PlanningAlerts

14 Comments

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

1. Dear council,

   please do not approve this application, due to the nature of such a tall building on a relatively small land plot size. The area does not need another of these developments, which do not really address the supposed housing issue our state government keeps trying to tell us we are having.

   Please stop the urban ghettos and only approve applications that provide proper housing to meet the needs of residents. Not 15 shoe boxes stacked on top of each other.

2. More apartments in this very small proximity. The Arlington is being built next door, the Constitution apartments are across the way and all the Williams Parade apartments are around the corner. This is going to be a nightmare for traffic that runs over the very small bridge, even worse when soccer matches are on. How can they build so many dwelling on this very small piece of land? How many people can you squash into this small area and then expect infrastructure to cope?
   All these apartment are just ruining the historic feel of Dulwich Hill. This is not a solution to the housing crisis.

3. I must object to this application for the following reasons:
   There is a huge abundance of apartments in the surrounding area of the site.
   There is no need for more apartments, buyers are looking for houses.
   Building more apartments without taking the surrounding area into consideration will only create problems.
   The streets were not originally planned to be able to take the high density residences that are being built, and adding more apartments will only add to the traffic problem that already exists and will only get much worse once existing constructions are finalised.
   The original houses of Constitution road should be preserved, as they are the kind of architecture that attracts people to the area.
   Further developments should take existing heritage buildings into consideration, while also delivering what the local residents require.
   Thanks for your time.

4. With so many other units that are and will be soon available in the surrounding area I am unsure of why we need more in a suburb that has been noted as having a community village feel. We already have the new GPO at the top of Dulwich St (70 units), the Cooperage (68 units), the Grove development around the corner (250+ units), the extra ones at Hill St, and lets not forget the soon to be multiple urban ghetto developments on Old Canterbury Rd near Railway Terrace. Is this new development proposal absolutely necessary? Why would the Council not leave the zoning for those few residential houses in Constitution up to Grove St as zone R1 (general development)? Just lazy and no regard for the heritage of the area I guess! And what about the residents in 68, 70 and 72 Constitution Rd being dwarfed by the 17m over development to their north east?

   Light rail at the bottom of the street does no constitute infrastructure. Where are the planners and what exactly are they doing? Does State Government not speak to Local Government and visa versa? Hospitals? Child care facilities? The roads on the weekends are a carpark currently with this only to get worse.

5. I can't agree more with the other comments.

   The proposed building is too big for the current location and just adds more issues to the local area, considering the numerous developments happening around surrounding streets.

   In Dulwich, Lewisham, Constitution, Pigott Streets and Denison Road, current residents are quickly losing patience with the road issues. Not only are there so many blind spots with current road 'design', we're running out of on-street parking with so many people double parking, blocking driveways, and parking right on the edge of streets making it difficult and unsafe to turn into a street.

   This local area also doesn't have the amenities to support all of these developments that keep coming up on a daily basis.

   Council, please represent the people in your area and not the developers. Don't patronise us and say we're "scared" of change - we're not, but there needs to be a considered approach, actual planning involved. Right now, it just seems like every development is approved without any thought about future issues down the line.

6. I object to this proposal on the following grounds:

   1. Six car spaces for fifteen units is simply not enough. With more than 90 units at The Denison, 246 units at Arlington Grove, 66 in Hill St and now more proposed on this site and the corner building opposite, where are all the people going to park? Where will their visitors park? No they will not all be using the light rail - such a short-sighted assumption.

   2. Where is the additional green space for all of these residents? Is boxing people in by concrete really the way forward for our city? Johnson Park is already overused.

   3. Dulwich Hill PS is already at capacity and Lewisham will be full once all of the current developments in the area are finished. Will a new school be built to cater for all the children?

   4. Backing up N Hay's comment above, when will the independent traffic study be done? How are the residents' concerns being represented?

