PlanningAlerts

38 Comments

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

1. This new DA appears to address some of the neighbours concerns, however, I think given this is a motel (implying people will drive), and is nowhere near a train station, more parking should be catered for, or else the neighbouring streets should have parking restrictions so residents don't need to compete with yet more cars on the road.
   The DA suggests tenants can park on Philpott, Gordon and Perry streets, where it's close to impossible to find parking already. Adding to this, all of the apartment blocks currently being built (two on Addison Rd next door, another on Cowper) have a surplus of apartments over parking, so we will soon see many more cars on the road, all competing for a spot.
   I know it seems to be the council position that residents should be encouraged to not drive, but piling on more cars on roads distant from train stations doesn't seem the best way to achieve this.

2. This new? DA is virtually identical to the original DA of Janury 2016, which was rejected!

   Why is the name of the applicant blocked out?
   Is the applicant Vince Perry again?

   How has the applicant, in this 'new' application, further addressed how occupiers of the proposed 61 motel rooms can move in and out of nearby Philpott and Perry Streets, as well as Gordon Street, when already residents can't easily access Addison Road safely.

   And Is a motel a desirable type of building adjacent to a residential area?

   Residents in the 'Globe Mills' facing Gordon Street who now overlook single residential dwellings in Gordon Street, will be facing a 4-storey motel, with verandahs lit up at night, and the accompanying noise/partying that 'motel' guests are known to create?

3. Residents surrounding this property have already lost a great deal of on-street parking due to visitors to Globe Mills, and the development at 65-69 Addison Rd (restaurant and 10 apartments) which has not only taken away at least 3 parking spots on Fahey Lane, but the block has NEVER used the on-site 4 parking spaces, and the residents, restaurant staff and patrons add a further round-the-clock burden on street spaces.

   Even before a hotel or other property is made at 43-51, access to Fahey Lane is going to be a mess for a year (as it was with the 65-69) with blockages for residents and garbage trucks, plus all the builders blocking driveways with their vehicles.

   We now have commercial waste bins already blocking Fahey Lane part of the time, and a hotel will add more. It seems that all vehicle access is on Philpott St and Fahey Lane. Philpott's narrowness is already to be burdened by being an exit/entrance route for the two new apartment blocks on Addison, plus the Cowper St block plus the townhouses on the narrower Fotheringham Lane. Fixing the parking geometry and placing time restrictions on these streets needs to be done BEFORE any more construction is piled on the north-eastern end of Addison which has some of the narrowest streets in all Marrickville.

4. I strongly object this development - the location is not suited to a MoteL. PHILPOTT ST and the small laneways connected to it are being overused especially Fahley Ln. Especially with recent development of Units at 23-29 Addison Road using connecting Stevens Lane, also units at 8 Cowper St, Town houses at 13 Fotheringham Ln and the recently completed units and restaurant at 65-71 Addison Rd (also access via Fahley Ln).

   Good luck to the garbos who will have to access these developments and extremly small streets and lanes.

   Also wary of this developers past history with backpacker, noisey party slums and lack of consideration for neighbours.

5. I strongly object to this development. While the social impact assessment denies any adverse effects on the neighbourhood, it relies on a lot of assumptions that could change at any time (not a budget motel, orderly guests who don't create noise, unlikely to drive etc). With the current developments occurring on Addison Road, this will place an untenable burden on parking and the amenity of the neighbourhood. Council refuses to erect signage to restrict parking, so streets such as Philpott St already quickly become unnavigable and dangerous when people park right on corners. The fact that the proposed motel will overlook the houses that front Gordon St makes it completely objectionable. Those houses will never know who could be looking out over them - they wouldn't even have the certainty of being able to meet the person looking. This small area has already had to put up with enormous disruption over many months from the building work on Addison Rd, with massive trucks blocking our access, noise, dust and fumes, and I object strongly to another development that represents a long-term as well as another short-term disruption to our neighbourhood.

6. I object to this application as this is a motel it does not have enough parking to cater for its clients. Motels are generally for motorists so there should be one spot per room available. There is no on street parking available around this area of Marrickville and once the units are finished almost na few doors down this will cause even more trouble or the area. As I raised in my last objection when this application was submitted last year, the location is not serviced by trains or public transport from the airport. It is approximately a 20 minute walk from Stanmore station and a 25 minute walk from Sydenham station, meaning many patrons will be relying on cars and this should be catered for.

7. I strongly object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons listed below and I ask these please be represented by my Council at the Land and Environment Court. I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.
   1) Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been re-lodged in late December 30 (2016) when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold according to realestate.com in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.
   2) Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.
   3) Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who (like me) have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists and short stay travellers.
   4) Anti-social behaviour and impact on community and children: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers do not usually have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood and or impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. The location of the motel would bring the travellers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations which would have a big impact for the families, singles and children living in the surrounding streets.
   5) Safety for School Children Walking to School: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these children.
   6) Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: There is also a bus stop for school children around 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel”. If the parents are now forced due to their safety concerns at bus stop to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment, particularly at a time when walking, car sharing, push bikes, buses or other alternative modes of transport are being promoted as part of environmental awareness and good environmental practice across Sydney and NSW.
   7) Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected by the Land and Environment Court.
   8) Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain.
   9) Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight.
   10) Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011.
   11) The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels.
   12) Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The areas it does not comply with the Marickville Development Control Plan 2011 are:
   Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
   Part 2.7 Solar Access
   Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
   Part 2.9 Community Safety
   Part 2.10 Parking
   Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
   Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
   Part 2.22 Flood Management.
   13) Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
   14) Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area is high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?
   15) Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
   16) Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally.
   17) Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
   18) Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
   19) Development Against the Public’s Interest: Marrickville Council stated the development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.
   19) Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic having been designed for horses and carts. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances having ZERO visibility already when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars parked in small streets. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

8. I strongly object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road. An application was refused a number of years ago for the same address and the property has not changed owners according to realestate.com. It was before from memory a large 12 beds per doorm room backpacker accommodation. the local residents protested it then and it was knocked back by the council. The council has again knocked back the new application. I support the council's decision and object for the following personal reasons:
   1) Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build and should immediately be refused by the Land and Environment Court on this alone.
   2) Hotels in residential area: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who have purchased a home in a residential area (not commercial or close to short stay motels or hostels).
   3) Community impact and children and overcrowding: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers so close to family homes with children will impact the community. There are 2 backpacker accommodations within a 1 to 3 blocks from this proposal.
   4) Safety for School Children: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these children.
   5) Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: The bus stop for school children 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel" creates safey concerns. If the parents are then forced due to their safety concerns at bus stop to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment and adds pressure to families who often have 2 working parents to afford the mortgage or rent.
   6) Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected by the Land and Environment Court.
   7) Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain.
   8) Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight.
   9) Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio and overcrowding: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011.
   10) The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels.
   11) Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The areas it does not comply with the Marickville Development Control Plan 2011 are: Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility; Part 2.7 Solar Access; Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment; Part 2.9 Community Safety; Part 2.10 Parking; Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design; Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and; Part 2.22 Flood Management.
   12) Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
   13) Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design and the pedestrian traffic in this area is high with adults, elderly people and children walking or push bike riding to the Metro, park and swimming pool how will these risks be addressed? .
   14) Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
   15) Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally and for the suburb.
   16) Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
   17) Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
   18) Development Against the Public’s Interest: Marrickville Council stated the development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.
   19) Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic having been designed for horses and carts. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances having ZERO visibility already when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars parked in small streets. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.
   20) Parking and public safety: due to the sheer number of developments within Perry St and Philpott St and the adjoining lanes over the last 10 years, with many not having sufficient parking and many homes having more than one car, parking is already virtually impossible. Most of the local homes do not have parking and many families live in these and the neighbouring streets. Many cars already park right on the corners meaning poor visibility and creating safety issues for both pedestrians and cars trying to cross streets.

9. Hello,

   As a resident who currently lives on Philpott St, I strongly object to this proposed development for the following reasons, and I ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these objections when making a decision on the application of the proposed "motel".

   I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.

   The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. Regardless if it is a backpackers, or other form of budget-motel, this form transient accommodation will likely come with many negative issues including:
   1) Increased congestion: The parking on Philpott St is already horrific and will likely get wore once ~40 nearby apartments on Addison Rd are completed later this year).

   2) Anti-social behaviour: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel/hotel/motel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children, elderly people, and young couples planning to have children. Furthermore, short stay travelers and/or backpackers do not usually have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood and may be more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour and often a party culture which is noisy at night, that can often be associated with increased alcohol and drug consumption.

   3) Increased rubbish and disregard for neighbouring homes: All too often, the outside of our home is presented with rubbish including empty beer bottles. A hostel/hotel/motel will only promote a "de-gentrification" of the area.

   Furthermore, I agree with all the previous points of those listed by another objection above including:

   Safety for School Children Walking to School: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. These include St Puis Catholic School and Camdemville Public School. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these children. Short stay renters are different to long term residents and could potentially pose a risk.

   Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: There is also a bus stop for school children around 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel”. As stated in point 4, I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these school children catching the bus. If the parents are forced due to their concerns to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment, particularly at a time when walking, car sharing, push bikes, buses or other alternative modes of transport are being promoted as part of environmental awareness and good environmental practice across Sydney and NSW.

   Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected. Like the Council the Land and Environment Court should not adequately be able to approve an application that is insufficient. Another example of this is the missing information of what type of motel they want to develop.
   
   Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain. Other development applications would be rejected for the same reason if they did not comply and this development application is no different. It should meet the standard of design that other developers and private owners are forced to meet to maintain the quality of our suburb and to ensure equity across applications and should be rejected.
   
   Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpott St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight. This not only negatively impacts on those who live in the homes with sunlight seen as a positive affect on mental health and well being, but also impacts on the environment as people will need to use clothes dryers in stead of their back yards to dry washing.
   
   Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. No written submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 was submitted with the application and Council has no power to approve the FSR in the absence of a Clause 4.6 submission. This floor space ratio could even be worse than it appears if in fact the premises are being used for a backpacker accommodation as opposed to a motel, however the floor space ratio should be complied to and the developer would be aware of these requirements under the Environmental Plan.

   The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.
   
   Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The Marrickville LEP 2011 is a legal document that sets the direction for future growth in the local government area (LGA) by providing controls and guidelines for development. It determines what can be built, where it can be built and what activities can occur on land. The Council is responsible to enforce these plans with all development applications, and this application should be treated no differently to others and should be rejected as it does not comply. The areas it does not comply with the Development Control Plan 2011 are:

   • Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
   • Part 2.7 Solar Access
   • Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
   • Part 2.9 Community Safety
   • Part 2.10 Parking
   • Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
   • Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
   • Part 2.22 Flood Management.

   Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

   Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpott St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area can be high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?

   Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
   
   Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally. It is also a negative impact on the environment should the poor design of a building mean it cannot be used by others in the future and could potentially need to be amended or rebuilt.
   
   Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
   
   Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

   Development Against the Public’s Interest: The development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.

   Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances have zero visibility when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars in small spaces. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

10. I strongly object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons listed below and I ask these please be represented by my Council at the Land and Environment Court. I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.
    1) Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been re-lodged in late December 30 (2016) when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.
    2) Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.
    3) Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who (like me) have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists and short stay travelers.
    4) Anti-social behavior and impact on community and children: Short stay travelers and/or backpackers do not usually have a commitment to the surrounding neighborhood and or impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighborhood and community. The location of the motel would bring the travelers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations which would have a big impact for the families, singles and children living in the surrounding streets.
    5) Safety for School Children Walking to School: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and well-being of these children.
    6) Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: There is also a bus stop for school children around 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel”. If the parents are now forced due to their safety concerns at bus stop to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment, particularly at a time when walking, car sharing, push bikes, buses or other alternative modes of transport are being promoted as part of environmental awareness and good environmental practice across Sydney and NSW.
    7) Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected by the Land and Environment Court.
    8) Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain.
    9) Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighboring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight.
    10) Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011.
    11) The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels.
    12) Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The areas it does not comply with the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 are:
    Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    Part 2.7 Solar Access
    Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    Part 2.9 Community Safety
    Part 2.10 Parking
    Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    Part 2.22 Flood Management.
    13) Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    14) Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area is high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?
    15) Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    16) Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally.
    17) Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
    18) Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
    19) Development Against the Public’s Interest: Marrickville Council stated the development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.
    19) Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic having been designed for horses and carts. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances having ZERO visibility already when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars parked in small streets. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

11. I object to this application as this motel does not have enough parking to cater for its clients. This Motel would be located some 25 minute walk to either Stanmore, Newtown or Sydenham stations - it is more likely patrons will rely on cars increasing parking pressure on surrounding streets and Addison Road for residents.
    In addition, resident parking issues have been ignored by Council in the recent Henson Park LATM study, this DA as well as DA201200256.01 for extended trading hours and increased patronage will only further exacerbate resident parking issues in surrounding streets and Addison Road.

12. I strongly object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for numerous reasons and I ask these please be represented by Council at the LEC.

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.

    1) Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been re-lodged in late December 30 (2016) when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.

    2) Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.

    3) Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the community environment.

    4) Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected by the Land and Environment Court.

    5) Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain.

    6) Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighboring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of privacy, natural light and airflow.

    7) Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011.

    8) The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels.

    9) Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The areas it does not comply with the Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 are:
    Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    Part 2.7 Solar Access
    Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    Part 2.9 Community Safety
    Part 2.10 Parking
    Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    Part 2.22 Flood Management.

    10) Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    
    11) Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area is high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?

    12) Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    13) Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally.

    14) Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

    15) Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
    
    16) Development Against the Public’s Interest: Marrickville Council stated the development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.

    17) Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic having been designed for horses and carts. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances having ZERO visibility already when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars parked in small streets. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

13. I strongly object to this application, which has been refused by the Land and Environment Court more than once over the last several years. My main concern is the likely negative impact on the neighbourhood. This developer's 'management' of his townhouses in Newington Mews resulted in more than a decade of antisocial behaviour and property damage, despite repeated representations by local residents, the council and the police (the situation was only resolved through legal action). He also owns a backpackers' lodge and a backpacker accommodation service on Addison Rd. My fear is that the proposed 'motel' is designed to accommodate more transient visitors to our neighbourhood to the detriment of our community. A secondary consideration is the architectural standard. The backpackers' lodge on Addison Road is notable for the poor quality of its design.

14. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

    I OBJECT to DA201500736.01. The Preliminary Social Impact Statement (PSIS) dated 13 February 2017 goes to great lengths to convince the reader of the difference between a motel, a budget motel, budget hotel and a backpacker establishment, is packed with assumptions, statistics, and inconclusive cited pages based on USA research. I prefer to rely on the facts and my own observation and experiences.

    I am concerned about the impact this development and any future developments of this kind will have on the local community as a whole. Listed below are some of my concerns for the reviewed DA201500736.01.

    The original DA submitted by Mr Perry for this property was for a backpackers’ establishment - the original DA was denied by Council; the appeal to the NSW Land & Environment Court for the above was declined on 23.11.10; and, early 2016 Mr Perry submitted another DA to Council for this same property, modified from backpacker to a motel - this DA was also declined by Council.

    Although the number of proposed rooms has been reduced from 61 to 54, the updated plan of 24 parking spaces (reduced from 27) is still inadequate. Point 4 of the PSIS states “The proposed development would appear to have some of the characteristics of a motel, in that parking is available for some of the travellers”. Where do the other 30 residents and the Manager of this “motel” park? Where do the residents’ visitors park? Where do the patrons and staff of the ground floor restaurant or cafe park? The suggestion that residents, visitors and patrons would be able to find parking in the surrounding streets is absurd, considering the congestion in the area. In the last few years Council has approved the following – units 23-29 Addison Road, Cowper Street townhouses, 11-13 Fotheringham Lane converted to seven Torrens title blocks, and units and restaurant at 65-71 Addison Road. It is unknown how the proposed Council bike track will affect parking in Addison Road and the surrounding streets. Residents are struggling to find a parking space as it is.

    Incredibly, Clause 1.1 of the PSIS actually admits the potential for social impact including potential for crime, anti-social behaviour, noise and disturbance, and parking problems. Also Clause 1.3 and Clause 1.4 points out that there will be noise disturbance from the balconies of the proposed development as well as parking problems for established residents whose residences back Fahey Lane. The following Clause 1.5 is contradictory to that of those above, arguing that because the development will be a motel (not a budget hotel or backpacker), there is “unlikely to be risks of significant social impacts”.

    I am not able to locate information about the Management Plan in the DA, only that there is a manager’s residence in the architectural plans.

    We already have Addison Road backpackers; we don’t need a “motel” or any other type of accommodation for transients. Owner occupiers of new developments with their own car space would be welcome; owner occupiers are more likely to respect their neighbours, their property and property of others.

    I would like to resubmit to Council my January 2016 Objection as, even though Newington Mews Fotheringham Lane has ceased operating as a backpacker business due to legal intervention, it is still relevant. I would like to remind Council of the mismanagement, total lack of responsibility, and disregard for neighboring residents in close proximity to Addison Road Travellers Lodge and Newington Mews (Fotheringham Lane) backpackers (no longer functioning as a backpackers). For nearly a decade residents were subjected to extreme noise levels, very noisy parties, drunken anti social behavior, drug fuelled parties (accompanied by the loud psychedelic trance music) that lasted 24 hours a day for up to 4 days and 4 nights with no respite, screaming in the streets in the early hours, vandalism and tampering of property on a daily basis, litter, beer bottles lined up under residents’ cars, a roller door pulled off a garage and dumped with other objects on top of a car, climbing on residents’ roofs, abandoned cars, the list goes on. Police were called regularly (each call was logged by Marrickville Police) not only because of the noise, vandalism and drug parties, but because of concern for the safety of residents and the safety of the backpackers. In an endeavor to build relationships between Mr Perry and the long suffering residents as well as alleviate the stress on police resources, a fridge magnet was designed with Mr Perry’s contact details and a request to phone him if we had any concerns. This fridge magnet was personally delivered by the Senior Constable at Marrickville LAC to each resident in the surrounding vicinity. On the only occasion that I utilized this option and telephoned the owner about the excessive noise emanating from his property, I was met with hostility and accused of making trouble for him.

