PlanningAlerts

40 Comments

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

1. This development flies in the face of having local area conservation zones. Hollands Ave is a very specific example of interwar buildings that have stayed tact for the whole street up until now. This development by the Greek orthodox church, shows there is no interest in conserving this street scape as the conservation plan intends. The three story glass edifice will destroy view around their own beautiful church as well as the Hollands Ave view. The Heritage Impact Statement in this development plan says "The proposed works will have a minor but acceptable impact on the Inter War Group Heritage Conservation Area". There is NOTHING minor about the impact that this building will make on a landscape that has managed to stay in tact for more than 80 years.

2. As a resident of Hollands Avenue, I will be opposing this development all the way. The development will have significant impact on the streetscape view when standing in Hollands Avenue, and looking towards Livingstone Road. Hollands Avenue is a heritage conservation street; residents can't even put in dorma window to change the outline of their roof line, and yet a building such as this can appear at the end of this beautifully preserved street. Parking is already a major issue in Hollands Avenue, both front and back (Pine St). I am sure that 50 residents will create a lot more traffic than the proposed 2 cars, 6 motorcyles and 6 bicycles. The other MAJOR concern is that behind this building development is a children's playground, and the back area of this boarding house is the only designated smoking area. Imagine all the cigarette smoke that the kids could potentially be breathing in from 50 residents.

3. I strongly object to these plans. 2 parking bays is completely inadequate. While this may meet the Council's Development Control Plan, there is no way 27-54 new residents won't add to the congestion already in this area. With the church next door, school up the road and more high density buildings being approved in the area all the time, parking and traffic is already troublesome. There also doesn't appear to be a clothes drying area. With a tiny laundry for this many people, neighbours will be subjected to unsightly washing hanging from balconies. The vertical slat balustrade offers little screening so anything stored on the balconies will be visible from the street leading to this building quickly becoming an eyesore.

4. I strongly oppose this application for the following reasons:
   - Impact to the heritage conservation area (HCA)
   The properties within this HCA are single storey dwellings, of consistent style and materials. This development will change the character of the street due to the increased bulk and scale of a previously low scale building, the use of modern materials such as aluminium for exterior cladding and vertical slat balustrade fencing. Even the grey and white colour palette will be conflicting. Just because some of the existing facades will be retained does not mean the interwar streetscape will be maintained. We don't want a repeat of the following: https://www.domain.com.au/news/fivestorey-tower-springs-up-next-to-adjoining-semi-in-lewisham-20161024-gs97su/
   - Impact to car parking in Hollands Ave
   The development only proposes 2 on-site car parking spaces which not only does not comply with minimum LEP requirements but will mean more cars parking in our streets. The narrow one-way nature of Hollands Ave cannot handle any further traffic and parking congestion caused by this church.
   - Impact to the childrens playground in Hollands Ave
   Child safety when entering/exiting playground is of concern due to the potential increased traffic. Not to mention the risk of exposure to cigarette smoke as this is restricted to the property's courtyard which faces the playground.
   - Application does not meet minimum LEP requirements
   The application itself acknowledges that it does not meet requirements due to insufficient on-site car parking and the building height exceeding the maximum permitted

5. We are significantly concerned about this and will be planning to formally oppose its construction. Our reasons are as follows:
   • This building will counteract the low density environment that has been established in this side of Marrickville and alter the quiet nature of Hollands Avenue
   • The proposed site contains three levels and 27 rooms. This means there is a potential of at least double the amount of people living in this dwelling. The amount of carspaces they have allocated is TWO. We feel two carspaces for a potential population of at least 55+ is grossly underestimating the carspots required and that this will result in increased cars that will seek parking in surrounding streets and adjoining Hollands Avenue
   • The park in Hollands Avenue attract young families and small children and pets. Increased traffic will make the street highly unsafe and unusable with the increased cars.
   • The building has been shown on the plans to block sunlight into Hollands Avenue
   • Designated smoking area for the building has been added to the rear of the building, creating a health and safety hazard for children breathing in fumes

6. I have a number of concerns in relation to the proposed development.
   These are:
   -Parking and vehicle movements
   The proposed parking arrangements are manifestly inadequate. The assumption that boarding house residents will not own and use vehicles is speculative. None of the surrounding streets currently have residents'parking and there are serious parking and traffic pressures in the area. It is also highly unlikely that the devopment will result in only four extra vehicle movements per day as suggested in the planning proposal. The application allows for up to 50 residents in the boarding house and there will definitely be significant vehicle movement in transport, visitors and deliveries to this many people
   - Heritage impact
   Planning controls apply to protect the integrity of the Hollands Avenue and adjacent heritage areas . The assessment that the impact of the development would be minor does not seem valid. It will alter the streetscape in a major way.
   - Impact on amenity of existing residents
   It is not clear from the planning proposal who will occupy the boarding house, or who will manage the facility. Without this information it is impossible for residents to assess the impact of up to 50 new residents on the surrounding area. This is particularly relevant as the boarding house is adjacent to a highly-used children's playground and in close proximity to two schools.

   Smoking areas near this playground, or in front of the building on Livingstone Road, would not be in keeping with Marrickville Council's policies on smoke free environments.

   The building will also block sunlight to Hollands Avenue and the northern side of Marrickville Avenue.

7. The council should not even consider this application on several grounds!
   1) As we speak the church has un- approved church bells that operate, and they have not followed council conditions to insulate,( and for some reason council has not enforced its orders,conditions,for over 3 yrs).
   The church bluntly doesnt give a stuff about the locals or council.
   "God help the boarders when those bells ring"
   2)The bike lane has been approved, on livingstone rd,parking will caotic!
   Why hasnt church offered to leave its gates open for parking 24/7 ?
   Like st brigids church.
   3) The current storm water pipes cannot cope with extra hard ground drainage. Currently the current grass area soaks alot of water. This developement will Cause overflow and flooding.
   Council would be irrisponsible to approve on this issue alone!

   Regards peter

8. I object to the application because of the impact it will have on the neighborhood, both visually and physically. The building simply does not fit into the streetscape of either Hollands Ave or Livingstone Road. Hollands Ave is a quiet street and one of the few whose buildings have remained almost unaltered since the original construction. The residents acknowledge the restrictions that because of the desire to maintain the appearance, no additional floors can be added and any alterations must be sympathetic to the original. This proposed structure makes a mockery of that, let alone the impact of the additional 50 boarding house residents on the street and park. It will seriously detract from the cohesive visual impact of Hollands Ave.

9. This is absurd. The council should not even consider this application on the grounds of the impact it would make on the Heritage homes of Hollands Avenue. Not to mention that it would boarder the playground used by local children.

10. I am writing in opposition to the proposed development at 209 Livingstone Rd. I have outlined some of the objections I have below.

    Heritage: As a Marrickville resident, I have been proud of the efforts that our council have previously taken to uphold the historic value of our suburb. The proposed boarding house on the historic site on Livingstone Rd is in direct contravention with the character of the surrounding area. The multi-level nature of the plans (two stories above the historic building), as well as the materials used and the exterior design, bear no resemblance to the existing buildings – despite information that suggests this, on page 26, point 5.2 of the proposal’s heritage impact statement. The proposed building is not sympathetic to the carefully maintained, beloved buildings of Hollands Avenue.

    Parking: the proposal for two parking spaces for a possible 51 residents is woefully inadequate. The area surrounding the proposed building cannot support such a significant increase in traffic. I find the assumption that residents of the boarding house will only use bikes, incredibly naive, if not deliberately negligent. Already, on Sunday mornings in particular, cars are found parked on the grass areas at the back of Ness Park.

