40 Bishop Street Petersham NSW 2049

Alteration and additions to existing dwelling including first floor. Change of use to a 10 room boarding house with associated parking at rear

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 month ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Inner West Council (Marrickville), reference DA201900247)

59 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Shane A. commented

    I went to view the DA as 100 rooms seemed excessive and I wanted to to get an understanding of the build. There are 'no records to display' for this DA so I am objecting, unless they be made available.

  2. Denise Paoletti commented

    I strongly oppose this alteration/addition. 100 dwellings for boarding house will
    Change the face of this quiet family oriented street filled with single dwellings and terraces. The noise level will increase as well as the lack of parking availability.
    I sincerely hope it is reconsidered and scrapped as it has no place in this street.

  3. Marcus Callegaro commented

    I oppose the application of 40 Bishop Street Petersham as the infrastructure does not support the amount of people we have in he area now, and Jarvie Ave which is the where 40 Bishop Street backs onto is a one lane road with a laneway entrance from the Fraser Street end. Jarvie Ave also has heritage listed conservation order on all the house facades and if the proposel goes through will ruin the aesthetics of the Street.

  4. Suzanna Szabo commented

    There is a need to use/ renovate the many vacant houses for affordable housing, rather than overdelveop suburban streets. It seems to be a free for all in the inner west. Already the congestion by the increase of traffic, pollution and the decrease in amenity is apparent in this area. I do not support this application.

  5. Dr Neville Dawson commented

    This development is too ludicrous for words. A once family large block to support 100 people is ridiculous. Jarvie Ave is a small, beautiful street and garbage bins alone in that street or along Bishop St will block up the existing small footpath for safe, comfortable walking and for residence of Jarvie Ave. The street infrastructure is just not capable of coping with this plan. There are heritage conservation orders on house facades in Jarvie Ave and any good council should not ignore these orders. The architectural vista and harmony of this suburban family street must be maintained at all cost. I’m sure not all 100 people live alone and the numbers could be almost doubled.
    Parking is already congested in the area and this stupid over planning will only add to the existing problem. Will dogs and cats be permitted in the development? I hope not as there are many families in these streets street with family pets. More will not be welcomed by all existing owners in Bishop and Morgan Street.
    I strongly appose this planning application on these and other grounds mentioned by other that I have read. Considerations including matter of health due to overcrowding of such a family block of land in the area must also be a priority. Basically I think this is a very poor idea and I strongly object to it.

  6. N. Cachia commented

    I strongly oppose this development application. Firstly, the process for da states the neighbours must be notified of any development application, this has not occurred as i am a resident of jarvie street and have not received any plans for the proposal works. Secondly I do not see how 100 rooms will fit on a 454 Sqm block unless there is multiple levels which again the zoning for this land does not allow. Thirdly I do not see how parking in the rear of the block which backs onto jarvie avenue is even possible. Jarvie avenue is already a tight street with very limited parking as dwellings on this street do not have ample space for their own vehicles. With 100 bedrooms the conjestion and parking will be a nightmare. Jarvie avenue is a heritage street and as such all rules and regulations should be followed including garage access..
    I strongly disagree and will not be putting forward my acceptance

  7. Clare Darroch commented

    We have confirmed with the inner west council today, that this headline was an error: it is an application for a 10 room boarding house.

    I object to the development application of a 10 room Boarding House at 40 Bishop st, Petersham.

    We are a quiet community street, with the majority of residents being young families or elderly and long term residents.
    This street has been peaceful for a long time, and welcoming to families that choose to live here. Another boarding house will completely change this for all residents in the area. We are already home to a number of affordable housing options in the surrounding streets and believe that the balance is good without need for further change.
    There is not capacity for a 10 room boarding house due to impact on the street with parking, rubbish, and noise pollution, as per the previous objections.
    This is a family street and community. The development and it’s use must fit in with the street, as is the case for all renovation applications that have had to adhere to these rules in the past.
    I am strongly opposed to this development application.

  8. Peter Franc commented

    I object to the alteration and additions to existing dwelling including first floor and change of use to a 10 room boarding house with associated parking at rear at 40 Bishop Street PETERSHAM NSW 2049.

    As a newly arrived resident with a growing family, both Bishop and Jarvie Streets have a unique character which would be irreversibly changed with the proposed development. Care should be taken to preserve the culture of the area and let it naturally develop, rather than forcing drastic change into the middle.

    Beyond the issues of limited parking, cultural fit and overdevelopment, affordable housing is already established in the surrounding streets, and the development of the Petersham RSL and apartments in the surrounding streets will already stress the infrastructure.

  9. Iain Darroch commented

    I strongly oppose the development application

    Introducing a multi tenant building to the street will completey change the dynamic and character of Bishop Street and Jarvie Avenue. This development will be totally out of character with the street in its purpose and the use of land.

    The street is full of young families and a tight knit community. The introduction of a 10 person boarding house is totally out of keeping with this community and the make up of the street.

    This will introduce further strain on parking, waste collection and the introduction of increased noise levels on a quiet residential street.

  10. Antonio Paoletti commented

    I strongly oppose to the development application

    As stated before me, this will change the characteristic of the streets bishop and Jarvie ave. There are no multi dwellings in these streets. This development would
    Look out of place and character.

    Having lived in this street for over 40 years i have enjoyed the quiet, community feeling this area has always provided. Introducing this development will drastically change that.

