63 Princes Highway St Peters NSW 2044

Is 6 stories in keeping with the vision for Applebee St? 63 dwellings plus is too big for this site. Considering the highway is a clearway every afternoon & Applebee St is a one way street that cannot cope with this volume of potential traffic and resident vehicles...
ALSO...
Why, as a resident of Applebee St have we not received ANY information regarding this DA from council. This is a continual problem. No correspondence from council on MAJOR developments that affect our immediate environment.

I'm concerned about this proposal. Another large apartment complex in this area seems to contrary to the Council's plans for the St Peters Triangle: http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/Global/Development/Planning%20controls/Public%20Domain%20Study/PDCDReport9.pdf

In particular those plans emphasise improving pedestrian access and maintaining the character of the area. A large complex, with associated vehicle traffic will not help meet those aims. Those plans also seem to indicate that the proposed location is zoned for business use, not for heavy residential use.

I have two major concerns about this proposal:
First, these new buildings will be built very close to existing cultural and artistic spaces. This new development could have a serious negative impact on these. Council's masterplan is very clear about the need to maintain and enhance the create character of the area (sections 4.3-4.5). It is not appropriate to build such concentrated residential developments in areas that are likely to clash with existing tenants over issues such as noise.

Second, to my knowledge none of the recent residential developments in the area have included any allowance for affordable housing. The current development also makes no obvious mention of this. I do not believe the current plans for this project should be approved, but if some iteration of this project is allowed in the future, it is critical to increase affordable housing in the area and that should be a requirement of the development.

To whom it may concern,

I hope you can help. I am the director of Tortuga Studios in St Peters. We are a large-scale, multi-disciplinary, artist-run initiative that has been in operation for over eight years in the old brick factory at 31 Princes Highway.

We are a platform for over 40 artists and makers, we offer studio space to 15 artists and manage a gallery that shows regular eclectic and well-attended exhibitions and we are considered a vibrant heart to the arts quarter of St Peters. We provide a rich cultural capital to this area and are well loved both by local residents, the arts scene, emergent and established artists and makers, the wider LGA, as well as being well-supported by Council.

We have yet to receive anything in the post regarding the DA listed above. We are situated next door to this proposed development and would be so badly affected we would have to cease operation as we share both an internal and external wall, and roof with #63 Princes Highway.

Can you please advise the processes required by Council for this situation? We were under the understanding that all local business and residents would be notified, and that the proposed DA would be displayed (it is not).

Naturally, we are all extremely concerned about this and need to know as soon as possible what is going on. I understand none of our neighbours have been notified either.

Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.

H Morgan-Harris

I strongly object to the size and scale of this development. I cannot see how this small, one way street can cope with yet more traffic for potentially 63 apartments.

I strongly object to this development.
1. the notion of a "live-work" dwelling is ill-defined and open to exploitation which adversely affects the amenity of neighbours.
2. The size and scale of the building is inappropriate - the existence of neighbouring monstrosities such as Larry & Barry Towers on the corner of May St and the highway does not justify another.
3. Until the state government improves our local public transport, public education and public health infrastructure we cannot afford to bring more people into the area just to profit developers and investors reliant on negative-gearing.
4. For all the above reasons, it is not in the public interest.

As someone who takes their dog to Simpson Park on Lackey Street, this type of development seems to be excessive in relation to the surrounds. The street is also one way and already practically impossible to park during the middle of the work week. How will it cope with 63 additional residences, although the Basix certificate actually states there are 94 resident units.

Either way the 110 residential car spaces and 11 non-residential car spaces are completely insufficient for the number of residents that will invade the area. Possible catastrophic if multiple car owners live in the one unit. The concern also is that the car spaces will need to be purchased separately giving people the option to not purchase a space and be issued with a residential parking permit to park on the surrounding streets. Again, this location does not have the capacity to handle this influx of vehicles.

Marrickville Council has a responsibility to look after the needs of current residents This development would create gridlock, overlook current residents and cause unnecessary stress and disruption.

I suggest that this DA is rejected in its current form due to the need for Marrickville Council to consider this development together with the neighbouring site DA201600135 (47 Princes Hwy, St Peters). The Traffic Plan claims that 68 new apartments will create LESS traffic than is currently present on Applebee Street. This claim seems ingenious at best. The traffic flow is underestimated and fail to take into consideration traffic from recent residential/commercial developments on Hutchinson Street (combined >100 new units). The placement of bins and loading zones on the Applebee Street side will massively reduce the amenity of Applebee Street (noise, access) and also contradict the idea of Applebee Street as a "shared zone". I see no attempts at "creative live work zones" in this development. Further, the impact of Westconnex and traffic flows into Hutchinson-Lackey-Applebee Street has not be clarified. The only way for residents to access the parking in this building is via narrow one way streets that are already heavily used by local residents to access Simpson Park and St Peters Preschool and Primary School. With no pedestrian crossing I feel that Marrickville Council needs to reconsider the flow of people and cars in this area. The shadow diagrams show significant shadows on the Eastern side shops of the Princes Hwy. Whilst I fully support the development of new residential areas about public transport hubs, this DA will loom over the local area and is out of line with the St Peters Master Plan (which also needs revising).

I object to this development because of the size & style of the building, and the potential traffic to the area.

I use very similar objections to the ones I posted to the very similar development that has been lodged only a few doors up in the same small neighbourhood.