    Smoking Area: The suggestion of a designated smoking area, within metres of the children’s play area in Ness Park shows a particular lack of consideration of current and future residents. I assume that I do not need to go into detail about the significant, long term and scientifically proven effects of second hand smoke.

    Residents: The proposal does not indicate for whom the building is designed. Based on historic uses of boarding houses in the area, it can be assumed that residents will be relatively transient, with little interest in maintaining the integrity of the surrounding area.

    Marrickville, and the area around Hollands Avenue in particular, is an increasingly rare and vital remembrance of our history. I urge you to consider the implications that a modern, stark construction, such as the one proposed, would have on the future of our suburb.

11. I write to add my voice to the chorus of dissenters.
    This proposal will only serve developers who have already scarred the Marrickville landscape with the abomination being built on the corner of Marrickville and Livingstone Rd. Just like the Marrick and Co development the sham of a traffic study conveniently does not take into consideration peak school hour traffic for St Brigid's school.
    If given approval we are building a bottleneck for traffic and increasing the density of our community.
    

12. I object to this development.

    A smoking area beside a children's playground flies in the face of the efforts made to stop the uptake of smoking. When children playing are exposed to smoking as a normal part of life, it's hard to see how they will fail to look upon it as anything other than an acceptable behaviour.

    That's not even considering the other activities that typically take place in designated smoking areas of boarding houses.

13. As a resident of Hollands Avenue, I take pride walking my children to and from school each day. On our return from school we stop off at Ness Park for an afternoon play.
    I am appalled that an application of this nature is to even be considered by our council.
    Our families concerns are as follows:
    Impact to our Childrens playground
    Ness Park is our backyard. A playground we frequent several times daily to burn some steam. We feel that having a designated smoking area beside a childrens playground is unacceptable. Second hand smoke exposure is clearly linked with negative outcomes on a persons health. We have a right as residents to a ‘Healthy Smoke Free greenspace”
    Everyday as parents we are faced with challenges, teaching our children to do the right thing, respect themselves, respect their bodies.
    Why should our children be exposed to cigarette smoke whilst enjoying physical play?

    Impact to the heritage conservation area (HCA)
    All the houses within Hollands Avenue are consistent in style and size. This development will change the face of such a wonderful street we residents have taken pride in to care for, retain and respect the character of the street.
    Parking

    Parking on a good day between the Sunday masses, funerals, christenings, name days etc is hard to find. Hollands Avenue is a one way narrow street with limited parking.
    The development only proposes 2 on-site car parking spaces which not only does not comply with minimum LEP requirements but will mean more cars parking in our streets. The narrow one-way nature of Hollands Ave cannot handle any further traffic and parking congestion caused by this church.

    Safety during construction
    How am I to walk my children safely to and from school in a ONE WAY NARROW STREET that is already faced with cars speeding down our street in a rush to beat the oncoming slaughter of traffic from Livingstone Road. I cannot imagine the chaos that bulldozers, diggers, cranes etc let alone the impact of the vehicles and people that will be needed to construct the building will have on our street.

14. I am not in favour of the proposed development on the grounds of parking. The facility has the potential for 50 residents and two managers but has parking spaces for two cars. We, the residents, are already subjected to parking pressures from the church, the school and the nursing home. If the boarding house is constructed I would suggest Residential Parking permits for Hollands Avenue, Marrickville Avenue, Roberts Street and Liningstone Road.

15. Granted I live a few blocks away and don't even feel particularly strongly about this development but I still think there are some valid points to be made.

    1. Smoking near a children's playground is unhealthy but surely the council will see sense and change that once it is pointed out although not sure how it wasn't noticed in the first place although people can smoke anywhere in parks now can't they?
    2. Parking is a problem.
    3. If drainage is a problem as one has claimed then they seriously need to sort that out.
    4. I can't dispute the destruction of natural light will be disappointing for residents.

    There are other issues with this development that just seem ridiculous.

    1. The tone around "boarding house" here and in Dulwich Hill is horrible. There seems to an assumption that the residents will be scum and destroy a neighbourhood (and be unsafe around children). Is this based on anything concrete? I thought residents of Marrickville had more compassion for people than the constant "not in my backyard" mentality.

    2. Parking. It may be an issue but do we know anything about the expected group of residents and their likelihood of owning cars? For example, are they expected to be elderly people (crossed my mind given it is on church land and a church with an ageing community) that would no longer be driving. Or another socio-economic group in general that are less likely to have a car?

    3. Short term problems. If we all focussed on short term pain like needing an alternative walking route to school then nothing would ever get built.

    4. Church bells? Surely they can insulate if that is genuinely an issue but as a renter who has lived near a busy city fire station and currently live under the flight path I don't imagine church bells are that much of an issue. I say this while assuming they are not ringing in the middle of the night or the crack of dawn.

    5. I know many people in Australia have issues with clothes hanging on balconies but do you travel to Italy and Singapore (yes, Singapore) and see laundry everywhere and freak out? I live in a building with a shared clothes line but many residents still hang washing on balconies for convenience because balconies are covered from the elements. There is plenty of eyesores in marrickville (poorly constructed homes, water bottles in the Cooks River, and rubbish dumped everywhere) but to me clothes hanging on a balcony are a lot better than destroying the environment by using a clothes dryer for all your washing (which I have experienced in North America). In addition, the new Wave building on Illawarra road (or perhaps the neighbouring building) seems to have built-in washing lines on individual balconies. When I first spotted this I personally thought it was fantastic and the way of the future if we want to save the planet.

    As an aside (and based on Internet forums many would disagree) Marrickville is a good place to live because of the diversity and vibrancy of its community and for me my enjoyment of living here has little to do with the built or the natural environment (both of which could be a lot better and that has nothing to do with new construction).

16. As a resident of Hollands Ave I strongly object to this proposed development:
    *This building does not meet the council regulations for Heritage and Conversation. This building proposal is completly at odds with the local surroundings - the proposed building appears modern, is two stories higher than the surrrounding buildings with aluminium windows and doors. We must protect the streetscape of Hollands Ave in this Heritage Conversation Area.
    *Parking: the proposal for two parking spaces for a possible 51 residents is inadequate. The area surrounding the proposed building cannot support such a significant increase in traffic. Every Sunday Sunday mornings in particular, no space can be found to park in Hollands Ave for residents.
    *I am greatly concerned that the designated smoking area will be at the rear of the building adjacent to the park. I use this park regularly as many of the local residents do, I do not wish to be faced with groups smoking forcing me to breath second hand smoke each time I visit the park.
    I urge planners to reconsider this application. Im not sure how anyone could think this commercial looking buidling fits with the Hollands Ave Heritage homes.

17. I would like to voice my opposition to the planned boarding house on Livingston road. The main reason is that the plans do not keep the heritage look of the street, this is a council regulation.
    Secondly the parking issue will be terrible with the street not being able to hold cars for 50 extra residents and I assume that they will have visitors etc from time to time. This will be a added hazard for the many people who exercise and walk dogs around the neighbourhood.
    Thirdly the impact the construction will have on the street, it's a nice quite street and the noise and dust associated from construction will have a negative impact on the elderly and young children Living in the street.
    For the residents of Hollands ave there is no real benefits of this 3 story apartment complex. There was no consultation with residents as what this space would become, there are many ways the church can utilise the space for community good with out negative impacts on the street.