    There are many multi purpose housing in the area with many more in development already approved can we not keep the cherished street of bishop st and Jarvie ave intact?
    I’m truly hope so. Please do not approve this application

  11. Denise paoletti commented

    Update on my previous comment I strongly oppose to the development of 10 room boarding house for same reasons as previously stated.
    This quiet street will be heavily compromised with multiple tenant housing for both bishop st and Jarvie ave

  12. Peter Hickey commented

    I strongly oppose the development application. Having lived in Bishop St for over 30 years and spent my life savings renovating my property I do not want to see the nature of the street change.

    According to the Department of Fair Trading there are already 31 registered boarding houses in Petersham. The suburb does not need any more. Our street certainly does not need one.

    The property borders four homes in Morgan St, one home in Jarvie Ave and one home in Bishop St. These are predominately family homes with young children.

    A first floor addition would require windows that would overlook the backyards of the four homes in Morgan St to the North and several back yards to the South as the street slopes toward the South creating a serious lack of privacy for the residents of the adjoining properties.

    A first floor addition also changes the architectural feel of the street.

    Parking at the rear would mean increased traffic flow on Jarvie Ave which is already a very narrow street with narrow footpaths.

    The residents of Bishop St have a strong sense of community and chose to live here because of the single dwelling nature of the street. An approval of the development application would see a drastic change to the locality.

    I therefore strongly oppose the development application.

  13. Brett Randall commented

    I object. This is one of the strangest locations I have seen selected/proposed for a boarding house. I have confidence that Council will find the same and reject.

  14. mark matheson commented

    I want join the list of people opposing this "development application".

    The word "development" is wrong. It's a liability and inappropriate.

  15. Dave b commented

    I strongly appose this development of 40 bishop st petersham into a 10 room boarding house.

    Bishop street over the years was once a nice quiet street with ample parking and a beautiful place to live but over the last several years it has become a over populated and busy street and by adding a 10 room boarding house would only put a bigger strain on the street. Parking is a nightmare at he best of times in bishop street and literally after 5pm you may not get a parking spot it’s that over crowded.
    Also since Morgan street was blocked off an increase in traffic in general has increased with people cutting through the street has increased.

    Over development in recent years has put a strain on the street and by adding this development and adding a potential 10 rooms compacted into a double story dwelling will only increase this.

    Please stop the development before it totally ruins which was once a lovely street to live Into a horrible situation for all residents to live in.

  16. RP commented

    I want to Strongly Object to this proposal and agree it’s the strangest location to have a boarding house considering we have plenty within the surrounding Streets already, not to mention all the new DA’s for boarding house proposals in the Marrickville, Dulwhich Hill & Inner West area awaiting approval.

    As mentioned in the previous comments parking of an evening is already a nightmare, having such a large number of people moving in would put more of a strain on this Street and surrounds as you cannot guarantee the tenants moving in will not own their own vehicles.

    I also agree concerning the lack of privacy of the surrounding houses this elevated building will bring and also the noise level rise will be worrying.

    I trust that the council will hear the growing concerns of the residents and reject this DA proposal for 40 Bishop Street Petersham.

  17. Kitty commented

    I support this DA. Affordable housing for singles and students is in dire need in the Inner West. This will only enrich the suburb.

  18. Carla commented

    I strongly oppose to the development application

    We do not need 10 room boarding house. This will introduce further strain on parking, waste collection and the introduction of increased noise levels on a quiet residential street. Jarvie Avenue is a one lane street and already congested. Residents already stuggle for parking. The apartments built along Canterbury road was supposed to help with affordability. Students, singles and families seeking affordable housing should look there. 80% of those builds are empty. I do not support this application.

  19. Darren commented

    I strongly disagree and oppose this development!

    Only 5 resident parking spots on plan yet released by developer for this site yet 10 residents will be living in this boarding house in a street which is congested and parking is extremely hard to get in bishop st. Also there is no visitor parking which potential cold have as many a 10 plus cars for the one dwelling which is ridiculous considering the strain on the current infrastructure as it is.

    aesthetically the double story house does not match the existing single surrounding houses at that end of the street and would be a eyesore

    Boarding houses will decrease residents property value

    Increase traffic with extra vehicles cutting through bishop street. Morgan street is also blocked off so currently high numbers of vehicles cut through bishop street currently and now add an extra 10 residents in the street it becomes ridiculous

    The noise from a increase has some serious Mental health concerns

    Privacy for houses adjacent to building also includes a right to sunlight (especially in winter), security, and protection of views and privacy from overlooking.

    Impact upon trees

    Negative effect on nature conservation

    This application must be stopped and amended to at least provide enough parking for each resident

  20. Kevin Bradstock commented

    Kevin
    I oppose to the development application.
    My main concerns with the proposed development is the Over-bearing / out-of-scale size of the dwelling compared to the surrounding dwelling.
    Parking will be issue ,inadequate off street parking made available
    There be an increase in traffic in the neighbourhood
    Noise levels will increase (Ten room boarding house)
    Valuation on surrounding residence properties will decrease
    .I totally agree with all the above objection and I do not support the development application.

  21. Ashleigh commented

    I am strongly against with this proposal.

    As per previous comments, to have 10 room boarding house in this quiet area is ridiculous. When boarding/ affordable accommodation is already available throughout Petersham/ Marrickville (or is in progress of being built). Multiple affordable studios are empty and seeking tenants.