My objection to the size & style:
- The high-rise design does NOT fit with the identity of the locality, so is at risk of contributing to the demise of the appeal of the Inner west locale. Why not build some new-style terraces or townhouses, which 'fit' with the rest of King Street? This development is in danger of confusing Sydney with the high rises of Hong Kong and Singapore.

My objection to the traffic:
- The 'streets' in this area are one way single lanes, which are already congested. Every day in Applebee street, cars, vans and small trucks are forced to stop on the pavement (blocking pedestrians) due to no car spaces as they come & go from their respective warehouses. Adding to this congestion will place strain and discontent on everyone using these streets, residents & visitors alike, despite the development's traffic report bravely citing "...the proposed development will result in a slight decrease in the traffic generation potential of the site". This is just prior to its acknowledgement that in addition to the 84 cars it will accommodate, the development is expected to be serviced by a variety of commercial vehicles up to and including 6.4m long SRV trucks. I'm reasonably certain that the current house and 2 small businesses do not attract this kind of traffic.

- I have safety concerns with potential increase in the misuse of the current one-way system. It is already FREQUENTLY ignored, especially at weekends, with vehicles travelling in the wrong direction to navigate out of the 'triangle' putting other cars and pedestrians & their ever-present canine companions at grave risk. With the main access to this building being via Huchinson St (oneway), then Lackey St (one way) then Applebee St (one way) I have serious safety concerns for current and prospective residents.

- Using Short Street as the main entry/exit is not a good idea. It's a one-way laneway with terrible visibility & opportunity to exit onto Princes Highway already. I assume that any plans to widen this to a 2way street will remove the precious few car spaces that are there now, used by locals accessing the Post Office & local businesses.

I appreciate the residential appeal of St Peters / the Inner West and all of the facilities on offer for current and potential residents. And I support Marrickville Council's requirement of 60/40 residential/business space, as I'd like to see more retail and professional businesses on the South end of King Street. However I remain dubious of the 'work/live' spaces in this, and similar, style of development, and how they'll actually contribute to the retail expansion of the area.

Lets not forget that another Victorian workers cottage, forming the fabric of the Inner West neighborhood, and particularly in fitting with its surrounding dwellings, is on the brink of demolition. I hope that the council gives serious thought to the direction of the Inner West, or what is left of it.

I absolutely agree with all the reasons stated by the other objections to this area. The size of this development cannot be supported by the streets surrounding it. Where is the consideration for the current residents? The St Peters Triangle Masterplan? Traffic flow? Green Space? It's too big. While I think everyone accepts there will be development, it should not be at such high density. It serves NO-ONE but the developers.

As a neighbouring tenant to this proposal I object to the proposed development on the following grounds:
– The bulk and scale of the development is out of context for the area. Applebee St was not designed to service such a large volume of residents;
– The development will be noticeable from all angles and will have a significant affect on the streetscape;
– Construction of such a large residential building amongst the existing industrial & artistic spaces is bound to cause future problems when residents start complaining about noise.

Today I have noticed that there is also a DA lodged for the building next door at 47 Princes Hwy for 58 more apartments. It's time for Marrickville Council to protect the rights of its existing residents/businesses & ensure the cultural and artistic life of the area is preserved.

As a resident of Applebee Street I am also extremely concerned about the idea that this application may be granted, given that to my knowledge it's already been rejected once. Another large apartment complex in this area certainly seems contrary to the Council's plans for the St Peters Triangle: http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/Global/Development/Planning%20controls/Public%20Domain%20Study/PDCDReport9.pdf

Short street is already a dangerous street being a two way street with restricted visibility when traveling in either direction on or off the Princes Hwy. Add the vehicles of an additional 63 units and this streets will be subjected to increased congestion both on the Princes Hwy, Hutchinson Street, Short Street, Applebee Street and May Streets.

Parking is already a constant struggle and with the new apartment buildings on May Street that back onto Hutchinson Street and the ones on the corner of Hutchinson and Lackey Streets parking is beyond capacity already. Business owners are already struggling with customers being able to access businesses and residence are constantly frustrated by inadequate parking.

The plan for a 6 story dwelling is no way in keeping with the local landscape particularly when it includes the demolition of several terraces that are so easily identifiable with the location.

- Bulk of development should be reduced by 2 levels on highway side as its directly under the flight path and not in keeping with other developments close by.

- Adjoining properties South of proposal on Highway and Appleebee sides are affected by overshadowing and direct solar access is significantly reduced.

- Proposal should incorporate yellow building facade (on Princes Hwy) and dilapitaded terraces (Applebee St) to match eclectic style of the area.

The bulk of this proposed design facing Princes Highway is not sympathetic to the surrounding development.

The sun path diagram shows that the residences south of short street along Princes hwy and Applebee street will be overshadowed ALL DAY and receive NO NATURAL LIGHT WHATSOEVER from north facing Windows or sky lights.

Marrickville council planning control 2.7.3 outlines: "direct solar access to Windows of principal places of areas and principal areas of open space of nearby residential accommodation must not be reduced to less than 2 hours between 9:00am and 3pm."

http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/Templates/Advanced/Bridge/TrimDownload.aspx?TrimDocNum=141701.15

The proposed development is in direct contrast of this planning control. Why is the planning control in the LEP if it going to be ignored?