    It is my belief that Mr Perry has done himself a disservice by not building and maintaining good relationships with neighbours. A good facility (backpacker / motel / hostel / whatever you want to call it) should be run in a manner that causes no disturbances to neighbouring properties.

15. I object to the proposed development due to its anticipated social impacts. The local community is undergoing a period of transition during which many of the old industrial buildings in the Addison Rd vicinity are being acquired for re-development. This presents an opportunity for the Council to support new developments which enhance the social capital of the area. However, to permit a development which provides commercial rather than residential accommodation (whether a hotel, motel, hostel or boarding house) would squander this opportunity. Patrons/occupants of such premises are unlikely to make valuable contributions to the local community, for example by running or being employed in local businesses, attending local schools and participating in other community groups. Further, these patrons present a number of risks to the community. They are less likely than local residents to value the cleanliness and condition of the local infrastructure in parks, pools, and on footpaths. They are less likely to respect the rights of local residents to safe and quiet enjoyment of their real and personal property. The applicant's Social Impact report is of little value to the assessment of the actual impact of the development. In particular, it ignores the fact that nothing about the locale presents an obvious attraction for visitors - it isn't located on a major arterial road or route, isn't close to any major transport hub, nor any significant natural, cultural or commercial sites. In addition, the report says nothing of the social trend towards Peer-to-Peer type lodging (i.e. Airbnb). I surmise that with the growth in popularity of Airbnb-type accommodation, demand for motel-type accommodation will decline over time, to such an extent that demand for lower-cost motels will become limited to those seeking the transient anonymity and indifference of such establishments. For this reason, it is of significant concern that the Council does not have the power to oblige the applicant to actually charge the nightly rates disclosed in the report if/when the motel is approved and built. Overall therefore, I submit that the Council should reject this application, so that the site is preserved for a different type of development which will instead add to the vibrancy, amenity and harmony of the local community.

16. I strongly object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons listed below and I ask these please be represented by my Council at the Land and Environment Court.

    I ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these and also value the governing effort and responsibility of my local Council to enforce compliance for development proposals in my local suburb (Marrickville).

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.
    1. Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been relodged (sneakily) in late December when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold according to realestate.com in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.

    2. Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.

    3. Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who (like me) have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists and short stay travellers. The residents here have chosen quite tree lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road

    4. Anti-social behaviour and impact on community and children: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers do not usually have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood and their impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour and often a party culture which is noisy at night. The location of the motel would bring the travellers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations which would have a big impact for the families, singles and children livening in the surrounding streets.

    5. Safety for School Children Walking to School: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. These include St Puis Catholic School and Camdemville Public School. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these children. Short stay renters are different to long term residents and could potentially pose a risk.

    6. Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: There is also a bus stop for school children around 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel”. As stated in point 4, I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these school children catching the bus. If the parents are forced due to their concerns to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment, particularly at a time when walking, car sharing, push bikes, buses or other alternative modes of transport are being promoted as part of environmental awareness and good environmental practice across Sydney and NSW.

    7. Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected. Like the Council the Land and Environment Court should not adequately be able to approve an application that is insufficient. Another example of this is the missing information of what type of motel they want to develop.
    
    8. Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain. Other development applications would be rejected for the same reason if they did not comply and this development application is no different. It should meet the standard of design that other developers and private owners are forced to meet to maintain the quality of our suburb AND to ensure equity across applications and should be rejected.
    
    9. Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight. This not only negatively impacts on those who live in the homes with sunlight seen as a positive effect on mental health and well-being, but also impacts on the environment as people will need to use clothes dryers instead of their back yards to dry washing.
    
    10. Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. No written submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 was submitted with the application and Council has no power to approve the FSR in the absence of a Clause 4.6 submission. This floor space ratio could even be worse than it appears if in fact the premises are being used for a backpacker accommodation as opposed to a motel, however the floor space ratio should be complied to and the developer would be aware of these requirements under the Environmental Plan.

    11. The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.
    
    12. Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The Marrickville LEP 2011 is a legal document that sets the direction for future growth in the local government area (LGA) by providing controls and guidelines for development. It determines what can be built, where it can be built and what activities can occur on land. The Council is responsible to enforce these plans with all development applications, and this application should be treated no differently to others and should be rejected as it does not comply. The areas it does not comply with the Development Control Plan 2011 are:

    • Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    • Part 2.7 Solar Access
    • Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    • Part 2.9 Community Safety
    • Part 2.10 Parking
    • Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    • Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    • Part 2.22 Flood Management.

    13. Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    14. Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area can be high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?

    15. Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    
    16. Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally. It is also a negative impact on the environment should the poor design of a building mean it cannot be used by others in the future and could potentially need to be amended or rebuilt.
    
    17. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
    
    18. Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
    
    19. Development Against the Public’s Interest: The development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.

    20. Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances have zero visibility when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars in small spaces. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.
    

17. I object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons listed below and I ask these please be represented by my Council at the Land and Environment Court. I ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these and also value the governing effort and responsibility of my local Council to enforce compliance for development proposals in my local suburb (Marrickville).

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.
    1. Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been relodged (sneakily) in late December when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold according to realestate.com in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.

    2. Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.

    3. Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who (like me) have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists and short stay travellers. The residents here have chosen quite tree lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road

    4. Anti-social behaviour and impact on community and children: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers do not usually have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood and their impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour and often a party culture which is noisy at night. The location of the motel would bring the travellers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations which would have a big impact for the families, singles and children livening in the surrounding streets.

    5. Safety for School Children Walking to School: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. These include St Puis Catholic School and Camdemville Public School. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these children. Short stay renters are different to long term residents and could potentially pose a risk.

    6. Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: There is also a bus stop for school children around 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel”. As stated in point 4, I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these school children catching the bus. If the parents are forced due to their concerns to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment, particularly at a time when walking, car sharing, push bikes, buses or other alternative modes of transport are being promoted as part of environmental awareness and good environmental practice across Sydney and NSW.

    7. Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected. Like the Council the Land and Environment Court should not adequately be able to approve an application that is insufficient. Another example of this is the missing information of what type of motel they want to develop.
    
    8. Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain. Other development applications would be rejected for the same reason if they did not comply and this development application is no different. It should meet the standard of design that other developers and private owners are forced to meet to maintain the quality of our suburb AND to ensure equity across applications and should be rejected.
    
    9. Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight. This not only negatively impacts on those who live in the homes with sunlight seen as a positive affect on mental health and well being, but also impacts on the environment as people will need to use clothes dryers in stead of their back yards to dry washing.
    
    10. Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. No written submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 was submitted with the application and Council has no power to approve the FSR in the absence of a Clause 4.6 submission. This floor space ratio could even be worse than it appears if in fact the premises are being used for a backpacker accommodation as opposed to a motel, however the floor space ratio should be complied to and the developer would be aware of these requirements under the Environmental Plan.

    11. The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.
    
    12. Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The Marrickville LEP 2011 is a legal document that sets the direction for future growth in the local government area (LGA) by providing controls and guidelines for development. It determines what can be built, where it can be built and what activities can occur on land. The Council is responsible to enforce these plans with all development applications, and this application should be treated no differently to others and should be rejected as it does not comply. The areas it does not comply with the Development Control Plan 2011 are:

    • Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    • Part 2.7 Solar Access
    • Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    • Part 2.9 Community Safety
    • Part 2.10 Parking
    • Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    • Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    • Part 2.22 Flood Management.

    13. Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    14. Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area can be high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?

    15. Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    
    16. Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally. It is also a negative impact on the environment should the poor design of a building mean it cannot be used by others in the future and could potentially need to be amended or rebuilt.
    
    17. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
    
    18. Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
    
    19. Development Against the Public’s Interest: The development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.

    20. Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances have zero visibility when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars in small spaces. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

18. As a resident of Perry St, I know we will be impacted in terms of parking. This DA does not address the problem that 60 or so extra cars will create when customers try to park near the motel. The problem is exacerbated by the other developments taking place in the same stretch of Addison Rd (between Enmore Rd and Perry St). I am not against development, but this is a clear case of over-development.
    It is also my view that while residential apartments are one thing, part time accommodation in a motel of this size will have a disruptive impact in terms of noise, light at night, access, and safety to residents - due to itinerants and alcohol consumption.
    There is absolutely no need for a motel on this site: it is nearby to no public entertainment precinct or notable Sydney icon. Moreover the building itself is right on the street: door open straight onto the pavement.
    I strongly advise the Court to uphold the Council's long standing objections to this applicant's repeated attempts to develop this site without adequate redress to the chaos it will create.

19. As a resident of Gordon St Marrickville I object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons listed below and I ask these please be represented by my Council at the Land and Environment Court. I ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these and also value the governing effort and responsibility of my local Council to enforce compliance for development proposals in my local suburb (Marrickville).

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.
    1. Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been relodged (sneakily) in late December when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold according to realestate.com in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.

    2. Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.

    3. Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who (like me) have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists and short stay travellers. The residents here have chosen quite tree lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road

    4. Anti-social behaviour and impact on community and children: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers do not usually have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood and their impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour and often a party culture which is noisy at night. The location of the motel would bring the travellers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations which would have a big impact for the families, singles and children livening in the surrounding streets.

    5. Safety for School Children Walking to School: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. These include St Puis Catholic School and Camdemville Public School. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these children. Short stay renters are different to long term residents and could potentially pose a risk.

    6. Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: There is also a bus stop for school children around 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel”. As stated in point 4, I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these school children catching the bus. If the parents are forced due to their concerns to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment, particularly at a time when walking, car sharing, push bikes, buses or other alternative modes of transport are being promoted as part of environmental awareness and good environmental practice across Sydney and NSW.

    7. Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected. Like the Council the Land and Environment Court should not adequately be able to approve an application that is insufficient. Another example of this is the missing information of what type of motel they want to develop.

    8. Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain. Other development applications would be rejected for the same reason if they did not comply and this development application is no different. It should meet the standard of design that other developers and private owners are forced to meet to maintain the quality of our suburb AND to ensure equity across applications and should be rejected.

    9. Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight. This not only negatively impacts on those who live in the homes with sunlight seen as a positive affect on mental health and well being, but also impacts on the environment as people will need to use clothes dryers in stead of their back yards to dry washing.

    10. Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. No written submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 was submitted with the application and Council has no power to approve the FSR in the absence of a Clause 4.6 submission. This floor space ratio could even be worse than it appears if in fact the premises are being used for a backpacker accommodation as opposed to a motel, however the floor space ratio should be complied to and the developer would be aware of these requirements under the Environmental Plan.

    11. The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.

    12. Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The Marrickville LEP 2011 is a legal document that sets the direction for future growth in the local government area (LGA) by providing controls and guidelines for development. It determines what can be built, where it can be built and what activities can occur on land. The Council is responsible to enforce these plans with all development applications, and this application should be treated no differently to others and should be rejected as it does not comply. The areas it does not comply with the Development Control Plan 2011 are:

    • Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    • Part 2.7 Solar Access
    • Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    • Part 2.9 Community Safety
    • Part 2.10 Parking
    • Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    • Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    • Part 2.22 Flood Management.

    13. Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    14. Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area can be high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?

    15. Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    16. Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally. It is also a negative impact on the environment should the poor design of a building mean it cannot be used by others in the future and could potentially need to be amended or rebuilt.

    17. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

    18. Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

    19. Development Against the Public’s Interest: The development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.

    20. Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances have zero visibility when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars in small spaces. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

20. I object to this D.A. primarily due to parking and the impact on the local community.

    The local area is undergoing significant redevelopment activity, replacing the existing character of the neighborhood, putting strains on local street parking and waste management and increasing building noise and traffic management issues.

    Local residents will no doubt be negatively impacted by the actions of transient visitors who don’t share the same respect for local peace, safety and sense of community.

    As a father of a young family, I also worry about the anonymous nature of the visitors that could potentially frequent this type of motel and the impact that could have on the safety of our local streets and parks.

21. I would object to this application based on the same reasons it was previously objected to by Marrickville Council. It is an inappropriate location for a "motel" style business as this implies clients will have vehicles and there is currently a great strain on street parking in this area. If a backpacker style hostel (which I suspect it will be) there is already a backpacker hotel on Addison Road as well as several hostel style group homes in surrounding areas.

    I believe the standard of design proposed is lacking, the height is inappropriate considering the surrounding homes that will be adversely affected and the streetscape would be greatly compromised.

22. Hello,

    As a resident who currently lives on Perry St, I strongly object to this proposed development for the following reasons, and I ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these objections when making a decision on the application of the proposed "motel" in this D.A.

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.

    1. Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been relodged (sneakily) in late December when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold according to realestate.com in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.

    2. Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.

    3. Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who (like me) have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists and short stay travellers. The residents here have chosen quite tree lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road

    4. Anti-social behaviour and impact on community and children: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers do not usually have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood and their impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour and often a party culture which is noisy at night. The location of the motel would bring the travellers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations which would have a big impact for the families, singles and children livening in the surrounding streets.

    5. Safety for School Children Walking to School: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. These include St Puis Catholic School and Camdemville Public School. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these children. Short stay renters are different to long term residents and could potentially pose a risk.

    6. Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: There is also a bus stop for school children around 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel”. As stated in point 4, I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these school children catching the bus. If the parents are forced due to their concerns to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment, particularly at a time when walking, car sharing, push bikes, buses or other alternative modes of transport are being promoted as part of environmental awareness and good environmental practice across Sydney and NSW.

    7. Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected. Like the Council the Land and Environment Court should not adequately be able to approve an application that is insufficient. Another example of this is the missing information of what type of motel they want to develop.

    8. Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain. Other development applications would be rejected for the same reason if they did not comply and this development application is no different. It should meet the standard of design that other developers and private owners are forced to meet to maintain the quality of our suburb AND to ensure equity across applications and should be rejected.

    9. Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight. This not only negatively impacts on those who live in the homes with sunlight seen as a positive affect on mental health and well being, but also impacts on the environment as people will need to use clothes dryers in stead of their back yards to dry washing.

    10. Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. No written submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 was submitted with the application and Council has no power to approve the FSR in the absence of a Clause 4.6 submission. This floor space ratio could even be worse than it appears if in fact the premises are being used for a backpacker accommodation as opposed to a motel, however the floor space ratio should be complied to and the developer would be aware of these requirements under the Environmental Plan.

    11. The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.

    12. Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The Marrickville LEP 2011 is a legal document that sets the direction for future growth in the local government area (LGA) by providing controls and guidelines for development. It determines what can be built, where it can be built and what activities can occur on land. The Council is responsible to enforce these plans with all development applications, and this application should be treated no differently to others and should be rejected as it does not comply. The areas it does not comply with the Development Control Plan 2011 are:

    • Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    • Part 2.7 Solar Access
    • Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    • Part 2.9 Community Safety
    • Part 2.10 Parking
    • Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    • Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    • Part 2.22 Flood Management.

    13. Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    14. Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area can be high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?

    15. Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    16. Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally. It is also a negative impact on the environment should the poor design of a building mean it cannot be used by others in the future and could potentially need to be amended or rebuilt.

    17. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

    18. Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

    19. Development Against the Public’s Interest: The development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.

    20. Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances have zero visibility when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars in small spaces. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

23. As a local resident I would like to express by strong objection to the appeal of DA201500736.01 and add my support to Council's rejection of this DA.

    This proposal is ill considered for the local environment, being too high density with not enough parking to cater for patrons. The proposed layout would not provide an optimum experience for patrons and the surrounding streets are already far too congested and with the nearby apartment block almost complete this can only get worse.

    I agree with Council's assessment that the bulk, scale and architectural expression of this development are unacceptable. I believe this site could be more carefully considered with less focus on residential space and more focus on providing versatile shopfront space for the growing needs of the diverse local population.

    I also strongly object to the use of Fahey Lane as the primary access point for services and parking - the lane is currently barely large enough to hold resident's bins and allow garbage collection. I believe this is detrimental to and hugely inconvenient for the current residents on the south side of Gordon Street whose houses back onto Fahey Lane.

    Please do not overturn Concil's rejection of this proposed development, it is ill conceived in every way and far from the public's best interest.

24. I object.

    Would love the council to build a car park there instead. There is no parking anywhere in this area. I work on Addison Road and my driveway is always blocked by illegally parked cars.
    Why can't the council help out the community here and build a car park- I'd be happy to pay a daily/monthly/annual rate.

25. This development is ridiculous and an insult to the neighbourhood. It has already been refused for very good reasons and now the slum lord owner is trying again using documents with no facts to try and bluff his way through the system. For all the reasons it was refused earlier it should be refused again.

26. I would like to take this opportunity to strongly oppose DA201500736.01 as a resident that occupies a property that has direct access to Fahey Lane. I and the residents and business owners of surrounding community are not of the opinion that the amendments to the plans and additional information submitted address the issues previously raised by Council, this application must be refused.

    Our objections are stated below:

    The amended proposal does not provide an improved design in terms of bulk, scale and streetscape activation in its amended form.

