PlanningAlerts

13 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. What? That's it? Boarding House. No information about how many beds / rooms / parking / facilities. Why is there no information?

2. It is surprising that so little information is provided in this application. Why is it so? How can residents make informed submissions?

3. Although I do not live in the area, I find 'amusing' that Council issues 'information' about a DA for a boarding house without providing any details. Is Council taking its ratepayers for a ride? Has the decision been already made and this invitation to comment is something to fulfill the formalities and keep people's mouths shut?

   I find this lack of information offensive to our intelligence and I demand information about number of bedrooms, bathrooms, parking spots, etc, meaning, the basic information that should have been provided in the first instance.

4. This must be stopped until it can be properly assessed and there are no details on what exactly is being planned. Something smells very fishy here.

5. Agree with all previous comments made, lack of information on this application is astonishing to put it politely. Anyhow even in the information provided I object, this adds nothing to the area & local amenity, let's keep the remaining small business in the area, we don't need another de facto apartment building.

6. I agree with all of the above objections. The lack of information available on this applications in appalling.

7. The documents for this proposed boarding house are now available.
   There is nothing in the plan of management to re-assure me that this will be a boarding house with accommodation available for disadvantaged local people rather than a back-packer motel or airbnb facility.
   The Social Impact Statement is little more than a set of quotations from ABS, Council policies and other sources.
   This should not be approved without conditions to ensure that it benefits the homeless and disadvantaged, especially the rapidly growing numbers of homeless older women and homeless women with children.

8. In keeping with The St Peters Triangle Masterplan I ask Council to consider keeping the facade of the resent warehouse . As stated in the St Peters Triangle Masterplan it is important the industrial/ Urban feel is kept intact in St Peters. This ruling should apply to all DAs in the St Peters area. A huge amount of money was spent to get experts to construct the Master Plan and it seems senseless to continually disregard its initiatives

9. I agree that the St. Peter’s master plan should be followed, the proposed building frontage does not comply with this. I also wonder at the amount of construction work already taking place in surrounding streets , St Peter’s residents are already under pressure with West Connex, Sydney Metro , construction in Applebee st , Short st where it has made it unsafe and hazardous to walk around, there seems no control for all bodies council included.

10. The proposed design is not in keeping with the heritage of this area. May St, St Peters is a main thoroughfare in one of Sydney's oldest working class suburbs and we need to maintain some of this charm. Too many cheap ugly new buildings and not enough attention to the St Peters Masterplan. Keeping the facade of the original building would be a start.
    I agree with Jennifer Killen:
    This should not be approved without conditions to ensure that it benefits the homeless and disadvantaged, especially the rapidly growing numbers of homeless older women and homeless women with children.

11. I object to this development because
    • It will overshadow neighbouring properties.
    • It will have adverse affects on local amenity because of lack of parking.
    • There is little or any likelihood there will be a public benefit in terms of housing for the needy.
    • It is highly likely this will be used as backpacker accommodation or AirBNB which is not in the public interest.
    • The height and style out of character with surrounding area.
    • The building is too big for the area.
    • The social impact statement does not address the issues but is merely a set of quotations from ABS data and council policy.
    Please do not approve this application unless:
    • the building is substantially reduced in size and scale
    • conditions are imposed to ensure it really does provide housing for a needy cohort such as homeless, single parent families.
    • adequate parking (not just the minimum required under the code) is provided
    • conditions for the construction phase ensure that we do not have the problems currently seen in Applebee and Short streets - ie. scaffolding must not intrude onto the footpath, the footpath not to be used as part of the building site, no B-double, large trucks or truck&dog combinations allowed, no mud and dirt to be tracked onto footpath and road.

12. St Peters is currently hosting worksites for WestConnex, the Sydney Southwest Metro, multiple large scale development sites along the Princes Highway corridor and carrying the traffic/truck congestion for the Marrickville Metro shopping centre expansion. There is a massive glut of construction related activities for such a small suburb, with the infrastructure of an old industrial area, ie. narrow streets, close living quarters. For all the activity going on in St Peters, there will be no Metro station, the WestConnex simply ends at a narrow road, and to add insult to injury WestConnex have recently reneged on a deal to recreate Camdenville Park as a wetlands. It will instead deliver a motorway wall and remediated worksite as a park.

    Allowing the further construction on May St of a boarding house (without much further information) is an abhorrent decision that completely misunderstands the community sentiment. Boarding houses are arguably tax friendly 'investments' that offer transient residences that are easily changed to short term letting style abodes - akin to AirBnB. May St is predominantly light industrial and residential, there is no reason to allow this transient type of residence in this area.

    The building 'design' itself does not fit into any category that is appropriate for the area. In the last version of the 'St Peters Triangle', the council itself identified that any development within this area (that includes May St) will:

    integrate design excellence and sustainability across the precinct and within
    individual buildings and open spaces/public domain, and

    ensure that higher density development demonstrates good urban design and
    environmental sustainability and provides suitable amenity for occupants of those
    developments, and
    .
    ensure that the design of higher density development protects the residential
    amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties

    The application achieves none of these.

    This application does not warrant consideration for council and further development in the area should achieve the goals called out by council itself. There is a saturation point that was passed long ago in St Peters and adding extremely poorly designed developments to this is not fair to ratepayers and residents.

13. In addition to my previous submission I object to any approval which does not contain conditions to ensure that building work does not encroach onto public space. There must be specific conditions which will prevent a re-occurence of the problems currently experienced in Hutchinson and Applebee Streets, where builders are using the footpaths as part of their building site. In the interests of safety, it is also important that there is a limit placed on the size of trucks servicing the site - both Applebee and Hutchinson Streets are regularly blocked by trucks associated with those sites.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Inner West Council (Marrickville). They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment