209 Livingstone Road Marrickville NSW 2204

This proposal is simply too big for our local street. Keeping the unique character is very important to all local residents of Hollands Ave. This proposed building will impact this special area. It will increase traffic and parking congestion in the one way narrow street which is already at capacity especially when the church holds events such as mass, funerals, weddings and so forth. I object strongly to the application.

The DA application DA/2025/0244 for redevelopment of the old SES building - 209 Livingstone street, Marrickville shows absolute disregard for the charming and prescribed aesthetic of both Hollands Avenue and Livingstone road. This proposal only serves the financial gains of developers who are seeking to maximise profit from a poorly thought out investment. This redevelopment will have a detrimental effect on existing residents of Hollands Avenue, forcing resident to compete for parking with church goers, school pick ups and potential office workers. It will also impact on privacy and safety of adjoining Ness park.
Finally, the height and look of the building is out of step with the local conservation zones. Hollands Avenue has a preserved appearance which has remained unaltered since its original built. The owners of these homes are unable to add additional floors to their dwellings or make external alterations and this development makes a total mockery of these limitations, completely disregarding our historic street scape. I strongly object this application on the above grounds.

Objection to DA/2025/0244 – 209 Livingstone Street, Marrickville

I wish to formally object to the proposed redevelopment at 209 Livingstone Street, Marrickville under DA/2025/0244.

The scale and design of this proposal are completely out of proportion for a quiet, narrow residential street like Hollands Avenue. This area has retained its unique character for decades, with heritage homes and a consistent streetscape that reflects its historical significance. The proposed development would significantly disrupt this balance.

The additional height and bulk of the building are not in harmony with the surrounding streets, particularly Hollands Avenue, where homeowners are not permitted to make similar alterations to their properties. This double standard undermines local conservation objectives and planning integrity.

Furthermore, the development would worsen traffic and parking congestion in an area that already struggles during peak times. Hollands Avenue is a one-way street with limited space, and when church services, school pick-ups, or local events are held, residents already experience significant difficulty. Adding more vehicles and demand to this mix will only exacerbate an already unsustainable situation.

There are also serious concerns about the impact on the privacy and amenity of Ness Park, which borders the site. The height and positioning of the building will overlook and overshadow this valued community space, reducing its safety and appeal.

In summary, this development:

Is too large and visually intrusive for the character of the area;

Ignores established planning and conservation rules that apply to local residents;

Will cause traffic and parking issues in an already congested, narrow street;

Threatens the amenity and safety of public space;

Risks setting a precedent for further incompatible developments in this heritage-sensitive area;

Displaces local creatives and affordable workspaces that contribute to the suburb's identity.

It is also important to note that the current building is actively used by Inner West artists, writers, and educators. These affordable creative studio spaces are vital to the local community and support the unique cultural life of Marrickville. Redevelopments like this one threaten to push out our creative workers and replace culturally rich spaces with generic development, altering the fabric of the neighbourhood.

I strongly urge council to reject this application in the interests of preserving the identity, liveability, and cultural character of our community.

I would like to add my objection to this DA, I agree strongly with the points made by B. McKenzie and others. If approved this would create a very bad precedent for the whole area, not just this street. Council needs to look at the bigger and long term picture.

This proposal is inconsistent with the streetscape/controls of the heritage conservation area that it resides in. It will increase traffic to this residential area that is already impacted by church events/attendees and local school staff/students, making it impossible for residents to park near their homes and make the pedestrian crossing in front of the church on Livingstone Road even more dangerous than it currently is. I strongly object this application.

We live in a street that is heritage listed. We accept the restrictions put upon our properties in the interest of maintaining this slice of history. This development is completely alien to the heritage design of the street and, if approved, would make a mockery of the heritage listing. I strongly urge that this application be refused.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 209 Livingstone Road, Marrickville, as detailed in Development Application DA/2025/0244. Having reviewed the proposal, I have significant concerns regarding the adverse impacts this development will impose on the local community, amenity, safety, and heritage significance.