18. As a home owner in Hollands Ave, I strongly object to the application for a 3 story boarding house at 209 Livingstone Rd fir many reasons.
    Heritage. There are no 3 storey buildings in the street it is out of character.
    Parking. There isn't enough parking now, it will be shocking with extra people proposed to be living in a boarding house and their visitors.
    Smoking area, so close to a playground.!!!!
    Playground is for children and the idea of. People looking down into an area where children play is unthinkable!!!!!!

19. We are home owner on Hollands avenue for over40 years and we strongly object to the application for a 3 storey boarding house at 209 Livingstone rd for many reasons.This building is totally out of character, we live in a street that is surrounded with heritage houses and building.
    The lovely park that is for kids and famillies will be destroyed by cigarette smoke and what about asthmatic kids?
    We like to feel we can have our right to a clean healthy and safe environment for our famillies.
    There is always a struggle with limited parking on weekends as the church goers attend and as home owners we dont have garages .
    This building will destroy our nice sunlight snd it will make our street look horrible.

20. As a inner west resident I think this is another example of inappropriate development with little thought to existing resident, future residents, traffic, amenities such as public transport, schools, hospitals, etc. Furthermore it will tower over the existing heritage conservation area in Holland Ave and add little to the appeal of that area.

21. We are residents of Hollands Avenue and strongly object to the development planned for 209 Livingstone Road, Marrickville. Any work required to any dwellings in Hollands Ave is under strict design guidelines - we have always been asked to keep the look of the street in tact - why is there an exception for this developer? The design doesn't take into account the heritage of the SES building nor does it flow from the front to the back of the building. It looks like one big concrete block is being added to the front facade without consideration for the rest of the building. Then there's the issue of parking - we can barely park in our street on weekends or when there are church festivities so how are a potential of 51 people going to park? The proposed design is not appealing and totally out of character with the rest of Hollands Ave.

22. As a resident of Hollands Ave I strongly oppose this development application. The design is an insult to the street scape of Hollands Ave. I can not even put in a dorma or an inline window in my place as this does not fit in to the conservation aspect of the street. A three storey cube building will be totally out of character for this low density urban area.
    I am deeply concerned about a boarding house being so close to the playground which is used daily by community members and their children. The smoking area would be in direct line with the children and their parents. The back area is already an eye sore with people in the photography room hanging out their washing between the building and the park.
    The level of traffic with related parking issues on this one way narrow street will be increased. Presently when church is on it is difficult for me to park near my own home. This proposal will further put a strain on Hollands Ave and Livingstone Rd in terms of traffic and parking.
    The facade of the SES building is an important landmark in Marrickville and it would be a shame to see its significance diminished. A three storey building will stick out like a sore thumb in the residential area that is all low density. It will look like a commercial building and will not fit in with the character of between the war architecture of this precinct of Marrickville.

23. As a resident of Livingstone Road I strongly oppose this application. It is completely out of sync with the local community and neighbourhood.

    The old SES building, Hollands Ave and Ness Park create a lovely, low density space for the community to gather and enjoy our home suburb. The boarding house will turn a small residential street into a thoroughfare of traffic (that it is already struggling to accommodate). It will also place significant strain on the parking capacity of the street. Getting a park can already be very difficult and I cannot imagine what it would look like if another 15-20 cars were parked in the area.

    A multi-story block-like structure perched on a corner and surrounded by original, single-story dwellings from the 20s and 30s would be absurd and an eye-sore. It would change the character and charm of a beautiful, community orientated street and render Ness park unusable. It would become a dark, smokey area utilised by no-one, and the council funding that went in to setting up the space would be a complete waste.

    Please do not allow this proposal to go ahead - I believe the decision will come to be regretted by many in the years to come.

24. We are significantly concerned about this development and will be formally opposing its construction. Our reasons are as follows:

    This building will counteract the low density environment that has been established in this side of Marrickville and negatively impact on Hollands Avenue;
    The proposed site is high density which is uncharacteristic of Hollands Avenue, containing three levels and 27 rooms. Not only will this dwelling be an eyesore not keeping in line with heritage architecture of the street, the sheer amount of residents will greatly impact on parking availability in the street. The current development proposes two car spaces which is clearly inadequate for this type of residence.
    Designated smoking area for the building has been added to the rear of the building, backing onto a shared family park and will create a health risk
    Increased traffic will add other, unfavourable, environmental impacts on the street and its residents and pets.
    Overall the application does not meet the LEP requirements and requires a thorough rethink.

25. I am concerned with the proposed high density dwelling on the corner of Hollands Avenue and Livingston Road and as an owner occupier, will be formally opposing this development.

    The Hollands Avenue community has cohabitated with and supported the Greek Orthodox Church for so many years, sharing in it's significant holy calendar events and Sunday services but unfortunately, this proposed development demonstrates that the Greek Orthodox Church has chosen profit over the community.

    In addition, the following concerns must be addressed:

    This building will counteract the low density environment that has been established in this side of Marrickville and negatively impact on Hollands Avenue;

    The proposed site is high density which is uncharacteristic of Hollands Avenue, containing three levels and 27 rooms. Not only will this dwelling be an eyesore not keeping in line with heritage architecture of the street, the sheer amount of residents will greatly impact on parking availability in the street. The current development proposes two car spaces which is clearly inadequate for this type of residence. It's hard enough for the current residents to find a spot to park so what will happen when 27 double rooms are built?

    Designated smoking area for the building has been added to the rear of the building, backing onto a shared family park and will create a health risk.

    Increased traffic will add other, unfavourable, environmental impacts on the street and its residents and pets.

    The proposed building looks completely out of place and will not add any value in a heritage area that has been maintained to reflect its history.

    Whatever happened to the Greek early learning centre and community hall dancing school that was initially proposed? Instead the development will virtually block out the sun for the residents at the beginning of the street.

    It's clear from the above comments that the residents of Hollands Avenue are opposed to this development proposal. It would be remiss of the council to neglect this fact.

26. I am writing to lodge my absolute opposition to the development application (DA201700180) for 209 Livingstone Rd Marrickville.

    I am an owner/ resident in Hollands avenue and have been so for approximately 13 years. The proposed building on the corner of 209 Livingstone Rd and Hollands Ave does not comply with Council Heritage and Conservation regulations and in fact is an absolute insult to them. All of the houses in Hollands avenue have been preserved as single storey brick interwar dwellings (by council regulation). I fail to see how a modern three storey glass building that towers over all dwellings surrounding it does not impact on our streetscape. One of its boundaries is actually on Hollands ave yet it does not comply with any of the conservation restrictions that apply to all houses in Hollands ave. I fail to understand how the Council can even consider the application in light of this.

    The area is designated as low density and for this reason I do not understand how a three story; 27 bedroom dwelling (designed to house 50 odd people) could even be considered. We already have high density housing being built some 300 metres down the road with the Mirvac development and for this reason I suggest it would be important to preserve the low density landscape in the Hollands ave area.

    Two parking spaces are allocated for this development application. This is another absurd aspect of the application. One cannot make an assumption that boarding house residents don't drive cars. It is already impossible to park in my own street on Sunday mornings or at other times during church services. Traffic and parking controls are already inadequate for this area, let alone with the addition of another 50 residents.

    It would be irresponsible of the Council to approve this development and would clearly fly in the face of sound, well researched feedback from current residents who dutifully abide by the council regulations and pay their rates.

27. I strongly oppose this application as inappropriate on many levels.
    The heritage architecture of residences in Hollands Ave is compromised by the modern and unsympathetic architecture in this proposal, the building is too big and will impact negatively on Ness Park as well as Hollands Ave.
    I agree with many of the issues raised by others who are also concerned by this application including the idea of a smoking area next to the park that many young children play in and the impact on parking and traffic in the street.
    It is disappointing that the SES building cannot be developed in a way that enhances rather than severely detracts from the immediate area around it. I hope this proposal will not be approved.

