163-173 McEvoy Street Alexandria NSW 2015

Stage 1 development application for demolition and concept mixed use proposal for 3 building envelopes, including 2 basement parking levels with vehicle access to McEvoy Street, a 6 storey mixed use building to McEvoy Street with ground floor retail and residential above, a centrally located 6 storey residential building and a 3 storey residential building to Lawrence Street. The application is Integrated Development requiring approval under the Water Management Act 2000.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 3 months ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: City of Sydney, reference D/2017/238)

10 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Katrina commented

    I write with reference to proposal D/2017/238 for the creation of 145 units + commercial premises on McEvoy Street, Alexandria.

    I am concerned that the Traffic Management report has not taken into consideration the impact of Westconnex which will bring the M4 and M5 link across this direct area from Sydney Park through Euston Road and King street.

    I also note that there is no retail parking space and that the premises change from industrial to residential will push most of the new residential traffic volume (expected to be in excess of 300 additional people) to peak hrs. where previously this space was utilized to a lesser degree and within business hrs. only.

    Both of these factors will mean that this proposal will create significant demand on resources such as road traffic, public transport management and parking which are currently utilizing 1.5 lanes of traffic to distribute over 20,000 vehicles P.A (Per RMS data - Euston Road / McEvoy Street). I propose that this volume of residential increase requires additional traffic management planning and further consideration.

    Lastly I would like to understand what the intention is with regard to solar / light access, sound and boundary line fencing, there is limited reference to this within the documentation lodged and as part of the buildings and common space appear to rest directly against fence lines this will impact on the privacy, quality and quiet enjoyment of surrounding residents.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Regards

    Katrina.

  2. Neville miller commented

    A six stores building is completely out of character for the street and surrounding area
    This will result in overshadowing and total loss in privacy to our apartment block
    Currently one side of our building in Harley st faces south where my apartment is located and we receive the bulk of natural light from the rear which will face the new development
    Thus will lead to a substantial loss of natural loss of natural light into our apartments
    A better result would be a maximum 3 storey limit
    This coupled with the expansion of euston rd for west connex will lead to a intolerable situation for our street and our apartment block and will result in loss of privacy and significantly increased noise and lack of privacy

  3. ALEX PEARSON commented

    I write with reference to proposal D/2017/238 for the creation of 145 units + commercial premises on McEvoy Street, Alexandria.

    As long term residents of the area {12+ years}, we understand the concept of creating a new city centre in Green Square, but please ask council to try and retain the original charm, look and community feel in the surrounding suburbs including Alexandria. This particular part of Alexandria is a peaceful and relatively quiet area and the continual addition of mass produced and cheaply made apartments is going to change the area negatively. Having to deal with the billion dollar lemon aka Westconnex is already depressing enough without more people being put into tacky apartments.

    The size and scale of this DA is grossly unnecessary and a greedy grab by developers to sell as many units as possible and make a fortune without considering families that already live in the area.

    I strongly object to the size and scale of this proposal and ask you consider the lives of people who live in the area.

  4. Janine tennille commented

    I write with reference to proposal D/2017/238 for the creation of 145 units + commercial premises on McEvoy Street, Alexandria.

    I have great concerns about the increased traffic including that from WestConnex and lost of privacy. Parking is already a problem and this will only further increase that parking and noise.

    As a resident next door that will face this new building, I will lose any privacy and natural sunlight. A better option would be 3 stories; not 6 stories.

    Alexandria is a beautiful leafy suburb and we wish to maintain that. Not lose any privacy and sunlight.

    As a long term resident & owner, I strongly object to this DA for the scope & size and ask that you consider the lives of people who live in the area.

  5. Michelle commented

    With reference to proposal D/2017/238 for the creation of 145 units + commercial premises on McEvoy Street, Alexandria

    It's incredible isn't it to have City of Sydney lead by Clover Moore "claiming" she is concerned about West Connex. But on the other hand her Town Planners are approving people living along the road that she pretends to be supporting locals in being against. It's all so fake!

    I agree it should be left to be industrial/business space for all the reasons that Katrina points out.

    Sometimes less is best.

  6. Chorel Terelinck commented

    Re: Integrated Development Proposal - Reference Number D/2017/238

    I am a long term resident of Alexandria and am very concerned about the impact that a development of this size will have on this and surrounding streets.

    As a neighbour living next door to this site it is evident that our residence will be overshadowed and robbed of privacy and natural light. Surely the heights of these blocks can be reduced to avoid this occurrence.

    Lawrence Street is already heavily trafficked and there is a great lack of parking availability. I trust there will be no vehicular access to this site off Lawrence Street?

    Why does the proposed development be so dense? Why 145 units?
    The impact on our already overstretched neighbourhood is already at capacity.
    Why not leave this site as it is light industrial?
    .
    Let us live peacefully in our homes.

  7. Wendy Bacon commented

    I am very concerned about any more developments long this strip of McEvoy St. It is clear that the living conditions for the people on Euston Rd will be dangerous from a pollution point of view. All of these dwellings will be More than 60,000 extra cars are going to come into the area in and out of the St Peters Interchange.