    I live close to this property and watch the garbage trucks struggle to make it down Jarvie Ave. Adding additional cars parked on the street (due to lack of parking for number of boarders) will make this a nightmare. There is not enough available street parking on bishop street for current residents.

    The additional first floor with communal rear balcony facing Javie Ave and being close to the rear of homes on Morgan Street is unacceptable. This will cause excess noise disturb neighbors. Especially when they is no manager on site to control what is actually happening in the communal areas.

    I purchased my home in this area of petersham due to no multi dwellings, no huge high rises, for the original character houses of which Jarvie Ave is listed as a Heritage Conservation Area. We should be protecting our quiet character streets not rushing to develop them as soon as properties with larger blocks become available. There are not many areas/ streets like ours still left.
    There are enough run down areas or industrial properties inner west which can be used for future multiple residences.

    This development will decrease the value of my property and all others at the northern end of both Jarvie Ave, Bishop St and Morgan St.

    To bring this loger accommodation to our street for 10 separate individuals will be impacting more than 10 already existing family homes.

    I am more than happy to discuss my concerns further with Marrickville Council.

  22. Jing commented

    I strongly disagree with and oppose this development.

    Residents of these small streets are mostly made up of young families and long-term elderly residents, and a 10 room boarding house would not fit in to this community. A multi level dwelling would be an eye sore against the predominantly single level houses and terraces in these streets, especially Jarvie Ave. There are privacy concerns with a multi level building overlooking backyards in the street, houses so close together going down a hill, especially for those families with young children.

    I agree with previous posts indicating how this is a very strange location for such a development. There are also major concerns with the rubbish and noise pollution, and the insecure and unstable factors the development would bring to these quiet streets, not to mention the strain on parking. The parking availability is scarce and limited in Bishop st and Jarvie Ave. The latter, at the back of this site, is a tight and twisting one lane street, hardly a good location for a car park entrance, and both streets have little or no capacity for the multiple extra cars this development would bring with it.

    There are already a few boarding houses around this little suburb, and more than enough new dwellings going up to cover affordable housing options in the area. There is no need for developers to intrude on this peaceful and quiet little neighbourhood to line their pockets. I believe that this development will only disrupt and negatively affect the lives of the people in these streets, rather than enrich the suburb.

    I believe that the council will put the current residents' benefit over the interest of the developer and owners in rejecting this non–suitable proposition.

  23. John commented

    I am strongly against this proposal.
    Local schools are at maximum capacity, hospitals are struggling, trains are over crowded, parking is becoming an issue and traffic is only going to get worse. There is no need to build a boarding house in our street. There is already plenty of affordable housing in other suburbs. Stay away from our area and go ruin another.

  24. Rollo commented

    Developers and supporters can pretend to keep their heads in the sand dreaming this development will bring only students to the area. The reality is boarding houses are where drug addicts, schizophrenics and released prisoners can get temporary accommodation while on the waiting list for social housing, not being suitable to rent privately or through other means if affordable housing, and boarding house owners don't exactly have the best reputation for running such properties. As long as the money keeps coming in, they won't care who's in there and what they're doing. A 10 room 2 level boarding house does not belong in very small and quiet suburban streets such as Jarvie Ave and Bishop St. The previous owners of this property would be rolling in their graves in shame and anger if they knew what the plans were for the home they lived in for a near half century.

  25. TC commented

    This is an audacious proposal, even in these times of crazy over-development in suburban areas through dodgy private certifiers. Especially ludicrous is the car park access through tiny Jarvie Ave and only 5 internal parking spots.

    Council has to consider how garbage trucks are going to get down Jarvie Ave with the street full of cars, which is what will happen. Many times I've been asked to move my car in pyjamas so the trucks could get through. I won't be doing this any more should council approve this money grab, with no considerations to the streets' residents.

    And why weren't residents properly notified of this proposal? Most residents only discovered this plan through word of mouth talking to their neighbours, being a tight-nit, family-oriented community. We want to keep it that way. Hands off our neighbourhood please.

  26. Joao Correia commented

    Petersham is a very unique suburb. It is diverse, eclectic and we residents of Jarvie Avenue are proud of its personality. It needs to be protected. This is a letter of objection, and a request that you deny the application regarding this proposed development, for the following reasons:
    Jarvie Avenue and Bishop street are small streets where development proposals should be considered very carefully. I believe this development would ruin the character of the area and overwhelm it.
    Jarvie Ave also has heritage listed conservation order on all the house facades the protection of this should be supported by the council.
    Jarvie Avenue is a one lane streest and can not accommodate even small increases in traffic not to mention the increase noise and disturbance resulting from this development.
    There is little parking available already for residents
    We are also very concerned about the privacy for myself and the sounding residents.
    The current infrastructure cannot cope with the existing residents.
    We believe It will impact directly on us and our neighbours specifically in the forms of traffic, light pollution, noise pollution and a degradation of the area and its heritage.
    We request the council work harder to motivate and encourage these developers to respect the area its residents and reject the boarding house development.

  27. Justin Clark commented

    I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of 40 Bishop Street, Petersham.
    A 10-dwelling boardinghouse in this location is a significant overdevelopment of this site. In addition the south alignment of the house is only 450 mm from the south Boundry. Windows are being added to this elevation which could pose a noise and fire safety risk to the adjacent property (38 Street).
    As this is a change of use DA, the building should be made to fully comply with all current building codes, including separation along boundaries, which the existing building footprint is not capable of doing.. I therefore do not believe that the development as proposed can legitimately be approved by the council.

