PlanningAlerts

12 Comments

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

1. Students and single people who work in the area, especially at local schools or hospitals, cannot afford to rent a flat on their own and need rental housing that is low cost. A boarding house right next to a train and bus line is the perfect solution

2. I am in full support of affordable housing options but this is a gross overdevelopment of a small two-storey site in a challenging construction zone (sandwiched between the train line and busy arterial road). Foot traffic, cyclists, busses, commercial and private road users already cause a virtual standstill on Illawarra Road and Schwebel Street for much of the day. Freestanding houses along the train line are going to be overshadowed by a 10 storey building filled with in excess of 100 tiny rooms that people are to 'live' in. It strikes me as a 10 story Accor Formula 1 like 'hotel' development. Affordable, accessible rental accommodation is one thing, but this is not it. 100 rooms, 40+ car spaces, 20+ motorbikes, more retail space when there are significant numbers of vacant tenancies within a 500 metre radius.

3. Surely not another site marked for over development, it seems like every time they knock down a single or double storey the developers move in and along with some greedy Councillors see this as money in the bank as opposed to the general well being of the area. This development will be out of character and I do not believe for one minute it will be affordable housing for those that need it. I have made no donations to the Council or employees.

4. I oppose this development in it's current form. Yet again the developer has submitted a DA for this site which significantly exceeds the Marrickvie DCP height and floor space ratio (FSR) limits for the site. The proposed development is approximately 8 metres too tall, with an FSR of 5:1 where it should be 3:1. Previously submitted unsuitably oversized building DAs for the site have been rejected by council and the regional planning panel and it is unacceptable to allow it now just because it has been rebranded as affordable housing. I'm not opposed to development of the site for affordable housing as long as it confirms to the DCP requirements and is of a suitable scale. In addition, the developer needs to provide assurance that construction works would not disrupt or comprise access or safety to users of the train station, which I doubt can be achieved.

5. 1. HEIGHT is NON-COMPLIANT – BULK & SCALE
   The height of this building is in breach of the LEP’s 5 storeys with this DA’s proposal for a 10 storey building of 34.26m does not comply with 26m in Marrickville LEP 2011. This excessive DA would be up by 8.7m equivalent of a 33% contravention. The site’s capacity is suitable for a total of 10 x 2-bedroom units over 5 storeys not 120 single studios in an excessive non-compliant 10 storey high rise.

   2. MULTI SIDED BUILDING
   The transition of this 10 storey DA from 1 on 3 sides in Station Street and 10 to 3 on South side should not be approved as it does not provide an appropriate transition. The site’s capacity is suitable for a total of 10 x 2-bedroom units over 5 storeys not 120 single studios in an excessive non-compliant 10 storey high rise.

   3. TRAFFIC & SAFETY
   This non-compliant DA is seeking to offer 42 car spaces which would add excessive congestion, traffic, safety hazards to one of Marrickville’s most dangerous and congested crossroads as well as being in a flood zone.

   4. FSR is NON-COMPLIANT
   This excessive and non-compliant DA proposes a Floor Space Ratio from 3.1 to 4.99.1 is not compliant- extent of proposed contravention 1.99.1 (3,467.6m2) up 66%

   5. URBAN Strategy Breach
   Marrickville Urban Strategy P34 states.
   ‘Sites will only be considered for future detailed master planning if they substantially meet the following criteria;
   - Development can occur that responds to aircraft, road and rail noise
   - Is not located close to strategic assets (port, airport and freight lines)
   The proposed development does not meet the above two Criteria points.

6. I object to this development. There is no guarantee the rental for these units will be in any way affordable. It is not a proposal from a community housing provider and no contractual arrangements are in place to ensure this is in any way a form of social housing. Nor are there any limitations on rent. As the applicants representative states, the boarding house planning legislation does not provide for this: Weir Phillips, letter 28/5/21 at 6.4, 'there is no requirement for them to be restricted to any particular maximum rental, they are considered to be ‘affordable’ simply by virtue of their limited size and facilities'. The designation as a 'boarding house' simply regulates multiple occupancy. There is no restriction on how occupants may be required to pay.

7. I oppose this proposed development. The size far exceeds controls on height and floor space and does not factor in current traffic conditions and further impact from this development. I support low to medium density housing that addresses controls that protect community and neighborhoods.

8. This proposal for boarding house and commercial use has been refused by Council on many grounds and should not be approved by the Planning Panel.Although minor changes have been made it still does not conform to height & FSR for the Inner West LEP. The breeches are still substantial and it’s still 10 storeys with northern end 8. The fact that developer is proposing a boarding house does not justify the height & FSR increases. The bulk & height on this small block is inconsistent with current & desired future character as expressed in the development controls. & incompatible with the character of the area. Reduction of rooms from 130 to 118 is still too many. Possible 221 residents & 2 managers allocation of 45 car spaces but 69 required. No loading dock which is extremely problematic for commercial and waste would need to be collected on Station St which would be unsafe and problematic for one way Station traffic. It’s Not affordable housing smaller rooms but proposed $290 to $370 per room not affordable to students, many key workers or people on government supported pensions even with rental relief. Not affordable housing for familiesNo guarantee that rentals would stay at these prices. Privacy and overshadowing still issues with LeofrenevSt residents loss of privacy and amenity. Lots more wrong with this DA and it should not be approved in its current form.

9. I agree with the points raised by others in other posts above that the proposal should be rejected. Of particular concern is the excessive height and density of the proposed building and the negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood and amenity of the community.

   Additionally, the safety and well-being of residents and wider community should be a strong consideration in the wake of COVID-19 in terms of risks posed by extreme density living and negative impacts on physical and mental health.

   The proposal should be completely reworked to align with the height and density of surrounding buildings, for example a) Revolution Apartments buildings on the corner of Byrnes Street and Illawarra Road, or b) new apartment construction on Arthur Street.

10. Seriously, every time there is a development there is a whole bunch of people who complain, about the roads, the trees, the wind, the sky!! Look, businesses struggling, people unemployed, area is dirty and dead, so this side of marrickvile needs this kind of thing and know that in the 21st century if you are near a train station, expect units. U want anything else, live 500m away.. lets be real.. so i support this development and i have no interest in it at all. I support growth and change to the area. Now, to the owners if you are reading this, i will be first to rent or buy one of your commercial premises and start my own investment, and if you like, i can also bring someone and introduce you to who can fill every room for you with brazilian students!

11. I am concerned by the height of this development as it does not conform to the current LEP. It is inconsistent with the character of Marrickville and it does not transition well to neighbouring buildings. It does not provide enough onsite parking or waste facilities, which is of particular importance due to its location.

12. I oppose to this development proposal.
    There is already so much traffic in such a tight and congested area for cars and pedestrians who frequent this area to visit the shops and park or use the train on a daily basis (even for people like me who do live 500m away and also desire convenient, safe and affordable housing for the community). In addition to this, the height and density of the building does not seem to be compliant or match the neighbouring buildings of the area.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. 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