    Statement of Heritage Impact

    Given that the primary facade is to Addison Rd the building is focal in an urban design sense.
    Addison Rd is an up and coming precinct in the Marrickville/ Enmore area and the quality of design of developments is imperative to maintain a community feeling. The proposed motel development will not reflect and complement the desired character of the area, which is a held by the local community and by local council.
    Further, given the height, bulk and size of the proposed development the view of the building will be seen by residential dwellings from Addison Rd, Gordon St, Perry St and Philpott St. Therefore, this development will form a significant part of the streetscape within the area.

    Environmental Advice in Relation to the Property

    The reference to the Remedial Action Plan - removal of eight remnant underground petroleum storage systems (UPSSs) and surrounding hydrocarbon is still concerning.
    There is insufficient documentation regarding a RAP or the extent of the contamination. Language used in this document provides no level of comfort in regards to where the storage systems are located on the property. No documents are available as to the extraction and disposal plan which is of great concern to the health of surrounding residents and environment. Recommendation to reassess and to implement RAP after the development has been approved by council and the current building demolished is completely unacceptable.
    On this point alone the development application should be refused.

    Height Exceeds the Maximum Building Height

    The proposed height of the building still exceeds the maximum development height of 14 metres by a significant 2 metres. The argument provided as to the reason for this - adherence to flood level requirements - contradicts the initial development plans that did not meet flood level height. There has been no change to the height excess from initial plans. Further, document states that this will not be visible to frontage. This will be visible to surrounding residents and for those residents that have properties with direct access via Fahey Lane.

    Change of Plans to include a Cafe/Restaurant

    To address concerns around failing to promote a high level of design, the plans have been amended for retail use in the form of a café/restaurant in association with the motel use (and also general public). Will the Motel be operating this or will the space be leased? Who in the general public would choose to patronage a Motel cafe/restaurant?
    Again, the Addison Rd precinct is up and coming, the newer restaurants and cafes in the area have added to the vibrancy of Addison Rd receiving great reviews in the Sydney Good Food Guide and Broadsheets.
    This change does not address the concerns that the development application will promote a high level of design or provide any supporting evidence that it will add to the vibrancy of the area.

    Social Impact Assessment

    To address the refusal reason relating to no Social Impact Assessment being submitted and therefore contrary to controls and objectives contained within Part 2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011, the resubmission states that 'Based on the results of the preliminary assessment, it is considered that the proposed development has limited negative social impacts and therefore no further social impact assessment would be required.'

    This is of great concern and is not a statement agreed to by the surrounding community. One of the biggest concerns about this development is the transient population this development will bring to the community. The Addison Road precinct is an up and coming area with a strong sense community and neighbourhood. The area houses permanent residents, largely made up of young families. For this reason a transient population is a great concern for both the safety and general respect of the area. The fact the preliminary assessment 'considers' the development has limited negative social impacts supports the existing residential concerns that the developer has no regard for the surrounding community.

    The Preliminary Social Impact Assessment document states:
    JSA has identified the potential social impacts of the proposed Motel in the context of the immediate locality. This includes:
    • Potential for crime or anti-social behavior associated with the Motel’s patron profile;
    • Amenity impacts related to increases in noise and disturbance in the locality related to the Motel’s patron profile, and the design of the proposed development in the context of surrounding land uses; and
    • Amenity impacts related to added pressures from parking and traffic.

    The assessment does not define the proposed Motel as budget accommodation leading to assumptions being made on the Motel's patron profile and therefore considers there is no social impact of development.

    In regards to the how the document defines a 'Budget Motel' the document provides prices from motels located in Ashfield, 5 kms west of the proposed development site and therefore should not be deemed 'comparative'. The backpackers on Addison Rd listed have twin rooms starting from $120.00 per night and an Ibis Budget Hotel located in St Peters have rooms starting from $130 per night. These prices are on par with the proposed development and would be considered as budget accommodation in relation to distance of the city centre.

    The document also clearly states that there will be direct impact to surrounding residents in regards to crime and antisocial behaviour, noise and disturbance, overlooking from balconies removing resident's privacy representing a significant impact on privacy and impacts to parking and traffic.

    These impacts stated in the preliminary assessment would absolutely necessitate the requirement for a Social Impact Report to be provided. This revised proposal fails to address the many reasons provided by the Council's refusal of initial proposal.

    Parking

    The revised submission does not address the issue of parking. The proposal is for a development of a Motel. The definition of a Motel is a hotel intended to provide short-term accommodation for travelling motorists. Within the plans there are only limited car spaces available (25 including 5 accessible parking spaces) for 54 Rooms + Motel staff. There are insufficient parking spots in the surrounding streets already leading to numerous instances of vehicles being parked over driveways in Fahey Lane as an example. The lack of parking made available in this development directly contradicts the proposal as a ‘Motel’ which raises concerns in regards to actual use of proposed building.
    Insufficient parking will significantly impact the local permanent residents who park on the street and already face challenges regarding lack of on street parking in the surroundings area. Furthermore, adding traffic to this intersection and area the development is strongly opposed by existing residents.

    Waste Management and Collection

    The revised proposal does not address concerns around Waste Management and Collection.

    There are great concerns regarding the Waste Management Plan. There are objections to the ‘On-Going Waste Management Plan’. The initial plan was to arrange for private collection of waste three (3) times per week by taking the 8 x 240 litre bins from the bin bay to Philpott Street on collection days. That means 3 days a week 8 x 240 litre bins will be lined up along the sidewalk on Philpott Street. Aesthetically this is will be an eyesore and will be visible from Addison Rd, in addition there will be an unpleasant smell of waste and obstruction to pedestrians.

    Further, the ‘Bin Bay’ on the plan is approximately 60 metres from the proposed collection areas which would suggest 3 times a week 8 bins will be wheeled 120 metres through residential area. This is unacceptable. It is also important to note that the collection of waste will obstruct Philpott Street which is a narrow street and will impede traffic entering and exiting the street.

    The proposal has been amended to 'The proposal provides for 4 x 660 litre recycling bins and 4 x 660 litre general waste bins within the bin storage area accessed via Fahey Lane. This is now compliant.'

    How will waste be collected? From the storage area? Directly from Fahey Lane? Waste collection details have not been provided to address the changes to bin size. This will impact access to Fahey Lane and residents who access off street parking from the lane way. This will negatively impact surrounding residents.

    It is also noted that there is no roof on the waste area. There is a concern about the smell of waste that would be smelt by residents and potential health impacts to residents backing onto Fahey Lane.

    Loading Bay – Access via Fahey Lane

    There are significant concerns regarding how trucks and large vehicles will access the Loading Bay on the plans. Fahey Lane is a narrow laneway with limited off street parking access via Fahey Lane to private residential dwellings along Gordon Street.

    As the laneway is narrow there is not sufficient space for trucks and larger vehicles to turn into and out of the loading bay. How will this issue be overcome? The obvious solution would be for the vehicles to park in the laneway obstructing driveways and general access to the lane. This is unacceptable as it will block driveway access for residents of Gordon Street.

    We support development in the area and welcome reputable developments of new apartments, cafes and shops. Of the many development opportunities available, this development has the least to offer in terms of community enhancement and progression, and raises real risks that the area will in fact become a far less liveable one.

27. RE: OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT DA201500736.01, 43-51 ADDISON RD, MARRICKVILLE :

    I object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons.

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.

    Years ago the owner of the block attempted to build a backpacker accommodation and was knocked back due to concern from neighbours.
    I believe this DA is another attempt to attract low cost customers with resulting abandoned vehicles, litter, noise and general lack of care of local residents and the local area.

    Parking in the local area is a growing problem and we will see an increase in the struggle to find a park in our already cluttered streets.
    The development would also significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. These streets weren't designed for the number of cars that developments like this bring.
    This proposed development has not enough car parking on site.

    There will be a huge lack of privacy for residents on the south side of Gordon Street and also for the residents of the Globe Mills building (located on the north side of Gordon Street).
    
    The proposed development will also overshadow the residents on the south side of Gordon Street, therefore affecting the energy efficiency of these properties. It's important to note that a lack of sunshine greatly affects general wellbeing too.

    Waste management for this site is a huge concern considering the size of Fahey Lane and Philpott Street.
    
    And finally, I do not believe that the design of the building is 'complimentary to the existing character of the area'. Marrickville has a thriving suburban and industrial heritage that is quickly becoming eroded by buildings that overuse render to create monolithic, characterless blocks.

28. 
    25/2/17
    
    The General Manager
    Inner West Council
    Attention the Assessing Officer Reference DA201500736.01
    2-14 Fisher Street
    Petersham NSW 2049
    
    
    Dear Sir/Madam
    
    RE: OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT DA201500736.01, 43-51 ADDISON RD, MARRICKVILLE
    
    I object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons listed below and I ask these please be represented by my Council at the Land and Environment Court. I ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these and also value the governing effort and responsibility of my local Council to enforce compliance for development proposals in my local suburb (Marrickville).
    
    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.
    1. Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been relodged (sneakily) in late December when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold according to realestate.com in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.
    
    2. Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.
    
