PlanningAlerts

16 Comments

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

1. - the height of this development is too tall and bulky and will overshadow surrounding properties.
   - the design doesn't seem to match the street scape and industrial heritage of St Peters.
   - traffic chaos will be added to significantly in an already crowded one way area.

2. This development pays no mind to the amenity of the surrounding area, its heritage, its more recent cultural heritage, or its potential as a creative hub for inner sydney.

   Hutchinson and applebee streets are not equipped to handle the extra traffic, and increased density and residential development, in conjunction with west connex, see this area set to be completely decimated by overdevelopment, with little thought for creating vibrant communities.

   It is not enough to simply create high density enclaves off newtown that intend to feed off of newtowns culture to rent and sell properties at a high price. Council and government should be investing in suburbs like st peters, in cultivating more exciting inner city suburbs. We cannot be a city of homogenous inner city medium density residential suburbs that stretch on forever. what a sad loss that would be.

3. I don't think an exemption is appropriate in this instance. It is being built where originally there was a single story building. There are rows of original workers cottages that will be overshadowed by its structure. Even if somehow they aren't overshadowed, it would be nice to maintain the street scape of our local area in its original form. The stress on the area from increased traffic at a time when WestConnex is already going to drastically change things is a bad idea.

4. I don't believe a 4 story building should be approved next to single story homes. It will impact on privacy, sunlight , quality of life for current residents and will not fit with the current streetscape. 38 car spaces will increase traffic in an already congested area and could be a hazard. The impacts of west connect on traffic should also be considered on top of the current traffic and impact of this proposed development

5. This building is to high abs too bulky I really think they should redesign a d fit into the street scape

6. Unfortunately the planning controls approved by the late Marrickville Council were designed to help their developer mates rather than look after the local community. Residents were misled by a glossy brochure showing Hutchinson Street as a tree-lined pedestrian shared access lane, with deceptive perspective suggesting that the 4-storey buildings were not much higher than small trees. However this developer proposes to ignore even these inadequate regulations.
   I quote from the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted by the applicant: "The proposed development does not comply with the maximum height of buildings (HoB) and the floor space ratio (FSR) controls applying to the site under MLEP 2011.
   ...The proposal is inconsistent with the DCP preferred split of 60% non-residential to 40% residential floor area."
   Apparently this quest for greater profit will, and I quote again, "... enhance and activate the streetscape in this section of St Peters."
   I presume the activation refers to bringing even more traffic into the street.
   The LEP did not of course, take account of the WESTCONNEX motorway now being built. Pollution from this monster road makes the area totally unsuitable for further residential development and especially for the proposed 28 x Two (2) Bedroom and 4 x Three (3) Bedroom. units.
   I assume that the proposed3 x Two (2) Bedroom + Study are just a ruse for squeezing in an extra bedroom that does not comply.
   I recommend everyone concern has a look at the documents provided on the council website.

7. Much prefer it to the warehouses that are currently underused and not well maintained. A group of strange gypsy people lived in one of them until recently. I live in the street, am not concerned about the height or size. I would like to ensure the trees planted out the front aren't damaged. I certainly hope they're higher spec than the appartments opposite them.

8. I strongly disagree with this application and reiterate all previous comments regarding traffic congestion in an already highly congested, parking restricted one way street, shadowing of existing premises which is already going to be severely compromised by the apartments currently being constructed on Hutchinson Street opposite this property. Traffic entering onto May Street from Applebee Street is already extremely dangerous and will only increase as this is the only exit for residence. Waste removal will increase the complete blockage of Hutchinson Street for an extended period of time which is already dangerous for both motorists and pedestrians.

9. I strongly disagree with the application on the grounds that the St Peters Triangle master plan clearly states no buildings higher than three storeys.
   It will also have massive traffic implications on a one way system that Westconnex in their infinite wisdom have not allowed right hand turns from Campbell St into Hutchinson St. Therefore all traffic for future developments into the St Peters Triangle will only be able to access Hutchinson St from May St. Further increasing congestion in the surrounding area.
   I also notice in the drawings the developer appears to be planting a forest at the corner of Applebee St and Lackey St which will also hinder traffic access!
   Please reject this application on the grounds above and the fact it is totally destroying the eclectic neighbourhood of artists and warehouse coffee shops they all seem to be advertising in their glossy brochures.
   Thank you.

10. I believe All development in the area should cease until the implications of the disaster that is westconnex are realized.

    In this specific instance the proposed development is over height and does not add to the area whatsoever. The application also misrepresents a number of issues and should summarily be rejected on that basis alone.

11. The public interest is one of the factors that Council must consider. It is not in the public interest for this, or any other significant development, to be approved until new controls are developed which take into account the effects of Westconnex

12. Dear Inner West Council

    Objection to the proposed development on 12 Hutchinson St, St Peters, Proposed by
    Applebee 29 Pty Ltd

    I am writing to oppose the proposed development on the following grounds:

    • The proposal simply does not comply with the Council’s regulations. The site is nominated under the MLEP 2011 as a B7 Business Park Zone. The corner of the site has an allowable maximum floor space ratio of 2.2:1 (Area T4) with the remainder of the site having a maximum of 1.4:1 (Area R). This is above the Council’s permissible regulations for new developments.

    • The developer claims that “in this instance there is no public benefit in strictly maintaining the development standards, instead there is public benefit in maintaining a degree of flexibility to facilitate the improved distribution of the permitted floor space” – I disagree with this statement. The development needs to reconfigure the density and the floor ratio and propose a better design that is compliant across the site and fits with the character of the area.
    • The developer claims the strict compliance with the 2.2.1 FSR would give poorer building outcomes. The reader is left to imagine what these poorer outcome would be – we are invited just to trust the developer as they simply said so. Stricter compliance would achieve a lower density which is warranted in this case, due to the negative impact on surrounding buildings, parking, and the amenity of the neighborhood.
    • It is clear from the lodged documents that the developer is interested only in maximum possible profit without due regard for the Marrickville Council planning controls, and without a due regard for the existing amenity of Hutchinson and Applebee Streets nor the impact on traffic through a one-way Hutchinson St and overall lack of parking. The proposed floor space ratio and the proposed maximum height do not comply with the Council’s planning controls – there is no clear justification in their proposal that communicates what exactly constitutes the public benefit in this case.

    • There is no one single unit of affordable housing in this proposal, despite the Council’s recently adopted Affordable Housing Policy. It is clear this development is 100% motivated by profit maximization, which is not is “public benefit’ as they claim. The public benefit could be for example – two affordable housing units in this development to be used as affordable housing for key workers such as nurses, childcare workers and firemen. There is a dire need for value capture in new developments in the Inner west Council, and this development could be a good example of the Council requiring at least some units to be set aside as affordable housing in perpetuity.
    • The proposed building is too high, and it will overshadow existing streets and residential buildings. The new design should allow for a greater set back from the street frontage . Good example of better design is the development on 68 Hutchinson St – it is set back from the curb and it does not feel so overpowering. Much better design solution needs to be achieved for 12 Hutchinson St – after all, buildings last for at least 60 years (and more) and therefore more effort needs to be applied to achieve a friendly design that respects the history of the St Peters area. It is quite surprising that the developer considers their proposal : “The proposed development seeks to make a positive contribution to the desired character of the area and to set a standard for the design of future residential flat building developments” (emphasis mine).

    • I would disagree with the statement that: “The proposal provides a clear and well-proportioned built form, appropriate to its context and neighboring buildings, and achieves high quality living spaces for its occupants. The built form at the intersection of Hutchinson and Applebee Streets is articulated to reduce the apparent visual bulk through the use of recesses and articulated balconies. The built form and its materiality have a high quality appearance that provides visual interest for both residents and the public through the adaptive reuse of the existing warehouse whilst positively enhancing and contributing to the identity of the neighborhood”. From what I have seen in the plans, the “visual interest “ and “a high quality appearance” do not come across from the suggested artists impressions of the new development. And the artist’s impressions are usually very pretty. This one simply isn’t.
    • Proposed parking is grossly insufficient. There is only one single parking spot for visitors. This is unacceptable – Hutchinson St parking is a great struggle for existing residents – and there is a constant battle to find parking spots for residents who live here. The developer is saying that the train station is nearby and this will by its nature somehow solve the problem. Sadly this is not the case. There are a number of large trucks that regularly park on the street taking parking spots adding to the parking pressure. The proposed development will add greatly to the parking problem.
    • Moreover, the proposed development with this many units and business spaces will also generate a lot more traffic directly through small one way street that is Hutchinson St. The modeling shown in the development documentation will result in a maximum net increase 14 vehicles /hr during the morning peak. This is a lot of movement for a small street – this goes directly to show that the density of this proposal is way too high. It is also not clear how this estate has been arrived at in the modeling shown in the documentation – we are invited just to believe this modeling without seeing how calculations have been conducted.
    • There was no DA notice displayed on the building during the period allowed for comments. One would expect that a proposal of this scale and significance would necessitate the prompt display of the DA notice.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

13. I am writing to object to the development application for 12 hutchinson St, St Peters.
    This project obviously contravenes planning controls for the area and, despite the developer’s claims, would not improve local amenity.
    My specific concerns are:

    1. The proposed building is too high for the area. The developer’s case for an exemption from height limits is very flimsy. They claim that having more floors will improve the area but their reasoning for this is just opinion. They also try to support their case by pointing out other tall buildings. These are not good reasons to override the existing regulations. Having such a tall building will change the character of these streets significantly, overshadowing existing houses and changing this area from an open area to a closed in area surrounded by tall buildings on many sides.