    The impact of WestCONnex must be taken into account from a planning perspective, In my view there should be a halt to development in the area. Councillors and members of the community have argued that the WestCONnex fight is not over . Property developers will want open slather to develop devastated areas but the community should not be further exposed to unsafe poor developments.

    I can also see the arguments of the residents of Alexandria who can see dense apartments narrowly spaced new urban higher rise developments overshadowing and changing the sense of scale in the area. As a long term resident of Erskineville side of Newtown I welcome new residents into the area but not at the cost of complete destruction of the wonderful urban fabric that existed there. Walking through Eskineville now, it feels like small oases of terraces have been left like islands, perhaps to be swept away at a later time.

  8. Wendy Bacon commented

    This submission mostly repeats what is above. My apologies for typos. PLEASE READ THIS SUBMISSION

    I am very concerned about the approval of any more developments along this strip of McEvoy St. It is clear that the living conditions for the people residing on the corner of Sydney Park Rd. and Euston Rd will be dangerous from a pollution point of view. It is clear that Westconnex's and the NSW Planning Department's decision to build a road 1.6 metres from where residents live is an appalling one but even if the set back was considerably more than that, it would clearly not be desirable from a planning point of view.

    Given current understanding of potential health impacts of living close to major roads, all planning controls should be reviewed to make sure there are sufficient set backs from roads in new urban developments. As we know, assuming the St Peters Interchange opens (which we hope it will not) more than 60,000 extra cars are going to come in and out of the St Peters Interchange every day.

    I am not aware of the exact number of metres from the road of these apartments. The distance would vary but inevitably residents will be exposed to toxic pollution. I have been concerned to discover that there are no current regulations governing how far new apartment blocks should be from roads. There should be a review of this situation and controls should be clarified and put into place. I know that this may not be up to the Council but the Council can clearly play a role. Any review should take into account set back, the amount of traffic at different times of the day and the latest research on the impact of pollutants on levels of serious diseases including dementia.

    The potential impact of WestCONnex must be taken into account from a planning perspective in all developments near the WestCONnex route. In my view there should be a halt to development in this area. Councillors and members of the community have argued that the WestCONnex fight is not over but in the meantime the community should not be further exposed to potentially unsafe poor developments.

    I can also understand the arguments of the residents of Alexandria who are watching dense, narrowly spaced higher rise developments spring up around them. These create overshadowing and a changed sense of scale in their neighbourhood. . As a long term resident of the Erskineville side of Newtown, I welcome new residents into the area but not at the cost of the destruction of the wonderful urban fabric that existed there, and especially not in the absence of adequate public transport and education facilities. Walking through Erskineville now, it feels as if small clumps of terraces have been left stranded, like tiny islands, perhaps to be swept away at a later time. Alexandria should not go the same way.

  9. Chorel Terelinck commented

    Re proposed development Reference Number D/2017/238.

    Further to my comments on the 2nd May 2017 I have another concern as follows:

    The Lawrence Street boundary of the development abuts hard up against the wall of our property No.118. When the building work begins where do you proposed to erect scaffolding to access the site?

    No.118 Lawrence Street cannot be imposed on for this purpose. Any intrusion by personnel and/or equipment will be a threat to our privacy, security and result in damage to our garden and driveway.

    .

  10. Andrew Hodgson commented

    Re proposed development Reference Number D/2017/238.

    6 stories will not be sympathetic to this area of Alexandria, already being gutted by the governments Westconnex development. Too high, causing lack of privacy and over shadowing for neighbours, not enough services to accomodate the increased number of people, unless someone is going to upgrade sewerage/eater/ more regular street cleaning (haha, like that happens now)/buses/internet services. And despite the limited car spaces available, I can assure you the people with no car spaces will have cars and they will be parking them wherever they can, including in my driveway, in my neighbours driveway, on the street, which is about to become a clearway for a good part of the day.

    I am also going to quote Katrina's comments, she succinctly voiced some of my concerns as well, so thank you Katrina.

    "I am concerned that the Traffic Management report has not taken into consideration the impact of Westconnex which will bring the M4 and M5 link across this direct area from Sydney Park through Euston Road and King street.

    I also note that there is no retail parking space and that the premises change from industrial to residential will push most of the new residential traffic volume (expected to be in excess of 300 additional people) to peak hrs. where previously this space was utilized to a lesser degree and within business hrs. only.

    Both of these factors will mean that this proposal will create significant demand on resources such as road traffic, public transport management and parking which are currently utilizing 1.5 lanes of traffic to distribute over 20,000 vehicles P.A (Per RMS data - Euston Road / McEvoy Street). I propose that this volume of residential increase requires additional traffic management planning and further consideration.

    Lastly I would like to understand what the intention is with regard to solar / light access, sound and boundary line fencing, there is limited reference to this within the documentation lodged and as part of the buildings and common space appear to rest directly against fence lines this will impact on the privacy, quality and quiet enjoyment of surrounding residents.".

    Thank you for taking the time to read my submission.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. Who should this go to?
    One of your elected local councillors

    Your elected councillors can answer your questions and represent you in council meetings.

    Don’t worry if you don’t know who to contact. Every councillor is there to represent you so just pick someone who seems nice.
  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts