guide without offering solutions for view sharing . 4. Overdevelopment in an Already Dense Area The Ryde Local Government Area (LGA) is projected to exceed its housing targets, with Ryde Council's housing strategy aiming for an additional 20,000 to 22,000 dwellings by 2036. The proposed development contributes to a cumulative increase in density, raising concerns about the adequacy of existing infrastructure and amenities 5. Strain on Local Infrastructure and Services The addition of 510 new BTR units will place significant pressure on local infrastructure, including public transport, roads, schools, and healthcare services. These systems are already under stress from recent high-density developments in the area, and no clear plan has been provided to upgrade or expand essential services to accommodate further growth.

1326

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

Whilst the original plan to erect a building of 20 stories was not ideal, I considered it acceptable. However, the revised plan to build a much taller structure will certainly adversely affect the quality of life for residence in the adjacent properties, including the one I own. I also feel that building such a tall structure will set a precedent for adjacent plot which I would also consider to adversely affect the quality of life for local residence, should they be built to a similar height.

1371

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The development is not commercial, the public recreation area nearby is insufficient There is also the issue of parking as it's already difficult to get any street parking for visitors

1441

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing as a concerned resident and homeowner to formally object to the proposed build-to-rent high-rise development planned for triniti lighthouse build in North Ryde. I urge the Commission to reconsider the approval of this project due to its substantial and irreversible impacts on existing residents and the surrounding community. 1. Severe Loss of Natural Light, Views, and Amenity The proposed high-rise will directly block the open outlook and skyline views from my apartment, which was a major factor in my decision to purchase my home. This development would significantly diminish natural light, increase overshadowing, and reduce ventilation, thereby decreasing my quality of life and that of many surrounding residents. Loss of views and sunlight can have detrimental psychological and emotional effects, particularly in high-density living areas where private outdoor space is already limited. The existing planning principles highlight the importance of protecting view corridors and solar access for existing residents—principles which this development appears to disregard. 2. Negative Impact on Property Value and Financial Stability The obstruction of views and increased density from a high-rise tower will likely reduce the market value of my property. As a long-term resident and ratepayer, this is deeply concerning, especially in a time of financial uncertainty. It is unjust for existing homeowners to bear the economic loss caused by developments that prioritise developer returns over community wellbeing. Thank you for your consideration.

1481

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

1) street parking is already tight and this new proposal is going to make it worse. I do not see adequate resolution proposed to address this . 2) the height is going to block the view and reduce the light of the building next door - which is where I reside, I do not agree the height proposed .

1251

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The high density build to rent buildings will affect the residents living this area very much. The traffic will be extra crowded, and there is no enough exercise and play grand nearby. Please consider the people's life who living there.

1346

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

Absolutely. Here’s the revised objection letter with environmental concerns added from a neighbour’s perspective, such as urban heat, tree loss, wind tunnelling, and biodiversity impacts. These points are integrated naturally to reflect the voice of a local resident: --- Subject: Objection to 20-Storey Proposals – Clause 6.9 Height Increase (Stockland & 1 Epping Rd) To the Independent Planning Commission, I am writing to formally object to the proposed increases in building height under Clause 6.9 in the Stockland North Ryde proposal and the adjacent development at 1 Epping Road. Both developments are now proposed to rise up to 20 storeys, significantly exceeding the 12-storey (37m) height limit that local residents were originally led to expect. As a local resident, I have following concerns: 1. Disruption to Local Amenity and Livability These height increases will dominate the local skyline, overshadowing low- to mid-rise buildings and completely changing the character of the neighbourhood. Loss of privacy and natural light for residents, particularly in Buildings A and B, will make existing homes significantly less livable. Increased traffic congestion and pressure on local infrastructure, with no clear plan to expand roads, schools, or public transport. 2. Environmental Impacts on the Neighbourhood Large-scale towers and concrete-heavy designs will reduce permeable surfaces, worsening stormwater runoff and flood risk during heavy rains. Wind modelling has not been shared transparently; however, towers of this height can cause wind tunnelling effects, particularly uncomfortable or even dangerous at pedestrian level. This area supports a small but vital corridor of urban biodiversity, including bird species that rely on the existing canopy. Overdevelopment threatens to fragment this habitat. The scale of construction noise and dust during the build phase will significantly affect air quality and peace for surrounding homes, schools, and elderly residents. 3. Community Trust and Planning Integrity Residents made property decisions based on a reasonable 12-storey height expectation, which was considered a fair compromise for growth and livability. Changing Clause 6.9 to allow 20-storey buildings undermines public consultation, creating distrust in the planning process. I'm not opposed to thoughtful development—but it must be sustainable, balanced, and community-aligned. The proposed 20-storey towers represent an extreme and unnecessary overdevelopment that disregards both community wellbeing and environmental responsibility. I strongly urge the IPC to reject the proposed height increase and enforce the originally intended 12-storey limit.

1396

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I strongly object this proposal

1456

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The surrounding area does not have the necessary infrastructure to support the development of the proposed size. With many more proposals like this that will come in the future as the entire area is rezoned, allowing a development of the proposed magnitude would set a dangerous precedent for the future. There are already issues with insufficient street parking as the surrounding streets are consistently at least 95% full. Additionally, the metro is extremely packed in the mornings around peak hour and the only chance to get on is if workers are disembarking for their day jobs at the North Ryde area. If the commercial buildings are all rezoned and replaced with very tall buildings, the bottleneck will get substantially worse. Housing density is a serious issue with enormous and far-reaching ramifications on a number of areas, and it should be planned carefully to allow for sustainable positive impact in an area. Otherwise, the negative impacts will make the entire area unattractive for all residents, workers and citizens. To conclude, it would be dangerous to set a precedent allowing a building of the proposed height and density, especially when a number of other similar buildings will be constructed in the area in the near future.

1496

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Development Application due to its anticipated negative impact on the neighbourhood. Firstly, there is a significant undersupply of parking spaces in the area, and this development will exacerbate the issue, creating difficulties for residents and visitors alike. Additionally, increased traffic congestion will overwhelm the local road network, which is not designed to accommodate such a high volume of vehicles. Furthermore, the proposed development raises serious concerns regarding excessive building height and insufficient setbacks. If the structure exceeds height limits or encroaches on required setbacks, it will reduce privacy, restrict access to natural sunlight, and diminish the character of the neighbourhood. This could negatively affect the quality of life for residents and alter the established streetscape in an undesirable way. For these reasons, I urge IPC to reject this application.

