PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

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

1. I am concerned about this application because I feel due to the historical significance of this building that any developer with any plans should be transparent and say they intend to make alterations to the "Old Marrickville Fire Station".

   #1 Assessment of significance: The building remains intact and retains its integrity.

   A prominent building on Stanmore Road, the Fire Station is closely associated with the civic and retail centre which developed around the intersection of Stanmore Road and New Canterbury Road in the 1880's. It reflects the establishment of the Fire Brigades Board of Sydney in 1884.

   So with this in mind, if alterations can help maintain the current building and foster a civic and retail zone in that area then I support the application but under the proviso that none of the significant features are removed including (but not limited to as little information has been provided in application esp about present condition inside & out);
   • rendered facade with simple raised detailing to the windows
   • heavy quoins and keystones to the doors
   • raised triangular pediment to one end
   • gable parapet to the other
   • Pressed metal ceilings
   • concertina timber doors.

   Any developer must be fully aware of the historical significance of this building so the plans they present should embrace this and no plans should ever be approved unless they contribute in maintaining all original features.

   Further info;
   http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2030095

   http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2030095

2. I agree with other comments that the historical features and beautiful facade should be retained to ensure the building does not lose its character. If this is not. Listed building then it should be attributed with such honour.

   It will be good to see life in the building but I do not note adequate parking for a hotel.

3. See above; this environmental vandalsim should stop. Businesses are coming and going at an alarming rate, so to alter such a building irrevocably shows a lack of foresight. Could there be another use for such an historic building without destroying it?

4. Please don't alter the facade
   Please provide evidence of all intentions
   Chris Browns comments sums it up
   The heritage items in this area of Sydney is priceless

5. The Marrickville Heritage Society is concerned that important features of the building will be compromised by the proposal to convert the Old Marrickville Fire Station to a hotel. The protection of the heritage values of the building must be given the highest priority as the applicants are proposing to use the 'conservation provisions' of the Marrickville LEP to apply for the change of use to a hotel, on the grounds that the new use will provide for the conservation of the building. The only work in the proposal that could be described as a positive heritage outcome for the building is the proposed reinstatement of the watch tower. This worthwhile proposal must be required work in any approval for development, and its completion must be required before an Occupation Certificate can be issued for the new hotel.

   When the watchtower and chimneys were removed, the original roofing material would have also been removed. As this is an 1880s building it is likely that the original roofing was slate or tiles, and if further research confirms this, than the original roofing and chimney forms should be required to be reinstated as part of the conservation works to the building.

   In regard to the internal works, the proposals to alter the existing room configurations and install new bathrooms and services must be fully reversible. Original interior features and finishes, including the timber stairs and pressed metal ceilings must be retained and restored.

   The addition of new dormer windows to the main facade roof will have a substantial detrimental impact on the visual integrity of the main facade, and should be refused by Council.

   Council must require that there is a substantial link between the provision of a new used for the building, and conservation works to protect its heritage values.

6. We are concerned about the traffic and parking impacts of the proposed development DA201600108.

   Summary of proposal
   The proposal seeks to redevelop the existing building for the following uses:
   - Boutique hotel with 13 rooms
   - Function rooms
   - Florist
   - Café

   The Traffic Assessment Report states that Schedule 2.10.5 of the Marrickville Development Control Plan (MDCP) requires that a development of this type has parking for seven vehicles (1 for hotel staff, 4 for hotel guests and 2 for the florist, café and function rooms) but notes that the proposed development does not permit any onsite parking (p. 13). It states that there is currently provision for six spaces onsite but that these spaces would be removed as a result of the development. It argues that there is sufficient parking available in surrounding streets to accommodate the parking requirements, and good public transport access, and that this is grounds for a justifiable exception under MDCP 2.10.4.

   The Assessment also notes (p. 18) that MDCP 2.10.6 requires provision of two service vehicle access spaces – one for the hotel and one for the café & florist (none is specified for the function rooms). It proposes a loading zone for services and guest pick-up on Albert St in front of the existing side gates with no net loss of street parking.

   Comments

   The proposed development would require parking for the following uses, sharing the load with access by foot or by public transport:

   Daytime: Café and florist patrons, function participants, hotel and function room staff, service vehicles and guests.

   Nighttime: A larger number of guests’ vehicles, hotel staff, function participants and service vehicles.

   We suggest that the Traffic Assessment Report survey has underestimated the parking impact that this will have on the surrounding area.

   Specific comments:

   1. The report argues (p. 13) that the MDCP parking specification for the combined floorspace of the café, florist and function rooms is two parking spaces. We are concerned that the function rooms in particular would need more parking than this. Dinners and meetings would bring in more people than other uses occupying similar floorspace, and a greater proportion of them would be likely to drive, particularly to a more formal event.

   2. Requirement of only 5 spaces for hotel guests and staff (p. 13) also seems low. Hotel staff, particularly those working nighttime shifts, would require accessible parking. It is readily conceivable that most guests at any time would require parking close to the hotel (on the upper half of Albert St or Hopetoun St).

   3. The parking survey (p. 7), undertaken on one Friday evening between 6 and 10PM, does not reflect the usual availability of parking that we experience as residents. Surveying on Friday evening may have meant that more people were out. Checking the number of spaces later in the evening (around 11.30) we have noted that very few spaces are available on Albert St itself. The addition of at least 7 cars would significantly displace residents, particularly those on Albert St north of James St where few spaces are available. It is likely that patrons and staff would be most likely to park on Albert St, where parking is limited, rather than across the busy Stanmore Rd on Hopetoun St, where more parking spaces are available in the evenings.

   4. Some local parking is not practical for use as overnight parking due to the requirement on Stanmore Rd for morning clearways.

   5. The claim that the historic use of the site as a fire station (p. 14) generated more traffic (p. 14) is not relevant. Use as a fire station ceased in 1991 – 25 years ago – and no meaningful comparison of traffic impact can be made between that time and the present.

   Conclusion

   We do not oppose the conversion of this much loved landmark building into a boutique hotel. It is a creative re-use of the site. However we are concerned that establishing four separate business activities (hotel, function rooms, café and florist) at the expense of all of the existing parking on the site will impose too large a burden on current parking in the area, especially at night. An alternative would be to scale back some of the proposed ground floor development to allow for at least 4 parking spaces onsite. Being able to park within the firestation – where the fire trucks were housed – could itself be a distinctive feature of the hotel.

   We note the commitment stated in the proposal to retain the hotel’s heritage façade, and support the desire expressed in several other submissions to maintain the heritage character of the building.

7. I love the idea and I live across the road.
   Anything that promotes or enhances the area is a good idea in my mind.
   The Crystal Street end of Stanmore road is a bit run down in parts, (although getting better), and needs a boost. 4 new businesses can only be a good thing.
   The plans look sound and the end result looks great.

   Traffic impact and parking impact? Really? you can't be serious.
   Its a great building,this will only make it better, at the same time giving everyone in the community the opportunity to utilise it - you should be applauding and promoting the idea!

   It may even prompt the council for a new "safe" crossing over to the park.

   Nothing to complain about in my mind.

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