264 Unwins Bridge Road Sydenham NSW 2044

To demolish the premises and construct a 3 part 4 storey shop top housing development, containing ground floor commercial and 4 dwellings above including 2 parking spaces

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 (Marrickville), reference DA201400349)

3 Comments

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

  1. Jacinta O'Brien commented

    There are too many of these low storied buildings going up. I'm starting to feel hemmed in. Is it not enough to leave it at height it is? Stop over developing and making parking impossible.

    This is exactly as I predicted. I'll be writing to council again saying this is exactly what ai knew would happen and it needs to be stopped.

  2. Jacinta O'Brien commented

    Please refer to my issues as predicted in DA201400097. I told you there would be a glut of applications and his would be the next property to make a multi storied development application.

    When will you stop crowding us in?

    My little terrace is going to become crowded in and it will become hideous to live here.

    Stop the overdevelopment of Sydenham. Don't you have urban planners who can inform your decisions to make it comfortable for everyone, not just the developers pockets?

  3. Robynne & Andrew commented

    We have a few objections.

    How many car spaces are there? The Acoustic plan shows 4 spaces but it looks like there will be only 2 spaces. 4 residential buildings and 1 commercial building will require more than 2 spaces, and there would be a significant impact on on-street parking and traffic in the immediate area where parking is already an issue.

    The arguments stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects are specious at best.
    The SEE states that “the shortfall in parking arises because the dimensions and area of the site are not sufficient for the full provision of parking, and there is a need to have a commercial area which approaches 30% of the ground floor area of the building, to maximise its potential for letting”.

    The only thing preventing the provision of required parking is the desire of the developer to maximise profits. Surely the proposed design should comply with the regulations, even if the potential profits are less. Developers' profits should not drive policy and should not be the most important factor in approvals of developments that impact on the local area.

    The SEE also states that the shortfall in parking would be acceptable because there is public transport nearby. Does this mean that people would only be permitted to buy the units if they did not own a car? Of course not. People who use public transport most likely own cars and need somewhere to park them. As Sydenham Railway Station is a hub, and commuters travel by car from other suburbs to start their journey here, this will increase pressure on the barely satisfactory amount of parking available for residents.

    The SEE blithely states that “customers would likely be visiting one at a time”, and “visitor parking will be distributed in the neighbouring streets”. Whoever wrote that has obviously never tried to park in the area.

    This area is affected by the MDCP Section 2.22 Flood Management. The ground floor looks to be below the permitted levels. The SEE states that flood-free access is not available from the street during flooding but there is no risk to life from flooding because residences are located above flood level. Does this mean that all commercial buildings do not have to comply with the restrictions on floor levels?

    The design is obviously constrained by low cost (the proposed building cost of $950,000 for 4 residences and a commercial building suggests cheap construction), with an unappealing frontage where the ground floor has a very low entrance, so that the front door looks the same height as the ceiling. The commercial area looks to be inadequate for anything other than a 7-Eleven or similar shop. It would be better to use this area to give the residential areas more space and provide the regulated amount of parking.

    The rooms are too small, with balconies looking straight into neighbours' balconies, with only suggesting 'plantings' giving privacy. Would this sort of construction be approved in the 'leafy suburbs'? Does Council intend to allow this area to become a ghetto of low quality, crammed accommodation where the greed of developers has more influence than the amenity of the area?

    The SEE states in the 'Social and Economic Effects of the Development' that the area is changing from the original small-cottage and corner shop to a new pattern of blocks of units. This may be what developers would like but the majority of Council DAs in this area are for applications by local residents to extend and renovate existing small dwellings, to a maximum of 2 stories rather than 4, and would prefer living in these to living in cheaply constructed tiny boxes.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished over 9 years ago. 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 (Marrickville). 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