1316

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

Oppose to the development, too crowded, especially the

1361

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I write to formally object to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development, which now exceeds the original heigh limit , on the following grounds. The area surrounding the proposed site is already experiencing significant traffic congestion, particularly during peak hours. This development will exacerbate the issue by introducing a substantial increase in vehicular movements associated with residents, visitors, and service vehicles. The local road network is not designed to support this level of intensified residential use. Additionally, there is limited street parking available in the vicinity. The proposal does not adequately address the parking shortfall, potentially forcing overflow parking into surrounding streets, further impacting existing residents and businesses. The proposed building height of more than 12 storeys is excessive and not in keeping with the existing planning controls or character of the surrounding area. The development seeks to take advantage of additional FSR and height allowances that are typically reserved for commercial developments. However, this is a Build-to-Rent residential development, not a commercial project, and should not qualify for these incentives. Granting this proposal the additional height and FSR would set a concerning precedent and undermine the intent of planning controls designed to ensure appropriate and sustainable development. The proposal fails to provide sufficient publicly accessible open space and recreational amenities. In developments of this scale, access to quality public open space is vital to support the wellbeing of both future residents and the existing community. The current plans do not adequately deliver this, and access to any proposed recreational areas appears restricted and poorly integrated with the broader public realm. In light of the concerns above, I strongly urge the Commission to reject the proposal in its current form. The height and scale are inconsistent with local planning intentions, and the traffic, parking, and amenity impacts have not been appropriately addressed.

1431

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at Ryde Gardens under Clause 6.9, which seeks to increase the allowable building height from 37 metres to 65 metres and the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 2:1 to 3:1 to accommodate a Build-to-Rent (BTR) scheme. 1. Breach of Expectations and Resident Trust Many current residents purchased their homes in Ryde Gardens based on the existing Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and direct advice from Council, which confirmed: Maximum allowable building height: 37m Maximum FSR: 2:1 The remaining commercial-zoned site would be developed under the same planning controls. This understanding materially influenced decisions to purchase apartments, particularly east-facing units above Level 12 in Buildings A and B, which were marketed and purchased with the assurance of uninterrupted views toward Chatswood, St Leonards, and the Sydney CBD, including Harbour Bridge views. The sudden use of Clause 6.9 by the developer (Stockland) to submit a revised concept plan in May 2023, increasing the proposed building height to 20 storeys (65m) and FSR to 3:1, was made without proper engagement or warning. Most residents were unaware of this clause or its implications. This lack of transparency has led to a significant erosion of trust between the community, the developer, and Council. The proposed changes directly contradict what residents were led to believe and undermines planning integrity. 2. Negative Impact on Amenity and Property Value The increased height and bulk of the proposed BTR tower will result in: Loss of long-promised, panoramic views from dozens of homes in the existing Ryde Gardens buildings. Significant overshadowing of open space and common areas. Increased noise, traffic, and strain on local infrastructure during and after construction. Residents who purchased properties at a premium due to the view and amenity now face the risk of devaluation and decreased liveability—with no recourse, despite earlier assurances. This is not a case of natural, incremental development—this is a major shift from what was clearly communicated and agreed upon when the community was first established. 3. Precedent and Misuse of Clause 6.9 Clause 6.9 is intended to encourage BTR housing but not at the cost of disregarding established planning controls and community expectations. Approving this proposal could: Set a dangerous precedent across the Ryde LGA and beyond, encouraging developers to bypass agreed controls under the guise of BTR. Undermine the credibility of local planning instruments, making it harder for communities to have faith in Council decisions or advice. Create long-term tension and dissatisfaction in communities where trust has been broken. Encouraging housing diversity is important, but it must be balanced, considered, and fair to existing residents. 4. Housing Contributions Already Made It is also worth noting that Ryde Gardens has already made a significant contribution to housing supply in the area. Many current residents: Downsized from large family homes, freeing up housing stock. Moved into Ryde Gardens because of its liveability, infrastructure, and long-term certainty offered by the existing LEP. Undermining the amenity and expectations of these residents could discourage similar housing movements, which are essential to broader housing affordability and supply goals.

1471

New South Wales 2119

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The agreement was building heights would only be 12 floors (37m). Anything beyond that is unacceptable so them proposing to have two buildings of 20 floors is completely unacceptable.

1241

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I am objecting a 20 floor building development by Stockland on the 1 Epping Rd site.

1336

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The government's rental housing plan will block our buildings view and cause congestion, chaos and parking difficulties.

1376

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

Dear Commissioners, I am writing to formally object to the proposed Triniti Stage 2 Build-to-Rent (BTR) development (SSD-10461) located in the Macquarie Park Corridor. As a nearby resident, I have serious concerns about the planning justification, the excessive scale of the proposal, and the unacceptable cumulative impacts it will impose on surrounding communities, particularly Centrale and Ryde Gardens. 1. Misuse of Clause 6.9 – Planning Integrity at Risk The proposal relies on Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to justify bonus height and floor space ratio (FSR). However: This clause appears to have been repealed, and no longer forms a valid legal basis for height/FAR uplift. Even if it were valid, it only applies to commercial developments. The Triniti Stage 2 proposal is clearly residential, and therefore ineligible. The clause also requires adequate recreation areas and effective access networks, which this proposal fails to provide. Relying on a repealed and inapplicable clause undermines the community's trust in the planning system and sets a dangerous precedent. 2. Excessive Height and Massing The proposed tower heights of up to 95 metres (31 storeys) are more than double the heights originally exhibited under the LEP. This results in: Significant visual bulk and domination of the skyline, Complete view loss for many residents in neighbouring buildings such as Centrale and Ryde Garden B, Overshadowing of both existing dwellings and the proposed recreation areas. 3. Strained Transport Infrastructure The proposal fails to consider the already overloaded public transport and road infrastructure: The Sydney Metro is already at capacity during morning peak hours. Adding 510 additional residential units without increased service frequency will make the system even more unsustainable. Both Epping Road and Delhi Road experience severe congestion, and increased population from this development will only exacerbate these conditions. No meaningful upgrades to public transport or road infrastructure have been proposed in conjunction with this development. Without integrated transport and land use planning, this development will significantly worsen commuting conditions for current and future residents. 4. Inadequate Open Space and Pedestrian Access Despite planning requirements, the proposal does not deliver sufficient high-quality public domain: The open space provision is minimal, poorly located, and subject to overshadowing. The proposed access network is convoluted, with key routes routed through service lanes and loading docks, making it unsafe and impractical for pedestrian use. 5. Cumulative Overdevelopment Without Town Planning Framework The Macquarie Park precinct has already approved multiple towers exceeding originally exhibited heights. The cumulative effect of: The two already-approved 95m towers to the east, and This proposed development of similar scale, …results in an unsustainable increase in residential density without appropriate supporting infrastructure, amenities, or a cohesive town planning strategy. Request for IPC Action Given these significant issues, I respectfully request that the Independent Planning Commission: Reject the development application in its current form, and Require the proponent to: Withdraw all planning bonus claims under Clause 6.9, Reduce tower heights to reflect the exhibited LEP scale, Deliver a compliant and functional public domain and pedestrian access network, Demonstrate how local infrastructure (particularly transport and road networks) can support the increased population. This is a clear case where development ambition has far exceeded what the site and surrounding community can reasonably support. I urge the Commission to prioritise good planning, resident amenity, and long-term infrastructure sustainability over developer convenience.

