641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044

its only a matter of time before this part of St Peters becomes a concrete jungle of apartment buildings that block out light, destroy privacy and increase traffic in the area. Look at all the other similar development plans around that area: Applebee St, May Stree etc. traffic will be worse than it already is and the streets will become wind tunnels. Ludicrous. Utterly ludicrous.

As an owner of a property in immediate proximity to this proposed development and directly affected by it I am appalled that I had to find out about this hideous piece of overdevelopment from Facebook. I have already identified a number of glaring errors and omissions in the DA and its associated documents. I will submit a detailed submission when I get a chance to more fully consider it. I would love speak to my elected local councillors about it, who can answer my questions and represent me in council meetings as suggested on this page but apparently I don't have any anymore. (Screenshots taken)

This development is too tall or the site. There are no buildings this height in the immediate or surrounding vicinity and it would be out of character for the area. It will overshadow smaller homes and be an unattractive addition to the area. Most people would have no objections to a three or 4 storey development in keeping with the area's character, but 8 stories is excessive. Road access would also be a problem - the roads surrounding this are generally narrow and already have limited parking. It is disingenuous to imagine that everyone who lived there would be car free and rely on public transport. I used to live in Lord St Newtown, still visit friends there and and cannot imagine that this is a suitable development for the area.

It is ridiculous in the extreme to have an eight storey building with 66 additional units spewing traffic onto a already busy intersection. Vehicle cannot get across the intersection to Sudney Park Road currently without having to cross two lanes of fast moving traffic along the Princes Highway heading into Newtown. This will create untold traffic chaos, in an already congested area. Not to mention the actual design of the building being totally out of character with the rest of the area and yet another historic building being demolished and replaced by some faceless glass fronted monstrosity. Please do your bit to save The Inner West and its unique character and refuse this application.

Once again a development that is far too big for the site. 8 stories is a ridiculous height and out of complete context with the local area. The surrounding streets and infrastructure cannot cope with this amount of people concentrated in an already crowded area, considering the massive developments already surrounding Sydney Park on 3 sides and the 2 huge complexes on May St and Alice St. This site should carry less apartments and lower rise, 4 stories max please. Over compensate for parking... Green space?

I am a nearby resident and a property developer by profession. I can safely say this is a irresponsible and poorly designed building and it should be refused approval. There are so many omissions that its not worth assessing it properly. Not only are the choice of materials poorly thought out, the bulk and scale is incorrect. The setback and height do not match the LEP/DCP. Further more the renders are misleading and do not match the drawings.

What happened to spreading the population and industry out westto stop the upwards movement? this 'idea' was rammed down my throat through my high school years...has all sense disappeared with the years? why are we not going west?

I object to this development due to the scale. Too many storeys, insufficient setback, not enough green space. Another development completely at odds with the character of the local area.

I object to this on the grounds that it does not meet local accommodation needs, and it falls short of the local planning requirements which are for minimum 10% 3-bedroom apartments. (10% of 66 is 7, not 6.) Also the 'Economic Assessment" claims there is latent demand for 1-br apartments in the area - yet also acknowledges that 1br unit prices are *lower* in Marrickville than for Greater Sydney. If there's a shortage of 1br apartments then why are the sale prices relatively low? Finally the Economic Assessment switches between using local and national data, and also frequently uses dated demographic data (Census), to claim that this area has an ageing population and households are getting smaller. This is obvious nonsense: the place is bursting with young families. Just look at the local childcare places and primary school applications - they are either full, except for Camdenville which has large grounds and has grown extremely fast in the past 3 years. There is clearly a shortage of 3-bedroom housing in this area, NOT 1-bedroom housing.

It would be great to have some tree planting along King Street, this section of road definitely needs to be made more pedestrian friendly. I also like the proposed widening of May Lane and would like to see some active shops which will make it feel safer in the evening. Too bad St Peters station isn't accessible, I'm looking at downsizing and an apartment there would be great but I couldn't manage the stairs at St Peters station, hence use Sydenham.

I object to this DA and urge Council (Marrickville Council? Inner West Council?) to reject it in its current form. Whilst I think that increasing housing availability around public transport hubs such as St Peters is an excellent idea, the current form of this DA is oversize, poorly designed and will not the meet the social or environmental needs of this area. I would like see a development that (a) aesthetically is in keeping with the heritage of the area (being located across from Brickworks & Sydney Park) (b) include more green space/green walls/pedestrian walkways/ bicycle access (c ) have better interactions with the street frontages so that this area doesn't end up a "concrete jungle". Council should also consider this DA in light of the two recent DA's submitted for the block between May Street and Short Street. What is the combined effect of the 3 DA's with >200 apartments? Do they meet the St Peters Triangle Master Plan? This is meant to be a combined live/work/art zone but feels like a new Wolli Creek. Plus - I think pedestrian / bicycle / car share spaces need to be more seriously considered especially if Westconnex goes ahead the traffic flows for the area will alter significantly. This DA appears like an "ikea quick fix" and is ugly on the inside and outside. More investment in decent architecture and planning please. Finally, I cannot send this comment to my elected member as they were fired by the Baird Government.

