PlanningAlerts

18 Comments

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

1. A motel is a low cost hotel for motorists, yet the plan has only enough parking for 27 cars, compared with 61 rooms. This area is already under pressure with street parking, and the apartment blocks going up (8 Cowper, 31 Addison, 23 Addison) all have many more apartments than car park spots, further increasing the number of cars on the road.

2. I strongly object to this application. As an owner occupier of an apartment on Perry Street I know that parking in this area is already at a premium. This just isn't sustainable.

3. I strongly object to this application.
   - Although the application meets the carspace requirements for the LEP, it does not take into consideration the current parking situation on the surrounding streets, where it is almost impossible to find a park at all times of the week.
   - The 'development is complementary to the surrounding developments, etc.' [P.13 Statement of Environmental Effects]. This is a complete joke if the aim of the development is to match the surrounding buildings industrial buildings which are tin sheds and run down warehouses. More common sense should be used in this design.
   - Complete lack of landscaping with the exception of a fenced in 12x5m patch of grass.
   - No common areas for guests, with the exception of the 'Gallery'/ramp which has about the same amount of merit as the patch of grass outside.
   - Bedroom 2 of the managers apartment would have almost no natural lighting
   - The ground levels should be kept for shopfronts/commercial given the close proximity to King St and other commercial areas.

   This type of accommodation is not suitable for this site (it is a prime residential site which should accommodate for professionals and families). The proposal lacks any design consideration and consists only of hard surfaces and industrial finishes, similar to that of a prison or industrial complex. I feel for the neighboring residential houses, as ironically the previous warehouses (which have already been demolished) were far more complimentary to the surrounding streetscape.

4. I think a motel (or preferably hotel) will be a great addition to the area - however there is a missed opportunity here in the street level activation approach - there really should be two or more retail units facing Addison Road rather than cramming in more rooms on the ground floor.

   The new Urban hotel on Enmore Road is a good example of this.

5. I agree in order for this application to be approved more car spaces should be provided for the motorists visiting the motel. It's worth noting this area is a 20-minute walk from any train station for access to the airport so people may choose to rely on cars.

   I also agree the Addison Road frontage has not been used to its full potential. This is shaping up to become a high street and not a back road. As hundreds of people will be moving into the area with the 3 new apartments blocks going up – not to mention the possibility of over a hundred people staying at the motel - it would be great to see some more retail options.

6. I agree with a lot of the comments. In order for this application to be approved more car spaces should be provided for the motorists visiting the motel + allow for sufficient guest only parking within the building. Local residents are already struggling with limited on street parking. Most of us don't have off street parking due to the limited plot sizes. In addition, Addison Rd Organic Markets, although great for the area causes massive congestion on Sunday's (along with dangerous driving) due to lack of sufficient off street parking. The council should learn from this experience.

   I also agree the Addison Road frontage has not been used to its full potential. More retail options (specifically cafes) should be encouraged to cater for the growing amount of residents and visitors to the area.

7. The other nearby property owned by Perry Management was a party district for backpackers with loud late night parties. I think this will also become a hostel for backpackers. It will detract from the area.

8. Not only will there be a lack of street parking for both residents and visitors around surrounding streets. The fact that the application was submitted by Perry Properties suggest it will most likely be intended for backpackers. They already own a large amount of townhouses near the area which are known to be decrepit as well as a late night party district for young backbackers. From the way those town houses are currently managed, I have little confidence that the proposed motel will be managed and looked after properly. I'm afraid this will bring a negative light to the area.

9. I am concerned regarding the parking situation too and also the potential for residents/holiday makers complaining about the noise from the Vic hotel which is opposite the development.

   Any building constructed needs to have sufficient sound protection that allows the vic to operate its entertainment. Too often those that move complain about pub noise (and people leaving the pub) and it's not fair to the existing businesses.

10. This is a highly problematic application that superficially appears to meet the needs of the area but is, in fact, contrary to supporting increased density, urban regeneration, and the character and culture of the area.