1446

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I strongly oppose the current development plan due to significant traffic and parking concerns at Network Place. The area already experiences heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic, making construction impractical without proper upgrades and planning to accommodate increased flow. Every morning, I find myself waiting 2–5 minutes at the traffic light just to exit Rennie Street, as congestion stretches all the way to my garage entrance. Parking is extremely limited, with only around 20 spots available on Rennie Street and Network Place. Additionally, construction will eliminate existing parking on Newlink Road, making it even harder for visitors to find a space. This issue will further impact the seven apartment blocks in the area, which house over 1,500 units. Before moving forward with this development, a comprehensive plan to address traffic flow and parking must be put in place.

1486

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I am against the additional height and FSR of the proposed development. I understand that this additional height of the building was not something in the original proposal. The access to the area will become convoluted and there is inadequate public recreation space for what is being proposed for that area.

1306

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

Stockland proposal next door is NOT entitled to the additional height and FSR (Floor Space Ratio) conditional on Clause 6.9. The arguments are that the development is NOT "commercial" (it is residential), the public recreation area is insufficient and the access network is convoluted and through the service access.

1351

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

These proposals breach the community’s reasonable expectation of a 12-storey (37m) height limit. The scale of these towers will drastically reduce sunlight, privacy, and livability for neighbours like myself. From an environmental standpoint, the development will increase the urban heat island effect, and potentially worsen stormwater runoff. Clause 6.9 should not be used to justify such excessive height. I urge the IPC to uphold the original 12-storey limit and reject the proposed amendments.

1401

Redacted

12/06/2025

Object

Website

The proposed buildings are too high

1461

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally object to the proposed 20-storey Build-To-Rent (BTR) development beside Building B in Ryde Garden. The concentration of high-rise buildings in such close proximity will severely impact both the views and natural light for existing residents. This overdevelopment of the area will drastically reduce livability and create a crowded, overbuilt environment. Furthermore, I am extremely concerned about the impact on traffic congestion and public transport. The nearby Metro is already operating at full capacity during peak hours. Adding more residential buildings without upgrading transport infrastructure will worsen daily commuting conditions. Macquarie Park already has a high density of apartments, and bringing similar intensity to the Ryde Garden area will negatively affect its character and liveability as a residential zone. The proposed 20-storey height is excessive and unsuitable for the area. I strongly urge the Commission to reconsider and restrict the building height to a more appropriate level, such as 12 storeys, which aligns with community expectations and the sustainable future of the precinct. Thank you for considering my submission.

Ryde_Garden_Objection_Letter.pdf (PDF, 2.48 KB)

1501

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Object

Website

Dear Commissioners, I’m writing as the owner of an apartment in Ryde Gardens to formally object to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development (SSD-55844212). 1. Breach of Clause 6.9 – Misuse of Planning Rules The development breaches Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP by using floor space ratio (FSR) rules from across the whole Triniti block, instead of just the Triniti 2 site. This goes against the intent of the planning controls and unfairly increases the development’s size. 2. Misuse of FSR – Overdevelopment of Triniti 2 The proposal wrongly combines FSR from multiple lots, leading to: • Buildings that are too large and out of character with the area • Negative impacts on nearby properties, especially Ryde Gardens • A worrying precedent for future overdevelopment through planning loopholes 3. Not Enough Green Space – Infrastructure Overload This project fails to offer enough open green space, especially given the high density proposed. It will also: • Add pressure to already limited parks and public areas • Strain schools, roads, transport, and utilities 4. Community Impacts – Safety and Stability at Risk The Build-to-Rent model may work in some areas, but here it could: • Increase tenant turnover and reduce community stability • Lead to less accountability and connection with the neighbourhood • Create safety concerns for families and long-term residents 5. Direct Impacts on Ryde Gardens As a resident, I’m concerned about: • Loss of privacy and natural light • More traffic and congestion • Noise, dust, and vibration during construction • A high-rise tower dominating an area designed for mid-rise buildings Conclusion This proposal does not suit the area and doesn’t respect planning rules or community needs. I ask the Commission to reject the application because it: • Breaches Clause 6.9 • Misuses FSR allocations • Damages local amenity and community safety • Lacks sufficient green space or long-term benefit Thank you

L.AddendumSubmission.39DehliRoad.NorthRyde.Final_.pdf (PDF, 1.2 MB)

1176

New South Wales 2113

11/06/2025

Object

Website

It will completely block my view from my unit

1231

Redacted

11/06/2025

Object

Website

As a resident of Ryde Gardens, I strongly oppose the proposed Build-to-Rent (BTR) development of 500 units adjacent to our community. This proposal raises serious concerns about long-term impacts on both the local community and the broader Macquarie Park Innovation District (MPID). Firstly, the development would cause a devastating loss of views for current residents and severely diminish the amenity of the area. Furthermore, the planning of public space is grossly inadequate to accommodate the large influx of new residents, putting significant pressure on existing infrastructure, open space, and local services. Importantly, the increase in BTR housing reduces the amount of commercially rated land and places more pressure on the City of Ryde to fund infrastructure and services from a shrinking commercial rate base. BTR properties often generate lower rateable income per square metre compared to commercial or industrial uses, and their rise threatens Council’s long-term financial sustainability. This shift increases reliance on residential ratepayers while undermining the city’s economic resilience. The continued loss of commercial and innovation space in MPID will have lasting impacts on the broader economy. MPID is a nationally significant employment and innovation hub. Diluting its core function by replacing high-value employment lands with residential development risks turning the area into a residential wasteland—one lacking in jobs, enterprise, and economic purpose. If this trend continues, residential creep will encroach on remaining commercial zones, displacing businesses and destroying the innovation ecosystem that supports thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity. This rezoning fails to strike the right balance between housing and economic development, and must be reconsidered. The proposed development is not in the best interest of Ryde Gardens residents, the City of Ryde, or the broader NSW economy.

