77-79 Despointes Street Marrickville NSW 2204

I support this application.

Marrickville has been hit hard by the housing crisis, and this proposal delivers much needed housing on a well located site, within walking distance of Marrickville station and the frequent buses along Illawarra Road. More homes close to public transport is exactly what the Inner West needs.

I am a resident of Despointes St and do not support this proposed development. The site already has four affordable rental units that would be lost and replaced with one affordable unit for a period of only 15 years - this is not addressed in the SEE. The scale, bulk and design contrasts poorly with the predominantly detached and semi-detached housing forms that define the surrounding streetscape. The proposed built form, design and materials will not contribute positively to the desired future character of the locality and the R2 context. The proposal does not satisfy the required height limit or setbacks and will result in overdevelopment of the site.

I am a neighbour of the proposed development and I do not support this proposal.

To reiterate Keri Bell's comment, the proposal provides only 15% affordable housing as part of the development, meaning only 1 unit of the proposed 8 would be affordable, as opposed to the currently affordable 4 that are existing and occupied.

In response to Benjamin Cullen's comment, given the housing crises- which refers implicitly to the housing *affordability* crises- the last thing anyone already in affordable housing needs is to be driven out.

A four-story building on Despointes St is out of character with the rest of the street, which has no buildings taller than two-stories. This as well as the proposed design would create an abrupt and unsympathetic visual jar against its established low-rise character.

Since the development proposes a scale vertically doubled of the established street character on the basis of the affordability of its units, it is inappropriate and misleading to have only 1/8 of the units be actually affordable.

What's more is that the proposed height of the building will pose overshadowing onto it's neighbouring property, blocking a significant amount of North light, which is against section 4A of the Apartment Design Guide.

The proposal admits it does not provide enough sunlight for 70% of its future occupants, and a drastic decrease of sunlight for it's southerly neighbouring property.

The SEE states: "The adjoining property to the south experiences additional overshadowing between approximately 9.00am and 12.00pm during mid-winter. However, from 12pm, the extent of overshadowing reduces, with the rear of the site, including the dwelling and private open space, receiving direct sunlight until 3.00pm"

Cutting 8 hours of direct sunlight to 3 during the coldest season, on top of cutting 3 low-income affordable housing, is unreasonable.

The proposal is inconsistent with public interest for additional and affordable housing, does not maintain an appropriate level of amenity for adjoining properties and future residents, and clearly uses the 1 out of 8 affordable units as a scapegoat to overdevelop the already beloved character of the street.

Please reconsider this demolition, and instead look at repairing what is already good and existing if need be.

Thank you for time and consideration.