   5. I live right in the firing line of all these developments and things have been unbearable lately - both on foot and traffic-wise. I also have grave concerns for pedestrians who make their way up the hill on foot towards New Canterbury Rd and have seen a number of near misses as cars rush around the roundabout at the corner of Denison and Constitution Rd.

   What traffic calming strategies are in place to protect pedestrians, especially those with small children who cannot move as quickly as a single adult? I note there is a brand new childcare centre being built on Denison Rd - how will parents safely walk their toddlers and babies there with no pedestrian crossings available and no traffic calming devices on Constitution? Also seeing as there is the expectation that few of these new residents will have cars?

   Please consider carefully the amenity of the area and the safety and well-being of all residents, both current and future. I'm not anti-development but there are social aspects to consider that don't seem to be given any thought.

7. In 2014 during residents' discussions with Council in relation to the Grove St Arlington development, Council promised that an independent traffic study would be carried out. Council also promised that residents would be represented. When is this study going to happen?

8. In general, I am a supporter of higher density living and the need for people to adjust their expectations of living in a free standing house once they start a family.

   However, there needs to be balance, thought and proper planning put behind developments and at the moment Dulwich hill and surrounding Lewisham, Hurlstone Park and Canterbury feel like a pure money grab by developers with very little consideration for the local community or the needs of the housing market.

   The space in question is way too small for the size of the proposed development. For 15 apartments to fit there in 6 stories, these are not going to be big apartments. The demography of this area is predominantly young families. How is a tower of small apartments, most without parking, surrounded by a rail line on one side and what is already a busy road in the other, and right next to two massive developments serve this demographic or improve the area.

   There is also the issue of traffic. The section of road between Constitution/Denison roundabout and the Williams Prd roundabout is an accident waiting to happen. The road is already very busy, especially in the mornings and at end of school times. Traffic moves very fast coming over the rail bridge (with little visibility) and in the other direction past the round about and down the hill. There is a no where for people to cross safely. There are also hidden driveways with very little visibility. It's very chaotic.

   There is also the issue of childcare and schools.

   The current rate of developments in the area feels like it's only intended to line the pockets of developers without any consideration for the local community. I feel that the proposed overdevelopment on 66 Constitution rd is taking us one sad little stop towards the destruction of the area. Please protect our community and area!

9. No further high density development applications should be granted until such time as investigation into traffic is conducted. Where is this study? It was promised a long time ago. There is already an over-abundance of high density accommodation available in the immediate vicinity with the Denison, The Grove, Cooperage and GPO - an absolute flood - not to mention the large developments which are now popping up on New Canterbury Road on the border and which have been approved by Canterbury Council. There is lack of provision of parking available with all of these developments. The immediate area is in constant gridlock. It is near impossible to park close to the shops with only two car parks available to service but then again apparently people don't need/use cars now hence the lack of provision of car spaces - so untrue. The heritage of the area is at risk.

10. I live nearby in Canterbury LGA, however, I frequently drive though the area for social reasons, commute daily to CBD by car along Canterbury Road, and shop regularly in Dulwich Hill. Since late 2015 especially I have observed a marked increase in vehicle traffic - such that I allow 10-15 minutes extra for the commute. And the traffic issues are not in locations closer to the city. A lot of drivers use Constitution as a "rat run" connecting New and Old Canterbury Roads. The oval and cafés near the proposed development means there are always pedestrians in and around the vicinit (and young children especially). It would be dangerous to increase traffic flows further in such a confined area - and it is a complete nonsense to suggest that people will use public transport. The light rail is too slow to make it a viable alternative unless you were travelling only 2-3 stops and buses along Canterbury Road will invariably be impacted by increased traffic volume mentioned earlier. Dulwich Hill is rapidly losing it's reputation as a heritage destination and family friendly place to live. It is disturbing that Marrickville Council (and my own LGA) are failing to take a long-term view of how these developments will affect quality of life for future residents. Equally disturbing is the "if you build it they will come" mentality that does not appear to be backed by accurate population growth forecasts. Either "they" will come and our local suburbs will become more unliveable, but perhaps "they" won't and we'll end up surrounded by under-occupied white elephants. How many local Councillors actually live anywhere near these or other unit developments, ie are any of you prepared to have a unit block (or more) spring up in your street?