1191

New South Wales 2113

11/06/2025

Object

Website

Formal Objection to SSD-55844212 – Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent Development As an owner and resident of an apartment in Ryde Gardens, I wish to formally object to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development (SSD-55844212). My concerns are outlined below: 1. Breach of Clause 6.9 – Site-Specific Development Standards The proposal contravenes Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (RLEP), which restricts the use of site compatibility certificates to increase floor space ratio (FSR) beyond specified limits. The applicant has sought to bypass this restriction by applying the FSR across the entire Triniti block, rather than confining it to the Triniti 2 site — the actual location of the proposed development. This approach represents a misuse of planning provisions and undermines the intent of Clause 6.9. 2. Incorrect Application of FSR – Should Apply to Triniti 2 Only The development should be assessed solely on the basis of planning controls relevant to the Triniti 2 site. The proposed aggregation of FSR across multiple lots artificially inflates allowable density and height, resulting in: Excessive building bulk and scale that is inconsistent with the area’s character Major visual and environmental impacts on surrounding properties, including Ryde Gardens A concerning precedent for future overdevelopment through technical manipulation 3. Loss of Green Space and Increased Pressure on Local Infrastructure The proposed design fails to provide adequate open green space — a critical shortfall for a high-density Build-to-Rent scheme. Local residents already face limited access to open areas, and this development will only exacerbate the problem. Furthermore, the development will: Increase pressure on existing parks, footpaths, and shared community spaces Strain already overburdened public infrastructure, including schools, roads, utilities, and public transport 4. Negative Social Impacts and Reduced Community Safety While the Build-to-Rent model may suit some locations, it raises serious concerns in established, owner-occupied residential communities: High tenant turnover contributes to a transient population and weakens community bonds A revolving door of short-term residents reduces accountability and connection to the neighbourhood These dynamics may lead to a diminished sense of safety and security, especially for families and long-term residents 5. Direct Impacts on Ryde Gardens Residents As someone directly affected, I raise the following objections specific to Ryde Gardens and its residents: Loss of privacy and sunlight due to overshadowing Worsening traffic congestion in already busy streets Disruptive construction impacts including dust, noise, and vibrations The proposed tower will visually dominate a mid-rise neighbourhood, negatively altering the local skyline and character

1166

New South Wales 2113

11/06/2025

Object

Website

Dear Commissioners, I am writing to formally object to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development at North Ryde (SSD-55844212). I urge the IPC to reject this proposal based on the following grounds: 1. Violation of LEP Height Restrictions The Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014 designates a maximum building height of 37 metres for this site. Stockland's proposal to construct buildings up to 65 metres (approximately 20 storeys) significantly exceeds this limit. The developer seeks to justify this increase through Clause 6.9, which was originally intended to promote commercial development, not high-density residential projects. Applying this clause to a residential build-to-rent (BTR) development is a misinterpretation and sets a concerning precedent for future developments in the area. 2. Misapplication of Clause 6.9 Clause 6.9 of the Ryde LEP allows for increased height and floor space ratio (FSR) in the Macquarie Park Corridor if certain conditions are met, such as providing enhanced open space and connectivity. However, the current proposal fails to deliver adequate public benefits to warrant such concessions. Moreover, the clause's intent was to encourage commercial development, not residential projects like the proposed BTR. Using this clause to justify a residential high-rise undermines the LEP’s objectives and could lead to overdevelopment in the area. 3. Negative Impact on Existing Residents The proposed development will have several adverse effects on current residents: Loss of Views: Residents of Ryde Gardens, particularly those in Buildings A and B, will experience significant view loss due to the proposed building’s height. These views were a key factor for many in choosing to live in the area. Overshadowing: The proximity of the new buildings (less than 30 metres in some areas) will result in substantial overshadowing, reducing natural light and affecting the quality of life for residents, including children attending the nearby childcare centre. Privacy Concerns: The close distance between the proposed development and existing residences will lead to privacy issues, as residents will be directly overlooked by the new buildings. 4. Strain on Infrastructure and Public Transport The addition of 508 new dwellings will place considerable pressure on local infrastructure: Parking: The development plans include only 155 car spaces for 508 units, leading to increased demand for already limited street parking. Traffic Congestion: The area's roads, particularly Delhi Road and New Link Road, are already congested during peak hours. An influx of new residents will exacerbate this issue. Public Transport: Local public transport options, such as the North Ryde Metro Station and nearby bus services, are currently operating at capacity during peak times. The additional population from the proposed development will further strain these services. 5. Inadequate Community Consultation Many residents were unaware of the implications of Clause 6.9 and its potential application to residential developments. There has been a lack of transparent communication regarding the changes and their impact on the community. This oversight has led to a sense of betrayal among residents who expected adherence to the established LEP guidelines. 6. Precedent for Future Developments Approving this development could set a precedent for other sites in the area, such as the old Microsoft building at 1 Epping Road, to seek similar concessions under Clause 6.9. This could lead to a cascade of high-rise developments, fundamentally altering the character of North Ryde and undermining the LEP’s intent. Conclusion In light of the above concerns, I respectfully request that the Independent Planning Commission reject the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development. The project contravenes the Ryde LEP, misapplies Clause 6.9, negatively impacts existing residents, strains local infrastructure, and sets a dangerous precedent for future developments. Thank you for considering my submission. Sincerely,

1216

New South Wales 2113

11/06/2025

Object

Website

I would like to oppose the development as presented in its current form. Key Objections to the Proposed Development 1. Out-of-Sequence Development • The proposal is inconsistent with the strategic staging outlined in the Macquarie Park Place Strategy and the Stage 2 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Rezoning. • It delivers a disproportionate share of new dwellings prematurely, without sufficient supporting infrastructure or open space. 2. Non-Compliance with Clause 6.9 of Ryde LEP 2014 • The development relies on incentive bonuses for building height and floor space ratio (FSR) under Clause 6.9, but: • Fails to provide meaningful commercial development to meet economic objectives. • Offers only 3.9% commercial space, insufficient for justifying bonus density. • Does not contribute adequately to access networks or recreational infrastructure as required by the clause. 3. Inadequate Communal and Public Spaces • The proposed open spaces and through-site links are inadequate or tokenistic. • The so-called ‘public domain’ includes roads and marginal areas not functional as recreation or amenity spaces. • Key pedestrian links and a public park identified in the precinct plan are either missing or poorly integrated. 4. View Loss and Visual Impact • Significant view loss for existing residents at Ryde Gardens (1–3 Network Place). • Views of Lane Cove National Park, Sydney skyline, and Harbour Bridge would be blocked. • The developer has not demonstrated alternative, less intrusive designs that could preserve view corridors. 5. Cumulative Impact Not Considered • The developer fails to consider the combined effect of multiple future high-density developments in the area. • This includes likely future changes in Neighbourhood 7 of the Macquarie Park TOD precinct. • Raises concerns about infrastructure strain, overshadowing, and urban congestion. 6. Poor Design and Amenity • Pedestrian paths are poorly located (e.g., near service lanes and substations), reducing their utility and public appeal. • “Communal” areas include lobbies, staff amenities, and bicycle storage, which do not qualify as genuine communal space under planning definitions. many thanks