    Perhaps most importantly, there is a lack of value for the current aesthetics and culture of the area, which represents the potential for appropriate and long-term positive urban renewal. To suggest that this generic and inappropriate design will be an improvement on the industrial building currently on the site reveals a gross misunderstanding of the character and aesthetics of the area. The density (particularly considering that the property is geared towards short-term accommodation) is inappropriate and does not represent a valuable contribution to density for potential residents. There is simply no evidence that this development will support sustainable forms of transport (Sydenham and St Peters Stations are some distance away). Existing culture in the area - particularly the Vic on the Park, one of the few venues continuing to support musicians and artists in the area - has not been adequately considered. Other feedback has expressed concerns about the management of the property which I will not repeat here.

    In short, this proposal represents a short-term vision which meets the needs of the developers and contradicts the needs of the area and community.

11. The Council should attempt to address the concerns of residents who are living adjacent to this proposed development related to parking, safety, the standard of the motel and its actual intended clientelle (ie will this be a hostel, or de facto 'boarding house?). From feedback in other submissions presented, there appear to be some well founded fears related to upkeep and management related to other short term accommodation businesses in the area.

    A section of the 'industrial buildings' to be removed facing Addison Road comprises of an earlier (than the 20th century additions present on the site) building that should not be demolished as it adds to the street scape. Windows & doorways have been bricked in but they could be re-opened to create an activated street front to the building. There does not appear to be a reasonable argument to destroy this section of the former 'industrial' buildings (thus destroying a pre 20th century stone and brick building).

    I have reservations about this development in as far as its intended use and ongoing maintenance is concerened. I also oppose it as absolutely no effort is being made to preserve an historic part of Addison Road's streetscape in this development.

12. I strongly object to this development application.

    The development is not in keeping with the needs of the community and will place undue stress on already overcrowded streets and parking. Motel guests will inevitably be transient types who will utilise Philpott Street more than Addison Road to access Enmore Road and King Street restaurants and bars.

    The traffic plan that accompanies this application is insufficient in detail and fails to recognise the already over crowded and too narrow Philpott Street and only gives it scant mention.

    It is clear that this is trying to sweeten what is already a bleak picture for the local residents trying to deal with traffic and noise from planes, cars and people in this area.

    We do not need another transient imposition. We do however welcome residential developments to further strengthen the community.

    Residents of this area are seeing large developments begin that will only increase the traffic through this already crowded area.

    The council has provided no over arching plan for managing the development of this precinct. This work should be undertaken before any new major developments are approved.

13. I strongly object to this application. As a resident in Philpot Street, I can attest to the already overcrowded street and it's surrounds.
    Despite council road marking, cars park the length of the street, sometimes making it impossible to turn into Philpot from Perry Street. Similarly, the crowded parking along Addison Road makes it dangerous to make a left turn out of Perry onto Addison with low visibility along Addison due to heavy cars parking right up to the corner. With this kind of development, the pressure on this road and parking is unsustainable.
    Secondly, this developers previous property,the villas further back along Philpot is not only unkempt but is commonly a site of high noise levels and police visits. It's not harmonious to the rest of the residential properties surrounding.
    In light of the fact that there is already a backpackers hotel opposite this proposed development on the other side of Addison, and with the close proximity of the Vic hotel, it is a fair assumption that this development will bring more backpackers and transients into the precinct,increasing noise, potentially making the area less safe. If the state of this developer's last build is also any indicator of the outcome, invariably this property will also become unkempt and make what could be a vibrant, community centered part of Marrickville, into a congested, unsafe and uncared for precinct. Of the myriad of development opportunities available , this development has the least to offer in terms of community enhancement and progression, and raises real risks that the area will in fact become a far less livable one.

14. I strongly object to this 'motel' style application. Since when do motels have terraces, balconies and courtyards (29 in total) with each outside area fitted with one of the 29 air-conditioning units operating on these outside (smoking areas?) and ALL facing NORTH to Fahey Lane (bad luck if you live in a house backing onto Fahey Lane or live in/own/ rent one of the104 units in the Wool Mills heritage building in Gordon St. You will be robbed of your privacy and get as a bonus, yobbo behaviour of motel patrons 'partying on these 29 outside areas', at all hours, as it is a motel, open 24 hours !
    Traffic congestion in Philpott Street ? Try navigating out of Philpott Street on any day, especially when the 8 X 240 litre garbage bins are "collected THREE times per week by a private contractor......"waste capable of being collected per week is 5,760 litres. These bins will be taken out to Philpott Street by the caretaker on collection days". If this isn't enough google "Safety in Marrickville Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday 9 December 2009, Item 5: Other Business 5.4 LAN Police intervention requested to contact owner, Vince Perry ( the applicant of this 'motel' DA) regarding unruly noise etc. coming from his backpackers accommodation in our area. Is this 'motel' going to also be a strain on our already-overworked local area police? Is this in in the 'community interest?'
    Don't forget to send all your objections to this development DA201500736 for 43-51 Addison Rd before THIS Tuesday (Australia Day) or the next day, as Marrickville Council need WRITTEN objections,your objection must be in writing, addressed to The General Manager, marked attention Kaitlin Zieme, the assessing officer (who is very helpful) and include your name,address and phone number. Whilst this planning alert forum is excellent, Council DOES require your written objections. Thank you, and only 2 days left to comment! Go for it !

