PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

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

1. There were hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the "St. Peters Triangle " plan. I can not see any indication that council is attempting to follow this plan of mixed use keeping the industrial vibe of the area. Please consider the frontage retain an industrial look and not just blue board painted white like the other development in May St. Also Planting an small areas of green space were specified. Please ensure there is more greenery to enhance the street rather degrade it.

2. I am opposed to this proposal and it should be rejected.

   This proposal fails to comply with the Marrickville LEP 2011.
   The LEP imposes a 4 storey maximum on buildings for this area but developers want to increase their profit margins by building 5 storeys where only 4 are permitted.

   This proposal fails to comply with the Marrickville DCP for commercial and mixed use development (Part 5) in that the front of the building exceeds the maximum height permited by almost 4 metres.

   This proposal also fails to comply with the Marrickville DCP bin that the upper levels of the development are not setback from May Street as required. .The developer claims that this is acceptable because "These stories [sic] follow the predominant nil setbacks of the existing developments on May Street and provide opportunities for casual surveillance to May Street." This is an excuse similar to a Year 9 student claiming it is ok not to do his homework because Joe didnt't do it either. It also fails to acknowledge that the new setback regulations should be respected as they are designed to improve the current streetscape over that imposed by old industrial buildings approved in the corrupt old days.

   This proposal fails to explain why it is a good thing for the building to "provide opportunities for casual surveillance to May Street." - are they planning to rent the flats to ASIO or the CIA?

   This proposal fails to comply with the Marrickville DCP which requires that developments with six or more dwellings must provide mix of Studio, 1 bedroom, 2 and 3 bedroom flats. However this building provides no studios.

   This proposal fails to comply with the Marrickville DCP in that it exceeds the maximum site coverage for a residential flat building.

   This proposal fails to comply with the Marrickville DCP in that it would have no setback at all from the street where the minimum front setback for a residential flat building must be 9m. The homework excuse is used again.

   This proposal fails to comply with the requirements of SEPP65 for Balconies and Private Open Space.

   This proposal fails to comply with the requirements of SEPP65 Overall for Natural Cross Ventilation as the building depth exceeds 12-18m.

   The claim that "There is likely to be minimal privacy impacts for the proposal." is in conflict with the claims made elswhere that the proposal provides "opportunities for casual surveillance to May Street." and "The increase in occupation of the site will enhance casual surveillance to the surrounding streets."

   Under the heading "Social and economic Impact in Locality" there is no recognition that by failing to provide any affordable housing this development is an unacceptable social effects. By replacing an industrial building by a large block of flats it is increasing population and traffic in an already overcroweded area and decreasing employment opportunities, especially for blue collar workers.

   Overall, the Statement of Environmental Effects is not credible and appears to be taken off a template. On page 43 we see the statement "Apartments facing north, toward Cobar Street would overlook the immediate area." The nearest Cobar Street is in Dulwich Hill and there would be privacy issues for the small dwellings to the north of this building (if not the one in Dulwich Hill).

   The claim is made that this development is in the public interest because it provides "additional housing to service local demand." There are already too many expensive flats in this area but there is no affordable housing or public housing. The big need is to provide housing for those on lower incomes.

   While the person paid by the developer to write the report considers its effects acceptable, that person does not live here.

   The application should be rejected because it fails to comply with the requirements of the Marrickville LEP and DCP and SEPP65. It is not in the public interest.

3. I oppose this development based on all criteria mentioned in Jennifer Killeen's opposition.
   The building next to it was an existing industrial building built many decades ago.
   Do not approve this application as it further decimates the area already saturated with too many units and it is without any consideration given to the existing home owners and tenants already in the area.
   The St Peters triangle master plan is being overlooked at every opportunity, and because of this I can no longer see the iconic smoke stacks from many points in the area. This development will further hinder the industrial and creative nature of the area.
   It will also completely enclose the rear balcony areas of a three storey Victorian terrace on Applebee Street, which can be seen from the May Street entrance.

4. I am opposed to this development. The area does not need a further residential development. Services are not sufficient to meet current demand (public transport, parking etc etc) and until the State Government takes steps to mitigate the crippling and incessant traffic jams and improve public transport for the area consideration of all further developments should be ceased.

5. I agree with Matthew Cleary's comments. Further residential developments should be put on hold until a study is undertaken on the traffic and parking issues and requirements. The inner west is at absolute breaking point.

6. Large apartment developments are changing the character of the area in ways that do not fit with the Councils published plans.
   I am concerned about the traffic and parking impacts. Council also needs to ensure that large developments include provision for affordable housing. This proposal does not.
   Finally, with the chaos of Westconnex construction looming, additional large construction projects should be put on hold. There will already be too much construction traffic trying to travel and park in the area.

7. I oppose this development as I do not think that it is in keeping with St Peters Triangle Master Plan. I agree with the points made by other residents (does not adhere to DCP, traffic, parking etc). St Peters is a wonderful suburb and we should be encouraging innovative, liveable high-density housing here with a mix of affordability. I see little evidence of green spaces, water re-use or housing for long-term use in this plan that would add to the amenity of St Peters.

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