  28. Sue bradstock commented

    There is a boarding house being fixed a very large building corner addison and shore street so cannot understand why a quite street has to have a boarding house l the parking in bishop street is already hard please please do not allow this to happen I am sure the noise in the street will also be a problem with people coming and going

  29. Sue bradstock commented

    There is a boarding house being fixed a very large building corner addison and shore street so cannot understand why a quite street has to have a boarding house l the parking in bishop street is already hard please please do not allow this to happen I am sure the noise in the street will also be a problem with people coming and going

  30. Dino Angelini commented

    I’m writing to strongly oppose the development application of a 10-room boarding house at 40 Bishop Street Petersham.
    The development would have a hugely negative impact on the infrastructure, in the forms of traffic, light pollution, noise pollution and a degradation of the area and its heritage. AS well as this, I have strong issue with the following listed items quoted from the statement of environmental effects. The development:
    - Maintains the existing urban character
    - Will not result in noise levels inappropriate to a residential area
    - Does not require a social impact statement as the proposed development has capacity for less than 20 residents (Quoting 19 residents)
    - Will have a positive social impact for the Petersham community
    - Design retains the built character of the area and will not impact on the existing residential uses
    - Onsite carparking at a rate of 1 per caretaker and 0.25 spaces per boarding room is anywhere near adequate
    - Will have a positive impact on the public domain as the proposal is consistent with the character of the area

  31. Nicole Grant commented

    I am writing to address the proposed DA for a 10 room boarding house at 40 Bishop St Petersham.
    This proposal allows for 19 residents (max of 2 in each room) at this location. The main issue in the area with these additional people will be a lack of parking and increased traffic.

    Parking: There are only 4 car spaces allocated in the proposal. Parking is already an issue in Bishop St and the additional tenants will increase this problem. There is also limited parking in Jarvie Ave.

    Traffic: Jarvie St, is a very narrow st and additional traffic will make it more difficult for residents to navigate the street.

    In addition to these issues which will directly affect the local residents, Petersham already has 38 registered boarding houses (http://parkspr.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/BoardingHouse.aspx). Where is the evidence that we need more?

    I am opposed to this application and hope that Marrickville council take the concerns of the residents seriously.

  32. Georgie Harvey commented

    I strongly oppose this development application.

    As many responses have noted, I feel this application does not meet the Inner West Council’s guidelines that developments should be “sympathetic with development prevailing in the street”.

    This area is made up of small, older-style family dwellings. Where there are double story dwellings in the area, these are generally discretely constructed and do not impede on the privacy of the houses around them.

    The code states that developments should have “minimal impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing and overlooking”. Having windows seemingly boundary to boundary, with less than the council’s required 900mm setback is certainly not in keeping with the character of the streetscape, nor does it represent minimal impact to neighbouring properties. 38 Bishop St and 1 Jarvie Ave are certainly impacted by significant overshadowing, and the rest of the neighbourhood will feel the impact of loss of privacy.

    As is noted in the transport impact study, the council’s required 0.5 car spaces per room has not been met for this property. As multiple residences have noted, there is already considerable strain to on-street parking. The report gives a rate of 70-90% occupancy of on-street parking at present in the morning (which surely would be even higher overnight). An additional 5+ cars fighting for car spots would make living in the area extremely difficult.

    I hope the council considers the negative impact of this development on existing residents in the area and rejects this proposal.

  33. Justin Simon commented

    Strongly support this development. The attitude of some of the responses being sent against this is really troubling, whether it’s saying all residents will be “schizophrenics and drug addicts”, or that “there is already plenty of affordable housing in other suburbs. Stay away from our area and go ruin another.” The Inner West should be a lot more tolerant of difference and people in need.

    Further, the entitlement people in one of the best serviced public transport LGAs in the city seem to think they have to street parking is wrong. If you want a dedicated parking space, move to one of the many places that come with one, otherwise accept it’s a roll of the dice and certainly don’t block developments for poorer people who’ll disproportionately be using public transport.

  34. Angela Callegaro commented

    I strongly oppose the proposed DA of 40 Bishop St Petersham into a 10 room boarding
    House. Lack of parking, overcrowding, noise, rubbish, invasion of privacy, would be life changing to the existing residents.
    Like most of my neighbours, I have real concerns about the negative impact a boarding house would have on Morgan St, Bishop St, and Jarvie Ave.

    This DA is not about affordable housing, it's about developers GREED. Inner west council must reject the DA and protect our beautiful suburb.

  35. MD commented

    I strongly oppose this development application.

    The are many valid reasons previously stated as to why this proposed development should not proceed.

    Of significant concern is the already restricted on street parking in the immediate vicinity of Jarvie Avenue as well as Morgan & Bishop streets. With the addition of a prospective 10 vehicles vying for space on the street this will surely have a negative flow on effect into nearby Frazer Street and Wardell Road.

    Looking at the plans as they have been submitted it would appear that very little consideration (if any) has been taken by the architect or the developer in relation to the proximity of the proposed development to the established dwellings adjacent to this property. A double storey dwelling of this nature will have a very negative impact (in particular the privacy of the existing residents) on the multiple single storey homes sharing its boundary.

