10 England Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204

Demolition of existing structures, Torrens title subdivision of the existing lot into 4 allotments and construction of a 2 storey semi-detached dwelling on each lot including construction of in-ground swimming pools and tree removal

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: Inner West Council, reference DA/2024/0382)

39 Comments

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

  1. Benjamin Cullen commented

    I support this proposal. Applications like this will increase housing supply and help solve Sydney's housing crisis.

  2. Kitty F commented

    This is the perfect development for the area. It increases density while not putting pressure on surrounding streets

  3. Jennifer Killen commented

    I strongly object to the swimming pool, environmentally unsustainable and ridiculously indulgent so close to Annette Kellerman.
    I strongly object to the removal of trees.
    It is ridiculous to say that an expensive development with swimming pool will contribute to the solution of Sydney's housing crisis. It will do nothing for the homeless and just contribute to the further gentrification and work against social cohesion.
    Parking problems will be exacerbated with inadequate onsite parking for the number of homes.

  4. Barbara L commented

    Another unpleasant and inappropriate development, destroying good homes and ripping out trees. Yes, why pools when AKAC is down the road? This won't help solve homelessness as it's only for the rich. Developers don't do charity.

  5. Dominic Behrens commented

    I strongly support this application, it is exactly the kind of development this area needs. We are in a horrific housing shortage and this will make a small difference.

    The design is of high quality and will greatly improve the streetscape. Council should approve it as soon as possible

  6. Maddie J commented

    I strongly support this proposal quadrupling the amount of households who can live on this site. It seems an extremely reasonable increase in density for the area, giving more folks a home without overshadowing the surrounding area.

  7. Nadia commented

    Proposal significantly increases the qty of residents on the same lot, strongly support this DA and suggest council do too. Not sure why the inclusion of a pool would be a reason not to support - this is a high quality development and will contribute to the further development of Marrickville area.
    Development of older stock and subsequent landscaping is instrumental in increasing housing density.

  8. Andrea Leong commented

    My understanding is that this development will see four semi-detached houses, each with a garage and two with small pools, built where a single house currently stands. Looks like a great development that can house four families, and appropriate for the area. Trees should be preserved if possible, or otherwise moved if possible, or otherwise replaced.

  9. Bryce Carr commented

    Sounds great. If it's for rich families, that's 3 less of them outbidding me for cheaper homes. Shame about the trees but imagine how many they'd knock down building 3 new houses out west. Gotta think of the bigger picture.

  10. Jennifer Killen commented

    The design is not at all appropriate for the street and will stick out like a sore thumb.
    It does not contribute to affordable housing.

  11. Nick Pearson commented

    I support this proposal. There needs to be more housing in Sydney. Some of the objections others have appear to be arbitrary and capricious.

  12. Joel Jensen commented

    This is an excellent development that will increase the number of houses available for families in our city. Strongly suggest the council approve this application so we can make housing more affordable for the next generations of young people in our community.

  13. Angus Thomsen commented

    In these times where we face a housing affordability crisis, which is largely rooted scarcity this application is fairly appropriate and a rejection on it reflects a failure to read the room. In building this 3 other dwelling are freed up for other households (share houses, families, or individuals). Doesn’t matter how well of the new owners will be they will continue to occupy other dwellings until they can move here.

    The proposal is fairly conservative, and is economically prudent with land allocation to housing, and access to public infrastructure such as public transit network. So parking really isn’t the main concern here, seeing the station north of the site. Not sure why anyone would subject themselves to driving to school / work every day when they have access to a train station.

    I live further west, I personally would look to live here if it was more affordable & you need more housing to do that. Right now this area is over priced.

  14. Tony Jurisic commented

    Looks like a nice well located development, perfect for the size of families in this area.

    Very close to excellent transport so no need for on-site parking

  15. Nick Roucek commented

    I support the proposal. More housing during a housing crisis is appropriate and welcomed.

  16. Jim Harden commented

    Excellent proposal, strongly support more housing being made available in the inner city.

