PlanningAlerts

11 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Strongly oppose this construction.
   The traffic in Schwebel Street is already impossible especially afternoons. Traffic jams often cause road rage. Hard to find places to pull over to allow for passing cars. More congestion in this area we do not need. Parking for us is already an issue. Family of 10 requiring parking for 4 - 5 cars. One resident permit allowed and adminsitered only.

2. Strongly support this application. I live at the Revolution with my young family and have spent 30 years in Marrickville.
   This area surrounding Marrickville station is currently a dump and needs urgent revitalisation and gentrification. Investment into this area is most welcome. Marrickville is getting left behind other areas of Sydney because of Nimby-ism. The focus should be on good quality design - not stopping progress and development.

3. I strongly oppose this development due to the likely traffic, parking and overcrowding impacts to the local area; and also have noted two DA non-compliance issues.

   The DA parking space allocation appears to be non-compliant with the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP 2011). I am quoting directly from the DA Traffic Report: "a total of 42 spaces are required for the proposed development to comply with Council’s current DCP. The development proposes to provide a total of 21 parking spaces (17 residential spaces and 4 commercial spaces)." Please note that this is only half the amount of parking required to comply with MDCP 2011.

   The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for the development is also non-compliant with Marrickville Council LEP planning map information. The FSR for the development is almost twice the council FSR limit of 3:1 at 5:68:1.

   I find it extremely convenient for the developer that Marrickville Council has amended the maximum building height for the affected lots to 26m, the exact height of the proposed building. Generally, B2 Local Centre Marrickville LEP landing zoning deems a maximum building height of 20m for other nearby B2-zoned lots.

   I also noticed that the developer has 'dedicated' 1 Leofrene Avenue to Marrickville Council as parkland space. I presume this means all Marrickville Council rate payers will have to foot the bill for park maintenance once the development has finished. It should be the responsibility of the building owners corporation to maintain all surrounding grounds/parkland included in the DA once the development has been completed.

4. Dear Marrickville Council,

   We strongly oppose this I strongly oppose this development application due to excess bulk/scale of the proposed building and the impact this huge development would have on:
   - Overshadowing and privacy for over 60 residents in both Schwebel and Leofrene Streets
   - Parking
   - Traffic
   - Overcrowding
   - Waste management and flooding
   - Both pedestrian and public car access

   Streetscape - Overshadowing and Privacy
   The streetscape in this area shows there over 60 one level street houses along Leofrene and the north side of Schwebel Street which would be directly effected by such a huge and excessive building. To have a monstrosity of 8 stories towering, shadowing and overlooking the over 60 houses (approx. 150 residents) would remove the almost 150 residents from their afternoon light and privacy. Some houses with solar panels would be effected by the proposal. These basic amentities are legally required to be shared and considered based on the Land and Environment in the streetscape of this high density and high value area.

   Note: This same developer has attempted to exceed Marrickville Council height restrictions has been non-compliance on a variety of issues in their previous DAs.

   Excess Bulk and Scale
   I find it extremely convenient for the developer that Marrickville Council has amended the maximum building height for the affected lots to 26m, the exact height of the proposed building. Generally, B2 Local Centre Marrickville LEP landing zoning deems a maximum building height of 20m for other nearby B2-zoned lots.

   Floor Space Ratio Issue
   The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for the development is also non-compliant with Marrickville Council LEP planning map information. The FSR for the development is almost twice the council FSR limit of 3:1 at 5:68:1. It offends Marrickville Council and the community who endured a lengthy process to agree to such ratios to have a developer have no consideration what so ever for the council area's restrictions.

   Parking Issue
   The DA parking space allocation appears to be non-compliant with the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 (MDCP 2011). Quoting the DA Traffic Report: "a total of 42 spaces are required for the proposed development to comply with Council’s current DCP. The development proposes to provide a total of 21 parking spaces (17 residential spaces and 4 commercial spaces)." Please note that this is only half the amount of parking required to comply with MDCP 2011.

   Insufficient Community and Public Space Commitment
   The developer's proposed token 'dedicated' 1 Leofrene Avenue grass patch to Marrickville Council would mean all Marrickville Council rate payers will have to foot the bill for park maintenance as well as it being a very minimal community amenity in return for their multi-million profit being sought.