28. Being a lifetime resident of this local community and one of the original members of the Marrickville Girls Club I am totally opposed to the development proposal submitted to the Inner West Council (DA201700180) for 209 Livingstone road Marrickville. Marrickville Coucil was to be congratulated for their foresight in deeming this area a CONSERVATION ZONE and the residents of Hollands Avenue have all supported the regulations associated with this by maintaining both homes and gardens to a high standard. We have just witnessed the destruction of 3 brick homes on the Marrickville Hospital site on Livingstone Road and now we are faced with a further destruction of our heritage.
    Surely the owners and architects could develop a plan that would restore and maintain the integrity of the Inter War period architecture. The suggested building materials and the sheer scale of the building (3 storeys) does not satisfy the councils request to "conserve the physical character and have minimum adverse impact on environmental quality or residential amenity" (Section 4.3.3 MDCP). The architects state that the proposal complies with the conditions outlined in the MDCP Section 4.3 Residential Development Boarding Houses. Yet so many assumptions are made regarding their interpretation. These are not hard facts but pure assumptions. Just one example is the assumption that the residents of the Boarding House (and I assume ) their visitors would not have motor vehicles and therefore there is no need to provide off street parking. The 2 parking spaces they have provided ( 1 of which is disabled parking) do not therefore provide for the on site managers. Also on this point, how are the motor cyclists to gain access to their parking bays at the rear of the building without driving along the footpath?
    Hollands Avenue is also on the route for the Marrickville Bicycle Strategy with traffic flowing down Pine Street into Hollands Avenue left along Livingstone Road and turning right into Arthur street (another one way street with traffic flowing in the opposite direction). Does the council want to further exacerbate the traffic congestion of this strip. Already the Greek Church (which does not provide enough on site parking) has only one exit onto Livingstone Road for both pedestrians and vehicles and this is approximately 10 metres away from a pedestrian crossing often blocking the view for traffic travelling north along Livingstone Road.
    Ness Playground was built and recently modernised to cater for the young families of this local area.Council liaised with the local community on the requests for this area. It is not a park with toilet facilities, barbecue or even covered seating areas. To propose a building with an outdoor smoking area adjoining the park is pure negligent on the part of the architects given all the facts we now know regarding the impacts of passive smoking.
    I hope that the architects and owners can come up with a proposal that adheres to the guidelines and regulations for this CONSERVATION ZONE.

29. Whilst we would support an appropriate redevelopment of 209 Livingston Road Marrickville, we object to the current proposal as described in DA201700180.
    Our objections pertain to:
    1. the size and bulk of the current development
    2. the summary impact of the numerous variation requests
    3. insensitivity to Inter-War Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
    4. and impacts on our home site.

    We object to the size and bulk of this proposed development.

    The Statement of Environmental Effects for 209 Livingstone Rd (SofEE) asserts, with regard to Marrickville Developmental Control Plan (MDCP) 2011 Bulk and scale relationship 4.2.5.2, “The building mass and facades of the proposed development are divided into smaller units which sympathetically relate to adjoining properties. When viewed from Livingstone Road, the proposed development will remain smaller in scale than the adjoining Church building to the north-east and will provide an appropriate transition to the low density residential development to the south-west”.

    Our response:
    1) The the new additions are significantly larger than the original building.
    2) The church is undoubtedly a larger building, however it sits on a significantly larger piece of land with substantially greater set back from both the Livingstone Road and Hollands Avenue streetscapes. It is also a church rather than a residential building. The more relevant relationship in terms of proportion is to the existing residential properties on Hollands Avenue, which are all single storey structures. Therefore, the statement’s connection of the proposed building to the church building is less relevant when assessing the proposed development’s relationship to the existing environment.
    3) The statement addresses the view of the proposed development from Livingstone Road but not from Hollands Avenue. The setback from Hollands Avenue is much less and therefore the size/bulk is much more imposing from the Hollands Avenue streetscape.
    4) The statement does not take into account Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) controls with regard to height, bulk and maintenance of architecturally sensitive street presence.

    We object to the variation requests related to height and car parking and to other areas where controls have not been met.

    The SofEE notes that the proposed development could not meet all the building regulations relating to size and bulk, in particular it is over height (MLEP 4.3), it is significantly over site coverage at 51% instead of the permitted 30% for 3+ storey buildings (MDCP 4.2.4), it does not have enough car spaces (SEPP 2, section 29(2)(e)), it under on proportion of landscaped area at 20.4% instead of required 45% (MDCP 2.18).
    The SofEE (and the associated Appendixed Variation Requests) asserts that the proposed development has maximized the space and thus cannot reasonably comply with these controls. It [arguably] assert that the design is sympathetic to the streetscape, is appropriate with regard to density and bulk, has no impacts on adjoining properties (including with regard to shadowing). It also asserts that boarding house residents are less likely to have cars.

    Our responses to these variation requests:
    The combination of the difficulties in reasonably complying with these regulations strongly suggest that the size of this property and the demands placed on any development by building regulations (including the HCA) make this land site unsuitable for the size and scope of development that has been proposed. The reasons proposed in the Variation Requests are essentially that the developer wants to build a big building on a small site and they cannot do it unless they are given special permission not to meet all the regulations. These regulations are there to make sure that new buildings and additions are not too big for the sites that contain them. Generous special allowances regarding size have already been made for Affordable Housing. The parking space regulations referred to are specifically for affordable housing developments and so the argument that the potential residents are less likely to have cars is redundant. The number of variations that have had to be requested in order for the development to be supported is a clear indicator that development is too large, bulky and dense for this location.

    We object to the lack of sensitivity of the proposed development to the local built environment, particularly given that it is within the Inter-War Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).

    The proposal acknowledges that the site is within the Hollands Avenue Inter-War HCA but does very little to adequately address the regulations/guidelines. Any development within an identified HCA should be first and foremost be considering how it will maintain the integrity of the identified area.

    The Heritage Impact Statement asserts that the proposed works will have a minor but acceptable impact on the Inter War Group HCA for the following reasons:

    1. It will retain and incorporate contributory facades on the eastern, western and northern facades.
    Our Response: While the above-mentioned facades are retained, they are the smaller portion of the overall proposed development and are proportionally overshadowed by them. The western existing façade has only been partially retained and would be significantly set back behind the new extension, which means it would be further hidden from street view and dominated by the extension. There is no other contributory remainder of the existing building from the Hollands Avenue streetscape (addressed further at point 3).

    2. The design respects the original setback from Livingstone Rd and Hollands Avenue and there is not significant increase in footprint.

    3. The proposed demolition of the Hollands Avenue garage will have no impact on the site as the garage is a non-original feature.
    Our response: The HCA does state that removal of non-original features is recommended to restore a building to the original state. The proposal does not propose to remove the non-original garage in order to reveal the original façade on that side. The proposal will remove the non-original (yet architecturally consistent) garage and replace it with a less architecturally consistent addition. As such the proposal is significantly altering the Hollands Avenue streetscape but building an entirely new southern façade, which all but hides the remaining existing facades.

    4. The proposed fenestration dimensions mirror the exiting proportions and he proposed colour palette and material chosen for the additions reflect the darker tones of the Interwar HCA.
    Our response: It is unclear how the proposed colour palette and materials used are significantly tied to the period. Bricks are a feature of the architectural style of the period but are mid/darker brown whereas the bricks on the ground level of the proposed new extension are modern grey. The aluminium cladding which covers the first and second floors of the proposed extension bear not relationship to the period and are at odds with it.