    The Inner West has changed significantly over the years (my family have been residents of Petersham for over 90 years) and its change is generally for the better - we wouldn’t choose to live anywhere else and we welcome the diversity and inclusion that being a resident of the Inner West brings, however, the Inner West has been (and continues to be) overdeveloped. Affordable long term housing for low income earners is a must (in every area) and the 97 already registered boarding houses within the Marrickville council area prove that the Inner West is a viable location to provide affordable housing, unfortunately 40 Bishop Street is simply an inappropriate location for the development of a 10 room boarding house.

  36. SP commented

    I strongly oppse this development application as it would have a huge negative impact on the neighbouring properties and the surounding community. .

    Bishop Street, Morgan St and Jarvie Avenue are all quiet secondary streets made up young families and eldery residents that have lived there for over 40 years.

    The idea of building a borading home with 10 rooms is ludicrous for the same reasons mention in the previous posts. Parking, noise pollution, increase pressure on our infrastructure and most importantly, the negative impact on our close knit community with the constant comings and goings of boarders.

    I sincerely hope that the council has the wisdom to see that a 10-dwelling boarding house has no place in this street as there are many other more suitable locations. exisiting and under development.

  37. Nima Moghimi commented

    I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of 40 Bishop Street, Petersham.
    The proposed boarding house development is not in line with the character of surrounding environment and would constitute overdevelopment.
    The increase in noise, traffic and congestion would negatively impact the enjoyment of the environment by neighbouring properties and lead to poor outcomes from a social and neighbourhood cohesion perspective.

  38. C.Stewart commented

    We oppose the development of a 10 room boarding house at 40 Bishop Street because it is not in keeping with the scope of housing already present (these were also council guidelines we had to abide by when renovating our home), impact privacy by creating lines of sight into neighbours homes and backyards from the second story and increase already at-capacity street parking pressure. We already have residents parking in Bishop Street from other streets due to over development and inadequate on site parking. Council may have forgotten that Marrickville Oval is an amenity also attracting parking problems to Bishop Street as participants and spectators seek parking in surrounding streets during games and training 7 days a week.
    This development application is an overuse of the site which degrades the charm and quality of 2 streets by overcrowding people, cars and impacting factors such as garbage collection. Approving the size and scope of this development and it's use will change this street permanently.

  39. Judi Partland commented

    I strongly oppose this development application.
    I have been a resident of Bishop St for 36 years.The proposal to convert 40 Bishop St from a single storey dwelling into a 10 room, 2 storey boarding house, with a 3 month limited stay for visitors (therefore producing a highly transient population), is entirely inappropriate for a quiet, established, residential area. A commercial boarding house simply does not match with the character of the surrounding dwellings and streetscapes.
    The parking situation in Bishop St, Morgan St and Jarvie Ave is already diabolical. These streets simply can't sustain a development of this size and subsequent large number of additional vehicles requiring on-street parking spaces.
    Traffic in the area has steadily increased with the closure of Morgan St several years ago, with motorists seeking a short cut through to Livingston and Warren roads via Bishop St and Jarvie Ave. Additional traffic in the street created by boarding house residents will exacerbate the already hazardous nature of increased traffic in small narrow suburban streets.
    As noted in previous comments, there are 38 existing boarding houses operating in Petersham, one already in Morgan St. We do not need another one.
    I am stunned that Council is considering this application at all, and am very worried about the dangerous precedent that it sets.

  40. June Aaron commented

    I strongly oppose this application for the following reasons:
    1. Traffic density is already too high in Bishop St and there is minimal parking available for the current number of residents.
    2. Bishop St and Jarvie Ave are quiet residential streets. A commercially operated Boarding House does not fit the current community profile.
    3. There are already too many Boarding Houses in Petersham. As a suburb, we are currently more than covering our responsibility to provide affordable housing.
    4. The privacy of residents in Bishop St, Morgan St and Jarvie Ave who share a boundary with this property would be compromised by this development going ahead.

  41. Dennis Rodrigues commented

    I strongly oppose this development application as it would have a huge negative impact on the neighboring properties and the community.
    The change from a residential home to a commercial boarding house does not fit in with the existing streetscape.
    The plans do not seem to comply with council basic guidelines, there is no setback of the first floor wall from the boundary line on the south side of the building, what happened to having a setback of 900mm/1200mm from the boundary on extensions?
    The addition of the first floor raises concerns as this will impede on the privacy of the surrounding neighbours backyards.
    Street parking is already an issue in the area and to include a boarding house with 10 rooms and only 4 on site car spaces will increase the current problem.

    I cannot understand how council has allowed it to get to this stage!

  42. John Partland commented

    John Partland
    I, too, am opposed to this proposed development. I concur with the submissions already made with regard to traffic, parking, garbage overflow and amenity of the local streetscape.
    In response to Council's Control Plan Section 4.15 the developers state that
    "It is considered that the proposal is in the public interest as it allows for appropriate and positive development on the existing residential site".
    Nothing could be further from the truth. The public were never consulted and if they were they would unanimously (or close to) condemn this development as not appropriate. Nor would they concur that it is a positive development on the existing site.
    A development which was based on maintaining the amenity of the surrounding streetscape would be a single residence on a large block or a subdivision allowing two residences- one facing Bishop Street and one facing Jarvie Avenue.
    At 5.2.3 in the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (LEP 2011) it is stated that the development exceeds the Floor Space Ratio by 2.5% and goes on to say that "This is considered appropriate in this case with the character and scale of the development compatible with neighbours and the implications of the minor variation negligible.".
    Well, we the neighbours who will be impacted by the development do not think it is appropriate at all nor do we agree that it it negligible given the impact on traffic, parking, garbage, and amenity of the street. We are also interested to know what metric was used to claim that this excess was compatible with that of the neighbours.
    I note also that the photograph of the Jarvie Avenue entrance indicates two access points while plans indicate 4 car spaces. I refer to this in the context of neighbours in Bishop Street being informed that no new driveways are to be constructed. I assume this to be the same in Jarvie Ave and so point out that no recognition has been made to this restriction in the plans.
    This development should not go ahead.

