PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

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

1. NO! NO! NO! NO!

   Please NO...............

2. I would like to express my concerns about this development, based on my observations of the vague plans provided.

   1. There is a tall (30m plus) Casuarina tree situated near the boundary of 2B Gladstone Street. The plans seem to indicate that this tree will be destroyed to create a driveway to the carpark. It is the only tall tree on the southern side of Gladstone Street and attracts many native birds. Casuarinas are part of the character of this area, with many others planted in nearby Trafalgar Street. The destruction of this tree would be devastating, both environmentally and aesthetically. Its loss would exacerbate the poor air quality, heat island effect, and barren look of this stretch of Gladstone Street. Being situated so close to the boundary, I see no reason why this tree can’t be built around, rather than destroyed.

   2. Also in relation to trees, the plans suggest that the development will be built right to the footpath on Gladstone Street, leaving no room for street trees, and also resulting in the loss of many existing trees besides the Casuarina, including two Jacarandas and a mature bottlebrush. All I can see on the drawings is a SINGLE replacement tree in the middle courtyard (planted on top of a basement carpark, how high can it grow?), can this be right? If so, this is shamefully inadequate, considering the increased pollution caused by all the extra traffic this development will bring.

   3. On an aesthetic level, this development is grossly oversized and architecturally generic. It does not sit in harmony with neighbouring buildings or the streetscape. It should be set back from the footpath, allowing front gardens and street trees to flourish and enabling walkability and cooler, cleaner air. There is an issue here around social equity - do residents in and around new developments not deserve the same quality of urban planning as people living in heritage streets?

   4. The height of the building would result in excessive overshadowing of, and loss of privacy for, homes in Phillip and Gladstone Streets.

   5. The small size of the 16 proposed business units, with their lack of loading zones at street level, poor accessibility, and - in the case of the units backing onto Philip Lane - zero street presence, would exclude many would-be commercial tenants. Compared to the warehouse spaces currently at 2C Gladstone Street, they have very limited utility. And given the number of vacant shops on Enmore Road and some new ones opening down the road at the corner of Phillip Street, there is arguably an oversupply of this sized commercial property in the area.

   6. I see no sign of a welcoming pedestrian entrance to the internal courtyard of the building at ground level that might provide access to the businesses at the back. How would customers be able to find the businesses backing onto Philip Lane? Will these businesses’ entrances open onto Philip Lane (comical idea)?

   Please Council, we have an opportunity to do something special with this site, something which has a distinct identity, is socially and environmentally sustainable, is architecturally innovative, promotes walk-ability, and is useful to the local economy. This development proposal does not meet any of these criteria in its current form, and should be rejected.

3. I strongly object to this development plan for all the reasons outlined by Ms Merricks listed above. Bad design, bad for our environment. Please reconsider this terrible proposal.

4. Dreadful on so many levels , over 30 metres to build an industrial sized factory is what is a quiet residential area . Adapt existing commercial spaces yes for sure , but to make this monster , it’s just bad planing . I have been to hundreds of micro brewery places and never have seen such a height require in the fermentation tanks , it’s just not necessarily and should be in an industrial part of the city with other warehouses not a little residential street. Even on their own plans they show foghorn brewhouse , which is located on a busy road in a commercial industrial area , with room size tanks less than 2 Metres , so why do you need 30 ! Why do you need to block out the sky with 30 plus metres when it could be done in lower rooms . It’s way to large imposing for such a small triangle surrounded by single level homes .
   I also question the parking report , I have never seen 12 empty car spots ever ! It’s a parking nightmare even during the day and near to impossible in the evenings. Where do you think the patrons and staff will honestly park . The driveways in the rear of my lane are always parked over as it is . Where do you really propose all this extra traffic park , in reality what is already a major problem for the residents . Just the traffic and noise and smell alone within metres from so many rate payers should be enough to the council to see its way off anything sensible. If anyone put in plans to build a house to 30 metres it would be laughed out of council. Phillip lane couldn’t manage the usage for such a development , it’s mostly blocked with people parking illegally as it’s impossible to park as it is . The rubbish is all collected from the front of Phillip st as trucks can manage it as it is with problems existing .

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished about 6 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