    5. Given all of the above no significant view corridors into, out or within the Interwar Group HCA will be impacted upon.
    Our response: This is a conclusion based on insubstantial reasoning as noted above and as follows. The attempts to address the Inter-War HCA are tokenistic and primarily address the Livingstone Road street view. Given that the ex-SES site is within the Hollands Avenue Interwar HCA the importance of the street view from Hollands Avenue cannot be ignored or dismissed.
    As noted previously, the resulting facades of the proposed new extension leave nothing of the existing building in the southern facing façade and only a small amount of the existing western façade. It is unclear how the material and colours contribute maintenance of the consistency of the street view. The proposed development, from the Hollands Avenue is essentially going to be the view of a new, modern-style building.

    The Heritage Impact Report also states that the principal view corridors to the site are from directly outside the building and from the south (the Greek Orthodox Church partially obscuring from the north) and that from Hollands Avenue the western and southern elevations are only highly visible through the Park (small trees partially obscuring the view).
    Our response: This opinion appears to be made on the basis of images from Google Maps (which are images above head height) and is an overstatement of the disruption of street view by the trees and an understatement of the prominence of 209 Livingstone Street site. While the existing building is somewhat nestled and has a modest and cohesive presence in the street scape, given the bulk and forward presence of the proposed development it will be highly visible along a good portion of the street, especially from Ness Park, the sidewalk on the park side of Hollands Avenue and the sidewalk in the end of Hollands Avenue closest to 209 Livingstone Road.

    The 209 Livingstone Road site is within the Hollands Avenue Inter-War HCA. The building/site has been grouped within this residential group HCA. It has been grouped in this residential area of heritage significance because although unique it contributes to the architectural consistency of the residential street view and assists in maintaining and enhancing the integrity of heritage in the area. Although the building itself has not historically been for residential use, it has been grouped into the Inter-War Group HCA of residential buildings, it has been zoned R1 (for residential use) and the proposed development is residential. As such the any development of this site would be considered under the HCA residential controls of the MDCP.

    The MDCP, Section 8.5.3.1 identifies the objectives of the HCA for the Inter-War HCA are:
    O1 To retain and, if possible, enhance the contribution of the property to the streetscape
    02 To ensure any change in the HCA is sympathetic to the Inter-War period values of the property and its ability to contribute to the identified heritage values of the area.
    O3 To retain the curtilage and setting – including front setbacks – free of car parking.
    04 To keep original roof forms and materials and the scale of the building as presented to the street.
    O5 To retain or reinstate front façade proportions, material and open verandas or porches.
    O6 To protect, maintain and recover original details of the house, front year and fence.

    The MDCP, Section 8.3.2.4 also notes the following:
    Controls common to all residential HCAs
    C19 New development (including extensions to the rear) that will be visible from the street must be no higher than the existing roof form or height of the building and must not overwhelm the existing built form.
    C21 Extensions and alterations visible from the street must be consistent with the overall massing and form of the property… and must not dominate the existing building form”.
    C22 Existing original roof forms (and, where possible, materials) must be retained to the front elevation and for the length of the main roof to the side elevations.
    C23 If replacement of roof covering is required the new roof covering must match that of the original roof, if known.
    C36 The original scale, proportion, materials and detailing of the street facades must be retained
    C47 New material to principal facades must be compatible with the colour, texture, finishes and proportions of the existing material of the property and the materials of original properties within a matching group.

    Our response to the proposed developments compliance with these objectives and controls:
    The proposal has identified that the site is within the Inter-War HCA and has referred to some of these objectives/controls (e.g. fence heights, setbacks) but has ignored, dismissed or underplayed others (retain and enhance the contribution of the property to the streetscape, be sympathetic to the period values, keep original roof forms and materials and the scale of the building as presented to the street). The new additions (which are the larger portion of the development) have diluted the contribution of the existing building and the overall development substantially interferes with the largely intact Inter-war street scape. The new additions are not sympathetic to the period values. The bricks are modern in texture and colour. The aluminium cladding has no connection with the period in terms of material type and colour. The roof form has not been retained. The scale of the building has massively increased.

    We object to the shadowing of properties to the south of the proposed development.

    We object to the amount of shadow which the proposed development will produce which will fall on the front yard and building of the 2 Hollands Avenue yard and building (similarly for 4 Hollands Avenue and also onto the rear yard and building of 217 Livingstone Road property). I have looked into the controls regarding shadow impacts and am aware that the shadow impacts are within regulation in that there will be direct sunlight for not less than less than 2 hours between 9 and 3. Even so, I will state my objection for several reasons. Firstly, our home relies on the northern sun in the mornings in winter to keep our warm home and thus reduce our reliance of alternate heating. This portion of our home is the portion currently most prone to damp and further reduction in access to sunlight will likely exacerbate the management of this. Reduced sunlight may impact on the productivity of our front yard vegetable garden. We actively use the front yard area - we regularly sit and enjoy the morning sun in our front yard (as do our neighbours), especially during the winter months. The reduced access to sunlight is also likely to reduce the productivity of our vegetable garden.

    Other concerns with the proposed development

    The Statement of Environmental Effects for 209 Livingstone Rd (SofEE) noted that there is a small communal room on each floor.
    The Marrickville DCP 2011, Section 4.3.3.6 notes:
    C23 Provide a smaller, more intimate communal living room on each floor in a multi-storey boarding house that has a capacity of more than 5 residents and multiple floors
    Control 25 Communal rooms are purpose designed and not just left over space or in corridors.
    The concern is: The first and second floor communal living areas are not easily identified on the drawings and appear not to be rooms but rather part of the corridors.

    The Statement of Environmental Effects for 209 Livingstone Rd (SofEE) noted that the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of the proposed development is 1.098:1 which is under the maximum permitted under the SEPP for a boarding house.
    The concern is: Why is the “void” of 24.84 sqm on the ground floor (labeled on the floor plan as “ST.”– presumably for storage) not included in the calculation of the FSR (as indicated on the drawing titled GFA Calculation). Inclusion of this area would take the FSR above the allowable FSR.

30. I strongly oppose the development proposal for 209 Livingstone Rd.

    This will have great impact to myself, my children and the community, not only in Hollands Avenue and Livingston Rd but surrounding streets such as Pine Street and South Street who already feel the impact of the Greek Orthodox Church on Sundays and other special events due to heavy traffic on those days.

    Converting this building to a 3 story boarding house would have a huge impact on the streetscape and would block sunlight for surrounding buildings and Ness Park.

    Hollands Avenue already has major parking issues which would then create a flow on issue in surrounding streets, such as Pine and South Streets.

    The plans shows only 2 car spaces which would not be sufficient for the 27-54 tenants that could potentially be staying at the boarding house.

    I am concerned the type of tenants a boarding house would attract. The boarding house at 407 Marrickville Rd, Dulwhich Hill has the Police there on a weekly occurrence. This worries me a lot as my children play in Ness Park all the time.

    The plans also shows the smoking area for the tenants would be right next to the children's play area. This would have a toxic and unsafe health impact on the local children and goes against the councils smoke free environment plans.

    The proposed building looks completely out of place and will not add any value in a heritage area that has been maintained to reflect its history.

    I would also be concerned about crime rates rising with the transient nature of boarding house tenants but above all my children's safety is my number one priority. I would no longer be able to allow them to go to Ness Park, one of the few remaining playgrounds in our area.

