PlanningAlerts

20 Comments

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

1. Is this DA correct? 9 stories? That surely cant be in keeping with the surrounds.

2. This is a joke, or an ambit claim.

   The spikey balconies looks like sharks' teeth and will project across onto the roadway????

   The residents will be able to reach out and touch the telegraph wires??

   It is too big. The houses to the north are one storey! The two-storey blocks across to the south and west have soft-shaped hipped roofs made even softer with tree planting.

   This DA has jagged corners with NIL opportunity for landscaping and will stick out like very sore thumb floating above the great expanse of asphalt.

   I get claustrophobic just looking at the plans. Only dwarves and pygmies could live in this congested, claustrophobic block. A four-storey block of kennels would be acceptable but this DA with its eight storeys of kennels is not!

   (Note to council: please don't bother sending me an anodyne letter acknowledging receipt.)

3. This proposal is outrageous! Residents of Dulwich Hill, particularly in the surrounding streets of this site have had enough of oversized proposed developments...pushing residents who have lived here in their family homes for many many years out.Marrickville council has no consideration for its existing residents.I understand that progress needs to made in areas of Sydney but as a very concerned relative of a Dulwich Hill resident pleaz consider the existing residents and the complete lack of on street parking in these surrounding streets . Enough is enough.

4. Are they kidding? Surely they must be. Nine storeys and 22 apartments on that tiny site? Two storeys and four apartments is all they should get. This is so out of keeping with the local area if our local councillors allows nine storeys in this location they won't be councillors long. I know we have one Liberal who would probably approve 15 storeys but this is outrageous. The development across the road is three storeys. This is so out of keeping with the local area it can’t possibly be approved.

   It’s ugly, inappropriate, too high and repulsive into the bargain. I’ll be contacting all my local councillors about this one. We will fight these so called developers who want to destroy the local area. Marrickville council has no consideration for local existing residents and is being run by pro-development right wingers. I wonder what connections they have to the development industry given the Liberals and “independents” tried to sell the hospital site to some fly by night Chinese developer.

5. After the approval of 246 units in Grove St, there is more more proposed congestion to that one tiny area? How will local traffic be managed on those narrow roads? How will a community feel be maintained amongst high rise buildings in a largely low rise area?

   As an existing resident about to be dwarfed by the Arlington Grove development and enduring months of heavy building noise, I object to this proposal on the grounds of overdevelopment, traffic congestion and further loss of amenity to the area, already heaving under the weight of The Denison, Arlington Grove apartments, extended hours at Arlington Oval and now this.

   Develop the existing building into something we can be proud of. Say no to nine storeys. Try to accurately gauge when enough is enough and do the right thing by your community.

6. As a Dulwich Hill resident, I understand the growing interest in and surrounding the area; however, there needs to be a reasonable limitation on the number and height of places popping up.

   The appeal of Dulwich Hill is the small community, village feel to the area. You're also close enough to the city, yet still be removed from the bustling, congested CBD. And that's what I think our council and developers don't understand - we are not the CBD and these new, big developments will destroy what makes this place so great.

   Neighbouring Newtown has an incredible nightlife with broad appeal and yet they still haven't succumbed to the money-hungry calls of council and developers. There are hardly any sky-high apartments and plenty of character homes left intact, all of which maintains the appeal and charm of Newtown. Their is a mutual understanding there between council and residents to "keep Newtown weird".

   Meanwhile in Dulwich Hill, with a growing buzz in the area, council is allowing developers to destroy everything in sight to build ridiculously high buildings (an inconvenience to most for many reasons) to house an even more ridiculous number of people (where's the infrastructure to support this which does NOT involve destroying homes to widen roads, etc).

   Let's not also forget that current height restrictions is 17m and a nine storey building will likely breach this.

   Council is elected by the people and should be listening and supporting those who voted them in, not screwing us all.

   Please help us maintain the community spirit. We already have a number of over-ambitious developments emerging in the area (on New Canterbury Road near Grumpy's, IGA and soon on the corner of Dulwich Street, a few on Old Canterbury Road near Toothhill Road, etc) - when will council stand up for the people and realise enough is enough!?

