43 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042

To demolish existing improvements and construct a 4 storey mixed use development containing 1 commercial tenancy on the ground floor and 5 dwellings on the upper floors with associated car parking

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 4 years ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: Inner West Council (Marrickville), reference DA201500082)

27 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Jennifer Killen commented

    This building is an important part of our heritage and should not be demolished.

  2. Andrew Chuter commented

    This has a strong heritage and historical value. Star Bowkett was a mutual society that allowed ordinary workers to own their own home. It stands as a symbol of social cooperation. Any development should retain the original frontage and signs and be adaptively reused.

  3. Amy commented

    I also believe this building should not be demolished. Too many beautiful historical buildings have already disappeared. Newtown will lose its soul if these buildings are not preserved. It will be very simple for the developers to work the existing building into their plans. Demolishing the building is merely a lazy way out.

  4. Diane McCarthy commented

    Enough already. Enmore Road has lots of new development not all good. Why not retain building as is. It could be developed into shops + apartments. Close to buses and railway station no need for parking. Building should also have to retain Star Bowkett in its name. A plaque telling story of the building. Diane

  5. Henare Degan commented

    I don't support this development application. Despite the assertions in the Heritage Impact Statement this building is an important part of the Newtown and Enmore streetscape. Adaptive reuse of this site should be chosen as demolishing it will have a negative impact on the local environment.

    I also object to the building height. Four storeys is not in keeping with the local area despite the lofty dreams of so many developers. The King Street and Enmore Road streetscape is almost universally two storey. While some buildings are higher than that it doesn't mean greater than two storeys should be the new benchmark. We don't want the wind tunnels and overbearing shadows that greater building heights will bring to King St and Enmore Road.

    Thank you for considering my comment.

  6. Richard commented

    Preservation is not without cost. This building is not unusual nor particularly significant whereas residences are in short supply.

    If there is a lot of sentimentality about the old presence, then the front facade could be preserved. But it would be foolish to let vague nostalgia get in the way of today's housing and development.

  7. Andrew M Potts commented

    I do not have a problem with the height of the proposal but the developer should be made to keep the heritage facade of the building and build out of that.

    A plaque commemorating the building's history would be a welcome addition to the plan

    Andrew M Potts

  8. Nick Rodintsis commented

    This building is of obvious heritage value both for it's neo-classical design and also for its historical importance through it's history. That the building was used for non-profit loans to disadvantaged people is very important as it was an important sign of the progressive nature of the neighbourhood. This neighbourhood is renown for it's progressive nature!

    To have this building demolished is an absurd proposal. The ugly unsympathetic buildings that are being put up are a testimony to developer greed and nothing else.

    The building can be sympathetically extended to further develop it's viability rather than demolished. There are many examples in Sydney where this has happened in a respectful and elegant way
    eg http://tzannes.com.au/portfolio/490-crown-street/

    Thanking you,
    Nick Rodintsis

  9. Alana Wulff commented

    I do not support this development application and strongly object to the plans to have this building demolished.

    This building is an important part of the Newtown and Enmore streetscape.

    Demolishing this structure (which is historically important to the local area and should be heritage listed), to put up even more apartments in an already clogged section of the Inner West is not only disrespectful but it sets a precedent to do so in the future again and again.

    As a building that is 100 years old and holds an immeasurable amount of historical significance to the area, this site should be preserved.

    Clearly, this building holds a lot of significance to the local residents and that is what makes Newtown and Enmore so wonderful. The residents, the history, the culture and the heritage.

    Stop allowing these developers to come in, cash i,n and make a quick buck off yet another a mundane development that will do nothing but create noise and disrupt the area throughout construction.

    I also object to the proposed building height. The streetscape of King Street and Enmore Road is predominantly two stories and that is the way it should stay.

  10. Trevor Keown commented

    It would be a disgrace to let this 100 year old heritage building be razed for yet another overbuilt apartment/mixed use development.

    Destroying our local history to maximize profits for a greedy developer is not acceptable.

    Our elected representatives need to REJECT this application.

  11. Ella Factor commented

    This building has clear historical value in both it's architecture and it's usage history. It should not be demolished - a quality designer shouldn't have difficulty creating a plan to keep the historical building, with a commemorative plaque, while converting it to modern use. Therefore, to plan to simply demolish shows a complete lack of imagination, and the DA ought to be rejected, until a more sensitive and appropriate plan is offered.