1181

Redacted

11/06/2025

Object

Website

Non-compliance with Clause 6.9 development in the Macquarie Park Corridor Inadequacy of communal and pedestrian areas, car parking and traffic Overdevelopment of the site - insufficient recreation space and inconsistency with the Macquarie Park Place Strategy View loss and cumulative impacts

1196

Redacted

11/06/2025

Object

Website

If it is over 20 level building just 30 m in front of Ryde garden building then it causes to block the main view as well as natural lighting.

1171

New South Wales 2113

11/06/2025

Object

Website

To the Independent Planning Commission, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development in North Ryde. As a resident of Ryde Gardens, I have serious concerns about how this project contradicts local planning laws and threatens the amenity, infrastructure, and character of our community. 1. Misuse of Clause 6.9 for Residential Development Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) was introduced to encourage commercial development in the Macquarie Park Corridor — not to support high-density residential proposals like this one. Stockland’s attempt to apply this clause to justify exceeding height and floor space limits stretches the original purpose of the legislation. This sets a dangerous precedent and weakens the LEP’s planning integrity. 2. Height Limit Breach The LEP clearly sets a maximum building height of 37 metres for this site. The current proposal, at approximately 65 metres, is almost double that limit. Allowing such a significant breach of the height control would erode community trust in the planning system and open the door to more oversized residential towers in an area not designed to accommodate them. 3. Direct Impacts on Residents This development would severely impact the day-to-day lives of existing residents. Privacy loss: The proposed towers will overlook existing homes, compromising the privacy of residents, especially in Ryde Gardens. View obstruction: Many people chose to live here for the open sky and distant views. These will be lost due to the excessive height of the new buildings. Overshadowing: The scale and location of the new structures will block sunlight from surrounding apartments and open spaces, including areas used by children at the nearby childcare centre. 4. Increased Pressure on Local Infrastructure North Ryde’s infrastructure is already struggling: Traffic: Roads like Delhi Road and the newly built Link Road are already congested at peak times. This project will bring hundreds of new cars into the area. Parking shortfall: With only 155 car spaces planned for over 500 units, the overflow will overwhelm nearby streets, creating parking stress for everyone. Public transport capacity: Metro and bus services are currently near full capacity during peak hours. Adding hundreds more commuters without adequate upgrades is unsustainable. 5. Lack of Transparent Consultation The community has not been properly informed about the implications of Clause 6.9 being applied to residential developments. Many residents assumed the LEP height limits were fixed, and have been blindsided by this proposal. There has been little transparency or outreach from the developer, leaving residents feeling excluded from decisions that directly affect their homes. 6. Risk of Setting a Harmful Precedent If this proposal is approved, it will pave the way for similar high-rise developments throughout North Ryde — including sites like the former Microsoft campus. This would permanently alter the character of the suburb and undo years of community planning and consultation. Conclusion I respectfully urge the Commission to reject this proposal. The project clearly exceeds the planning controls, misuses Clause 6.9, threatens the amenity of existing residents, and puts unacceptable strain on our already stretched infrastructure. Please protect the integrity of the Ryde LEP and the future of our community by upholding the existing planning rules. Thank you for considering my submission. Sincerely,

1226

New South Wales 2113

11/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally oppose the current development proposal for 1 Epping Rd, North Ryde. While I acknowledge the urgent need for increased housing supply in Sydney, the scale and nature of this proposal raise significant concerns for the local community and the broader area. **Height and Density Concerns** The proposal seeks to exploit Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to build up to 20 storeys—almost double the height limit specified in the LEP for this location. This sets a dangerous precedent for future developments, undermining the integrity of local planning controls and community expectations regarding appropriate scale and density. Such a dramatic increase in building height and floor space ratio (FSR) will fundamentally alter the character of the area and contribute to an already growing sense of overdevelopment. **Traffic and Infrastructure Strain** The area surrounding 1 Epping Rd is already experiencing significant traffic congestion, particularly at key intersections such as Wicks Road and Epping Road. The addition of over 500 new apartments will exacerbate these issues, placing further strain on local roads, public transport, and parking availability. There is no clear commitment to infrastructure upgrades that would be necessary to accommodate the increased population, raising concerns about the long-term livability and safety of the precinct. **Amenity and Community Impact** The proposed development’s scale risks overshadowing existing residential areas and reducing access to sunlight, green space, and community facilities. While the inclusion of some communal amenities is noted, the overall impact on local amenity and the potential for increased pressure on public open spaces have not been adequately addressed. **Precedent and Planning Integrity** Allowing this development to proceed as proposed would undermine the intent of the Ryde LEP and the community’s trust in the planning process. Clause 6.9 should not be used to justify such a substantial departure from established controls, especially when the cumulative impacts on traffic, infrastructure, and local character have not been properly mitigated.

1186

New South Wales 2018

11/06/2025

Object

Website

With the height of 20 floor, the building will block the sunlight to the building it is adjacent which mostly are balconies and the their only way for the sunlight to come to the units. The 20 storey building will also create more traffic which I believe the road are already congested at peak hour.

1206

New South Wales 2113

11/06/2025

Object

Website

I would like to lodge my objection to the proposal to build up to 20 floors at this land block adjacent to my home block. There would be severe blockage of natural light, shadows and lack of privacy into my unit and also impact the view for which I had paid a premium for. In addition, additional units would create pressure on the already heavy residential traffic along this area, as Ryde Gardens is fairly dense in comparison with neighbouring areas. The original sites were meant to be commercial/lower density and this proposed increased build would also severely impact daily traffic flow and noise pollution with only limited roads servicing this area.

