PlanningAlerts

21 Comments

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

1. It seems to me that demolishing one of the oldest, freestanding, weatherboard houses in Enmore to build two unsympathetic townhouses is shortsighted. This house should be under some sort of protection to at least protect the facade and street view. Houses like these show the history of our neighbourhood. Houses like these make our streets a pleasure to walk down and live in.

2. This is disgusting. One could argue that people who wish to demolish houses, perhaps shouldn't choose beautiful, unique houses of historical significance! It's from the 1870's! Building ugly town houses is ruining/lowering the aesthetic tone of the whole neighbourhood, and changing the fabric of the whole suburb.

3. I oppose to this project because it is short sighted and self serving. Our municipality has beautiful 100+ year old houses that should be preserved and protected, not demolished. Who is the genius that thought of this project?

   I honestly hope that Marrickville Council will oppose to this colossal mistake. Houses like this, once they are gone, cannot be rebuild.

   Please reconsider and refuse this application. It will only serve the interests of the developer.

4. 100+ year old houses that should be preserved - I don't agree! If they are beyond repair and need too much work I'm all for it. Have bought and living in one now, will reno, reno reno and demolish where necessary!

   J of Camperdown

5. J : Please research before making comments. The house in question is definitely NOT beyond repair.

   It is a lovely house full of character, charm and history. Why on earth did the buyers choose this house to buy if they just wanted to knock it down? Very sad news indeed. Is there any way to get it heritage listed and therefore prevent demolition?
   R (born and bred inner westie)

6. City planning should be able preserve old characteristics as well as be open to new developments... If councils start letting these old buildings such as this one slide into structures with no history, we will be living in cities with no soul.... I am sure no one in Newtown wants to live in a "New Town" ! People want to live here because of its age, it's history and most importantly it's character...

7. This graceful property with its double frontage and period construction is very prominent and it significantly contributes to the heritage streetscape of Belmore Street.
   Examples of period weatherboard dwellings in this area are rare and need to be conserved at all costs. Demolition of this building and the proposed overbuilding of two modern townhouse structures would be a significant loss to the heritage of the area.

   If Council approve this application every and any double frontage property in the area regardless of heritage value will be subject to demolition and become yet another source of a quick buck for developers. This application needs to be refused to send a firm message to developers that heritage is valued by the community and is not for sale.

8. Marrickville Council has an extensive set of heritage planning controls incorporated into the Marrickville LEP 2011 and accompanying DCP. There are many individual listed heritage items and heritage conservation areas apply to significant portions of the Council area. These measures put in place by council will ensure heritage characteristics valued by the community will be protected into the future. The fact that this site is not identified as having heritage significance in the LEP indicates it is suitable for some form of redevelopment as proposed.

   The demolition of a single house and construction of two townhouses in this location cannot be considered an overdevelopment of the site by any stretch. The surrounding area is characterised by cottages on small narrow lots, terrace houses and medium scale walk-up unit blocks. The proposed development would fit appropriately within this context and would add much needed and highly sought after supply of modern townhouse accommodation for the area.

9. There needs to be a balance between preservation and new development. 2 townhouses are not over-development. To disallow development based purely on age is a terrible thing to do and very weak. There needs to be some other set of criteria to oppose development other than that the building is over 100 years old. To limit development based purely on aesthetics is also wrong, as this is very subjective. Many people may consider two townhouses to be more attractive than a weatherboard house.

10. This premises should be retained, it is in good condition and a fine example of a tradition timber house, it's quite rare and getting rarer. The development will impose on the neighbouring properties and de-value them. We need a mix of old and new, but the new should be from places that need replacing. This one doesn't. We like living in the area because of the charm these old houses bring. There are plenty of suburbs that need redevelopment because they have large lots with poorly built sole less houses. They should focus on these. They should not be destroying the fabric of our neighbourhood's with sole less structures. We also need a mix of single story double fronted properties and double. Please do NOT allow this development to go proceed.

11. I don't think if this house was on the Newtown/ Erskineville side of King Street it could be knocked down. Is this because the City Council has different standards? It seems that houses of this character should be preserved if possible if you care about the feel and older character of Enmore. I can see the point of view of those who regard this as an overly precious approach but I wonder if Marrickville Council has got their controls right and if they need to look again at the heritage listings? Why can't the owners come up with a design that retains the original house and renovates and extends at the back like others have done? is the idea of two houses just to make a big killing?

12. As an owner of a Double fronted cottage in the Marrickville LGA I am disappointed at yet another greedy grab by developers. This house is in fine condition and could easily be brought into the 21st century with a modest refurbishment at the rear of the property. I also note that it is the intention of the developer to demolish all existing trees on the site. This is a cynical reading of the MDCP which allows trees to be removed for new dwellings. These large Eucalyptus are visible from streets away and provide obvious habitat and microclimate controls to both human and animals.

13. I grew up in this house, 21 years, I also had the privlegde when I was younger of meeting an elderly man who lived there during the 50s, this house was estimated to have of been built around 1850 and is the oldest on the block. It breaks my heart that a house so old with walls lovingly cared and holding such history for so many people for so many years could be just made into soulless money grabbing developments. This is not in the spirit of Enmore. A spirit of treasuring eclectic architecture and history. Please consider the rich history and beauty of this house and help it to house more memories and not end up in a skip.

14. When this property recently sold, it was marketed by the estate agent as 'One of Enmore's original homesteads'. I'd say that was a big selling point. And now we may lose this unique property. The rear of my house backs onto Belmore street and I can't believe the council would allow this. This is the same council who would not allow my neighbour to remove a single Sydney palm tree, which is still growing less than two metres from a very large gum tree in my garden. And they are going to allow numerous trees be removed to build these town houses. Crazy. And when another neighbour wanted to renovate and go up a floor, he had to jumps through hoops including extending an original chimney, and reducing the height of the extension because his house which also backs onto Belmore street was architecturally significant. And it wasn't as old as this property. So where is the planning consistency here? If this is allowed to happen there will be a precedent set that will have a detrimental effect on all of Enmore.

15. I would be absolutely shocked and appalled at Marrickville council if this application was allowed to proceed. A double fronted, weatherboard cottage built in the 1800's and in a perfectly liveable condition is a treasure for the area and it is surprising that this property hasn't already been heritage listed.

    This property gives our area history and a depth of character, something that should not be compromised by its complete destruction. Our family are not against development, but we feel that properties (and especially this one) need to be preserved, applications must be sympathetic to the history of the area, this application is anything but. As previous comments have said, this property could easily be improved upon but the front facade must stay.

    My wife and I feel that if Marrickville council don't begin to get a lot stronger in retaining the heritage nature of our area that it will be lost to a banal and uninspired concrete rendered jungle. I would like to see my one year old son walking the streets of Enmore in 30 years as I do now appreciating the beautiful history of the area ... please let this wish become a reality.

16. You just can not replace old. Leave it alone to remind us of our past.

17. The Marrickville Heritage Society calls for Council to apply an Interim Heritage Order on this house. There is every likelihood that this fine weatherboard house is one of the oldest remaining houses in Enmore. It dates from as early as 1850, and was one of the oldest homesteads in Enmore. The Society has also been advised that a caveat was placed on the house by its former owners, requiring it to be made it a condition of sale that the property would be 'cared for as they had cared for it.'

    These issues, and the provenance of the property should be thoroughly evaluated before any application for demolition is considered by Council.

18. I would urge Council to reject this proposal.

    Aside from the overall damage done to the streetscape, the proposal would also destroy a structurally sound heritage building that is not common to the area. It is a disgraceful oversight not to have a building, that is believed to have had its origins in the 1850s, heritage listed. There appears to be a lack of adequate research into the building's history.

    The destruction of this building would not be sufficient to assist the council meet metropolitan strategy targets or add to the stock of affordable housing in the LGA.

    There is absolutely no heritage or community value in this proposal.

19. In the interest of the whole LGA I would propose that these plans be rejected. This is a beautiful property and is far from a knock down job. Having inspected it when it was for sale, I am stunned to be reading this. This is a unique property the destruction of which would be senseless. The planning controls in our LGA are a mess. We went through hell with our plans for our old place on Stafford street which had a fraction the aesthetic value and uniqueness of this property. Makes no sense. I would guess the dime a dozen terrace we are currently renovating on Kingston Rd would also not be able to be demolished. I am pro development, but this is not in the best interests of the community.

20. The story this house tells and the beauty it gives our community can't be re-written. Please preserve our history. Australia doesn't have a lot of it.

21. Ttown planning is necessaryin case individual land owners wish to use their land in ways whicy do not match the needs or aspirations of the broader community. Under NSW law, Council has a responsibility to manage the use and development of land in the public interest.
    This means Councul has a responsibility to protect our heritage whether or not individual buildings are actually heritage listed. In my street, the consultants hired by council did a shoddy job and did not even inspect buildings before deciding which were to be retained and which could be demolished by developers.Similarly, one of the most interesting and attractive homes in the street, our only weatherboard, was zoned for demolition. Lack of heritage listing is no argument against a need for retention.
    Council has the option of deciding that demolition of this attractive home is not approved. The house is clearly of heritage interest because houses of this age and style have not been retained in this area. It is a mistake to assume that only grand historic houses are of heritage interest. The family homes of ordinary people are less often preserved and so, it may be argued, preservation is even more important.
    This is one o those buildings which must be retained in the public interest, not just of neighbours, but the wider community.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished over 8 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