PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

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

1. There are 2 main problems with this development: the height of the building and lack of parking.
   The development proposal lists a 5 story building reaching 11.9m. Total land size is 335 square metres.
   Similar apartment buildings in the vicinity are 4 stories built on a much larger blocks of land. That being 123 New Canterbury Rd, 107-109 New Canterbury Rd, 138 New Canterbury Rd, which are all 4 stories. Plus 138 New Canturbury has lower stories on the sourthern end of the development, to allow for less shadowing on the adjacent southern properties.
   Because the block has quite a narrow facing onto New Canterbury Rd, (unlike the properties just mentioned), 5 stories will not fit into the look and feel of the area and adjacent properties. To have a 5 story development next to 2 story adjoining properties will stick out like a sore thumb and ruin the skyline of the area.
   The proposed height of the building creates a huge shadowing problem for adjoining properties on New Canterbury Rd and Ducros St. The northern properties on Ducros Street (18 and 16 Ducros Street, and possibly 12-14) will have all sunlight eliminated from their property all year except maybe a few months in summer. Eastern facing apartments on 162-164 New Canterbury rd will lose all morning sunlight, for all of the year (from what I can work out on the shadow diagram). Townhouses and apartments on 140-152 New Canturbury, and 23-21 Ducros street will lose afternoon sunlight.

   Secondly regarding parking. To have 5 car parking spots to cater for 24 boarding units and a commercial tenancy is ridiculous.
   Streets surrounding the development (Ducros St, Allans Ave, Hunter St, West St) are struggling to cater for the parking needs of local residents. You will struggle to find a park from 5.15 any weekday, let alone to cater for another 24 boarding houses...

   In summary, I urge the council to reconsider what seems to be a bullish development that has no real concerns to fit in with the local areas looks and needs (does Petersham need a boarding units? Thought 1 and 2 bedroom units would be more suitable).
   A more appropriate development is lowering the development to a maximum 3 stories, with the height of the development tiered lower in the south end towards on Ducros Street to allow for less shadowing with the adjacent properties mentioned. (i.e. Northern section of property 3 stories, middle section 2 stories, single level at southern end of development).
   Adequate parking needs to be supplied by creating a basement carpark. As close to 1 spot for each boarding room/unit.

2. The Marrickville Heritage Society does not support this development within the Petersham Commercial Precinct Conservation Area.

   The scale and style of the building are completely at odds with the existing two to three storey Victorian retail facades that establish the built character of the heritage precinct.

   Of particular concern is the main street facade, that has large areas of glazing and balconies with glazed balustrades. This is completely out of character with the surrounding existing facades that are characterised by extensive areas of rendered masonry, and regular small fenestration.

   The Statement of Heritage Impact serves to emphasize this contrast by showing a photomontage of a much more successful new development at 111-115 New Canterbury Road. This new apartment building has a facade with a higher and much more traditional proportion of solid to void, and which sits more respectfully in the precinct.

   Council should require that the scale, massing and facade of the proposed new building at 158-160 New Canterbury Road should be modified to be less intrusive to this important Conservation Area.

3. I agree with Jordan's comment above.
   The height and shadowing is not fair on neighbouring properties.
   24 boarding rooms with only what appears to be five, perhaps seven at the most, parking spaces? Will it be a requirement that says applicants may not own cars because I don't know where you expect people to park. This is also not in keeping with the general appearance of the local area. Five stories is too high.
   I feel sorry for the neighbours of this property if this goes ahead.

4. I agree with previous concerns raised about this proposed development at 158-160 New Canterbury Rd, Petersham.

   The height of the building and the lack of parking are real issues.

   It will also be out of keeping with the Petersham commercial precinct which many features heritage facades.

5. Is this a brothel or a hotel?

   Tiny units with double beds but insufficient room to live in.

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