  12. Marghanita da Cruz commented

    I object to this proposal to demolish the Starr Bowkett building to make way for full length glazed retail space.

    The current building was purpose built and provides a good contrast to the numerous marble faced banks, which have been adapted around Sydney. The ornamentation on the brickwork and the entrance are symbolic.

    With a more sympathetic paint job:
    1983
    http://www.photosau.com.au/cos/scripts/ExtSearch.asp?SearchTerm=059379
    1991
    http://www.photosau.com.au/cos/scripts/ExtSearch.asp?SearchTerm=070068

    The detail such as the vent shown, pillars and sash windows are typical of the late 1920s/30s. In this period, it would not have had a chiminey (to have been removed, as indicated in the heritage report) as electricity was being distributed to homes and businesses. Nor would it have had a need for a fence. The building is an example of infill, during the depression.

    The site could be more sympathetically developed with fewer floors, requiring less parking and eliminating the need for an elevator, which adds signficantly to the maintenance costs of the building.

    The exterior, including the name should be retained.

    "Painter, banker and collector of aviation history. Ernest Alfred Crome was born in Sydney in 1902 and educated at Enmore Public School. He was appointed office boy in the Newtown and Enmore No. 1 Starr-Bowkett Society in 1915, beginning an association with the Starr-Bowkett building societies that was to last for 56 years."...
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/22670422

  13. Disappearing Sydney commented

    The size and scale is too big, and out of character with the streetscape of Enmore/Newtown precincts. Heritage value should outweigh any proposal and units should be rejected. The site has a long history of social financial service to the community, and this would be lost with demolition. Members of Disappearing Sydney do not support this proposal. (270 members).

  14. Mary Oakenfull commented

    I agree that this building should be retained to preserve the character and feel of Newtown plus the history associated with the building. Reuse of the building to provide a two storey apartment block would be acceptable but another high rise characterless building should be totally rejected.

  15. SILVIA LEVAME commented

    I oppose to this development. Newtown should retain at least the facade of this building. Too many buildings have been wiped out and we are losing our history for the sake of accommodating high rising apartments. The Council should resist to these developers who are only interested in making a quick buck without considering the heritage and the history of a suburb. Once this building is gone, it cannot be placed back.

    I want to register my opposition to this development on the grounds of maintaining the history and original architecture of this suburb.

  16. john williams commented

    I wish to register my opposition to the outright demolition of the former Starr Bowkett building that is subject to this application.

    The building is a quintessential part of Newtown's (& many parts of the inner west's) social history (as it was one of the non profit entities that could be found in formerly working class suburbs) and is the last remaining Starr Bowkett building remaining.

    Aside from contributing to the late 19th century & early 20th century street scape of Enmore the moulded signage on the parapet of the building is a worthy heritage remnant and would easily meet the criteria for State level preservation.

    The bulk & height of the development is also questionable and any height should be governed by the height of the former Crago Mills silo building and certainly not exceed that.

    The facade at least should be worthy of preservation and must be incorporated into any development of the site.

    I would ask that this development proposal in this form be rejected.

  17. Justin Koke commented

    I oppose this development along with the many other commenters above. As a resident and multiple property owner in the area one of the areas that has drawn my family to this area is the rich tapestry of people, culture and history. This building is a part of that history.

    I do not oppose the redevelopment of the site, but what I do oppose is the complete destruction of the building; its facade must be preserved without question. I also oppose the hight of the application 4 levels is not in keeping with the character of the area and is more the exception than the norm, 2 levels at the front and a higher third level at the rear would be an allowable compromise.

  18. Gillian Browne commented

    As a resident of this area, I oppose to the destruction of the facade of this building. For all the reasons listed by the other residents on this application, the facade and name must be kept.

  19. Mariella Attard commented

    Please don't allow the destruction of this building. It represent something unique. Enmore Rd has such a strong character in terms of heritage. Surely the new can co-exist with the old.

  20. Helen Meany commented

    For reasons already articulated well in other submissions, please consider retaining, at least, the facade of the Starr Bowkett building. It is not only a local landmark, but of unique historical significance.

  21. Nicolas Francois commented

    I object to this development which should not be allowed to go ahead in its current state.

    The proposed architecture should retain the façade and possibly other internal elements such as beams, internal vents, railings and skirting that constitute the heritage of this site. In fact, as per Section 8.2.4.2 of Marrickville DCP, this building, as an example of contributory buildings which have been structurally altered (ranked 2), should be reconstructed to their original appearance, if possible.
    It is therefore desirable that in addition of retaining the façade the developer restore the elements of the building that have been modified (e.g. windows).