15. WITHOUT PREJUDICE
    I would like to strongly object to DA201500736.

    As a concerned resident living in very close proximity to Mr Perry’s Newington Mews and Addison Road establishments, I would like to add my voice to comments made so far regarding the proposed “motel”. The original DA submitted by Mr Perry for this property was for a backpackers’ establishment; the original DA was denied by Council and the appeal to the NSW Land & Environment Court was knocked back on 23.11.10. The current DA appears to be a thinly veiled attempt by the applicant to establish yet another backpackers in the area disguised as a motel.

    I am not able to find the definition of a motel on Council’s website but it is my understanding that a motel is for transients with motor vehicles. The DA is for 61 rooms but there is only space for 27 cars. This new DA does not indicate how many beds are in these 61 rooms so there is potential for a massive influx of transients residing in this “motel”. Hundreds more occupants in the proposed motel will only add to the already overpopulated area.

    I would like to remind Council of the mismanagement, total lack of responsibility, and disregard for neighboring residents in close proximity to Newington Mews (Fotheringham Lane). For nearly a decade residents were subjected to extreme noise levels, very noisy parties, drunken anti social behavior, drug fuelled parties (accompanied by the loud psychedelic trance music) that lasted 24/7 for up to 4 days and 4 nights with no respite, screaming in the streets in the early hours, vandalism and tampering of property on a daily basis, litter, beer bottles lined up under residents’ cars, a roller door pulled off a garage and dumped with other objects on top of a car, climbing on residents’ roofs, abandoned cars, the list goes on. Police were called regularly (each call was logged by Marrickville Police) not only because of the noise, vandalism and drug parties, but because of concern for the safety of residents and the safety of the backpackers. In an endeavor to build relationships between Mr Perry and the long suffering residents as well as alleviate the stress on police resources, Mr Perry designed a fridge magnet with his contact details and a request to phone him if we had any concerns. This fridge magnet was personally delivered by the Senior Constable at Marrickville LAC to each resident in the surrounding vicinity. On the only occasion that I utilized this option and telephoned the owner about the excessive noise emanating from his property, I was met with hostility and accused of making trouble for him.

    It is my belief that Mr Perry has done himself a disservice by not building and maintaining good relationships with neighbours. A good facility (backpacker / motel / hostel / whatever you want to call it) should be run in a manner that causes no disturbances to neighbouring properties. I agree with David’s comment (on this website): “We do however welcome residential developments to further strengthen the community.”

16. I'm really concerned about this application. A review of DAs shows that Marrickville Council regularly approves applications with insufficient parking and a complete ignorance of the needs of the current residents. Adding traffic to this area is incredibly irresponsible. The application has a stonkingly insufficient and irresponsible amount of parking. 27 spaces? For 61 rooms? Just illogical.

    The needs of the community are being sold off to the highest bidder yet they're the only ones who bear the brunt of these decisions. It has happened, and still is happening, in Sydenham. So clearly it's happening everywhere.

17. I agree with all the comments that have been posted.
    Vince Perry must not be allowed to proceed with the development.
    From what we have previously seen and experienced in the area over the years, he has not shown respect for the residents.
    My Perry has been trying to develop this site for over 7 years and has not been successful in doing so. His sole purpose for the property is for back packer accommodation. He has not changed is mind. Not matter what he calls it now, a 'motel', in his latest application, he will run it as a 'back packer' hostel.
    Having said this, irrespective of the developer, the area will not be able to cope with the additional traffic it will generate, especially on Saturdays when, currently, Addison Road looks like a car park from end to end.