  17. Kate Baker commented

    I am wanting to express my objection to the proposed development due to its size and the significant impact it will have on the surrounding community. Upon reviewing the plans, it is evident that the design prioritises maximising profits over addressing the housing shortage. Each property includes three living spaces and four bathrooms, which just doesn't fit the area. Reducing the size of the living spaces, bathrooms, and overall height would mitigate issues related to shadows and privacy for neighbouring residents.

    Additionally, the proposal includes the addition of two new driveways, which would eliminate valuable street parking that residents and visitors depend on for accessing Addison Road shops, markets, and Newington School. The existing driveway could be utilised instead, preserving street parking and preventing the removal of a 20+ year old tree on the nature strip.

    Furthermore, the current plan involves the removal of all trees on the property. These trees contribute significantly to the neighborhood’s character and provide habitats for fruit bats and birds. The development could be redesigned to retain most of these trees, as they are located along the driveway and at the front of the property.

    Given these concerns, I believe the proposal requires substantial redesigning and should not be approved in its current form.

  18. Suzi James commented

    As a direct neighbour with my boundary directly adjoining the proposed development, I stand in contrast to other commenters who may reside elsewhere, potentially in Liverpool where the developer is located. I object to the proposed development for several significant reasons. The absence of privacy safeguards, particularly with two apartments' balconies directly overlooking my backyard, raises serious privacy concerns. Furthermore, inadequate site plans fail to accurately depict setbacks, lack of shadow diagrams, discrepancies in square meters, and concerns about altered water flow and other risks to my property's integrity and therefore value.

    Moreover, the proposed development significantly exceeds the size and height of surrounding properties, thereby disrupting the character of the street. I strongly recommend that the applicant addresses these concerns through amended plans and re-exhibition. Given the discrepancies and potential impacts, I advocate for referral to the Local Planning Panel for further evaluation to ensure alignment with community interests and neighbouring property rights.

  19. Mel Minhinnick commented

    I support this proposal which will provide desperately needed medium density housing whilst respecting the character of the neighbourbood.

  20. Martin McCawley commented

    I can confirm I am a Marrickville resident. Approval of a development on this site must pass a test of reasonableness. I fully accept that in 2024, a large block like this is almost certainly going to result in a knock-down and subdivision. However, as is often the case, the proposal goes beyond reasonable. 1. There is absolutely minimal space for trees in the new development which is a huge contrast to the current situation. In future years with scorching and extended-duration summers this would have a negative impact, not only for the residents living on the site but for the neighbours as well. And tress are not just for summer - they provide important habitat and aesthetic year round. A concrete jungle is negative for all. 2. There is otherwise significant impact on neighbours due to the height and proximity of the proposed dwellings. Restraint is appropriate in this regard - it is appropriate to have two dwellings fronting the street, but the rear section of the block is only appropriate for one. There are other lots that are more appropriate for this sort of density but not this one. I am supportive of redevelopment but this proposal is inappropriate and I believe is focused more on profit than anything else. A modest increase in housing supply is achievable on this block whilst maintaining the character of the neighbourhood. People who are saying this should be approved because it increases housing density appear to be saying it should happen anywhere, anyhow, but we must carefully consider where and how. This proposal is not reasonable and needs to be reconsidered.

  21. commented
    Hidden by site administrators
  22. Karen Soo commented

    I object to this development as it requires revisions to the scale and impact of the proposal. Loss of privacy, greenery, street parking and impact to the local surrounding residents is not in the interest of the community. Developers need to consider less profit driven DAs and consider a lesser bulk and scale of each property to reduce the local area impact.

  23. Local Resident East St commented

    What a ridiculous DA. This property borders 16 existing homes and taxpaying families. In return, it will lower the quality of life for those residents by the monstrous height, looking over the yards and rooms of the resident. They will remove the local trees and replace it with concrete. There's no environmental reports regarding the existing asbestos on site, as well as the sewer plans.

    Why does it need so many rooms and 2 stories? One storey would suit the area fine and provide homes for 4 families. There's plans for pools, there's a local pool down the road at the park that is available for everyone. This doesn't give anything back to the community as some people have claimed here, rather, it will add a huge structure to a suburban block that is primarily 1 storey houses, at the cost of their privacy, killing off native wildlife, and no regards for the community.

