1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203

Under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to modify Determination No. 201500246 dated 4 April 2016, to reconfigure the internal layout of the building, increase the number of units from 64 to 68, increase the height of some dwellings on the 8th floor and reduce the setback to the eastern corner of the 8th floor, reduce the number of car parking spaces from 81 to 76, modify landscaping, modify finishes and facade presentation and to provide a direct pedestrian pathway from Hill Street to the main entry. The development is considered to be of Regional Significance. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel is now the consent authority for the purposes of determining the application. Written submissions will be acknowledged in writing by Council and will be considered by the Joint Regional Planning Panel in its assessment of the application. You will be notified of the Joint Regional Planning Panel’s final decision.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: Inner West Council (Marrickville), reference DA201500246.01)

9 Comments

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

  1. Glenda Pontes commented

    I object to the reduction of cars paces and increase of residences.
    Parking is already a problem in nearby streets and around the suburb.
    Additional residences should mean increased parking spaces, not the opposite.

  2. Sophie T commented

    I also object to the increase in units and the reduction in car spaces. Parking is a real issue in and around this development. Why wasn't this included in the original DA? Surely the developer always knew this. It makes a mockery of the approval process for these larger developments that are dominating Dulwich Hill and a lot of other communities in and around here.

  3. Lynne Foreman commented

    Polite, clear and to the point. Do you the Planning Authority read any of the comments that are sent your way? It would appear not as the content in each comment is very similar. Parking is a huge issue in Dulwich Hill. Overdevelopment with poor design is denigrating the living standards of those who reside here. We want quality not quantity, and in particular the ability to park and drive around our suburb. The question below further enhances my concern and my answer is no I have not and never will make a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee.

  4. Wendy Peddell commented

    I object to the proposed increase in number of units, reduction in parking spaces and modification to setback.

    Aside from the perennial issue of limited street parking locally (and increasingly so with other developments), there is a worrying trend towards "after thought" amendments that I believe sets a precedent to allow similar changes to original approvals. The cumulative effect - not only for Dulwich Hill but surrounding suburbs - could be something far different than even planning authorities envisaged.

    Moreover, in the absence of elected representation on local councils - Dulwich Hill and surrounding suburbs - I am concerned there will be a lack of adequate council oversight and also a perceived window of opportunity for developers with similar "after thoughts" to slip through the net.

  5. Lara N commented

    This appears to be a standard developer strategy. Submit the DA, gain approval and later amend to greater density/lower amenity. Surely the Councillors in Pittwater et al (not Marrickville, Canterbury or Ashfield) who, it would appear, are now representing our interests are well experienced in these matters and will dismiss this spurious application.
    For reference, here is the list of representatives on the sparkling new "East Sydney Joint Regional Planning Panel". Myself, friends and neighbours have no idea how it was formed, when it was formed nor that it represented development matters in relation to the inner west. No donations or gifts. Not a council employee.
    http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/PanelRegions/CouncilMembers/tabid/84/language/en-US/Default.aspx

  6. Kel Vance commented

    I strongly object to any reduction in parking spaces and increase in the number of units. It seems that developers are submitting proposals they know will pass with the intention of then having these proposals amended after approval. This strategy has to stop, this is extremely worrying and of great concern is that there are no voted representatives in which to lobby against this current lack of oversight and free reign that developers are getting. There is a huge amount of current developments in the area, there seems to be no forethought regarding these developments being in such close vicinity to each other. The knock on effect of continual 'cheating' the systems by putting in amendments after the fact, will be devastating to the area.

  7. J Libro commented

    I was notified that this was taken out of Council hands and given to the State government to make final decisions. And yet another stupid decision made by the government who are trying to squash people into these rabbit holes when destroying neighbourhoods and create other problems like traffic and parking issues. I can't believe you are reducing the number of car spaces. Parking is a huge concern in the area. I also can't see how this development is of 'regional significance'??? Look at all the units that are being built next door in the Arlington. And they want more in that very small area with only little roads around them like, quiet Grove Street which will be flooded with traffic.

  8. S F commented

    How can you allow a reduction in parking? There is such limited parking around the development and also in the area. Not only around the development the streets and shopping area cannot continue with the increasing number of people you are jamming in every crevice. You are ruining a once beautiful suburb with these cheap, oversized, monstrosities. I understand that the council needs to allow more units through but the cheap rubbish which is being built astounds me.

  9. Joel Courtney commented

    There is absolutely no grounds to increase the number of units and decrease the number of car parking space – reducing carpark capacity for new residents by 12% – along with undertaking a land grab. This should have been in the original proposal rather than incremental scope creep and represents a blatant attempt to subvert the proposal approach once initial consent has been gift.

    Stand against this greedy attempt to gain more with zero benefit to the community.

    Given that the councils have been dissolved I damn well expect the Administrator to reject this but will not be surprised if it's given the green light given the complete lack of accountability to the community that they have.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished over 7 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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts