10 Calvert Street Marrickville NSW 2204

As the neighbour most impacted by the application to knockdown the freestanding Federation 4 bed house at 10 Calvert St, (& replace it with two tall, skinny 5 bed semis w/out real gardens, & one with an outside toilet to allow for the construction of a granny flat (by stealth), thus increasing occupancy potential by over 150% - 4 beds to 11 beds potential as per application. Now on top of this, the property proposed to be the new number 10 asks for a brand new car port awning & concrete driveway at the expense of a couple of 5-7 metre mature healthy, fruiting trees, a fenced flower garden, & a community “first/come-first-served” kerbside road park for all cars in the Community). What are the Community offered in return? Well, nothing but disruption, a loose of quiet, privacy, solar access, clean air, pollution control & values nature access.

I oppose the application on these grounds:

1-The area is purely low-density residential & the ask raises the potential occupancy from a 4 bed freestanding Federation that complements the heritage and character of its neighbours next door, opposite & behind, to a duplex made from basic, modern materials, while attempting to pack in a couple of 6 metre wide 5 bed semis with no proper gardens and extra outdoor toilets to appeal to those buyers looking to “bend” the 25m sq. building exemption rules to create study/backyard sleeping retreats.
2. A pair of two-story behemoths, without the setbacks that all its neighbours have, invades privacy at all times, drastically denies solar access in multiple living areas & open areas for over three hours a day (& that’s on June 21, the winter solstice, so longer in Spring, Summer & Autumn Fall. Furthermore, the applicant seeks to take that 3-hour-plus sun access from 8 & 6 & 14 Calvert St, & 5, 7 & 9 Queen St behind the current 10 lot. All of those properties (10 included) deserve privacy and unfettered solar access the applicant is in a rush to breach for a quick financial gain.
3. The applicants have allowed false claims on what trees exist presently and what exists naturally as regards potential natural canopy - a goal for Sydney to increase by 50% citywide as I understand it. There are multiple tall trees at 10 right now - present on the property as I type this - & the applicant is making the argument that two x 5-7 metre healthy mature trees must be cut down to make way for sheltered off street parking for what is flagrant overdevelopment in a purely low-density residential area.
4. The property has no rear access, so the side access leading to street parks on Calvert are cherished, treasured resources, especially given how 8’s only options on the road outside are limited by 6’s disability restrictions, and the nature verges outside 6, 8 & 10 restricting car passenger exits, with the only free spot kerbside anywhere near 8 being the one the applicant is asking for to create a crossover for its concrete driveway, car port awning and private electricity pole that will block light in the master bedroom/day study of 8, for over three hours - & that’s on June 21, the shortest day of the year.
5. The front door/rear door boundary precedents are being flagrantly disregarded in the application. The rear door/front door limits/& the same principle on Calvert St houses that have gone up in previous renovations, are what ensure privacy is a two-way street (as it were), a principle that the applicant shows no respect for.
6. The application makes false claims on its environmental impact in multiple ways, & lacks any integrity, transparency, or due diligence in pre-emptive research on what detrimental effects the knockdown/rebuild will have on; a) neighbourhood disruption, b) natural destruction, c) negative impact on waste management, d) increase in heat for neighbours from excessive use of concrete and reflective metal roofing, and loss of of nature’s significant presence, not to mention no due-diligence (so far) on verifying why the applicant believes the property to be asbestos free, termite free, lacking any hazardous materials whatsoever, & on top of all that, so confident that 80% of the property (more than 20% acknowledged as substandard, but not the main brick & tile bones), will be recycled so easily, without the backing of any kind of professional expertise on such matters.

Please ask the applicant to immediately tend to the sub-standard aspects of the property immediately and make repairs, BEFORE resubmitting adjusted plans that respect solar access rules, abide by current privacy laws, offer expertise on the true impact the overdevelopment will have on the environments in the short, medium & long term.

In addition to all of this, I genuinely hope that council respectfully, does not allow the applicant to falsely claim that:

1. There is no garden out the bank when there is evidence of multiple trees that flourished until late 2025 still out there, and two fruiting beauties in the front (unmaintained and unpicked and unhooked), but there nonetheless, despite the applicants documentation claim's.
2. The Sub-Standard laundry/outside toilet add-on made of inferior, interior, building materials, or the bathroom behind it, with its broken ‘unrepaired’ window , 8 has to see from its kitchen window, are part of the 10 house as it is now, because these clearly not-up-to-par extensions were never legal, they couldn’t have been, given the things were not only built to the boundary, but beyond, this forcing the boundary fence down, as is clear to anyone who cares to look at it, today.

With all due respect, all of the present properties in the low-density residential neighbourhood that immediately surround 10 Calvert St. (which I define for context as 1-24 Calvert St & 1-23 Queen St behind), are uniformly characterised by the following:

a. Single-level, street-facing fronts, tiled in terracotta in the main.

b. Single level rear facing back ends with small windows that are there for solar access and/or ventilation only, and are designed to respect neighbour’s right to privacy.

c. Structures all lower than the highest point of 10 Calvert Street’s existing tiled roof RIGHT NOW (the tallest peak being the centre of 10’s original tiled roof).

d. The low density residential neighbourhood is also characterised by setbacks that feature well-maintained front gardens, porches (mostly), & complementing ornate Australian-Federation-inspired features like the ‘New Dawn’ emblem on the triangular facade centre piece on 10’s front, a touch that tells its own slightly different Marrickville story, to the 100s of other Federation inspired properties in the surrounds, charming, heritage-filled properties built in the 20th Century, a crucial legacy for the community that the council must consider as grounds for preservation (at least in part, even if all that remains of 10’s original home which the applicant acknowledges as being in ‘fair condition’, is the porch front and the Calvert facing roof to its highest peak, and perhaps the hallway and front two rooms.