    3. Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who (like me) have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists and short stay travellers. The residents here have chosen quite tree lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road
    
    4. Anti-social behaviour and impact on community and children: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers do not usually have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood and their impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour and often a party culture which is noisy at night. The location of the motel would bring the travellers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations which would have a big impact for the families, singles and children livening in the surrounding streets.
    
    5. Safety for School Children Walking to School: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. These include St Puis Catholic School and Camdemville Public School. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these children. Short stay renters are different to long term residents and could potentially pose a risk.
    
    6. Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: There is also a bus stop for school children around 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel”. As stated in point 4, I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these school children catching the bus. If the parents are forced due to their concerns to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment, particularly at a time when walking, car sharing, push bikes, buses or other alternative modes of transport are being promoted as part of environmental awareness and good environmental practice across Sydney and NSW.
    
    7. Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected. Like the Council the Land and Environment Court should not adequately be able to approve an application that is insufficient. Another example of this is the missing information of what type of motel they want to develop.
    
    8. Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain. Other development applications would be rejected for the same reason if they did not comply and this development application is no different. It should meet the standard of design that other developers and private owners are forced to meet to maintain the quality of our suburb AND to ensure equity across applications and should be rejected.
    
    9. Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight. This not only negatively impacts on those who live in the homes with sunlight seen as a positive affect on mental health and well being, but also impacts on the environment as people will need to use clothes dryers in stead of their back yards to dry washing.
    
    10. Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. No written submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 was submitted with the application and Council has no power to approve the FSR in the absence of a Clause 4.6 submission. This floor space ratio could even be worse than it appears if in fact the premises are being used for a backpacker accommodation as opposed to a motel, however the floor space ratio should be complied to and the developer would be aware of these requirements under the Environmental Plan.
    
    11. The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.
    
    12. Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The Marrickville LEP 2011 is a legal document that sets the direction for future growth in the local government area (LGA) by providing controls and guidelines for development. It determines what can be built, where it can be built and what activities can occur on land. The Council is responsible to enforce these plans with all development applications, and this application should be treated no differently to others and should be rejected as it does not comply. The areas it does not comply with the Development Control Plan 2011 are:
    
    • Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    • Part 2.7 Solar Access
    • Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    • Part 2.9 Community Safety
    • Part 2.10 Parking
    • Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    • Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    • Part 2.22 Flood Management.
    
    13. Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    
    14. Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area can be high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?
    
    15. Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    
    16. Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally. It is also a negative impact on the environment should the poor design of a building mean it cannot be used by others in the future and could potentially need to be amended or rebuilt.
    
    17. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
    
    18. Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
    
    19. Development Against the Public’s Interest: The development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.
    
    20. Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances have zero visibility when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars in small spaces. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.
    
    
    Objection to Development Proposal 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville ​pg. 4/4

29. 
    25/2/17
    
    The General Manager
    Inner West Council
    Attention the Assessing Officer Reference DA201500736.01
    2-14 Fisher Street
    Petersham NSW 2049
    
    
    Dear Sir/Madam
    
    RE: OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT DA201500736.01, 43-51 ADDISON RD, MARRICKVILLE
    
    I object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons listed below and I ask these please be represented by my Council at the Land and Environment Court. I ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these and also value the governing effort and responsibility of my local Council to enforce compliance for development proposals in my local suburb (Marrickville).
    
    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.
    1. Previous refusal reasons and rejection by Land and Environment Court still current: This application was refused a number of years ago already and has been relodged (sneakily) in late December when many would be away for the Christmas break. I understand the application then also went to the Land and Environment Court and was refused then as well. Since the property was last sold according to realestate.com in 2008, the current owners/developers I am assuming, would be aware of the prior refusal and probably still own the property.
    
    2. Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.
    
    3. Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address, which means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who (like me) have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists and short stay travellers. The residents here have chosen quite tree lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road
    
    4. Anti-social behaviour and impact on community and children: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers do not usually have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood and their impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour and often a party culture which is noisy at night. The location of the motel would bring the travellers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations which would have a big impact for the families, singles and children livening in the surrounding streets.
    
    5. Safety for School Children Walking to School: There are a number of local infants and primary schools in the area and children walk past 41-53 Addison Road to get to school. These include St Puis Catholic School and Camdemville Public School. I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these children. Short stay renters are different to long term residents and could potentially pose a risk.
    
    6. Safety for Children at School Bus Stop and Environmental Impact: There is also a bus stop for school children around 3-4 houses away from the proposed “motel”. As stated in point 4, I have concerns with a short stay motel being built in this area and its possible impact on the safety and welfare and wellbeing of these school children catching the bus. If the parents are forced due to their concerns to drive their children to school, this also impacts on the environment, particularly at a time when walking, car sharing, push bikes, buses or other alternative modes of transport are being promoted as part of environmental awareness and good environmental practice across Sydney and NSW.
    
    7. Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected. Like the Council the Land and Environment Court should not adequately be able to approve an application that is insufficient. Another example of this is the missing information of what type of motel they want to develop.
    
    8. Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain. Other development applications would be rejected for the same reason if they did not comply and this development application is no different. It should meet the standard of design that other developers and private owners are forced to meet to maintain the quality of our suburb AND to ensure equity across applications and should be rejected.
    
    9. Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight. This not only negatively impacts on those who live in the homes with sunlight seen as a positive affect on mental health and well being, but also impacts on the environment as people will need to use clothes dryers in stead of their back yards to dry washing.
    
    10. Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. No written submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 was submitted with the application and Council has no power to approve the FSR in the absence of a Clause 4.6 submission. This floor space ratio could even be worse than it appears if in fact the premises are being used for a backpacker accommodation as opposed to a motel, however the floor space ratio should be complied to and the developer would be aware of these requirements under the Environmental Plan.
    
    11. The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.
    
    12. Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The Marrickville LEP 2011 is a legal document that sets the direction for future growth in the local government area (LGA) by providing controls and guidelines for development. It determines what can be built, where it can be built and what activities can occur on land. The Council is responsible to enforce these plans with all development applications, and this application should be treated no differently to others and should be rejected as it does not comply. The areas it does not comply with the Development Control Plan 2011 are:
    
    • Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    • Part 2.7 Solar Access
    • Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    • Part 2.9 Community Safety
    • Part 2.10 Parking
    • Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    • Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    • Part 2.22 Flood Management.
    
    13. Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    
    14. Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area can be high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?
    
    15. Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    
    16. Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally. It is also a negative impact on the environment should the poor design of a building mean it cannot be used by others in the future and could potentially need to be amended or rebuilt.
    
    17. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
    
    18. Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
    
    19. Development Against the Public’s Interest: The development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.
    
    20. Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support 2 way traffic. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances have zero visibility when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars in small spaces. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.
    
    
    Objection to Development Proposal 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville ​pg. 4/4

    THIS WILL ADD NOTHING POSITIVE TO THE LOCAL COMUNITY WICH IS STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP WITH THE CURRENT HIGH IMPACT DEVELOPMENTS.
    

30. The proposed motel development application has not addressed the key issues raised by the previous two applications. Parking, environment, amenity and suitability to the area. This application should be rejected again!
    As there has been no infrastructure created to cater for the huge increase caused by the other major developments in the immediate area it makes no sense to allow a project that will only exacerbate the serious issues already faced by residents of the area.

31. 7/3/17

    The General Manager
    Inner West Council
    Attention the Assessing Officer Reference DA201500736.01
    2-14 Fisher Street
    Petersham NSW 2049

    Dear Sir/Madam

    RE: OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT DA201500736.01, 43-51 ADDISON RD, MARRICKVILLE

    I object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons listed below and I ask these please be represented by my Council at the Land and Environment Court. I ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these and also value the governing effort and responsibility of my local Council to enforce compliance for development proposals in my local suburb (Marrickville).

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.

    1. Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.

    2. Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address. This means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists, short stay travellers and transient visitors. The residents here have chosen quite tree-lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road

    3. Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support two-way traffic. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances having zero visibility when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars in small spaces. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

    4. Anti-social behaviour and impact on community and children: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers do not normally have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood, they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in a party culture which is noisy at night. The location of the motel would bring the travellers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations. This would have a big impact on the lives of the families, singles and children living in the surrounding streets.

    5. Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected. Like the Council the Land and Environment Court should not adequately be able to approve an application that is insufficient. Another example of this is the missing information of what type of motel they want to develop.
    
    6. Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain. Other development applications would be rejected for the same reason if they did not comply and this development application is no different. It should meet the standard of design that other developers and private owners are forced to meet to maintain the quality of our suburb AND to ensure equity across applications and should be rejected.
    
    7. Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight. This not only negatively impacts on those who live in the homes with sunlight seen as a positive affect on mental health and well being, but also impacts on the environment as people will need to use clothes dryers in stead of their back yards to dry washing.
    
