297-299 Trafalgar Street Petersham NSW 2049

To demolish existing improvements for the staged construction of 357 apartments over 3 sites with associated basement parking. 3-7 Regent Street is to be comprised of a residential flat building ranging from 5 to 8 storeys containing 108 apartments with basement parking. 13-17 Regent Street is to be comprised of 3 residential buildings ranging from 6 to 7 storeys with 50 apartments and basement parking. 287-309 Trafalgar Street and 16-20 Fisher Street is to be comprised of a mixed use building ranging from 2 to 11 storeys in height containing a new registered club premises for the Petersham RSL Club fronting Trafalgar Street, café and 3 residential buildings containing 196 apartments and 3 x 2 storey Soho apartments fronting Fozzard Lane with associated basement parking and public domain works linking Regent Street to Fozzard Lane. Approval is also sought for the subdivision of land to accommodate widening of Fozzard Lane as well as the stratum subdivision of lots in the development

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 4 months ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Inner West Council (Marrickville), reference DA201800173.03)

9 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Jeanette Leon 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 be 9ming too much for the existing residents of the area. The new property developments will not create affordable housing , all the housing will be built with profits in the foreminds of the property developers. The current over stuffing of more people into the small area of the inner west has 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.

  2. John Couani commented

    I object to this development.
    357 apartments in 11 towers in that space is way to much. The current facilities cannot handle such an influx. The developments on new Canterbury Rd are dense enough!
    357 is complete overkill.
    Please protect our suburbs from devastating over-development.

  3. Kylie commented

    I oppose this project as our current infrastructure cannot handle more people on both the roads and public transport

  4. Claire Croumbie-Brown commented

    This is yet another proposal to extract the maximum number of units from a site. It’s clearly not appropriate and needs to be significantly scaled back.
    Is there a community consultation being organized by Council regarding this proposal. There should be and it should be promoted on Planning Alerts.

  5. JOHN ADAMSON commented

    I agree completely with the comments made by Claire Croumbie- Brown . The proposal epitomises developer greed and shows utter contempt for the local community .

  6. Colm Halbert commented

    I totally oppose this proposal. Stanmore and Petersham need to be protected from the scourge of the Sydney apartment development. Can we not learn ANYTHING from the mistakes of the past. Once an area is ‘developed’, the neighbourhood is forever changed. Responsible development is what is called for. Let’s not loose our sense of place.

  7. Colm Halbert commented

    I totally oppose this proposal. Stanmore and Petersham need to be protected from the scourge of the Sydney apartment development. Can we not learn ANYTHING from the mistakes of the past. Once an area is ‘developed’, the neighbourhood is forever changed. Responsible development is what is called for. Let’s not loose our sense of place.

  8. Shane A. commented

    I oppose this application.

    This high-rise apartment propsoal at the site is at odds with the area's character and amounts to overdevelopment.

    The proposal does not deliver adequate open space, is poorly designed, and will over-stretch the already inadequate transport and social infrastructure.

    It fails to respect or enhance the existing local character of the area.

  9. N. Wheeler commented

    This development cannot be considered in isolation. There several apartment developments planned or going up in the surrounding area creating pressure on local services, infrastructure and green spaces. Council, please consider the existing use of these facilities and if they can cope with an influx in population. Is Council and State government going to improve roads, schools, day care places, hospital beds etc before they approve further oversized developments that only benefit the developer and not the community?

  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