    2. Similarly the application to exceed the standard FSR is not justified. Overriding rules so that more people can be crammed into these apartments does not benefit the community or make for a better development. Council has well researched standards and plans for the area and these should be maintained.

    3. This proposal has no allocation of affordable housing. Council should be ensuring that all new developments have a fair proportion of apartments in the area are accessible to people without high incomes.

    4. The building does not provide sufficient additional parking. It is already difficult to park on Hutchinson St and the extra traffic this building would result in are not adequately met by the proposed new parking spots.

    There is a great deal of detail in this application, to the point where it is difficult for pull out the key points of what this proposal involves. After spending time going through a lot of it I’m surprised by the brazenness of this proposal. The developer has clearly invested a lot in preparing these reports and trying to put together a comprehensive application. But ultimately their claims of benefits for the community are their own unsubstantiated opinions. None of their claims of benefit are supported by convincing evidence. This seems to be a developer just seeing how much they can get away with, and in particular having a go at gaining approval for a building that is clearly taller and denser than regulations permit. I strongly object to this proposal and I hope that council follows their own standards. The interests of the community are not met by allowing the area to transform into rows of four story, tightly packed apartments.

14. I would also like to mention that Hutchinson St will not be able to cope with all extra cars that this development will impose on a small one way street that is Hutchinson St. the only way to exit the street is through May St and there is already a lot of congestion there every morning and afternoon in peak times. this will just worsen the problem. Hutchinson St is simply not designed to cope with this amount of additional traffic that this development will impose.

    St Peters truly deserves much better planning outcomes than this proposal puts forward. It is quite poorly designed - just boxes on top on boxes - and despite what the opinion of the architect who was engaged by the Developer states, the proposed design need to be able to stand to public scrutiny and its own merits. this clearly isn't the case here. the developer should seriously reconsider their design and propose less density, less height and better and friendlier design. after all, these buildings will be here for long time and they need to be better designed.
    I am sure this could be achieved by an architect.

15. Another comment not that I have had a look at the Traffic Report provided by the applicant - apparently one reason that the developer does not want to provide sufficient parking is that the soil is too contaminated for underground parking to be provided.
    The developer wants to profit from building homes on contaminated soil and then uses this as an excuse for the failure to provide adequate parking.
    The parking survey is also a bit odd - they seem to have failed to notice that there are many parking restrictions already and claim that there is plenty of on-street parking available.
    The Hutchinson Street I live in does not have enough parking places for current residents, let alone a whole lot more and places for the proposed businesses as well.

16. I object to several aspects of this proposal

    - There are references to a 4 storey apartment building on top of a mixed commercial ground floor. In my mind that's 5 storeys. The building is far too large to sit on top of the small corner of two one-way streets

    - The current zoning is B7 Business Park, which should ''provide a range of office and light industrial uses'' ... and ''to provide for limited residential development in conjunction with permissible active ground floor uses''. This DA is clearly the reverse.

    - The claims of offering premises for ''...the purposes of certain art, technology, production and design sectors'' is getting tired and overused. How many creative types
    - established or upcoming - operate from a confined modern concrete office space with a glass window, a couple of exposed pipes and a small wash basin in the corner?

    - The building will be opposite the new 5 & 4 storey buildings on Hutchinson St and the proposed 4 & 3 storey buildings on Applebee. This will create a shadowed wind tunnel akin to the high-density developments at Wolli Creek and Mascot

    - the density and scale of the development is severely out of character with the small community and the surrounding heritage and Victorian cottages in the St Peters triangle

    - I disagree with the claim that ''Indeed the site is within a location that has gained the benefit of recent significant upgrades in public transport infrastructure''. What might those be?

    - Finally, a note to the promoters of the development who will no doubt pitch ''a cool inner-west vibe with vibrant cafes in warehouses'' to prospective buyers, There aren't any warehouses left!

Have your say on this application

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