    The price that it will set will also be out of range for most hard working Australians, not sure how some of these claims in the comment thread to solve the housing crisis, rather it seems to be rushed through to get the benefit of housing market at the moment. The land will be there regardless, there IS NO NEED TO RUSH THIS THROUGH without proper thought, planning, and buy-in from the community and residents.

  24. Liz commented

    We desperately need more housing, but designing developments that have zero regard for the character of local community, and the privacy of neighbours, and the environment, is not the answer.
    This development is a blatant and cynical grab for cash by a greedy developer. No consideration to the local community or to neighbours has been given, at all.
    The developer is trying to cram 4 x huge 4 bedroom/ 3 bathroom/ 2 loungeroom houses onto a block of land that simply is not big enough to fit that many big houses. As a result the current plans do not provide adequate setback. Houses C and D have balconies and big windows located close to the boundary, looking straight into the backyards of neighbouring houses on Addison Road and England Avenue. The loss of privacy for these homes will be complete.
    The design has a huge footprint, including hard surfaces such as pools and associated cement landscaping, and there are concerns about the amount of water that will run off this site and flood neighbouring yards.
    Existing tree coverage will be almost completely removed. "Replacement" trees will take years if not decades to reach the same size and maturity. In the meantime we will lose precious habitat for grey headed flying foxes, possums and native birds.
    At 6.7 metres the proposed houses are much higher than any other house in the surrounding area. And as the current plans do not provide adequate shadow diagrams, it is impossible to know how much neighbouring homes will be overshadowed.
    In a time when working families desperately need housing, why build big, grand, "luxe" houses with towering ceilings and multi-multi million dollar pricetags? This will not solve the housing crisis. Only the very wealthy will be able to afford to buy or rent here.
    This development needs to be redesigned to put housing, families and community first. What is required on this lot is more modest housing with more affordable pricetags, so that more of the long time locals who love Marrickville can afford to stay here, rather than being pushed out. If the townhouses were smaller then more could fit onto the property, meaning more families could be housed.

  25. Nick commented

    I support this proposal. It adds much needed housing to the area while keeping with the medium density attributes of the area.

  26. Gillian commented

    I live on England Ave and I am directly affected by this development. I am also for providing housing but supporting this DA purely on that ground holds no weight. It is clear when each of the 4 houses have 3 loungerooms and 4 bathrooms, it isn’t about solving the housing shortage. The developer could even remove 1 of the houses and turn 1 of the living spaces into a bedroom in each of the 3 remaining properties and home practically the same amount of people.

    Anyone saying they support this property purely for housing would have to also agree the plans can be improved to have less impact on the neighbourhood. There has been no consideration from this developer of how this will affect the properties around it. As just one example, in Lot C, that runs just over a 1 metre from my back fence, there is a 2.4-metre-tall louvered window in a shower on the second floor that sits directly in the middle of my backyard and living area. Someone could stand in the shower, open the window and fully expose themselves to my children in the backyard.

    This is a unique development as it isn’t just a single house that impacts 2 properties either side like a regular DA – where you can just put up privacy screens. This includes a completely internal block with multiple properties, which has the backyards, living spaces and bedrooms of 16 existing properties backing onto it. This means even if it complies with traditional regulations they need to be re-assessed and looked at in a different way.

    On-street parking should also not be removed as the first 12 houses on England Ave and probably about 15 more neighbouring properties on Addison Road have no off-street parking – so these spots are needed for all these people. Why should this new development get 3 driveways when it could be designed to use the existing driveway?

    I also feel that the majority of the trees should stay as they have been there for probably 50 years and nothing the people plant will come close to the size of what they are now in our lifetime. You can see all these trees around the neighbourhood, they provide food for wildlife, plus the soft plant beds are needed for stormwater runoff especially along the existing driveway. England Ave slopes down towards Addison and with all the new hardscaping, council needs to protect these houses from flooding as much as they can.

    I think the plans need to be redesigned to be smaller, and more thoughtful to the community, neighbours and environment.