7. This is unacceptable. Having recently visited a friend in Breakfast Point, I was overwhelmed with claustrophobia being surrounded by nothing but high rise apartment buildings. It felt congested and uncomfortable and I don't want to feel that way in Dulwich Hill, where we do not have the infrastructure to support such housing developments. Our roadways are already congested, our public transport inadequate, and our amenities insufficient. I want to see our suburb grow, but in the right way, not by approving every development proposal that passes over councils desk.

   A nine storey building is about five stories beyond the current council height restrictions. Why is this even being proposed? The audacity of the developer to even suggest a building so far beyond the current allowable building height for the suburb.

   There are numerous buildings that should be rejuvenated, rather than knocked down to make way for the next round of high rise apartments. I want this suburb to maintain its character and charm, the way Newtown has, by investing in the community and the existing infrastructure, not by knocking it all down to fill the pockets of greedy developers.

   I object to these plans, and to any that would be so brazen as to put an application such as this in front of council without considering the impact it would have on the surrounding community as well as the building guidelines for the area, that the developer clearly has not read.

8. Our roads and streets are already unable to cope with thet raffic and parking demands of the present population; with the massive Flour Mill development in progress in Summer Hill/Lewisham (right on the Dulwich Hill border not far from Constitution Road) as well as other large developments like The Cooperage on the corner of New Canterbury Rd and Herbert Street, Dulwich Hill is going to become a complete nightmare to navigate through. Constitution Road is narrow, winding and densely populated as it is... approving a development of this height would be both a visual and traffic disaster.

9. I would like to see stronger developer guidelines drawn up by council. It seems Dulwich Hill is suddenly open for development and the money hungry developers are deciding what the development shall be. I know the land and environment court often has the final stay but I think developers need to know council guidelines before they consider moving in and making a dogs breakfast of our suburb. This proposal is an example of that.

10. Surely there has been enough development with the Cooperage, flour mills, the new apartments going up on new Canterbury road and at toothill. Let's have a c'mon sense approach to see how our infrastructure holds up with all of these additional households within the community. This development would ruin the natural surrounds of the park. Increased traffic in an area where families are enjoying the parks with their children. We also have limited parking due to the historical design of the homes and this would only become worse.

    Let's wait till all of the rest of the developments are complete before we overcrowd this delightful area of Sydney.

11. This is ludicrous! That stretch of road is already extremely dangerous with parked cars from surrounding units and house. Not too mention it is right on the bend of a road that goes over a railway bridge. This is not a sustainable or sensible development in any way. I strongly oppose this development on this corner.

12. Just to add for the previous commenters' information, 250 apartments are already approved in Grove St, immediately opposite this site.

    EIGHT STOREY towers will soon border Johnson Park, with four storeys fronting Grove St. Much of the traffic for the 250 apartments will go down Grove St, from Constitution Rd.

    I'm wondering how many people are aware of this huge APPROVED development in the same tiny street. The address may be 62 Constitution Rd, but it is also Grove St, Hill St and already busy Denison Rd which will bear the brunt of the traffic issues.

    Also, previous commenters make mention that 9 storeys goes against regulations, when in fact the 2011 LEP was passed - unbeknown to many residents - which allows high rise development along railway corridors.

    No doubt a big driver to get the Light Rail through, was the promise of big dollars to be gained by over developing small plots of land.

    We the residents have been utterly shafted. When I bought my house, only two-storey townhouses were allowed to be built at 24 Grove St once the industry left. People - often coping with raising young children in the area - have been left with depression issues and fear of years of building noise, dust, vermin and asbestos removal affecting their lives.

    This development in its current form is completely unacceptable. For once, please do not allow this. It's wrecking our lovely community and we do not have the choice to leave.

13. This is obviously an ambit claim. The proposal is completely inappropriate. Even half the requested number of units would be too many for that small site and the owner apparently knows that to ask for even 11 units would have been objected to and so is hoping it might seem more reasonable than the 22 they have actually asked for! But the amenity of the future residients of such a development needs to be considered as well as that of the surrounding existing residents. To fit so many units onto such a small site would require very cramped conditions. Even if it is close to transport, most people still own and drive cars and the existing streets wont accomodate the increase when taken together with the already approved developments on Grove Street. I do not oppose increased housing density around transport links but it needs to be within reason and this is not.

14. Please Marrickville Council, enough is enough! I feel sick to my stomach every time I see a new DA for our lovely little suburb. Council, please consider the long term effects and daily interruptions on local residents and not the financial gain of greedy developers.