31. I strongly object to the boarding house development.
    The proposed boarding house Development is within the Heritage Conservation Area, the Interwar Residential Precincts of Hollands Avenue - C35.
    The address of the proposed 3 story boarding house is Livingstone Road, but it major frontage, of over 40 metres, is in Hollands Ave & this is where it will have its greatest detrimental impact. The site is situated in the HCA; all compliance for the application should be associated with the HCA, not general compliances.

    1. The height of the proposed boarding house development.
    The aim of the ‘Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011’(MDCP), part 9, Strategic Context Ness Park, pages 2 & 3, is:
     3. To maintain distinctly single storey street-scapes that exist within the precinct.
     8.2.37.1 Statement of heritage significance The Inter-War Group Heritage Conservation Area demonstrates important and rare historic and aesthetic values. The group of buildings in the HCA form highly intact and cohesive street-scape…” MDCP, Part 8, p.160

    The proposed building will be 3 stories high not one.
    It does not comply with MDCP for this Heritage Conservation Area.

    The proposed building will be 40m+ long & over 10m high, its bulk will be a huge contrast with existing buildings. It will destroy the above stated aim to preserve the ‘single storey’ & the ‘highly intact and cohesive street-scape’.

    Legal challenges: If this building is given the exemption it seeks to the height restrictions in the street it will open the way for Legal challenges. Young, expanding families in the area will rightly fight in the courts to have the same right to raise their roofs 2 floors to ensure that do not have to sell & leave the area. Then we will no longer have a HCA. Or are there to be rules for developers & different ones for residents?

    2. Aesthetic consistency - Street-scape.
    The architects state that their building complies with the MDCP, HCA style guidelines & they tick lots of boxes, but saying so doesn't make it true, one only need compare what is in the street & the guidelines, with the application to see that this building does not comply with the MSC Plan for this HCA.
    The MDCP HCA states the ‘rare historic and aesthetic values’ are due consistent:
    Roof Lines:
    The 10+ metre high flat roof of the proposed building is not consistent & it will destroy the ‘rare historic and aesthetic values’ of this street in the HCA.
    Materials: to:
    The proposed building will use:
     grey bricks for the ground floor walls
     the 2 upper floors walls will be large long panels of grey aluminium cladding, giving a very industrial look & their verticality will only increase its looming appearance. This is in stark contrast to the homes in the HCA in nature, colour & material.
    Fencing:
    The proposal claims:
     the streets do not contain a single cohesive style of front fencing or groups or runs of fences.
     Height of side and rear fences. Any new side boundary fencing will have a maximum height of 1.8 metres...The height of the fencing will match the low height of properties within the street-scape.
    Even a cursory look at Hollands Ave in the HCA will show consistent fencing, so this is a totally false claim. The proposed 1.8m high, 40m+ long fence in Hollands Ave will not match the ‘low height’ in the street-scape. At 1.8m it will be more than twice as high as the fences in the street-scape (X3 higher than some). It will also be higher than most people walking in Hollands Ave.
    At 1.8m this fence is incompatible with the HCA street-scape. The proposed fence is inconsistent in colour, materials & size & will destroy the ‘aesthetic values’ of the HCA street-scape.

    Fenestration: Contrary to what is stated in the application the fenestration is not compatible with the homes in the HCA; the arrangement, proportions, and design of windows and doors in the proposed building are long & narrow & are aluminium like the cladding on the upper walls. This is in conflict with the HCA & will clash with its interwar style. The long narrow windows are in stark opposition & inappropriate to the low wide windows of the street-scape.

    3. The visual impact of the proposed building.
    This building will look ugly & incongruous in the HCA context & will destroy the integrity of the street-scape.
    The application in Clause 30A - Character of Local Area, states there is:
     when viewed from Livingstone Road, the proposed development will remain smaller in scale than the adjoining Church building to the north-east and will provide an appropriate transition to the low density residential development to the south-west.

    The application states that the building will basically not be seen:
     no significant view corridors into, out of or within the Interwar Group Heritage Conservation Area will be impacted upon.
    Quite the reverse, this huge building will block views in & out of the HCA & loom large over houses & anyone entering the HCA from Livingstone Rd. It will also have a major impact on anyone driving & walking down Hollands Ave. The architectural drawings have attempted to minimise this affect, a cynical deception of viewpoint & perspective.
    It will have a huge looming visual impact on view corridors within, out of & into the HCA & alter the meaning & importance of the whole Heritage Conservation Area.

    The application states:
     an increase in bulk and scale….a minor but acceptable impact on the significance of the Interwar Group Heritage Conservation Area
     No substantial increase in the building footprint
     the proposed works maintain the contributory status of the site within the Conservation Area. (6.0 CONCLUSIONS of the application)

    Footprint is totally irrelevant compared to its height & bulk. Although the application states it will ‘contribute’ to the interwar street-scape the proposal demonstrates an absolute disregard for these in the height, colours, materials, proportions & its brash defiance of the nature of the HCA & the street-scape show this claim to be false. A 40m X 10m high aluminium clad building can only have a major detrimental impact on the HCA.

    The application takes some time to define ‘compatibility’ & frames it in a convenient way: “Compatibility … It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve.”

    The important point here is ‘though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve’. This proposed building demonstrates vast & incompatible differences to the street-scape in height & scale (3 stories not 1), proportional ratios (vertical fenestration not horizontal), architectural style (21st century industrial), flat roof, materials (aluminium) & looming scale in the street-scape. It will not ‘contribute’ to the interwar street--scape.

    4. Conclusion
    The proposal consistently ignored relevant Architectural Style Sheets for HCA 35 Inter War Group Heritage Conservation Area of the DCP.

    Rather than retain inter war characteristics, as stated in the application, this building is not compatible with the HCA in height & scale, bulk, proportional ratios, fenestration, colour, materials, scale, architectural style or street-scape The style of the proposed building is firmly located in the early twenty first & is no way in keeping with or sympathetic to the modest interwar low elevation, dark red brick homes of the street-scape.

    The significance of the proposed building lies in its placement in the HCA & the plans shows a consistent & blatant disregard for the nature, aesthetics & historical values of the area.

    6. Cars & traffic
    In the application, Clause 104: Traffic Generating Development section states it has “2 car parking spaces for the development”. The architectural drawings show 2 spaces, but 1 is disabled parking, leaving only 1 for the 2 boarding house managers, there should be one space for every boarding house manager. It does not comply!
    The application also states “Traffic & Parking The development will have acceptable impacts on the existing traffic movements in the area.”
    This is yet another deceitful statement.
    Already parking is an issue in Hollands Ave:
     on Sunday & other religiously important days, I regularly have to park in another street.
     arriving home after 6.30pm I often have to part 50 to 100m from my house

    The introduction of a potential 51 extra cars in the area will severely impact on the resident’s amenity.
     The site is therefore ideally located to discourage private motor vehicle ownership and usage, (TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DOC p.1)

    Car ownership will not be discouraged by the development; people want to have cars even if they don't drive them during the week. In Pine St & Hollands Ave cars remain parked in the same spot for a week or weeks at a time. The location does not discourage!

    Also the application states that the boarding house is for people who do not ‘use a car on a regular basis’, meaning scores cars will be parked for long periods in nearby streets.