18. Please also lodge your objections in writing to Marrickville Council and also lodge these online by following the below link :

    http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/en/development/development-applications/da-on-exhibition/lodge-a-comment-on-a-da/

    I would like to take this opportunity to strongly oppose DA201500736 as a resident that occupies a property that has direct access to Fahey Lane.
    Objections are stated below:
    Transient Population
    The Addison Road precinct is an up and coming area with a strong sense community and neighborhood. The area houses permanent residents, largely made up of young families. For this reason a transient population is a great concern for both the safety and general respect of the area.

    It is understood the original DA submitted by Mr Perry for this property was for a backpackers’ establishment; the original DA was denied by Council and the appeal to the NSW Land & Environment Court was unsuccessful back on 23.11.10. The current DA appears to be a a similar attempt by the applicant to establish yet another backpacker’s in the area disguised as a motel.

    In light of the fact that there is already a backpacker’s hotel opposite this proposed development on with the close proximity of the Vic Hotel, this development will bring more backpackers and transient population into the precinct, increasing noise, potentially making the area less safe. If the state of this developer's last build is also any indicator of the outcome, invariably this property will also become unkempt and make what could be a vibrant, community centered part of Marrickville, into a congested, unsafe and uncared for precinct.

    Within the Statement of Environmental Effects the proposal states that the ‘development will reflect and complement the desired character of the area’, a transient population is a direct contradiction of community and therefore disagree completely with this statement. A residential + commercial low rise development would reflect and complement the desired character of the area and would be supported by the surrounding community.
    Height of Building
    The proposed height of the building exceeds the maximum development height of 14 meters. The arguments submitted under document ‘Variation of Building Height’ are weak at best. The statement that the ‘proposed development will be more suitable for to the future character of the area that the existing built form on the site’ is an opinion of the developer and is not shared with the local residents. Nor is the statement ‘the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the existing multi-storey residential flat buildings in the immediate locality Perry Street’ factual as this is not a true statement.
    Loading Bay – Access via Fahey Lane
    Concerns around how trucks and large vehicles will access the Loading Bay on the plans. Fahey Lane is a narrow laneway with limited off street parking access via Fahey Lane to private residential dwellings along Gordon Street.
    As the laneway is narrow there is not sufficient space for trucks and larger vehicles to turn into and out of the loading bay. How will this issue be overcome? The obvious solution would be for the vehicles to park in the laneway obstructing driveways and general access to the lane. This is unacceptable as it will block driveway access for residents of Gordon Street.

    Waste Management and Collection
    There are great concerns regarding the Waste Management Plan. There are objections to the ‘On-Going Waste Management Plan’. The plan is to arrange for private collection of waste three (3) times per week by taking the 8 x 240 litre bins from the bin bay to Philpott Street on collection days. That means 3 days a week 8 x 240 litre bins will be lined up along the sidewalk on Philpott Street. Aesthetically this is will be an eyesore and will be visible from Addison Rd, in addition there will be an unpleasant smell of waste and obstruction to pedestrians.
    Further, the ‘Bin Bay’ on the plan is approximately 60 metres from the proposed collection areas which would suggest 3 times a week 8 bins will be wheeled 120 metres through residential area. This is unacceptable.

    It is also important to note that the collection of waste will obstruct Philpott Street which is a narrow street and will impede traffic entering and exiting the street.

    Parking Spaces
    The proposal is for a development of a Motel. The definition of a Motel is a hotel intended to provide short-term accommodation for travelling motorists. Within the plans there are only 27 car spaces available for 61 Rooms + Motel staff. There are insufficient parking spots and directly contradict the proposal as a ‘Motel’ which raises concerns in regards to actual use of proposed building.
    Insufficient parking will significantly impact the local permanent residents who park on the street. Furthermore, adding traffic to this intersection and area is strongly opposed by existing residents.
    Privacy & Increased Noise
    Building plans include a total of 29 outside areas consisting of balconies, courtyards and terraces. As a resident whose property backs onto Fahey Lane there is great concern for lack of privacy and increased noise as plans do not include any privacy screening at the rear of the building giving view access to the rear of residential properties that back onto Fahey Lane.
    Of the myriad of development opportunities available, this development has the least to offer in terms of community enhancement and progression, and raises real risks that the area will in fact become a far less livable one.

Have your say on this application

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