PlanningAlerts

3 Comments

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

1. No information to review

2. The dwelling is zoned as R2 low density however the increase of occupancy without upgrading poses risks to both the character of the area, the properties residents and neighbours.
   The area has been classified as low density and the densities proposed – eg 1 person for just 8 square metres in the proposed double rooms, would not be in keeping to the area, its infrastructure, or the design of its dwellings. I note that an increase in density without any building work to mitigate impacts is proposed.
   Single Rooms
   • Room 2 – 14m2
   • Room 6 – 12m2

   Double rooms
   • Rooms 1,4,7 – Just have 16m2 for bathroom, Kitchenette, bedroom
   • Room 3 – 25m2
   • Room 5 – 21m2

   Risks with the significant increase in occupational density
   The increase in size of double rooms relative to a single room is only an additional 2 sq metres points to a lack of storage space for:
   • Refrigeration
   • Food
   • Belongings
   • Noise
   This major increase in density increases the following risks:
   • Vermin.
   o Lack of dedicated storage for general food items and refrigerated food would expose food to pests increasing issues vermin
   o Pets. There are no restrictions on pets. If each resident had a dog or cat, there isn’t enough backyard space to accommodate pet waste, adequate pet care and this would be borne by neighbouring properties. This would also increase issues with noise in adjoining properties.
   • Health and safety.
   o Corridors and exits are narrow and residents have a single exit. The lack of storage facilities would increase the risk of belongings being left in common areas. Objects such as bicycles, books etc. In the event of a fire residents would only have a single point of exit. The increase in density increases the risk of common hallways being blocked in the event of any emergency. There are no plans to add an additional fire exit to offset the risk to residents.
   o Increase risk of fire spreading. The increased density and hence risk of fire is only managed by smoke alarms. If a fire broke out in a room, the speed of the fire spreading to adjoining rooms quickly is not mitigated by a requirement for rooms to have extinguishers. A fire in a middle room would trap other residents in their rooms with no means of escape or means of fighting the fire
   • Parking. There are already existing problems associated with parking in the area, due to increased density from existing dwellings, increasing number of people visiting the area, and during week days, an increase in the number of people living outside the area parking in a residential street to gain easy access to Petersham station. Increasing the density would exacerbate this issue. Personally each weekend we are required to double park outside our residence in order to transport groceries inside due to the lack of parking. This further disrupts traffic flow. This issue will just get worse.
   • Noise pollution: It would not be possible to seat 12 residents along with guests in the common room. This then directs residents to each room. The increase in the number of rooms generating noise from devices would significantly increase general noise from residents and their guests to adjoining areas.
   • Waste disposal. With increase density there would be a requirement to house a significant increase in bins placed out each collection day. This would block pedestrian traffic during these days.

3. I object to the changes to occupancy for this development. There are already parking issues in this area and the increase in people in this boarding house will increase the load on parking in the area.

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