    8. Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. No written submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 was submitted with the application and Council has no power to approve the FSR in the absence of a Clause 4.6 submission. This floor space ratio could even be worse than it appears if in fact the premises are being used for a backpacker accommodation as opposed to a motel, however the floor space ratio should be complied to and the developer would be aware of these requirements under the Environmental Plan.

    9. The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.
    
    10. Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The Marrickville LEP 2011 is a legal document that sets the direction for future growth in the local government area (LGA) by providing controls and guidelines for development. It determines what can be built, where it can be built and what activities can occur on land. The Council is responsible to enforce these plans with all development applications, and this application should be treated no differently to others and should be rejected as it does not comply. The areas it does not comply with the Development Control Plan 2011 are:

    • Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    • Part 2.7 Solar Access
    • Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    • Part 2.9 Community Safety
    • Part 2.10 Parking
    • Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    • Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    • Part 2.22 Flood Management.

    11. Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    12. Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area can be high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?

    13. Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    
    14. Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally. It is also a negative impact on the environment should the poor design of a building mean it cannot be used by others in the future and could potentially need to be amended or rebuilt.
    
    15. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
    
    16. Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
    
    17. Development Against the Public’s Interest: The development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.

    
    

32. 7/3/17

    The General Manager
    Inner West Council
    Attention the Assessing Officer Reference DA201500736.01
    2-14 Fisher Street
    Petersham NSW 2049

    Dear Sir/Madam

    RE: OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT DA201500736.01, 43-51 ADDISON RD, MARRICKVILLE

    I object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons listed below and I ask these please be represented by my Council at the Land and Environment Court. I ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these and also value the governing effort and responsibility of my local Council to enforce compliance for development proposals in my local suburb (Marrickville).

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.

    1. Non-compliant application: The current application does not have sufficient information to deem what sort of “motel” it wants to build. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. The application needs to comply with the regulations by clearly describing the information necessary for a decision to be made according to regulations and council policies (as do other applications). It should be refused on this alone.

    2. Impact on current community: There are already 2 large backpacker hostels within 1 to 2 blocks of this address. This means the addition of another hostel or hotel will impact on the current community environment which includes many families with children who have not purchased a home to live in a commercial area overwhelmed by tourists, short stay travellers and transient visitors. The residents here have chosen quite tree-lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road

    3. Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic: The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. Many of these were built around 100 to 140 years ago and not designed or able to support two-way traffic. The current developments have already taxed the roads, with many entrances having zero visibility when trying to cross a road due to too much traffic and cars in small spaces. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

    4. Anti-social behaviour and impact on community and children: Short stay travellers and/or backpackers do not normally have a commitment to the surrounding neighbourhood, they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in a party culture which is noisy at night. The location of the motel would bring the travellers and/or backpackers far closer to the family homes than the current 2 backpacker accommodations. This would have a big impact on the lives of the families, singles and children living in the surrounding streets.

    5. Insufficient documentation impacts on community: Due to insufficient information on the application the Council has been unable to confirm the presence and extent of contamination in order to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed development in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land. An application with insufficient information should not have merit and should be immediately rejected. Like the Council the Land and Environment Court should not adequately be able to approve an application that is insufficient. Another example of this is the missing information of what type of motel they want to develop.
    
    6. Breach of Environmental Plan in Public and Private Domain: The proposal is contrary to Clause 1.2(2)(h) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to promote a high standard of design in the private and public domain. Other development applications would be rejected for the same reason if they did not comply and this development application is no different. It should meet the standard of design that other developers and private owners are forced to meet to maintain the quality of our suburb AND to ensure equity across applications and should be rejected.
    
    7. Exceeding Maximum Height and Impact on Neighbouring Dwellings and Environment: The development exceeds the maximum height permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. The location of the site backs onto properties in Gordon Street (separated by a small lane). These dwellings and those in Phillpot St and in Perry St will be greatly affected by the increased height of the development, leaving them with a shaded back yard and loss of sunlight. This not only negatively impacts on those who live in the homes with sunlight seen as a positive affect on mental health and well being, but also impacts on the environment as people will need to use clothes dryers in stead of their back yards to dry washing.
    
    8. Exceeds Maximum Floor Space Ratio: The development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio permitted on the land pursuant to Clause 4.4 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011. No written submission in accordance with Clause 4.6 (Exception to Development Standards) of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 was submitted with the application and Council has no power to approve the FSR in the absence of a Clause 4.6 submission. This floor space ratio could even be worse than it appears if in fact the premises are being used for a backpacker accommodation as opposed to a motel, however the floor space ratio should be complied to and the developer would be aware of these requirements under the Environmental Plan.

    9. The Development Does Not Comply with Safety Standards: The development fails to comply with the provisions of Clause 6.3 of Marrickville Local Environmental Plan 2011 as the floor levels are set below current flood levels. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.
    
    10. Breaching of the Objectives of the Council’s Development Plan: In 2006 all councils were required by the NSW Government to review their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) to make them consistent the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Standard Instrument, and to create a consolidated Development Control Plan (DCP). The Council's controls, plans and policies provide an urban planning framework to guide development in the Inner West. The Marrickville LEP 2011 is a legal document that sets the direction for future growth in the local government area (LGA) by providing controls and guidelines for development. It determines what can be built, where it can be built and what activities can occur on land. The Council is responsible to enforce these plans with all development applications, and this application should be treated no differently to others and should be rejected as it does not comply. The areas it does not comply with the Development Control Plan 2011 are:

    • Part 2.5 Equity of Access and Mobility
    • Part 2.7 Solar Access
    • Part 2.8 Social Impact Assessment
    • Part 2.9 Community Safety
    • Part 2.10 Parking
    • Part 2.17 Water Sensitive Urban Design
    • Part 2.21 Site Facilities and Waste Management, and
    • Part 2.22 Flood Management.

    11. Breaches of active street frontage and shopfront design controls: The proposed development fails to comply with the active street frontage uses and shopfront design controls prescribed in Part 5.1.4.2 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    12. Safety risks and hazards to pedestrians around the development on Addison Road and Philpot St: as the proposed development fails to comply with street frontage and shopfront design, I need to point out that the pedestrian traffic in this area can be high, with both people walking to Victoria Road to catch the bus, people walking to Marrickville Metro and Victoria Park, people walking their dogs to the park and also children under the age of 12 who can legally ride their pushbikes on the footpath (for safety). How will the development ensure it doesn’t create risks these people’s health and safety if it does not comply?

    13. Breaches streetscape requirements: The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.
    
    14. Poor Amenity: The inefficient floor layout would result in poor amenity for future users of the site. These standards are important to retain the quality of a community and what it provides locally. It is also a negative impact on the environment should the poor design of a building mean it cannot be used by others in the future and could potentially need to be amended or rebuilt.
    
    15. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Overdevelopment: The proposed development results in a significant number of non-compliances with the planning controls and is therefore considered inappropriate. The non-compliances are an indication that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
    
    16. Non-Orderly Development Under Environmental Planning and Assessment Act: The development does not promote the orderly development of land in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
    
    17. Development Against the Public’s Interest: The development would not be in the public interest, therefore failing to satisfy Section 79(C)(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. These acts are in place to protect communities and the quality of life within the fabric of the community and this development does not comply.

    Yours sincerely

    Mark Gregory

    
    

33. I strongly object to this application

    Besides all the reasons already mentioned in the other comments to this DA, which I strongly agree with, let’s not forget that DA201600447 for a food and drink premise for up to 88 patrons at 31-33 Addison Road and the commercial premises planned for 23-29 Addison Road will further exacerbate residential parking issues around the area.

    This area is community centric and houses a great number of families with young children.

    A motel is unnecessary for the neighbourhood which is not located near any major tourist attractions and will certainly bring undue security risks by introducing transient guests to the area, putting our children safety and well-being at risk.

34. RE: OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT DA201500736.01, 43-51 ADDISON RD, MARRICKVILLE

    I strongly object to the application. As a resident of the area for more than the past 10 years, it is my strong belief that this area would not be suitable for a motel.

    I also support the Council’s notice of refusal of the application on 21/11/16.

    1) The Preliminary Social Impact Assessments states that "the motel provides parking for around half of the rooms" with overflow parking on nearby streets. Street parking is not an option as the streets are parked full at night and it is impossible to find a spot. It is marginally better in the day. This will lead to more congestion in the area as cars circle to find parking and extra noise during the night when it should be quiet.

    2) The assessment also assumes that the other half of the rooms would be filled by overseas guests (section 1.4). International visitors would only have options for a rental car, taxi or bus. Without a direct train/bus route from the airport, the only option would be a taxi or rental car bringing more traffic to the area. The route along Enmore Road between Stanmore Rd/Edgeware Rd and Newington Rd tends to be congested especially around peak hour and on weekends. Due to the traffic, it may take more than 10 minutes to navigate that stretch of 300m, oftentimes more on weekends. The addition of a motel will create more congestion and frustration for residents of the area.

    3) Noise is also an issue. Apart from the extra traffic mentioned above, the motel has balconies facing residential houses. This will be disruptive for nearby residents especially during night hours when noise carries further.