11. Hello,

    I noticed a few people are looking for more information about the traffic and parking studies being undertaken in Dulwich Hill. Those studies were very recently completed and a draft went to today's traffic committee meeting. You can see the reports under the April heading on this page: http://marrickville.nsw.gov.au/en/community/get-involved/advisory-and-consultative-committees/pedestrian-cyclist-and-traffic-calming-committee/

    They will now be considered by council's Infrastructure, Planning and Environmental Services Committee on the first Tuesday in May. Residents can speak to the report at that meeting.

    The report will then be put on public exhibition and I would encourage you to make comments. I've only had a brief chance to read the report so far, but it does recommend some traffic calming measures that the community has previously suggested. I am very happy to have a meeting with you and your neighbours about the traffic and parking reports - on a weekend afternoon is the easiest for me. Please let me know if you think this would be useful. I do not inspect development sites except on council site inspections with staff (but as a local resident and your ward councillor I am very familiar with the area).

    Email is the best way to get in touch with me - mbrooks@marrickville.nsw.gov.au

    Best wishes,
    Clr Melissa Brooks (Burraga West Ward)

12. In relation to the Dulwich Hill North LATM Study draft report could Council please advise the following:
    (1) Where we can find legible maps of precincts 1, 2 and 3 including street names?
    (2) Table 6.3 suggests that the projected future traffic impacts were based on an additional 155 residences in 'precinct 2'. What is the actual number of proposed new residences in precincts 2 - both approved and proposed?
    (3) What is the actual number of proposed new residences in precincts 1 and 3 - both approved and proposed?
    (3) If the actual number of proposed residences exceeds the forecast number, what impact will that have on vehicle per day estimates? For example, if precinct 2 includes the Arlington development, there are approximately 90 'residences' that have not been included in the projections on my reckoning.
    (4) At page 17, the report states "It is expected that the opening of the Inner West Light Rail extension in 2014 ... will have some impact on journey to work patterns for Dulwich Hill". Did this study take into account the actual impacts of the light rail stop at Arlington?
    (5) Generally the report appears to be based on conditions as they existed before the Arlington DA was finalised. A lot has changed since then. Can Council advise in what respects the analysis is based on data current for 2016?
    It would be good if Council could make this information available in a timely manner so that residents can make an informed response.

13. This forum is appropriate for raising traffic concerns in relation to a DA application, such as this one. However it is not an appropriate forum to question council's studies for traffic. Can we please keep notice board focused on 66 Constitution Rd and the impact the proposed DA will have, and question Marrickville Local Government's traffic studies in the relevant area.

14. I object to this DA for the following reasons:

    Over development and congestion
    This DA in addition to the 1000 other dwellings unfortunately being developed in the area, is creating a gross over development of the quaint and historical suburb.
    Parking is near impossible at the local shopping strip, discouraging shopping with small business and public transport is at capacity with the current population and cannot withstand an increase.
    This DA only favours property developers and not the existing community. Property developers are set to make huge financial gains while the local community is left to deal with the consequences.

    Loss of heritage and character
    Dulwich Hill is a largely intact 120-year Federation garden suburb. The very reason why the residents love living in this area and why new residents want to move to Dulwich Hill is because of the period homes and heritage of the suburb. Adding yet another soul-less building that doesn't respect the local heritage, should not be approved.

    Stress on infrastructure
    Council has not made any plans for increased and improved infrastructure. Public transport is at capacity, roads cannot cope with additional traffic (and most homes now have two cars, where will the additional cars park?), the daycare centres and preschools have waitlists that are years long and schools cannot accept more students. How can our suburb cope with yet another apartment block?

    Dulwich Hill is being negatively subjected to developer greed, with little regard to the exsiting community and future consquences. Please do not approve this DA.

    Regards
    NW

Have your say on this application

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