1116

Redacted

10/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally oppose the development of Triniti Lighthouse BTR. My key reasons for objection are: * Close Proximity & Loss of Privacy: The development's scale and design will place it unacceptably close to the existing apartment leading to a significant loss of privacy and an oppressive sense of enclosure. * Blocking Natural Light: The proposed height and massing will undeniably block the morning sun to neighbouring properties, negatively impacting liveability and quality of life. * Inadequate Road Infrastructure: Our current road network are insufficient to support the extent of increased density. Traffic is already really poor during peak hours due to the crossing of Epping, Delhi and the on/off highway ramps plus the incoming traffic for the surrounding offices. Parking around the area is also notoriously difficult. * Lack of Community Amenities: The major epping road, M2 highway, and Delhi road creates a natural segregation for this section of land that is bordered by the lane cove national park. Increasing the density of such a small section of land + offices will strain local amenities including schooling which isnt safely accessible for kids given the surrounding major roads. The Lane cove national park isnt accessible by walking and requires payment if driving. Going to the neighbouring graveyard doesn't make a great family picnic either. We really need more accessible green spaces; this will really help the surrounding offices and workers too. * Wind tunnelling: The existing buildings (mainly 1 and 3 network place) already causes a major wind tunnelling affect if there is wind blowing, predominantly from the west/north-west direction. Building another high rise in such close proximity will only exacerbate the wind tunnelling of the surrounding areas as the wind get channelled around 1 and 3 network plus the proposed triniti development. It will cause the surrounding areas to get incredibly gusty during windy days and possibly cause lots of whistling noises. The triniti proposal needs to be lower to avoid this channeling. I am not in support of such a large scale development of housing density in this particular location. However, if the density were to be reduced, with a lower height limit (say 10 levels) and with a shared community park/area then that would be acceptable. Given it is BTR, there is less need to go higher to attract buyers and it will help mitigate a lot of the concerns that myself and others have raised.

1031

Redacted

05/06/2025

Object

Website

Reasons for Objections: Breach of original agreement stated in LEP (from 45m to much higher — lack of trust). Overshadowing and loss of privacy for current residents. Increased traffic and parking issues in surrounding streets. The old Microsoft Building will likely to build to 20 floors if Stockland is permitted to do so. Strain on local infrastructure — roads, drainage, schools, transport. Environmental impact — tree removal, wildlife disruption, less green space. Loss of community character — a high-rise changes the feel of the area. Noise and dust pollution during extended construction phases. Suggested Alternatives to High-Rise Development: Community + Eco Park Hybrid Partially developed: One part residential (low-rise) and one part nature reserve or pocket park. Add a dog park, native plants, or even a bee hotel area. This will meet environmental concerns while generating some revenue from limited housing. Build a community hall, coworking space, or library paired with smaller residential units. Green roof or rooftop garden, which benefits nearby residents visually and environmentally

1041

New South Wales 2113

05/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of Trinity Lighthouse Built to Rent development, which includes the construction of two twenty-storey towers and one smaller tower. As the owner and resident of the neighbouring property at 3 Network Place North Ryde, I have serious concerns about the negative impact this development will have on my property, my family, and the surrounding community. 1. Residential Amenity Our current morning sunlight, which significantly contribute to the amenity and quality of our life here, will be substantially diminished. The proposed buildings, due to their excessive height and proximity, will severely overshadow our property, particularly during the morning hours. Morning sunlight is essential for the comfort, well-being, and energy efficiency of our home. As a retiree, I love my garden in our 'winter garden' balcony. The reduction in natural light will negatively affect our garden and our living spaces, creating a cold and dark environment. 2. Built Form and Design Our current views, which significantly contribute to the amenity and value of our property, will be substantially diminished. The height and bulk of the proposed towers are excessive and inconsistent with the existing built character of the area. This visual intrusion will have a lasting negative effect on our quality of life. With the addition of high-rise apartments directly overlooking our property, our privacy will be greatly compromised. The proposed height and orientation of the towers will result in direct lines of sight into our home and outdoor spaces, leading to a significant loss of amenity. 3. Traffic and Safety Concerns The increase in population density brought by this development will inevitably result in heavily increased traffic on Rennie Street and surrounding roads. This will not only increase congestion and noise but also pose significant safety risks, particularly for children and pedestrians. The current infrastructure is inadequate to handle this level of traffic, and no clear plans have been provided to mitigate these risks. Conclusion The proposed height and density of the development are not in keeping with the established residential and commercial character of the neighbourhood. Approving a development of this scale sets a worrying precedent and undermines the expectations of existing residents who have invested in this community. For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, refuse the proposed development or require substantial amendments to ensure it aligns with community expectations, maintains the residential character of the area, and protects the amenity of surrounding properties. I would appreciate the opportunity to be heard should this matter proceed to a public meeting or hearing. Thank you for considering my objection. Kindest Regards Marilyn Fiamengo

Pic1 Large over 6m Native gumtrees cut down.jpg (JPG, 180.62 KB)

Pic2 No morning sunlight Autumn Winter Spring.jpg (JPG, 83.47 KB)

Pic3 Large Buildings will overshadow ours.jpeg (JPEG, 107.09 KB)

991

Redacted

03/06/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to object to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development at 39 Delhi Road, North Ryde (SSD-55844212). My primary concern is as follows: Excessive Building Proximity and Its Impacts: The proposal’s unacceptably close spacing between buildings represents a reckless disregard for resident wellbeing and urban liveability. Packing large residential towers into such confined proximity creates an oppressive, prison-like environment that directly threatens physical and mental health. Residents will face severe privacy violations, with windows overlooking neighbouring units at absurdly short distances. Natural light will be drastically reduced, creating dark, claustrophobic interiors, while poor ventilation will trap pollutants and stifle airflow—conditions directly linked to respiratory issues and chronic stress. This is not theoretical. A 2024 NSW Government study on high-density housing found that developments with building separations under 18 meters saw a 42% increase in anxiety disorders and 35% higher rates of clinical depression compared to better-spaced projects. The proposed design blatantly ignores these findings, prioritising profit over human dignity. By forcing residents into such dehumanizing conditions, the project risks creating a public health crisis in our community. This is not merely poor urban design—it is a systemic failure to meet basic ethical standards for habitation. Approving this proposal would set a dangerous precedent, signaling that developers can sacrifice resident wellbeing for density targets. The Commission has a moral obligation to reject any project that so blatantly violates the Australian Urban Design Protocol’s principles of health, safety, and inclusivity.