  27. Nerida commented

    I have been a local resident near the proposed development for over 20 years, and would like to raise some key issues. Clearly Sydney needs more affordable housing, but these dwellings will not be within reach for most people. A 2 story dwelling with a pool will be in the range of 3 million in the current market. The local narrow streets are not coping with the rapidly increasing number of dwellings and division of lots and the increase in vehicles this brings (regardless of onsite parking). Council is not addressing this. Dwellings bring multiple vehicles and the environmental impacts alongside congestion is a mounting crisis.
    Sadly there is no consideration for preserving the character of streets in this area because it sits outside of heritage controls. This is of no concern to the developer of course, but this proposal progresses the loss of community identity. This should be a consideration for planning consent.

  28. Phoebe commented

    This is a poorly considered proposal that recklessly disregards the needs of the local community, surrounding dwellings and environment.

    I am very concerned about the removal of trees on the block and the ramifications for local wildlife and biodiversity. Preservation of established trees in suburban areas is critical with continually soaring temperatures as a result of climate change.

    The proposed development is also inappropriate in scale for the size of the block, will reduce much needed street parking for people visiting the area, and will impinge on the privacy of surrounding residents.

    A property of this size would also be unaffordable for anyone who is meaningfully affected by the current housing crisis, and attempts to justify the development using this argument read as very out of touch.

    New developments are important, but this plan needs to be revised to ensure the size is appropriate for the block and takes into account the actual needs of the community.

  29. Carley commented

    I agree with the concerns of the other residents who actually reside in England Avenue and the surrounding streets.
    As a rate paying resident on an adjacent street, the Inner West Council need to do a far better job of protecting the character of our local streetscapes.
    These giant concrete boxes overshadowing nearby workers cottages that have stood here since the 1920’s is abhorrent and is continuing time and time again in this area. Why do the current administrative staff of the Inner West Council think they have the right to make these determinations in 2024 that come through and destroy the longstanding character of these neighbourhoods? Not to mention the amenity of long-term residents that have invested their life savings into the existing homes.
    Let’s be real here. No additional people are going to be housed in a dwelling that is excessive in scale for the block and the street. A conservative form that mirrors the single storey Californian bungalows that predominate the local precinct will retain the character of the area and still make the developer a tidy profit. There’s simply no need for this level of greed.

  30. Lil M commented

    I am a resident on Addison Road and will be directly affected by this proposal.

    I have particular concern about the loss of trees to the neighbourhood, the negative impact on the biodiversity of the area, and the precedent it would set for future developments in the area. I would hope the Inner West Council would be prioritising keeping trees in the neighbourhood, especially these mature trees that have been around for decades and cannot be easily replaced.

    This development will remove the majority of the treeline that we look out to from our backyard, a key reason we moved into the property.

    The development also infringes on the privacy of residents on Addison Rd with balconies overlooking directly into our backyards. The developments on lots C & D should be single level stories as they overlook directly into too many properties.

    Also, given the height of these properties, there would be considerable loss of sunlight for homes that the properties back onto.

    The plans should be adjusted to suit the neighbourhood, which is majority single level homes. These spacious builds being proposed are not assisting with housing affordability in our neighbourhood, as others have mentioned would likely be selling for over 3 million with the numbers of bedrooms and living spaces proposed.

    I support new housing developments, but they should take into account the surrounding community, and the impact on the natural environment.

  31. Simon commented

    I am a resident who lives in a house bordering this proposed development. The proposal has three main issues, each that impact the neighbouring houses and surrounding community.

    Issue 1. There are two parts to this development: the front part that faces England Ave, and the rear part. The rear part of the development is a very unique piece of land in that it is completely surrounded by houses on all sides. Such a unique piece of the land should be viewed by the planning board as such – and should not be subject to the same ‘standard’ rules that govern houses that sit ‘side-by-side’. The issue is that the developer wants to build two massive double storey houses on this part of the block, building right up to the edge of every bordering property. Which means that the ‘sides’ of the proposed houses in this rear section do not border the ‘sides’ of the surrounding houses. They border the backyards of the surrounding houses. There should be a lot more set-back given to all edges – at least as much as what is normally allowed for a rear setback – I would say even more, considering there’s barely any green space left at all. Plus given most of the surrounding houses are single storey, it would make if this was one single storey dwelling too. Additionally, it seems that these new houses contain design features like large windows that tower over the backyards and living spaces of the existing properties. I urge council to not only reduce these properties down to a sensible size and distance from neighbours, but to ensure no privacy of surrounding properties is compromised.