  43. Patricia pomeroy commented

    I am very concerned about the boarding house in this very quite street the parking is very difficult at the best of times so are allowing the parking for 10 rooms don't think so we are a family orientated street so this street will lose in the long run

  44. Dean Pomeroy commented

    I Oppose this application to build a boarding house,

    A few points:

    The traffic through bishop street plus parking is a massive issue as parking spaces are restricted after 5pm if your even lucky to get one, adding this will add even further strain on the street.

    Bishop street has always been a quiet family orientated street with elderly people and people just starting there families here. adding this 'boarding house' will add even more stress to the residents because we don't know who will be moving in, is it a boarding house for people who are 'off the street' or for people who have committed crimes or for alcoholics/junkies with no place to go.

    Without seeing any plans or documentation, how can the residents of bishop street feel safe with this being built?

    another issue is noise with people coming and going all the time etc.

    Devaluation on properties in bishop street is another thing to, this will impact the street and surrounding streets a lot.

  45. KP commented

    I am writing to oppose this development

    The proposed development has complete disregard for not only the streetscape but the current capacity at which both Bishop and Jarvie Ave are currently at.

    In the first instance, the development is at odds with the current facades within the street, which are heritage protected, as well as being completely disproportionate. The width of both streets will not be able to accommodate the increased traffic and waste disposal generated from this proposed development as at present, the street cannot accommodate 2 way traffic.

    The small, community nature of bishop, jarvie and morgan street is what the residents have sought hard to cultivate and grow and the addition of a transient population that is already accommodated by a large number of existing boarding house options in the suburb should not be prioritised over existing residents needs. Development should not come at the expense of existing residents needs and considerations particularly when the development has not met the criteria of LEP 2011.

    It is councils responsibility to listen to the residents and priortise the long run future, character and composition of the community over short term gains to be made for the developer, particularly when there are enough boarding houses already in the suburb.

  46. Stuart Parker commented

    Stuart
    We strongly object to this proposal.
    We live directly to the north of the development site, on Morgan Street. We concur with other objectors' comments about the impact on the neighbourhood and on parking.
    For us, a two-storey boarding house, with windows and a balcony overlooking our home, will have an unacceptable impact on our privacy. Also of concern to us is noise and security, as well as traffic and parking.
    We will be filing a more detailed, written submission to the council. I urge others with concerns to do the same. Comments on this website will not be enough, I suspect.

  47. Fiona Gillies commented

    I strongly oppose this proposal from both a community and personal point of view.

    The neighbourhood at the western end of Morgan St, intersecting with Jarvie Ave and Bishop Street, is a very quiet, family-oriented community. Many people have lived here for more than 40 years. We have been here for 23 years. Now young families are moving in to raise their kids here, just as we did. Since the blocking of Morgan Street to through-traffic in, I think, the late 1990s, the area has been an even more peaceful backwater. To replace a single-storey, long-term family home with a two-storey, 10-dwelling boarding house is completely out of character with the existing neighbourhood, and a significant over-development.

    There are already a number of low-key boarding houses and other affordable housing options in nearby streets. I support residential diversity and affordable housing, and believe the balance is about right. Adding this multi-tenant, short-term occupancy proposal to the mix threatens to change that dynamic.

    The developer has claimed the proposal is in the public interest "as it allows for appropriate and positive development on the existing residential site". I don't think you will find many residents who agree. A much more appropriate and positive development would be sub-dividing the block and building two residences, one with Bishop Street frontage, the other on Jarvie Ave. And the developer would still make a tidy sum.

    I support the submissions already made with regard to traffic, parking, garbage overflow, amenity of streetscape, the narrow access in Jarvie Ave and so on, so will not add further to that.

    As to how I am personally affected, the proposed second storey will have windows and a balcony that will look directly into our backyard and living room. This will have a major impact on our privacy and also raises important security concerns. There is also a proposed outdoor communal space in the development. Along with the balcony overlooking our property, this makes us very concerned about noise. The developer's management proposal has "rules" about noise, but with no residential manager on site, how are these rules to be policed? There is also scant detail in the proposal about who the proposed boarding house residents will actually be.

    We are sending a detailed objection to council and I urge everyone who has written a complaint here to do the same. My understanding is that an email or letter has much greater impact than a comment on this site.

  48. Jeanette L commented

    I oppose this overdevelopment to the existing properties. I have been an inner west resident for nearly 15 years, and the recent years of over development of the area is becoming too much for the existing residents of the area. The new property development will not create affordable housing.The current over stuffing of more people into the small area of the inner west with congested the roads, where we once had 2 lanes of to travel thru, its now common place to have a single lane of traffic for each direction, hampering constant traffic flow.