e. The neighbourhood is also characterised by how the neighbours that surround
10 right now, all do their part in maintaining naturally-occurring canopy that benefits the community, with a range of trees & significantly large bushes that can be seen from ten’s two gardens, including bitter orange trees, mandarin trees, lemon Myrtle’s, a wonderful giant black tea, a Japanese Maple, lemon trees, a huge avocado tree, plum trees, olive trees, poinsettias, red tip photonias, a brush box, an Australian Cheesewood, a curtain fig, a water gum & evergreen azalea’s - and so much more plant life, succulents & native ground cover galore along Calvert Street & Queen St (back & front).

f. The neighbourhood is at present characterised as a quiet one for the most time, although the rising influx of visitors who park the ‘all day parks’ for work or train travel and to shop and dine the marrickville and Victoria & Illawarra Rd stretch, are already facing a tremendous amount of strain, which will only get worse once the Calvert Street public car park is lost to developers soon. In short, the applicants overdevelopment ask looks to increase occupancy by over 100%, and to take the ‘all day’ community kerbside park that straddles the 8/10 boundary, eradicate it, to self-servingly destroy two 5-7 metre high mature healthy trees and other plant life, only to replace with concrete driveway, a car port awning, and no doubt a 7 metre high private electricity pole (based on other recent local knockdown rebuilds that the architects did on Yelveston St recently) along with a carport awning that will cast significant darkness through 8’s front windows into its most important room, for over three hours a day & that’s on June 21, the shortest dawn-to-dusk day of the year.

I respectfully ask council to reject this application on the grounds that as it stands it benefits no-one in the community, just the developers who do not live here, & could care less about the various pollutions, disruptions, chaos, and increased strain the plan puts on community parking, waste management, & the inevitable rise in heat trapping for the next door neighbours that Al that extra concrete, sheet metal, and over 100% occupancy increase will bring with it. Permanently. Not to mention the precedent to overdevelop further in the area, when the properties owned by citizens in their latter years are sold on in the next few years.

I refer to the low density residential development document DCP from 2011:

Sourced at:

https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-01/Marrickville%20DCP%202011%20-%204.1%20Low%20Density%20Residential%20Development.pdf

I’m the DCP, it states in C12 this:

‘…Notwithstanding any compliance with front, side and rear setback
controls, the applicant must demonstrate that proposed building setbacks:
i. Maintain the established street character; THEY DON’T
ii. Allow neighbours adequate access to sunlight and a share of
views; THEY DON’T
iii. Preserve established tree and vegetation corridors; THEY DON’T, (they propose their wholesale destruction, pretty much)
iv. Provide adequate separation between buildings to protect
adjoining buildings from overlooking and loss of amenity; THEY DON’T
v. Reduce the visual bulk of new building work. THEY DO NO SUCH THING (the application proposes gargantuan visual bulk and a clunky design that aligns with literally nothing in the vicinity)
NB Council may require greater setbacks to maintain any existing trees. NOT IF THE EXISTING 10 FACADE REMAINS AS IT IS, A WONDERFUL FEDERATION EXAMPLE
4.1.6.3 Site coverage
Site coverage controls in combination with floor space ratio, height and building
setbacks aims to create an acceptable bulk and scale of development that maintains a
satisfactory relationship with adjoining development and the wider street context and
ensure adequate site area is retained for uses such as outdoor recreation, footpaths
trees, other landscaping, off-street car parking, drying areas, waste, and stormwater
management. THE APPLICATION DOESN’T DO ANY OF THIS SATISFACTORILY

The site coverage controls reflect the existing pattern of housing density, IT DOES NOT…
whereby the site coverage generally decreases as allotment size increases. THE APPLICATION MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO ABIDE BY THIS RULE

On smaller sites the achievable site coverage will usually be limited by the area required
for private open space, however as sites get larger the site coverage control will limit PLEASE ENSURE THIS RULE TO CURTAIL EGREGIOUS OVERDEVELOPMENT IS FOLLOWED as per - 4.1 Low Density Residential Development
Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 9 rules contained
PART 4: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
the spread of buildings on the ground plane and ensure additional permitted floor area
is massed on upper levels (as appropriate). THE APPLICATION ASKS ARE EXCESSIVE ON THE UPPER LEVEL IN PARTICULAR AND NOT APPROPRIATE IN CONTEXT
Objectives
O15 To ensure that new development and alterations and additions to existing
dwellings result in site coverage that is consistent with the existing character of neighbouring dwellings. AT THE RISK OF LABOURING THE POINT, THE APPLICATION DOES THE TOTAL OPPOSITE
O16 To ensure that new development and alterations and additions to existing
dwellings result in site coverage which allows adequate provision for uses such as outdoor recreation, footpaths, deep soil tree planting, other
landscaping … waste
management, clothes drying and stormwater management.’

ON THAT MATTER, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PROVISION AND NO PERCEPTIBLE SHOWING OF ANY RESPECT FOR THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOUR’S RIGHTS ON ALL THOSE MATTERS (for all of those things are disrupting, polluting, and ongoing for months and months on end while developers smash down a decent house - in ‘fair condition’, by the applicants own admission in the application documentation no less, too).

I’m generally fine with this proposal as it increases density in a location within walking distance to the upcoming metro, and we need more homes in Marrickville. However, it’s important to preserve mature trees wherever possible ans these take decades to replace, and to make sure the design (architecture) of the property is of a high quality.