1. Severe Parking Shortfall:
The proposal provides only two on-site parking spaces, whereas the required number is thirteen, resulting in an eleven-space deficit. Relying on shared parking with the adjacent church during peak hours is unrealistic for the volume of users involved. As a member of the Greek Orthodox community, I can attest to the high number of activities—such as weekday funerals and major church events for saints’ days—that already generate substantial parking demands. The proposed additional thirteen spaces cannot accommodate the hundreds of church attendees on these occasions, which already cause significant congestion along Hollands Avenue and surrounding streets.

2. Limited Accessibility:
With only one dedicated accessible parking space, visitors or staff with mobility impairments may face difficulties, especially during busy periods when shared parking is full. This raises concerns about compliance with accessibility standards and safety.

3. Traffic and Safety Risks:
Although the impact assessment concludes impacts are low, even minor increases in traffic volume could exacerbate congestion and safety issues on narrow, residential streets—particularly during peak times or special events not fully considered in the trip estimates.

4. Over-Reliance on Shared Parking:
Dependence on the adjacent church’s parking assumes consistent usage, but simultaneous activities could easily exceed capacity, leading to illegal parking, obstructions, and conflicts with residents.

5. Impact on Residential Amenity:
Increased vehicular movements, noise, and congestion could significantly diminish the quality of life for nearby residents, especially during after-hours or special events that are not adequately addressed in the assessment. The street parking available to the current residents of Hollands Avenue is already inadequate.

6. Lack of Cumulative Impact Consideration:
The assessment appears to focus solely on the immediate development, neglecting the cumulative effects of other ongoing or future developments in the area. This oversight risks underestimating the true extent of parking, traffic, and environmental impacts over time.

7. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Concerns:
While bicycle storage is mentioned, there is insufficient evaluation of pedestrian safety, crossing facilities, or the impact of increased foot traffic on narrow streets and existing crossings. The church is frequented by elderly community members, heightening the importance of safe pedestrian access.

8. Impact on Heritage-Listed Conservation Area:
The site is located within the Inter-War Group Heritage Conservation Area, renowned for its cohesive streetscapes and consistent architectural style. The proposed two-storey rear addition and façade modifications threaten to disrupt the visual harmony and diminish the area's cultural and aesthetic significance.

9. Visual and Landscape Deterioration:
The existing building contributes to the streetscape due to its architectural style and scale. The proposed development, especially the new addition, will significantly alter the visual integrity of the site and undermining its contribution to the heritage area.

10. Heritage Significance Erosion:
While not a state heritage item, the building contributes locally. Any extensive alteration or demolition of non-original fabric to facilitate the new development would erode this contribution and diminish the area's heritage character.

11. Adverse Effect on View Corridors and Heritage Setting:
The site is visible from multiple vantage points along Livingstone Road and Hollands Avenue. The bulk of the proposed two-storey extension could obstruct key view corridors towards the nearby heritage-listed St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, impacting its setting and prominence.

12. Increased Environmental Footprint:
Additional built form will increase impervious surfaces, leading to higher stormwater runoff, potential flooding risks, and adverse impacts on local drainage. The heritage report emphasizes maintaining minimal setbacks and natural landscaping, which could be compromised.

13. Disruption to Heritage Fabric:
The existing building retains many original features—brickwork, windows, interior elements—that contribute to the heritage fabric. Extensive modifications or demolition of heritage elements to accommodate the new development would diminish the site's historic value.

14. Non-Compliance with Heritage Principles:
The heritage statement emphasises sympathetic design and retention of key elements. The proposed plans, which do not fully adhere to these principles, will undermine heritage protections and could set an undesirable precedent for incompatible development within the conservation area. Also noting residents of Hollands Avenue are unable to make any alterations/updates to their existing properties due to being contained within this heritage conservation area.

In conclusion, this development threatens to compromise the heritage integrity, visual cohesion, environmental stability, and community amenity of the area.

I respectfully request that the Marrickville Council refuse this application.