The site is far too large and unnecessary. It will clog an already congested area. It will overshadow nearby houses. This DA is not thought through nor appropriate for the area.

Eight storeys is far too high, especially near the historic st peters brickworks. This area is already congested with traffic - 66 extra dwellings would mean this is even worse.

I use Sydney Park a lot so this development's extra traffic and parking would cause issues for me and all other users of this popular location.

Please consider rejecting this development, and require no more than 4 storeys.

Congestion in the area is already ridiculous. We don't want any more of this type of development. 8 stories is much too large for the area and will overshadow surrounding houses and the park. This proposal is poorly thought out.

This is ludicrous. 8 stories is too much, will add to the already congested traffic. Not thought out and will have negative outcomes for the area.

I am extremely disappointed with this application for yet another unit block in an area which already has so many, and more in the pipeline. This one at 8 stories high is completely inappropriate. St Peters will end up a ghetto, with westconnex at one end, this monster at the other, and endless traffic in between. Parking is non existent now for locals, and this will put even more pressure on the area. Obviously I can't send this to my councillor, I don't have one anymore thanks to Mr Baird.

I think everyone else here has effectively voiced my concerns with this project. It is completely out of place, goes above height restrictions for the area ( 8 stories is excessive). This development should not be approved as it stands.

This submission is for a development 1.5 metres over the height restriction limit. It is too high for this area. The Geotechnical Report is for 7 storeys high and 2 storeys deep NOT 8 storeys high and 3 storeys deep so useless for the purpose of this DA. It appears that the three storey deep car park is a trojan horse for the purpose of later amendment to go up to 12 stories - way beyond height restrictions for the area.

The development will overshadow houses on Goodsell Street and overshadow Sydney Park. There will be a massive increase in traffic on Goodsell St, Council St, May Lane and Lord St including rubbish trucks. There will be increased parking issues(e.g. guests, deliveries, etc).

It is suspicious that the developers will lease council a “ground floor meeting room” of approximately 40sqm with toilet facilities and 1 car parking space for 5 years at a rent of $1per annum plus out-goings in full, with an estimated net present value of $60,612 (Lease) or an equivalent monetary contribution for public facilities and services, at the election of Council. They will also contribute $1,193,218 (as indexed in accordance with clause 2.15 of Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014) for the purposes of the provision of public infrastructure specified in the Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 (Monetary Contribution).

This development application can not be approved.

I object strongly to this proposal.
I support all my neighbours who have objected and share their concerns. The proposed building, if approved, is too large, too high and would add to problems with noise, traffic, parking and congestion on public transport.
Inner city schools are already overcrowded - this site would be better used for public infrastructure - for example a library as there is no public library closer than Sydenham.
I cannot make a gift or donation to a Councillor because Baird has sacked them all.

I agree with all of the comments and support all of the objections that have been made here.
I strongly object to this development.

I agree with the comments by Claire Bowdler, Sarina Kilham, Katherine Mackenzie, Susan O'Keefe and all the others who oppose this development.
Please do not approve this development.

I object to this proposed development. Its too large & breaches a number of development controls.

I also disagree with selwyn assaf - this area is a hot spot of creative industries! these "bastions of roughneck behaviour" are our art spaces, our business locations & our livelihood.

Pushing out the industry that is already here so people can live in cookie cutter apartments & buy organic artisan made pizza with their coffee is killing the vibe of the inner west

In regards to Selwyn Assafs comment. Selywn, you might redirect your comment to the Council as the individual Councillors have been sacked. I disgaree with you about anti-social behaviour here. Its mostly adults who graffiti in May Lane, & whilst the occasional lout or drug dealer hangs out near the station, I think its the station rather than the warehouses that attract them. Still plenty of louts round Newtown Station. Jennifer Killen has a good point about some public space on the ground floor. What about car share spots or bicycle parking? St Peters station could do with secure bike parking.

I object to this DA being approved for all of the reasons below. Whether or not any of the issues can be addressed, the proposed building is too big and too high for the site and the neighbourhood and will unacceptably cast the houses at 4 & 6 Goodsell Street into shadow, and unacceptably increase noise, traffic and parking difficulties on Goodsell Street and the neighbouring one way streets of Council Street, May Lane and Lord Street.

Eight storey and 66 units with 88 car spaces is high density in a medium density area.

All in all this DA underestimates the impact on the community of Goodsell Street and the surrounding streets that will bear the impact of this building. Although it will carry a King Street address all entry and exit, deliveries and rubbish collections will be on Goodsell Street - with the majority of entrance and exit from the area via May Lane (a shared zone with many pedestrians) and Council Street, a tiny one way street. It fails to address serious flaws in its content.