    On page 18 of the traffic statement the application states:
      If both of the parking spaces associated with the proposed boarding house are accessed once during both the morning and afternoon weekday commuter peak periods, the proposed boarding house has a traffic generation potential of 2 peak hour vehicle trips. That projected level of traffic activity as a consequence of the development proposal is statistically insignificant and will clearly not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity

    This grossly underestimates the traffic generated from the site:
     It states that only the 2 boarding house managers will have cars & only generate 2 peak hour trips
    
    There are 25 double rooms in the development (8 on 2 floors & 9 on the top floor) as well as the site manager’s rooms (2).
    Car ownership will not be ‘discouraged’ by this development. There are potentially 52 car movements not 2, & this is a significant increase in traffic movements in the area.
    Parking requirements for potentially 51 cars is a huge increase for which the application makes no allowance.

    6. Social impacts of the development
    Parking
     the proposed development will not pose any negative social impacts on the locality. (p39, of the application)

    Parking for potentially 51 cars & the attendant the increase in traffic & loss of amenity for residents is a huge negative social impact on the neighbourhood. Transforming this area into a high, not low-density area.

    Playground
    The proposed development does not provide for outdoor recreational area for the residents beyond the shaded smoking area adjacent to the children’s playground. Residents seeking respite from dark confined spaces will go to the adjacent children’s playground. With potentially 48 or more people from the development regularly using the playground & with no one to monitor or stop smoking in the area (except perhaps the poor parents), there will be a public health hazard & loss of amenity as parents keep their children from the smoke in the Playground. The local community atmosphere of the playground will be destroyed.

32. I am a resident of Hollands Ave Marrickville.

    I oppose the proposed development in its current form due to the following

    1. The building does not meet council regulations for Heritage and Conservation. The proposed development is located within a Heritage Conservation Area, and should comply with the relevant Development Control Plan. The proposed structure does not integrate with Hollands Ave streetscape, both in bulk, footprint and materiality. The material pallette is not sympathetic to the adjoining residences. Given the R2 Low density zoning adjacent to the site, this large building will not integrate with its surroundings.
    In addition, the supplied Heritage Impact statement makes the following assertions

    1a. (Heritage Impact Statement Page 25 - Point 5.0) It is proposed to adaptively reuse the site.
    Maintaining the facade of the original building is not an example of this.

    1b. (Heritage Impact Statement Page 26 - Point 5.2)
    The above entry refers to the designers assertion that the materiality, size, bulk and footprint of the proposed development is sympathetic to the inter war period. This assertion is not credible given the commercial building type, the lack of any precedent of these materials or building methods being employed in adjacent buildings, and the proposed 3rd storey, which does not blend with the existing streetscape of Hollands Ave.

    1c.(Heritage Impact Statement Page 27 - Point 6.0)
    The above entry refers to the designers assertion that the proposed design does not interfere with the perception of the original space. This assertion is not backed up by the proposed design, which is at odds with other structures adjacent in terms of materiality, size, bulk, footprint and lack of local precedent of this proposal.

    2. Inadequate car parking. With over 50 residents expected to reside here, the provision of 2 parking spaces is inadequate.This will result in increased parking competition and congestion on an already small one way street. Planning NSW states that 0.2 parking spaces per boarding room, plus one for manager. This would equate to at least 6 spaces required, not the two shown on the plans.

    3.Inadequate private open space. It is my understanding that there is inadequate private open space for the building manager residence. The current allocation does not seem adequate given the site drawings/plans shown in the application.

    4. Smoking Area. The proposed smoking area located at the rear of the structure is situated too close to the childrens playground, which will have negative health effects for users of the park and playground arising from passive smoking.

33. I need to strongly object to the proposed development of 209 Livingstone Road from an architecturally sympathetic building delivering a community service into a blatantly offensive three storey boarding house, in a Conservation Area, for a number of reasons, including:

    1. Apart from the Greek Orthodox Church, this part of Marrickville has no building over two storeys in its immediate vicinity. To enable buildings to take on a third storey in this basically residential area, would seem to me to open the flood gates to even more high rise.
    Such a decision flies in the face of the conditions under which the Heritage Conservation Area exists.

    Would such approval be grounds for residents in the Hollands Avenue cottages to seek the same outcome and thereby contaminate its Heritage status, or, will they continue to be restricted from achieving the same outcome if they so desired?

    Either way, approval of this DA with its relaxed height restrictions disadvantages these residents.

    2. In regard to traffic:
    a. Hollands Avenue use to be a two way street. In an effort to maintain traffic flow through the area whilst improving safety, it was converted by Council into a one-way street for cars and two way for bikes many years ago.
    b. Any on-site parking for residents of Hollands Avenue is mostly negated by the congestion of parking in the street, which makes it virtually impossible to enter and exit their properties. As such, they and any visitors park out on the street.
    c. Pedestrian safety is consistently compromised each time the Greek Orthodox Church is open en mass to the public. Whether it be for weekly prayers or religious holiday celebrations, such as that of Easter. Add another fifty resident/tenants + two caretakers to the mix on those occasions. Way too many and rising!

    So, even under the present conditions, parking is a real problem. Many Hollands Avenue residents have to find their way into what use to be called Pine Avenue (now considered a continuation of Pine Street) and compete with the parking associated with Pine St residents, most of whom also don't have on-site garages. This eastern end of Pine St attracts further congestion because of the huge block of flats that were built in the 1960s with its inadequate parking and the need for the street to accommodate visitors to its tenants.

    To have a three storey boarding house approved for that Livingstone Road location, with only two designated parking spaces, one of which has to be for the 'Disabled' makes me wonder where any tenant might park, if they have such a vehicle, let alone any of their visitors. In Hollands Avenue, Pine Street or even Robert St, with all those residents and their visitors? Not likely because those residents/visitors will have to park half the way up Pine St, in South Street (with most of those residents who have no off-street parking), in David St or, in Marrickville Avenue.

    The previous argument might imply that any residence in Hollands Avenue or Pine Street only needs to service one vehicle. This is naive as most residence in Pine St for example have two to three vehicles that need to be parked on a regular basis.
    Some vehicles have been known to be parked in spaces away from the respective residence for months at a time, whilst one has five vehicles.
    The council allows unlimited time in these spaces. If a resident is able to find a spot close to where they live and then has to use their vehicle to go to work or do the shopping, most times than not, it is not there when they return and they have to carry their parcels quite a distance to their house.
    So, one wonders how much further away we will have to park, after a three storey , fifty resident boarding house with virtually non-existent parking accommodation is built within 150 meters.

    From the plans, six spaces have been included for tenants who have motor bikes. There is no access to this area from either Livingstone Rd or Hollands avenue. Would this lack of planning make this feature redundant or would they too have to park in Hollands Avenue? In the children's playground???

    If the problem re giving access to the motorbikes is addressed in subsequent DA, the issue of safety in using Hollands avenue will be further compromised as bikes are allowed to travel against the one way for cars, in order to make their way into Pine St or South St. This scares me as Hollands avenue is so narrow to start with.

    Also, the DA fails to take into account the impact that the increase in congestion will have on those who will follow the proposed Marrickville bike track. Further amendments will need to be put in place to maintain bike riders' safety.

    In regard to other arguments presented by other residents on this site in regard to architectural aesthetics, I am no expert, but I find them compelling. It is they (in Hollands Ave) who will bear the primary impact of this proposed development.

    Basically, I feel that most of the arguments included in the DA by the developers in support of the project to be superficial, and only giving lip service to the Heritage nature of the area and the welfare of its residents. Such a commercial grab for maximum rental return, that requires a change to a long held set of building codes, at the expense of the wider community is vulgar and insensitive. Showing the area from every possible photographic angle in the proposal did little to hide its actual inadequacies.