    As it currently stands the existing inner west council cannot adequately provide for the current constituents and its infrastructure. Roads cannot be expanded as there is no room. The inner west has always been hospitable to those who move into the neighbourhood, but the closeness of the neighbourhood is slowing eroding due to the over-commercialisation of the area. The inner west is at capacity as it is in 2018.

  49. Elizabeth commented

    So many objections to this appplication.
    In summary:
    31 registered boarding houses already exist in Petersham
    The majority of properties in Bishop St and Jarvie Ave use on-street parking
    Jarvie Ave has properties with heritage listed conversation orders
    Jarvie Ave is one lane only.
    Increasing the population density of this suburban block would have deleterious repercussions.

    The unconscionable greed and avarice of the party/ies putting this application forward reflect no regard for the established social fabric of the area and no respect for its residents.
    This application can only be rejected.

  50. Stewart Lever commented

    I strongly disagree with this application this street can not handle this amount of people into the street. It is already a nightmare to get a park in the street with a possible one to two spots left after 1900h (if lucky). Some houses have 6 to seven vehicles alone, the demographic within the street suggests that this will only increase with time. There are already 31 registered boarding houses in Petersham. We can not even afford another duplex being built on the street let alone a 10 room boarding house.
    This kind of project is not for a small side street with minimal off street parking.
    Please council, this is a ridiculous proposal for a street with minimal width.

  51. Zlatibor Velickovic commented

    I strongly oppose the development of 40 Bishop Street from a single storey residential building to a 10 room, double storey boarding house. This development is significantly out of scale and character for this locality. There will be residents in 10 rooms plus visitors at the development site at any one time. This is in contrast to the existing single-family properties on Bishop street. The development proposes a high density type building in a precinct with low density residential character.

    The proposed 2 storey development will cast a shadow and reduce the amount of natural light to my property and result in a loss of privacy. The residents plus visitors will increase the street traffic and parking. There will be a significant increase of noise coming from the residents and their visitors that will frequent the area throughout the day. This will lead to significant disruption of piece and quiet in the area.

  52. Petrea Fellows commented

    I am writing to lodge my objection to the proposed development of 40 Bishop Street, Petersham- DA201900247. As a resident of 28 Morgan Street Petersham for some 12 years, I know that this development is most unsuited to the specific area proposed. It will have a negative effect on already crowded parking, which suffers from the effects of units built on adjacent Duchros Street. The trickle down effect of this parking shortage impacts Morgan Street and Bishop Street. Furthermore the amenities, increased population and noise will greatly effect the lifestyle of existing residents in this area. The proposed additional storey will also look in on many properties in this built up residential area and greatly infringe on the privacy of residents. Finally it should be noted that Bishop Street and neighbouring Jarvie Avenue are exceptionally narrow streets and already require cars driving down the street to pull over to allow oncoming traffic to pass. This new development will dramatically increase traffic to this area and effect the family friendly quiet pocket characteristic of this neighbourhood.

    .

  53. Malinda commented

    I strongly object to this proposal.
    It is way too big for such a small and very quiet street. Allowing this 10 room boarding house will create extra noise, lack of parking, overcrowding and lots more rubbish in the area.
    There are already too many boarding houses in Petersham.
    This proposal is not for a small side street and beautiful homes surrounding it.

  54. Tim Bedding commented

    We object to the proposal on the grounds that the planned 10-room boarding house is not in keeping with the character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Those of us who bought into this area have come to appreciate the quiet enviroment and famkly-friendly atmosphere. Our house is directly across the street from the rear of 40 Bishop Street and our bedrooms, which are at the front of our proprety, face directly onto the rear of the proposed development. As such, we are particularly concerned about noise from the outdoor space at the rear of the proposed development, as well as from the outdoor balcony. If the project goes ahead, we request that the use of the outdoor areas be restricted to times between 8am and 10pm.

  55. Zayra Millan commented

    I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed development at 40 Bishop Street. My reasons are because 1) there is inappropriate road infrastructure for the proposed parking on Jarvie Avenue; 2) the proposal is not aligned to the physical and 3) community character of the streets concerned – Bishop Street and Jarvie Avenue, the latter is a Heritage Conservation Area; 4) it will be disruptive to the community due to noise and traffic. These reasons are detailed further below:

    1. The proposal of 40 Bishop street will require entrance to parking via Jarvie Avenue. However, Jarvie Ave LACKS THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE to meet this purpose. It cannot support the increase in demand for parking and increase in vehicle traffic. This is because Jarvie Ave is an unusually narrow s-shaped street where traffic is required to give way to pull aside for oncoming traffic at various points. Jarvie Ave is a small, single-laned street, and has limited parking space for residents. It is not suited for use as a thoroughfare for parking, or for resident/guest parking for a 10 room boarding house. The traffic impact study provided notes that there is limited offstreet parking in the area and that Jarvie Ave and Bishop St are primarily pedestrian streets. These streets are designed to support an increase in vehicle traffic/parking demands.

    2. The proposal is not aligned to the physical character of Bishop St and Jarvie avenue. Jarvie Avenue is a Heritage Conservation Area. This order was raised to protect the “aesthetic significance” of the homes here, homes that are examples of single storey Inter-War bungalows. The proposal for 40 Bishop Street will negatively impact this Conservation Area. This is because it proposes to build a double storey modern-designed building that does not match the heritage of houses surrounding it. The transport impact study also notes that the surrounding area are predominantly single storey residential homes.