    Issue 2. The removal of every single tree. I propose the property is redesigned to keep the existing trees as much as possible – or if they are not the type this developer wants – they should be replaced with mature trees that help with the privacy of the adjoining properties.

    Issue 3. The proposal has three driveways where there is currently one. This will exacerbate an already bad parking problem on England Ave, which is a street that has to absorb the car overflow of every event at the Addison Road Community Centre including the popular Sunday Markets, as well as the Newington High students and families who drive to school through the week and sport events on weekends. The surrounding streets are even more congested and it's not uncommon on the weekend to have to park blocks away from home. This development could be easily redesigned to utilise the existing single driveway for all four new properties (maybe by losing one of the two pools?).

    These proposals are unnecessarily big and should be redesigned to address these issues.

  32. Ash Dil commented

    I am extremely concerned about this development proposal which will have several detrimental effects on the local community, as well as local wildlife.

    Yes there is a need for increased housing, but a property of this size with a pool is not going to address that issue and is not an efficient use of this space.

    I’m also very concerned about the removal of trees and street parking which is completely out of line with the values and needs of the local community. With increased dwellings we need to be increasing trees and green spaces, not removing them.

    I urge the Council to consider a smaller development that does not require the removal of existing trees, does not remove vital street parking and does not damage the outlook or value of the neighbouring properties.

  33. Rachel B commented

    This proposed development needs to be significantly scaled back. Making use of a large block to create more dwellings makes sense, but there are many things about this proposal that do not:
    1. Trees should be protected for wildlife/biodiversity, shade and amenity to the surrounding homes and to the neighbourhood
    2. The second stories of the proposed dwellings are not in keeping with most of the surrounding single level homes and pose a significant and unacceptable threat to views of sky, sunlight and privacy to the many neighbouring properties. Some neighbours such as those on Addison Rd would have to contend with walls, windows and balconies close to their fences dominating their space and looking directly into their backyards and homes. This would ruin amenity for them. There should be one level to these proposed dwellings rather than two.
    3. Extra driveways are proposed that will result in loss of resident parking in the area, and are (as it appears is the whole development) out of keeping with the traditional appearance of the neighbouring properties
    4. The close proximity of the walls of the proposed homes to many existing neighbouring homes is unacceptable, impinging on the neighbouring homes' light, and sense of space and privacy. I also expect this proximity will increase noise transfer between properties.
    5. The size of the homes and number of proposed lounge rooms and bathrooms are all excessive for this area - each dwelling should be downsized and scaled back to help solve some of the issues above
    6. The boxy style of the homes is not sympathetic with the rest of the neighbourhood

  34. AK commented

    I am a home-owner and resident who will be directly impacted by the proposed build on 10 England Ave, and I strongly object to the proposed development.

    I echo the very valid and very serious concerns of my neighbours – that the current proposed builds will not add any value to the community, and in fact, will be to the detriment of all neighbouring homes and the surrounding streets, and lower the quality-of-life of the current rate-payers of the neighbourhood.

    The design of the four builds, in particular the 2x two storey dwellings in the back lot, are so poorly thought-out that I genuinely question if the architect and designers did a site visit or accessed the perimeter of the site.

    Generally – a two-story suburban development would hope to only impact 2 to 3 neighbours directly; and there would be steps taken to limit the impact those builds would have on the privacy of the surrounding properties. The proposed build for 10 England Ave’s back lot will DIRECTLY overlook at least 14 neighbours from every single window on the proposed second floor. Not only that – for many neighbours, the proposed builds have been designed to be so intrusive that we will lose privacy within our own homes, as the proposed build has numerous windows will look directly into our own homes from both the first and second levels. I can not imagine the potential residents of the lots on 10 England Ave would like to be making eye-contact with their neighbours from inside the proposed property from all directions either.