    4) With Marrickville Public School, Goodstart Early Learning being 600m away from the motel; Addison Road Child Care Centre being 350m away; Enmore Early Learning Centre being 450m away, I am concerned that the safety and welfare of the children may be impacted.

35. It is obvious to all residents that this 'motel' is NOT in the local community's interest, as stated in the DA. It is only in the financial interest of the developer ! Are we going to receive, again, the developer's contact phone number on a magnet so we can ring and complain about the noise and unruly behaviour of 'motel' patrons ? And when we ring, will we again be abused for complaining? As this is the calibre of the developer, given his previous disrespectful behaviour towards local residents, then this 'motel' development should be, again, refused, for exactly the same reasons that it was refused in November 2016....................Philpott and Perry Streets will be a nightmare for accessing Addison Road, a development not in 'the public interest' nor wanted in a family oriented residential area.

36. Re: Notice of proposed development, DA201500736.01

    I am writing with regard to the development proposal DA201500736.01, the request to review the determination of the application for development of a motel at 43 – 51 Addison Road.

    I am writing to object to this proposal. In this, I note that the this is the third proposal of this ilk from this developer – all of which have been denied with extensive reasons and all of which have been overwhelmingly objected to by the local community.

    The most recent refusal, DETERMINATION NO. 201500736 was quite extensive and there is no reason why any of the reasons for refusal do not continue to apply. While the ‘new’ application has amended some aspects, the key issues remain.

    At the root of it, a ‘Motel’ by definition is about lots of travellers with cars and this is simply not something the area can, or wants to support.

    Beyond referring to the specific items in the previous determination, I object to it for the following reasons:

    Parking
    The application has made provision for 21 parking spaces yet has 61 rooms, equating to 1 space for every 3 rooms. This will lead to an overflow of guest vehicles using the surrounding streets for parking. These streets are already congested and it is extremely difficult for residents to find parking.

    Faye Lane is already of concern in this area as parking in this lane can cause problems for residents getting in or out of their properties, particularly if someone parks illegally which becomes increasingly common in times of high parking congestion. Yet Faye Lane is likely to be the ‘first port of call’ for guests and residents looking to park their vehicles. Beyond Faye Lane, Gordon Street is now regularly filled to capacity parking, as are Philpott and Perry Streets.

    Nature of the business
    The application gives no indication of the types of clients of is looking to attract, what prices the rooms will be or what service quality (or start rating) the motel will be. This will have a significant impact on the nature of the motel and its impact on the surrounding community.

    Similarly, while there is a number of rooms specified there is no indication of the number of beds which, again, goes to the nature of the business. Are there 61 Queen beds, or are there predominantly 2, 3 or even 4 singles in each room?

    Perry Properties currently specialise in boarding house and backpacker accommodation. Their description on domain.com.au states this clearly:

    Whether it be short or long term accommodation, Boarding, Student or Backpacker accommodation, our various properties are setup to provide quality service to your needs.

    With this in mind, particularly given the similarity of this proposal to previous backpacker proposals put forward by the same company, the application cannot be approved on this basis.

    Character of the Community
    This proposed development in no way matches, or adds to the character of the community, but instead will detract from it. Similarly, while the proposal speaks to the council’s objectives of urban renewal, it does nothing more than add a large building.

    The short term accommodation, set opposite the existing Addison Road backpackers, simply serves to create a dense pocket of ‘tourist culture’. Local shops and services will tend to start catering towards backpackers and tourists rather than permanent residents. The population itself will turnover quickly and continuously. Not only can this be alienating for residents, but it also detracts from the sense of community, something that is particularly important to many Marrickville residents.

    Nature of the building
    The proposed design does not fit the aesthetic, and the character of Marrickville. It is bland at best. Whereas the existing building, while it may not be heritage listed, is very much an integral part of the streetscape. A design that at least made use of the facade would be vastly more in keeping with the character of the community.

    I further note that among the previous reason for rejection is:

    The bulk, scale and architectural expression of the proposed development would result in unacceptable impacts on streetscape amenity and is contrary the requirements prescribed under Part 5 of Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011.

    Service vehicle access
    Housing a loading dock on Fahey Lane will direct large amounts of traffic, particularly trucks, into Fahey Lane, which is already overpopulated. There will also be a propensity for trucks to simply stop in the lane, rather than pull into the loading dock, blocking the laneway regularly.

    There does not appear to be any restrictions on times of access for service and delivery vehicles. This will lead to noise and traffic after hours. Deliveries should be restricted to business hours.

    There is also no reference to traffic management during the construction. Fahey Lane is currently blocked frequently due to construction of units on the Perry street corner. A construction of this nature will take some time and therefore must include a plan to manage traffic during the process and ensure any blockages to the surrounding streets, including Fahey Lane are minimised.

    Hazards and Safety Due to Current Roads and Lanes Not Supporting Increased Traffic
    The Development would significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. The streets and lanes that would be very impacted include Philpott St, Perry St, Fahey Lane, Gordon St, Stevens Lane, Fotheringham Lane, Cowper St, Pritchard St, Tupper St and Fotheringham St. Many of these are not designed or able to support 2-way traffic. Current developments have already had a huge impact on these roads and the ability to move freely and, importantly, safely around the area.

    The traffic down Addison Road to Enmore/Victoria Road is already very heavy with often long delays, meaning those driving to the development will likely use the local narrow streets above to access or leave the site. These streets do not have the capacity to support more traffic.

    Height
    I note that there is a request for an exemption of the 14-meter height cap. There seems little to justify the exemption since the reason for requesting an exemption seems to amount to, “it’s just the lift over flow.” The building itself is already far larger than anything immediately nearby

    Conclusion
    I am firmly of the opinion that the proposed development will have a significant negative impact on the community. It is likely to impact on parking availability, traffic levels and street access and significantly alter the ‘feel’ of this community. As such I believe it is not in the public interest and that it should not be allowed to proceed.

37. Application No: DA201500736.01
    Premises: 43- 51 Addison Road, Marrickville

    As resident and owner of 12 Gordon Street Marrickville I strongly object to the above mentioned DA. I am disappointed that I am again writing in opposition to this application for the third time in recent years.

    Although the design has indeed changed the social impact remains the same. Such low budget accommodation will attract a transient population to an up and coming residential area. It is baffling to me how we are here again with two previous rejections to similar development applications by the same owner. I spoke at a previous Marrickville Council meeting in 2008 along with Marrickville police presenting all the major issues such a large number of backpackers to the area could result in. The social impact assessment is not comparable to the Addison Road area. The Addison Road Travellers Lodge which is a budget backpackers accommodation will be more expensive to stay at than the proposed “Motel” for two travellers.

    The motel will provide parking for less than half of the rooms available. The term ‘motel’ is defined as a hotel designed for motorists. Clearly this suggests an issue from the outset. To recommend the surrounding streets for additional parking in the social impact assessment (“cars are able to park on both sides of Addison Rd”… “parking is available on the perpendicular Denby St as well as the surrounding Perry Gordon and Philpot”) is an indication that this motel has been poorly planned and that they already foresee issues with the provisional parking. The parking availability in these suggested streets is already very low. These residential streets are already close to capacity in regards to parking and traffic, and this is before the new housing developments all within one block of the proposed Motel have been completed.

    According to the architectural plans the loading dock is on Fahey Lane whilst the
    underground car park entrance is on Philpott St. The social impact assessment has
    referred to the underground parking entrance to be on Fahey Lane. I am unsure as to
    what this means as it is contradictory evidence. Regardless of where either car/truck
    entrance is located, both streets are quiet and suburban.

    Fahey Lane is a strictly residential lane, where there are garages and access points to the back of many houses. This lane is used by locals for street cricket, social gatherings, children’s play and many other social activities. Many residents use Fahey Lane to park their cars, causing a narrow lane to become even narrower. I cannot imagine a truck reversing down this quiet residential street without causing a very negative social impact. I cannot imagine an excess of cars and traffic entering at all hours of the night without devastating impacts to the local residents standards of living. Not only is this lane currently residential, it is a very quite street and this becoming a loading dock for a “Motel” will increase traffic noise such as trucks trying to reverse into the dock in such a narrow street. This noise issue was not addressed.

    The height of the proposed building exceeds the maximum height permitted. The location backs onto residences on Gordon Street impacting these dwellings and loss of skyline.

    This development may effect the property values in the area due to poor designs and social impact.

    If development is approved the main access to the site proposed is from Fahey Lane. This will have a significant impact on residences who park in and use the lane as their properties primary entry point. This will impact significantly on all local residence.

    There is nothing positive for the local community about this application. Please uphold two previous applications denials as this is what is best for the local community.

38. Perry properties have taken this to the Land & Environment Court and now council have backflipped and are going to allow this 52 bedroom development to go ahead! Please contact council and voice you objection! This will cause so many issues to local residents for years to come!

Have your say on this application

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