    I highly question the professionalism and sense of ethic of the firm kate mountstephens architecture+heritage which conducted the heritage assessment. Almost every elements in the first part of the heritage assessment report leans towards the high significance of the building from a heritage perspective, yet the conclusions are completely contradictory. This report should be challenged and its conclusions rejected.

    I agree that improvements can be done to increase the functionality and liveability of the space but not at the cost of destroying its heritage.

    In addition, and under conditions of retaining existing façade, I urge the reviewing authority to consider:
    - limits in height to be consistent with the surrounding building
    - implementation of sustainability elements such as energy efficiency (insulation, natural lighting, ventilation), energy production (solar panels, solar water heaters), water efficiency (water storage) and increased building vegetation (the vegetation planned on roof-top seems minimal and not appropriate to the size of the proposed development)

  22. Tim kelly commented

    This property will only increase in value if the facade is kept and the inside utilised imaginatively so that in several years time once the developer has moved on and the owners have resold, the re-selling agents and owners will bank the benefit of the unique exterior as the key selling point - because whatever ends up inside will probably be the same bland as everywhere else - the fact that the DA could even be considered without accounting for the exterior value of the asset to the streetscape and historical and visual value of the property speaks loudly to the on-going focus on immediate return on investment over longer term return on unique value add. Fingers crossed that short term financial opportunity of a few figures less in the DA approval process than longer term quality development that accommodates the best of what we inherit for us all.

  23. Scott MacArthur, Vice-President, Marrickville Heritage Society commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society is concerned that the repeat advertising period for this application may mean that previous submissions are not assessed in the final review of the application. The Society therefore afirms it oppostion to the application to demolish the former Starr-Bowkett Society building on Enmore Road and replace it with a new four storey 'shop top' residential building.

    The proposal is not consistent with the identified heritage values of the King Street/Enmore Road Conservation Area. While the old Starr-Bowkett building had been heavily modified, it was an important contributor to the character and integrity of this Conservation area. The proposed new building is stridently contemporary, with 'flavour of the moment' design flourishes like sliding sun-screens, roof gardens and diagonal shopfront glazing). There is no acknowledgment of its historic built context, and most critically, no respect for the existing parapet height and fenestration of the adjoining Victorian shopfront.

    The new design is so hostile to the character of the Conservation Area that Council must reject the current proposal and require that the existing building is retained and adapted for a new viable use.

  24. Scott MacArthur, Vice-President Marrickville Heritage Society. commented

    The Marrickville Heritage Society has been advised that a revised Development Application has been lodged for this building development, that retains the facade of the existing building. The Society does not support this new proposal, as it still fails to provide a building that is sympathetic to the character of this important Conservation Area. The new building looms over the original facade, and overwhelms it with a confused compostion of irregularly placed and oriented slot windows, cladding types, strip windows and balconies. The overall composition is jumbled and detracts greatly from the ordered simplicity of the retained facade, and the adjoining Victorian shop fronts.
    Council should not approve this development until there is a considered proposal that addresses the importance of this building and its heritage setting.

  25. sue commented

    I don't believe this building should be demolished - it has historical & social significance.
    Many people (my parents included) would never have been able to buy homes without the Starr Bowkett co-operative.
    I'm not opposed to development, but surely a good architect could incorporate the original building to design something unique & worthy of our fabulous suburb.

  26. Wendy Bacon commented

    I am opposed to this building being demolished - it forms an important part of the history of the landscape and is fits well with the current scale and character of the street. Why on earth can't this building be preserved? The fact that other development mistakes have been made on Enmore Road does not mean that we should trash it. I was shocked when I realised that this building could so easily be destroyed. Saving facades is a farce - the point is the square squat nature of the building is an important feature. Please keep me informed about the progress of this application - it should be rejected

  27. Daniel Chambers commented

    The Starr-Bowkett building does not fit with the rest of the street. It is a waste of space to have a single storey building on the high street. I'm aware that a building that most people consider modern and ugly will take it's place, but I don't see this as any worse than the building in it's current state. I think a lot of people are rightly proud of the ideals that the defunct Starr-Bowkett society stands for. Using this as a reason to preserve a building that no longer has any real connection to that philosophy does not make sense. Ideas live on, even if physical things change.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible 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