    3. The proposal is not aligned to the community character of Bishop St and Jarvie avenue. Both Jarvie Ave and Bishop St are quiet, family-oriented (babies, young children), primarily owner-occupied residential streets. The proposed use of 40 Bishop street is inconsistent with the family-oriented landscape of our streets because it comprises single-occupancy rooms targeted to individual residents.

    4. The proposal is disruptive to the community. It will generate an increase in noise due to increased vehicle, pedestrian, and noise from the outdoor communal space. This will disrupt the day to day living of residents on Bishop Street and Jarvie Avenue. Jarvie Ave is ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE to noise. The Inter War character of the homes on Jarvie Ave means that they have minimal setbacks from the street – this means that the front of the homes are very close to the streets and are sensitive to noise.

  56. Ray Wu commented

    I strongly oppose the development for the following reasons:

    The new double storey design of the building does not complement and conserve the visual character of the street scape. There are currently no unit buildings on either Bishop St or Jarvie Av.

    Jarvie Av is a heritage conservation area with distinctive architectural styles of the interwar period. The proposed design will negatively impact the elements protected by the conservation order, notably (quoting from the HCA23 council document):
    - "a small area that is characterised by its hidden location and tightly defined streetscape of Inter-War bungalows."
    - "the area a tight and cohesive and streetscape rhythm, dominated by the single storey, low pitched multi-gabled and hipped roofs of the interwar period"

    The double storey, high density, design will impact the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring homes. The lack of noise restrictions until after midnight on 2 days per week from the outdoor communal area would be highly disruptive.

    The utility of the building is not consistent with the surrounding homes. This is because the surrounding homes are residences for families who have lived on this street for many years or they belong to young families that have bought in the area and intend to stay for many years. In contrast the proposed building is intended for single occupancy rooming for a period of 3 months. Therefore it will negatively impact the development of the community on the affected streets.

    Finally it is not practical for boarding house parking to enter via Jarvie Avenue. Jarvie Ave is a tight street. It is not wide enough to be used as a thoroughfare because with cars parked on both sides of the street Jarvie Ave is functionally a single-laned street.

    For all these reasons, and a clear opposition from the residents in the surrounding area, please reject the proposal for this development.

  57. Carol Read commented

    I would like to raise a strong objection to the development application for a 10 room boarding house at 40 Bishop Street on several grounds:

    Firstly, the proposed development is not in keeping with the general amenity of the area. The existing dwellings on Bishop Street are predominantly single storey and single occupancy. The proposed development of a two story building to accommodate medium density housing compromises the existing street scape.

    Secondly, the proposed development does not provide for off street parking for each resident. Bishop Street is already full to capacity with the vehicles of existing residents so increasing the capacity of the property, without also providing off street parking will create an added traffic burden.

    Thirdly, the immediate neighborhood comprises many long term residents and young families. The proposed boarding house will encourage transient residents due to minimum occupancy periods of 3 months. This will change the sense of community that currently exists and which attracted many residents to the area.

  58. Lara Miller commented

    I strongly oppose this development application of 40 Bishop Street Petersham, into a 10 room boarding house.

    I live in a property on Bishop Street with no on-site parking and experience the lack of parking on Bishop Street on a daily basis. The street is already so congested that I often end up having to park far away from my property on neighbouring streets as there is no parking available on Bishop Street. It is ridiculous to consider the addition of a 10 room boarding house on what is already a heavily congested area for parking.

    In addition to this, I strongly agree with the other residents that this would increase traffic on the street in general and destroy the residential feel of the street.

    The property will also be overlooking neighbouring family homes, which is a complete invasion of privacy.

    In addition, the higher volume of bins on the street on collection days would further congest parking and likely increase the pest problem which is already a big problem in the area.

    Please don’t ruin our street with this ridiculous development. I am strongly opposed.

  59. Cameron Miller commented

    I strongly oppose the development application of a 10 room boarding house at 40 Bishop Street Petersham.

    I agree that the double storey, high density, design will impact the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring homes. The lack of noise restrictions until after midnight on 2 days per week from the outdoor communal area would be highly disruptive.

    In addition, Jarvie Av is a heritage conservation area with distinctive architectural styles of the interwar period. The proposed design will negatively impact the elements protected by the conservation order, notably (quoting from the HCA23 council document):
    - "a small area that is characterised by its hidden location and tightly defined streetscape of Inter-War bungalows."
    - "the area a tight and cohesive and streetscape rhythm, dominated by the single storey, low pitched multi-gabled and hipped roofs of the interwar period"

    We are a quiet community street, with the majority of residents being young families or elderly and long term residents. We have recently purchased in the street and did so due to the residential feel of the neighbourhood and heritage character. We would be devastated to see this destroyed by the development of a boarding house. This is completely unnecessary given the volume of boarding houses that already exist in the surrounding area.

    It is a known fact that the inner west is already a congested area. To increase the volume of bins on the street and further decrease the lack of parking is ridiculous. I live on Bishop Street, in a property with only street parking and I rarely find parking on Bishop Street and am forced to park in neighbouring streets. This is especially challenging of an evening and on weekends when there are sports teams playing in Marrickville Park.

    In addition, the property will be overlooking neighbouring homes which is a complete invasion of privacy.

    For all these reasons, and a clear opposition from the residents in the surrounding area, please reject the proposal for this development.

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

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

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

Back PlanningAlerts