70-72 Commonwealth Street Surry Hills NSW 2010

Demolition of existing building and construction of a new 7 storey mixed use building comprising hotel accommodation with 172 rooms, lower ground and ground floor retail and 3 basement levels.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 25 days ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: City of Sydney, reference D/2019/1247)

4 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. David Moffet commented

    This DA is totally out of character with all buildings surrounding...this is an historic precinct, and to slap a seven storey hotel in this street is ridiculous.
    On top of this, this street is already overpopulated with workers ands residents in apartments and offices...the street cannot cope with existing traffic now.

    A seven storey hotel will cast shadows in the afternoon on neighbouring parklands

    The hotel will also destroy the historic vista of the Mark Foys warehouse when viewed from the south...

    I recommend you reject this application

  2. Amy Wooding commented

    The proposed development is completely out of scale and out of character with the area in general and the street in particular. That the Mark Foys building is tall should not set a precedent - it is set on the lower side of the street, and is an historic landmark building of cultural significance, worthy of exception. In fact, it is appropriately showcased by the absence of other multi-storey structures around it.

    In an era where AirBnb rules, do we really need another hotel in the area? Or, if we do can it not be created within the envelope of an existing building at the required scale? Plenty of large vacant properties on the opposite side of Wentworth Avenue ripe for conversion.

    This area of Surry Hills has other historic landmark buildings such as Paramount Pictures and Hollywood Hotel. The neighbourhood needs to preserved because it is unique, but also to sympathetically frame these special treasures, not swamp them in stature and shadow.

    Please reject this application.

  3. Amy Wooding commented

    To correct my comment made earlier today: I meant to say the The Griffiths Teas Building, not Mark Foys.

  4. David Emery commented

    Observations about the existing density of buildings and people are accurate, as anyone who lives, works or frequents the area would attest. Leaving aside the revenues, profit and wages activity created, which is short term and concentrated, a longer term view of the area and it's livabilty ought to have fair weight when considering this infill. The current building doesn't have redeeming features and devlopment is appropriate, but scale should be small, and retaining light and increasing setback (at footpath level) should be highlighted in any assessment. The proposal is an easy solution to a small city plot, and likely within plan, but I'd urge you to consider a lighter footprint, and leave more sunlight and footpath for the many folk who will pass through at all hours.

  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