34. In over 30 years of residing in Pine Street Marrickville, this is the most absurd DA, I have ever seen! What are Council thinking, in even considering what the Developer is suggesting be built on this site? Hollands Avenue has been considered a Heritage controlled area for years. Suggesting that a three story building would be within guidelines is absolutely a farce. When the SES building was sold to the Greek church it was proposed to be used for early learning for children and/or a Dance Academy. Now to suggest that a Boarding House for approximately 50 people ,be built next to a child's playground is not acceptable. There is not enough parking available for the current residents at the moment as it is. This proposed building would be a blight on our neighbourhood I am totally opposed to this application and suggest the Developer should take his application elsewhere!

35. As agreed with other residents, I live in Arthur Strreet Marrickville and object the redevelopment on that site. There is very foolish if the development over 3 storey building behind Orthodox Church due to unbehavioural and uncaring people to live against church, difficult parking spaces & interruption of the streets. I suggest that the hertiage building should stay as it can transform into beautifully look which catering for dance , public meetings etc.
    I repeatly urge that not to be built for residents apartments etc..

36. I strongly oppose the proposed development of a new three story dwelling and demolition of a historic building on 209 Livingstone Road. I echo the dissatisfaction other residents have shared that such an ill-considered proposal was put forward, so to be as brief as possible I’ll expand on expected increased congestion, unsafe access, and the negative impact on the heritage zone.

    Congestion
    The traffic report states ‘the site is therefore ideally located to discourage private motor vehicle ownership and usage, and to encourage greater use of alternate forms of transport such as walking, cycling or public transport.’ I would like to point out that local residents, despite having access to the exact same amenities and transport choose to own cars, and any new residents would probably choose to do so as well. Australian Census data (2011) shows that in Sydney, 88.2% of households have car ownership, many more than one. Zero car spaces are planned for the proposed 27 dwellings. Using census data, the odds of all 27 dwellings having zero cars is 1 in 872598000000000000000000000 (no mistake). Theirs is a blatantly unrealistic and unresearched assumption. I’ve observed lately that off-street parking is used at 209 Livingstone Road, daily for 1-2 vehicles for those living there, and up to 4 on Sundays during the church service. I would expect also that the council would support many car spaces for residents to have access to employment.
    If less car use is expected and more than average bicycle usage is meant to compensate, why is there only space for 6 bicycles? This is a planning minimum requirement. Furthermore, in 2015 34.9% of Sydney residents owned bicycles (Australian Bicycle Council). A small amount of research shows that the traffic estimates are neglectfully inaccurate, and I do not believe were taken seriously or in the interest of the council and its residents.
    Potentially compounding congestion is a proposed bicycle lane along Hollands Avenue. That proposal notes that at the time of the traffic report, cars were parked on both sides of the street. The current proposal notes that ‘kerbside parking is generally permitted along both sides’ of Hollands Avenue. This may not always be the case.

    Unsafe parking and access
    ‘Vehicular access to the car and motorcycle parking facilities is to be provided via the existing northern crossover located along the Livingstone Road site frontage’. I find this currently to be a difficult exit point to Hollands Avenue due to the limited visibility over Livingstone Road looking south and blocked visibility due to illegal parking on Sundays. The existing parking controls I do not find effective. In 5 minutes on a walk last Sunday I photographed a person parked in a no stopping zone opposite the church and within footsteps of the pedestrian crossing, a resident parked in on Pine Street because somebody had double parked and left their car, and two vehicles parked within a few metres of corners. More cars needing more street parking could only make matters worse. I did not see a van parked outside the Church in a no stopping zone like I usually do.

    Negative Impact on Heritage Zone
    This is my greatest concern because the proposed demolition and development will cause severe and irreversible damage to the character of the neighbourhood. I believe the proposal deliberately underestimates the negative effect and the plans to keep the façade are trivial. The current building is single storey, and the original tall façade is part of the heritage appeal. The development proposes not just meeting the highest point of the façade but exceeding it by a full level, about 3 metres.
    CD Architects have shown elevations presented with the scale of the church. I find this misleading with respect to the true scale of the development, which will have a large impact on the streetscape. The heritage houses on Hollands Avenue (which should be in the elevation for scale) will be swamped by the height and increased footprint of the proposed development.
    The impressions do not at all look in keeping with the local architecture. I would support something small scale in keeping with the conservation zone, however this is not sensitive to the conservation zone by any stretch of the imagination. I’ve looked at CD Architects 33 projects on their website; not one is a heritage building (or if it was I could not tell). A firm with experience preserving (or enhancing) heritage architecture is surely required.

    A smoking area on the border of a children's play area is ridiculous. Apart from health impacts of passive smoking, this sets a troubling norm of adulthood that children might absorb.

37. The Marrickville Heritage Society strongly objects to the proposed boarding house on the historic site at the corner of Holland Avenue and Livingstone Road, the site of the former Marrickville Girls Club. The proposal is in direct contravention to the established heritage character of the surrounding Holland Avenue Heritage Conservation Area.The proposed development is portrayed as an adaptive reuse of the existing heritage building, but the photomontage provided by the applicant demonstrates that only the south elevation of the existing building is retained in an appalling example of facadism. The new building behind the retained brick facade is completey out of character and scale with the sadly retained facebrick facade, and the nearby interwar houses of Holland Avenue. The contemporary, rectilinear design of the proposed building, with dark metallic finishes, is also hostile in character to the adjacent heritage listed St Nicholas Church.
    The Society recommends that Council reject the proposed development, and encourages Council and the owners of the property to negotiate to achieve a development that has better community and heritage outcomes.
    Scott MacArthur,
    President, Marrickville Heritage Society

38. If people do not know already, the new owners of the building have already installed people to the existing building without a DA for change of use. Installed to such an extent that they have established a garden, put up clothes lines and smoke at the rear of the building that is right next to the children's playground that is used on a daily basis.
    I appose the DA, beacause they obviously have NO respect of the law and if they do not now why will thay have any respect for the planning laws in the future.

39. I agree with David, it's so disrespectful.
    What we feared with the proposed development is already happening on the site, smoking adjacent to the playground, and washing hanging in full view.

    And if David is correct that there is no DA for change of use, then these people have proved they will just do as they please without complying with the law, this does not bode well for the future.

40. I am concerned with the proposed high density dwelling on the corner of Hollands Avenue and Livingston Road and as an owner occupier, will be formally opposing this development.

    The Hollands Avenue community has cohabitated with and supported the Greek Orthodox Church for so many years, sharing in it's significant holy calendar events and Sunday services but unfortunately, this proposed development demonstrates that the Greek Orthodox Church has chosen profit over the community.

    In addition, the following concerns must be addressed:

    This building will counteract the low density environment that has been established in this side of Marrickville and negatively impact on Hollands Avenue;

    The proposed site is high density which is uncharacteristic of Hollands Avenue, containing three levels and 27 rooms. Not only will this dwelling be an eyesore not keeping in line with heritage architecture of the street, the sheer amount of residents will greatly impact on parking availability in the street. The current development proposes two car spaces which is clearly inadequate for this type of residence. It's hard enough for the current residents to find a spot to park so what will happen when 27 double rooms are built?

    Designated smoking area for the building has been added to the rear of the building, backing onto a shared family park and will create a health risk.

    Increased traffic will add other, unfavourable, environmental impacts on the street and its residents and pets.

    The proposed building looks completely out of place and will not add any value in a heritage area that has been maintained to reflect its history.

    Whatever happened to the Greek early learning centre and community hall dancing school that was initially proposed? Instead the development will virtually block out the sun for the residents at the beginning of the street.

    It's clear from the above comments that the residents of Hollands Avenue are opposed to this development proposal. It would be remiss of the council to neglect this fact.

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