PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

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

1. These people are clearly taking the piss. After having their original huge over-development rejected they now want to have that same ugly monstrosity reinstated via the back door, as so many crass, greedy developers do these days, with help from Mike Baird's government in sacking local councils and a compliant Land and Environment Court and 'sate significant' BS used as a catch all to destroy local amenity.

   This development is already too big and totally gross. It's ugly and out of character with its surrounds. Now they want no internal communal open space - are the kids going to play on the light rail lines or on the road? More height, more bulk, more ugly. This should be roundly rejected. But I just know it won't be as our Baird appointed overlords are working for the rapacious developers, not the rate paying community.

   I strongly object to this POS.

2. Dear Stuart,
   It appears that we may have been cut from the same cloth, word for word reminds me of what i myself would write.

   In regards to the development, if this goes ahead it will only serve to confirm what we all already know - the Land & Environmental court are inadequate, out of touch and can be bought.
   They have no regard for the community, the preservation of the historical aesthetic or the next generation of young residents.
   This, if approved, only proves that money drives the court decision, not common sense.

   Like mr. Hickson, i too strongly object to this POS.

3. I'll preface my objection with a request that Council (ie Government appointed Administrator), Land and Environment, and developers read these two articles (and I'm not affiliated with either of the authors or the companies):

   http://www.durackarchitects.com/2016/11/11/the-value-of-housing-density/

   http://www.domain.com.au/news/sydney-must-learn-planning-lessons-as-knock-down-and-redevelop-no-longer-works-20161119-gsq6fp/

   Going up is not the answer and, as the Domain piece points out, once you build to the boundary line with a succession of these monstrosities, it locks us out of flexible re-use at a later stage. In saying that, we also need to avoid a repetition of the ubiquitous blonde brick villas of the 80s.

   Turning now to the architectural merits of this building, there are none and approval sets the tone for more of the same. Removing common space to make a buck on extra units is either poor arithmetic by the developer from the get go or just a cash grab. The plans appear silent on passive solar or water collection, energy saving strategies or anything more than a token attempt at "landscaping" (ie planter boxes).

   I live down the way in Canterbury where equally appealing eyesores are popping up with abandon. Drive down Charles Street and see how Dulwich Hill can be similarly "beautified". I'm protesting in solidarity because it's a creeping tide of rubbish development that threatens all of Sydney (with the possible exception of Point Piper).

   Unfortunately, as experienced in other suburbs, some developers will just keep bringing it back to Land and Environment until local objections are worn down or worn out - end result often being worse than the original proposal.

   Increasingly, my personal "vision for Sydney" may be the one in the rear vision mirror of my car as I depart for good.

4. How many more apartments can you squash in this small area. You already have Arlington Grove on one side; there is a request to have a small apartment block across the road on Constitution Rd right near the Light Rail; on one side of the bridge you have Williams Parade apartments of over 1000 people living there; and on the other side of the the bridge are the Constitution Rd apartments with over 300 people living there. How many more apartments, people, cars can you squash in one area???? Constitution Road is already full of traffic and dangerous. You really need to consider the infrastructure here. The small streets and the Constitution Rd bridge is not made to support all these people and cars. Why is the beautiful community of Dulwich Hill being overtaken by greedy developers??

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