    This is not to mention:
    the impact the build will have on blocking almost all morning OR afternoon sunlight for surrounding properties;
    sound pollution from air conditioner units and water heating units that will bleed directly into neighbours yards (as almost all othe builds in the neighbourhood have these units on the side of their houses to mitigate disruptions to neighbours recreation areas);
    the removal of all trees (which has been a massive contributor for increased suburban heating in other parts of Sydney);
    light pollution that will beam into 12+ neighbouring backyards out of the proposed full-length stairwell windows and from the downstairs open-plan multiple living spaces;
    reduction of value of 16+ neighbourhood houses;
    create further parking congestion on England Ave;
    and that the build simply doesn’t suit the existing structures of the neighbourhood in both its exceeding size and design.

    Additionally – the plans provided are not addressing any Sydney Water plans or pipeline encasing plans - which is alarming as there is a pipeline directly across the back lot of the property and under the near-centre of the proposed build; no information on asbestos and lead waste management during the demolition; no native wildlife management plan for the flying fox and possum colonies that inhabit and rely on the many trees on the property for food that will be torn out on the property; no pest management plan for the duration of the demolition…..

    And - any argument to be made for more housing to ease the housing crisis is simply incorrect. Given the price of the property + the proposed building quote, and with the context of numerous living spaces, bathrooms, and pools being added purely to increase the sales-value, I imagine the developer is hoping to sell each property at a price that will be in excess of millions above the neighbourhoods average (which is already not accessible for many) – which will unfortunately be at the loss of value for the existing neighbourhood home-owners due to the proposals poor planning.

    With the number of houses and current rate-payers that will be impacted by the proposed build, this proposal is simply not reasonable and needs to be entirely scrapped, reconsidered and redesigned.

  35. Zane commented

    I believe this proposal needs amendment for two reasons -
    1. It does not fulfil the dire need for more affordable housing as these are luxury homes for which the people most in need of housing will be totally priced out.
    2. The proposal is inefficient in maximising its use of space in what is a high density and high demand location.

  36. Robynne Hayward commented

    It’s time the Inner West Council got a grip and freed itself from the influence of developers, and concentrated on improving the amenity of the area with residents in mind. Council keeps repeating the mantra of increasing tree canopy while approving developments that destroy it.
    Concrete block apartments using every sq cm of land to maximise profits are approved in inappropriate streets, the BS affordable housing-washing debate is used to justify these approvals, while as in this case 3 bathrooms in 4 bedroom apartments with swimming pools are lauded by some thoughtless people as addressing the housing crisis.
    The inner west has a unique character but is in danger of becoming a developers wet dream at the expense of the whole environment , the residents and Sydney as a whole.
    This DA should be rejected and reconsidered.

  37. Daniel de Zilva commented

    I would like to see the proposal amended to address 3 concerns:
    1. Blocking light on the backyards of Addison Road. Due to the height, position, and orientation, backyards will have a significant amount of blocked light. So many dark and damp backyards will have knock on effects to house maintenance, health and wellbeing, and landscapes.
    2. Negatively impacting the privacy of neighbours. The design could be more thoughtful about the size and positioning of openings to avoid intrusions of privacy.
    3. Removal of trees. The design could accommodate more of the existing trees, which are seen and enjoyed by residents blocks away, form a habitat for wildlife, and gentle shading in an urban area.
    If these concerns were addressed, I would not see a problem with 4 dwellings and changes to allow more off street parking.

  38. Blazey commented

    We are not anti-development but we feel that new houses should fit harmoniously with the existing streetscape and these emphatically do not. Perhaps if they were built in Zetland, surrounded by soulless apartment blocks, they'd look modest, even witty, but here, surrounded by modest houses, mostly single-storeyed, with trees that provide both shade and beauty, they'd be a brutalist anachronism. If the developer makes some sort of attempt to seriously reduce the environmental footprint the new houses would be bought by people who'd be welcomed into the community."

  39. Jonathon Prosser commented

    This is almost identical to the development at 194 Addison Road (DA/2024/0173). Same developer. Same disregard for surrounding houses and character of the neighbourhood. Strongly oppose as this is merely a money-making enterprise and adds no value to the community.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished 9 days ago. It lasted for 14 days. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to Inner West Council. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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