    This development is obtrusive and is not in keeping with the surrounding streetscape, will contribute to an already overcrowded public transport system and adds to the compounding population growth with no additional infrastructure to support it.

    Dulwich Hill cannot sustain any more high density housing. This DA must be rejected.

15. I urge Council to not even contemplate such a proposterous development.

    9 storeys on such a site - really???

    It is not in keeping in character or context with Dulwich Hill.

    It is extremely naïve to think that most of the residents or commercial tenants will not have cars as the development is located near the light rail.

    We already have a rat run from New Canterbury Rd down Dulwich St and/or Beach Rd to Constitution Rd and Denison Rd with ever increasing volumes of cars which is worse. There is already a very large approved development next door at the Grove/Constitution Rd site (DA201300375) with I believe 246 dwellings, 4 buildings of heights from 3 to 8 storeys and parking for 269 vehicles.

    Transport and infrastructure services are already under strain and with more and more developers submitting DA's; 429-449 New Canterbury Rd, 801 New Canterbury Road, not to mention the ones that have already been approved (the Cooperage, the flour mills development at MacGill St/Old Canterbury Rd) and the others on New Canterbury Rd under Canterbury Council (the Grumpys site, 574 New Canterbury Rd)

    Council seem to be intent on ruining the fabric of our local area, the very residents that they are supposed to be representing. Extremely disappointed.......Finally, I find it hard to believe that they actually live in the area. Bring on Council elections in 2016.

16. Another day, another ridiculous application.

    Nine storeys - I think that is a first for the area. How is a monstrosity of this proportion in keeping with the area.

    18 x 1 bed units and 1 x 2 bed units. Parking provision - 12 spaces. Oh wow even the report submitted by Terraffic Pty Ltd confirms this is a shortfall. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is simply insufficient. Of those 12 spaces, 4 will be disabled? Hydraulic car lift - I do believe that Council has on a number of occasions said that this is not appropriate nor should it be. What happens if there is a system failure - cars are unable to get out of the parking lot or in.

    But wait, there will be many bicycle racks available and the public transport to the area is such that this should be an inducement to potential residents to use it and not vehicles. The fact that the light rail does not extend into the city centre nor does it extend further out west doesn't seem to be a problem - I disagree. The bus services - oh wow - again, the services in the area are great, NOT. The amount of traffic already on the major roads is proving a massive stumbling block for bus commuters, coupled with the fact that there are no enough services to carry commuters now. The possibility of widening Canterbury Road is not possible.

    The area is desirable yes. The area is steeped with beautiful period homes, a lot of which do not have off street parking due to their heritage. If Newtown has been able to stave off developers, why can't Marrickville Council.

    I strongly object yet again to the proposal of a potential urban ghetto being constructed.

17. Large buildings like the one proposed are ruining the area, not enhancing it. And they want a nine storey building - shouldn't there be a hight limit in place? Then again i have seen buildings approved for 3 levels and as construction proceeded the developer would stop finishing it as further negotiating to add another 2 levels so this is something residents should keep in mind.
    The more buildings council approves the more the area will become like a slum. More traffic, more conjestion and more loss in value for surrounding homes. Council doesn't take this into consideration, it all comes down to money.

18. This is unbelievable.
    The decision makers obviously don't use Old Canterbury Rd during peak hour. The developments going up in Summer Hill have prevented any possible future road widening and the high-rises going up in Dulwich Hill are only going to make the area much more congested.
    Are there no town planners working for council with the common sense to say this is not viable on the existing infrastructure?
    I strongly object to this proposal and will be writing to council about it.

19. Marrickville Council please take a leaf from the Sunshine Coast Council:

    "MAYOR Mark Jamieson says the social and environmental impacts of the Sekisui House development outweighed any economic gain"

    http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/sekisui-rejected-council-votes-against-town-plan-c/2619540/?ref=hs

20. Medium and high density urban residential living is only compatible with vastly greater public and active transport capacity than Sydney has at present.

    With the plans for WestConnex proceeding, namely the longest underground tollroad system in the world, the NSW government clearly has no intention for Sydney do go down this alternative path.

    Until such time as WestConnex is cancelled this development can not be allowed to proceed.

    Certainly the priorities of the WestConnex Delivery Authority and the developer are in conflict here.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished almost 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