   We completely oppose this 8 storey building and prior to any development being considered we request that a comprehensive independent impact study and detailed survey to all Marrickville residents should be conducted by the Council as to most effective, low impact and cohesive renewal of this area should be proposed.

   regards,

   Resident Schwebel Street
   Marrickville

5. I agree the area is a dump and while they're at it they should close down the mysterious massage parlor that is always curtained closed what an embarrassment just around the corner from the station exit/entrance. Bring on anything that will make the area more modern and cleaner. I'm all for more high rise new buildings in the area.

6. I strongly object to this application in its current form. While I've got no problem with the idea of developing this block into an apartment building it's about twice the size it should be.

   This size is not in keeping with the local area. You only need to look across the road about how the Revolution apartments stick out.

   I dearly hope that Marrickville does not share Dulwich Hill's fate with heaps of completely out of place, massive, soulless concrete nightmares.

   Please do not approve this application.

7. I strongly approve of this application, in fact it would be better if the height limit was increased to 12 storey or more. Situated RIGHT NEXT TO Marrickville Station, which in the coming decade will be transformed to part of a HIGH-FREQUENCY metro line, this prime site should be used for very dense residential and retail/commercial uses. Nimby's should stop objecting these developments if you want Marrickville to continue to be a vibrant shopping destination. Look at the rest of Sydney! There are many 20 storey developments going up everywhere. Marrickville's location, near the Airport, Southern Sydney Employment Area and Sydney CBD gives the right to build very tall buildings. People want to live near their work!

   Given that the state government is preparing preliminary station plans for the Sydenham to Bankstown Corridor Urban Renewal, Marrickville as a suburb could easily accommodate up to 20 storey buildings. Rundown decades-old flats will be replaced by modern buildings. Not only will Marrickville become denser for the right reasons but there will be more jobs close to frequent and fast public transportation. If Marrickville wants better public transportation, it needs to become denser. 2-18 Station Street original design of a 16 storey building MUST be revisited. Local residents should think for the whole of Sydney and its future.

   The original plans for a 16 storey building on this site runs parallel to the governments Sydenham-Bankstown Urban Renewal Strategy so I strongly support those plans. 8 storeys is not enough for the future of Marrickville, the council must consider all these points when approving this DA or any others!

8. Adding onto my previous comments, the design is arguably so embarrassing and insufficient. The proposed building will actually look like a large mass of concrete with next to nothing offered in terms of architectural elements. No curved, vertical or any other impressive elements, I support the approval of the height and density proposed but object the design. Privacy screens are also not offered. The facade is poorly treated. This design is appalling and will not benefit the local community.

   On the other hand, the original plans for a 16 storey development shows a much better approach to the design. The facade is well-treated and the building looks iconic. It's not just better external design but the internal design provides better amenities for future occupants. Council has repeatedly approved embarrassing designs, Dulwich Hill in particular was the major victim with large masses of bricks or concrete without any consideration into design elements that enhance the facade or amenities of those slums.

   Overall I support high-density residential/commercial/retail uses (in favour of 16 storey building the most) however i strongly object to the proposed design of a block of concrete.

9. UPDATE: DA Withdrawn > council went back to the developer to negotiate design changes to the application, the applicant/developer refused to make any changes to the submitted application and the whole DA was withdrawn.

   This happened on 19 August, which means that the DA is no longer live/current in council and if this developer wants to submit a revision to the design, it will have to be a brand new application.

10. Hello this same site received a new DA/2020/0578 2-18 Station St; 244 people, 10 Storey how is it you have not sent this out to alert everyone?

    Please let everyone know?

    Thank you
    Karen

11. A new DA/2020/0578 2-18 Station St has recently been submitted proposing 244 people in a 140 room 10 storey, 42 car boarding house for lodgers.

    Next to single storey houses of residents who have lived there for more than 50 years and exceeding the LEP and DPP on many counts this is not affordable secure or long term housing but a single owner seeking real estate to build and profit.

    Hundreds of residents are concerned, signing a petition - http://chng.it/k6Sc8nVjnP , objecting via submissions to the Inner West Council at council@innerwest.nsw.gov.au which closed on Mon 14 September so as many comments and feedback would be appreciated.

    Thanks.