971

New South Wales 2113

02/06/2025

Object

Website

To: Independent Planning Commission (IPC) Re: Objection to Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent Proposal (SSD-55844212) Dear Commissioners, I am writing as the owner of an apartment in Ryde Gardens to formally object to the proposed Triniti Lighthouse Build-to-Rent development (SSD-55844212). 1. Breach of Clause 6.9 – Site-Specific Development Standards The application breaches Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan (RLEP), which restricts the use of site compatibility certificates to increase the floor space ratio (FSR) for identified development sites. The developer has attempted to circumvent these controls by applying the FSR across the entire Triniti block, instead of the Triniti 2 site where the development is actually proposed. This is a clear manipulation of planning controls and undermines the intent of Clause 6.9. 2. Misapplication of FSR – Triniti 2 Site Only The development should be assessed based solely on the planning controls applicable to the Triniti 2 site. By aggregating FSR across multiple lots, the proposal inflates allowable density and height, resulting in: • Excessive bulk and scale that is out of character with the area • Significant visual and environmental impacts on neighbouring residences, including Ryde Gardens • A dangerous precedent for future overdevelopment based on technical loopholes 3. Loss of Green Space and Strain on Infrastructure The proposal provides inadequate green space, particularly for a high-density Build-to-Rent development. Residents in the area already lack access to sufficient open space, and this project would significantly worsen the situation without meaningful public benefit. It will also: • Put added pressure on local parks, footpaths, and communal facilities • Strain public transport, schools, roads, and utilities, which are already stretched 4. Erosion of Community and Reduced Safety The Build-to-Rent model, while viable in some contexts, poses specific challenges in established residential communities: • High turnover of tenants results in a transient population, eroding the sense of community stability and cohesion • A constant influx of short-term renters can lead to a lack of connection, accountability, and care for the neighbourhood • This contributes to reduced feelings of safety, particularly for families and long-term residents 5. Adverse Impacts on Ryde Gardens and Surroundings As a Ryde Gardens resident, I raise the following concerns: • Loss of privacy and overshadowing • Unacceptable traffic congestion • Construction impacts including dust, noise, and vibration • Visual overdominance of the proposed tower in a predominantly mid-rise context. This proposal is inconsistent with planning objectives and demonstrates poor consideration of the local community’s needs. I urge the Commission to reject the application on the basis that it: • Breaches Clause 6.9 of the RLEP • Misapplies FSR by spreading it across unrelated lots • Undermines local amenity, safety, and community character • Fails to provide sufficient green space or long-term social sustainability Thank you for considering my submission.

L.AddendumSubmission.39DehliRoad.NorthRyde.Final_.redacted.pdf (PDF, 3.08 MB)

906

New South Wales 2113

26/05/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed construction of the Trinity Lighthouse development. After careful consideration of the project’s implications, I strongly believe that this development is unnecessary, environmentally irresponsible, and driven by profit rather than community benefit. Below are my key concerns: ### **1. Under-utilised Existing Buildings in Proximity** There are multiple vacant or underused buildings in the immediate area that could be repurposed instead of constructing a new complex. For instance: - The office buildings directly in front of the proposed site are only **one-quarter occupied** during business hours. - On **Julius Avenue, an entire building stands completely empty**, yet no effort has been made to revitalise it. Rather than contributing to urban sprawl and further land consumption, the developers should explore **adaptive reuse** of these existing structures. This would not only preserve green spaces but also reduce construction waste and energy consumption. ### **2. Environmental Impact & Destruction of Green Space** The construction of Trinity Lighthouse will require **clearing natural land**, disrupting local ecosystems, and increasing the area’s carbon footprint. With climate change being a pressing global issue, we should prioritise **sustainable development** by utilising existing infrastructure instead of encroaching on untouched land. The destruction of green spaces for yet another commercial/residential complex is **short-sighted and irresponsible**. ### **3. Profit-Driven Development with No Regard for Community Needs** This project appears to be **motivated purely by greed**, with little consideration for the well-being of current residents. The proposed development will: - **Increase traffic congestion** in an already densely populated area. - **Overburden local amenities**—adding more residents and businesses to an area with only **two small restaurants** will lead to overcrowding and longer wait times. - **Compromise safety** due to increased pedestrian and vehicle interactions in a confined space. - **Lower quality of life** for neighboring apartment residents due to noise pollution, construction disturbances, and loss of privacy. ### **4. Lack of Proper Infrastructure to Support the Development** The current infrastructure (roads, public transport, sewage, and utilities) is **not equipped** to handle the additional strain this development will bring. Without significant upgrades, the area will face: - **Worsened traffic bottlenecks**, particularly during peak hours. - **Pressure on parking availability**, leading to spillover into residential zones. - **Potential strain on emergency services** due to increased population density. ### **5. Better Alternatives Exist** Instead of approving another high-density project, the council should: - **Incentivise the refurbishment of vacant buildings** to meet modern needs. - **Invest in green spaces and community facilities** rather than profit-driven developments. - **Conduct a proper needs assessment** to determine if this project is truly necessary or simply a speculative venture. ### **Conclusion** The Trinity Lighthouse project is an unnecessary, environmentally damaging development that prioritizes profit over people. With so many under-utilised buildings nearby, there is **no justification** for further construction at the expense of nature and existing residents. I urge the planning committee to **reject this proposal** and instead encourage sustainable, community-focused alternatives.

1736

Redacted

23/06/2025

Support

Website

Good Morning/Afternoon Today I am writing in support of expanding the building height limit of 37m to 65m of the Trinity Build-to-rent development in North Ryde. Expanding the height limit will significantly expand the numbers of homes available in this new development, which I believe North Ryde is under indexing on. The housing crisis is a major issue across Australia, and especially Sydney. Allowing this expansion will, quite simply, help reduce the cost of living and bring hundreds of more homes in supply available for those who want to make Sydney their home.