Some issues are:

1) There are heavy metal contaminants and asbestos onsite – see pages 21-27 of Preliminary Site Investigation. There is a risk of airborne exposure to humans and a risk of contaminating the ground water. The report recommends further assessments and if demolition of the site is approved it needs to be supervised and stop work when contaminants are observed. This is an unacceptable risk to residents, commuters and attendees at Sydney Park.

2) The Geotechnical Report is for 7 storeys high and 2 storeys deep NOT 8 storeys high and 3 storeys deep. This is not what the DA is for and as such is useless. It notes that there is an amendment for the further basement and states “further investigations will be required at founding level in order to confirm the underlying geology”. Nothing is said about the proposed 8th storey in the report. There is also within the DA the suggestion that the original proposal was for a building 12 storeys high - can council guarantee that an amendment to increase the height will not be granted if this DA for 8 storeys is approved?

3) Parking and traffic: the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment wrongly states at 2.3 that parking on Goodsell Street is not time restricted - it is 2 hour parking (residents hold parking permits) and is usually parked out especially on weekends. It underestimates available parking on Goodsell Street by stating “there are a reasonable number of vacant car spaces on Goodsell Street” (page 18). The report underestimates the impact of 80 more cars traveling on Goodsell Street, Council Street and May Lane. It ignores increased traffic on Lord Street. It underestimates the impact of the noise pollution of extra rubbish trucks both private and council-run that make noise and flash lights from 3am onwards.

4) Unacceptable overshadowing: Houses at 4 & 6 Goodsell Street will be overshadowed all morning until at least 11am during winter. That is essentially all of the morning sun in winter blocked out. Sydney Park will be overshadowed from 3pm onwards. (Site Plan Survey Architecturals Shadow Landscape Stormwater – last two pages). I also question whether the shadow drawing is accurate - if it is not then 4 & 6 Goodsell Street could be robbed of all of their morning sun - these houses currently receive direct morning sunlight and that will be blocked. Presumably it will cast longer shadows in summer - the shadow pictures are deficient in setting out exactly how much the neighbourhood will be overshadowed.

5) It will block iconic views of the Brickwork Chimneys from a number of angles (see “Photomontage” document) which is unfair to residents who cherish that view.

6) Incentives to Council. We have no elected council but it still offers whoever is holding power to:

a) lease council a “ground floor meeting room” of approximately 40sqm with toilet facilities and 1 car parking space (Leased Area) for a term of 5 years at a rent of $1per annum plus out-goings in full, with an estimated net present value of $60,612 (Lease) or an equivalent monetary contribution for public facilities and services, at the election of Council;

b) will contribute $1,193,218 (as indexed in accordance with clause 2.15 of Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014) for the purposes of the provision of public infrastructure specified in the Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 (Monetary Contribution). See Voluntary Planing Agreement – DA201600179 .

The second item may not be a voluntary payment but it is still a considerable amount of money that could incentivise the council to approve it.

7) This proposed building is too big and too high for the site and the neighbourhood. It will cause increased traffic and parking issues on Goodsell Street, Council Street, May Lane and Lord Street. It is an ugly block that warehouses people in tiny units for no purpose but to maximise profit for the developers. It would be a blight on the neighbourhood and unacceptably overshadows 4 & 6 Goodsell Street and Sydney Park.

I object to this application in its current form, with a number of issues arising. Firstly Goodsell St. has always had parking issues due to its proximity to St Peters Railway Station. Over the years, we residents have fought hard to obtain Residential Parking, and even still, parking is still a major issue on weekends when the parking scheme doesn't apply. To allow a development project, that has 66 apartments, numbering 97 bedrooms, with 4 studio apartments, to only have 52 residential parking spaces, is ludicrous. Combine this with 9 visitor spaces and 17 retail/commercial spaces, my question is, where does the overflow go? I'm fairly sure Goodsell St. would be the recipient.
I also question the Traffic Volume Assessment report, as anyone that lives in the St Peters Triangle knows that peak hours are significantly more than one hour in the Am and Pm. I personally leave for work at around 7am and traffic is already built up from Princes Hwy/ May St. intersection, all the way down past Council St. I note in their traffic assessment there has been no mention of May Ln/ May St. intersection. This small intersection is an integral point to accessing Goodsell St. Any major increase of traffic trying to turn into May Ln, will significantly affect the Princes Hwy/May St intersection. Another point that's not discussed in their report is the fact that it is a "no right turn" from May Ln into Goodsell St, thus making the access and egress to this development extremely challenging. Even to this day,we residents have to put up with drivers doing illegal right hand turns, one would be naive to think it wouldn't continue to access this property.
To approve a development of this size would also create extensive overshadowing concerns to neighbouring properties, and from what I believe, this development exceeds Council guidelines anyway.
I am not against development in our local area, however, in its present form, together with points raised in my submission, and due to its sheer size for such a small suburban locale, I must object strenuously.

I reiterate my objection to this development and would like to state that I agree with all the points made by Miriam Fairhurst and D Power.
What further steps can residents who oppose this development take?