1531

Redacted

13/06/2025

Support

Website

To the Consent Authority / Planning Panel, This submission is in full support of the proposed development in the Macquarie Park Corridor that seeks uplift under Clause 6.9 of the LEP. This response directly addresses and refutes the recent objections raised against the proposal. 1. Clause 6.9 Legally Applies – Transitional Savings Apply Fact: Clause 6.9 of the Ryde Local Environmental Plan was in effect at the time of DA lodgement. Under Section 5.8 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, when a development application is lodged prior to an LEP amendment or repeal, the assessment must be conducted under the provisions in force at the time of lodgement. Further, Clause 1.8A (Savings provisions relating to development applications) of most NSW LEPs states that repeal or amendment of a clause does not affect the assessment of a validly lodged application unless explicitly stated — which has not occurred here. Conclusion: Clause 6.9 remains in legal force for this DA. This is a settled principle in NSW planning law. Any claim to the contrary ignores the operation of both legislation and the LEP’s own savings provisions. 2. The Development is Commercial – BTR is a Recognised Commercial Land Use Fact: Build-to-Rent (BTR) developments are recognised as commercial in character under both NSW Planning frameworks and common legal interpretation. The NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPIE) defines BTR as: “A type of commercial housing product where a single entity owns and manages residential dwellings for long-term rental.” Further, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, Part 3B, explicitly distinguishes BTR housing as a separate planning pathway under commercial development streams, including FSR bonuses and land use permissibility distinct from private residential flats. In the case of Botany Developments Pty Ltd v Botany Council [2001] NSWLEC 143, the Court acknowledged that commercial characteristics can exist in non-retail, income-producing residential land uses. Conclusion: The proposed development qualifies under Clause 6.9’s intent to encourage commercial development. The income-generating, institutionally managed nature of BTR aligns precisely with commercial land-use principles under NSW law. There is no legal or planning basis to disqualify this DA based on use classification. 3. Adequate Provision of Recreation Areas – LEP Provides Discretion, Not Metrics Fact: Clause 6.9(3)(a–b) requires “adequate provision” of recreation areas and “appropriate configuration.” The Ryde LEP does not define a numerical minimum for “adequate provision.” The standard is qualitative and discretionary — based on contextual merit and design integration. The submitted DA includes: Landscaped communal areas Pedestrian zones accessible to the public Roof gardens and setbacks designed for passive recreation Strategic links to nearby precinct parks and open space corridors In Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [2004], the Land and Environment Court affirmed that “adequate provision” in LEPs is a matter of planning judgment by the consent authority — not a rigid formula. Conclusion: The recreation provision in this DA meets the threshold set by Clause 6.9. Unless the objectors can produce a formal benchmark within the LEP — which they cannot — their argument is purely speculative and legally void. 4. Access Network is Functional and Legally Sufficient Fact: Clause 6.9(3)(c) requires a “suitable level of connectivity within the precinct.” The access network in this DA has been reviewed by certified traffic engineers and satisfies all relevant standards set by Transport for NSW and AS 2890 for access design. It includes: Multiple pedestrian points Separation of service and public entries Connection to public domain infrastructure Modern planning policy, including Better Placed (NSW Government Architect), supports multimodal and non-traditional access formats, including shared surfaces and rear-lane integration — particularly in high-density mixed-use precincts. Conclusion: The DA’s access layout is legally compliant, safety-tested, and consistent with precinct-level connectivity expectations. Objections based on subjective aesthetics or preference for traditional road design have no legal standing. I respectfully urge the consent authority to reject the objections in full and proceed with assessment based on the applicable legal framework and planning merit of the DA.

1356

New South Wales 2113

12/06/2025

Support

Website

Currently the land next to my building is empty. It does not look good, and is a complete waste. I believe there was mining from a third party company that may have concluded and looks barren and desolate. It would be great to continue to build up our community at network place with other apartments that help support the housing crisis in australia. I support this, however I (as an owner/occupier) do have concerns with congestion. Parking is already impossible, so even with the new apartment -it does not make a difference. It is more-so the congestion daily to leave onto delhi road.

1106

New South Wales 2113

10/06/2025

Support

Website

I highly support the development

1071

Redacted

06/06/2025

Support

Website

The proposal presents an excellent proposal that will provide more housing, build to rent is another form of housing, during a housing crisis. The housing will be in an excellent location as it is extremely close to the North Ryde metro station. It is also walking distance - using the pedestrian bridge - to Coles & other shops at Lachlan's Square. A new public school is also in development at a similar location ("Lachlan's Line Macquarie Park Education Campus"). Refinements to the proposal have been made by the applicant and therefore I strongly suggest that the proposal should be approved and represents an excellent use for the land in question. Additionally, I would suggest that all levels of government, including local councils, have a duty to ensure that frequent public transportation can be used to serve the many and not just a select few and as such need to seek to increase the density of buildings permissible to be built around metro and train line stations.

1046

New South Wales 2199

05/06/2025

Support

Website

Close to M1 metro station with future conversion of Bankstown line, for more job opportunities around the area and beyond and close to most individuals/ communities needs.

1021

New South Wales 2113

04/06/2025

Support

Website

Hi there, I’m a resident of [REDACTED], directly neighbouring the proposed Stockland Triniti development. I’m writing in strong support of this project because developments like this are the reason I could afford to buy a home here. The original large-scale rezoning of this precinct enabled more housing supply, which brought prices within reach for people like me. Without it, I would have been priced out of the area. I believe others should have the same opportunity to live close to jobs, public transport, and green space. In the three years since I bought my home, I’ve seen friends and family struggle with massive increases in rent. The additional rental stock this project brings—especially Build-to-Rent housing—can help relieve pressure in the rental market and offer more people access to stable, well-located housing. Some residents have raised concerns about overdevelopment and view loss, but in a city facing a housing crisis, we need more homes in the right places. This project delivers that, with a well-designed, mixed-use precinct that will support a vibrant and walkable community. My only suggestion is that a portion of the developer’s contributions be directed toward improving pedestrian access to North Ryde Metro station. At present, residents south of the station must walk up stairs and backtrack back downstairs due to the lack of an entrance from the Network Place side. This means the singular lift can get overwhelmed at peak times and can lead to residents choosing to drive for some trips. Enhancing this connection would have a greater impact on reducing traffic than direct improvements to the road network. The Triniti proposal aligns with the 2013 rezoning and the strategic vision for the Macquarie Park Corridor. It’s the kind of smart, infrastructure-connected growth Sydney needs. Please support this development and give others the same chance I had to live here.

1026

Redacted

04/06/2025

Support

Website

This development proposal epitomises the kind of homes we need to start fixing the housing crisis that faces people across Sydney. A large stock of rental units, like this proposal will provide, will do a lot to ease the strain on the community as it currently exists. The location of the proposed development is in a location I, and doubtless many others, would feel absolutely privileged to live in. It is very close to a metro station that will allow great public transit links even beyond the CBD, and close to a large number of shopping amenities. The increased shopping amenities that the proposal itself will provide will also undoubtably benefit current residents of the area, and help to grow a community in North Ryde. The NSW government has made a commitment to provide thousands of new homes near public transit hubs, and this would be a huge step in the right direction. The positive impacts on both current and prospective residents of North Ryde should most certainly outweigh other concerns.