Recent comments

  1. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Lyn Mac commented

    I wholeheartedly support this application.

    Knowing Ash from Satellite for many years I have absolute confidence that District will be managed professionally and that any concerns will be addressed through consultation and collaboration with the community to achieve a win win outcome. The Queer community needs a safe space venue in Marrickville and it will benefit from Council approving this application.

  2. In Redland Bay QLD on “Secondary Dwelling” at 6 Bartlett Terrace, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Lynn Adams commented

    Well, it seems to me, from Mark Edwards' reply that local Councils are completely irrelevant and surplus to the needs of the ratepayers.
    If the State Government is the final referee on any Council decisions, isn't it time we push to get rid of this redundant tier of government? It would certainly save us a lot of money.
    I've always felt that three tiers of government is ridiculous, so either local Councils should go or State Governments!

  3. In Terrigal NSW on “Section 96 Amendment...” at 158 Terrigal Drive, Terrigal NSW 2260:

    Luzette DeMont commented

    New Development that enhances the area is always welcome and this Site certainly holds a key position as a “Gateway to Terrigal CBD” calling for a “Landmark Iconic Development” on this Site given the currently Proposed Scale.

    Sadly, as can be expected, there are a few Objections.

    D.A. 5 YEAR EXPIRY
    Development Applications have a 5 year limit unless there is commencement of work.
    By this standard, work should have commenced prior to 3 Aug 2015.
    As the local community is aware, tree felling, remediation and demolition commenced late in 2016 with no prior notification to neighbouring properties.

    Could the Applicant OR Council please provide evidence that work had commenced during the 5 year period, and that the Development Application had not lapsed!

    Please be sure to differentiate where reports or actions form part of the “Development Consent”, and where they form part of the “Commencement of Works”

    BUILDING HEIGHT
    Without providing evidence that work had commenced during the 5 year period, the Proposed Development should fall under the GLEP 2014’s new Height Restriction of 8.5m – instead of the previous 10m Height Restriction.
    With that in view, please see below how the Proposed Development exceeds the Height Restrictions.

    BUILDING A
    Current Building Height restriction 8.5m
    Previous Building Height restriction 10m
    Proposed Building Height 13.1m – 14.6m

    The Proposal exceeds the previous 10m Building height restriction by 3.1 – 4.6m
    Approx between 31% to 46% over the Previous Building Height Restriction

    The Proposal exceeds the current 8.5m Building Height restriction by 4.6 – 6.1m
    Approx between 54% to 72% over the Current Building Height Restriction

    BUILDING B,C,D,E & F
    Current Building Height restriction 8.5m
    Previous Building Height restriction 10m
    Proposed Building Height 8.2m – 11.6m

    Proposal exceeds the previous 10m Building Height restriction by 1.6m
    Up to 11.6% over the Previous Building Height Restriction

    Proposal exceeds the current 8.5m Building Height restriction by 3.1m
    Up to 36% over the Current Building Height Restriction

    These building height not only impacts on the Building Scale, but also on the shadowing effect.

    SOUTHERN FACADE & PRIVACY
    It would be good to give consideration to reducing the windows (or increasing the sill height to 1.7m) on the Southern Elevation to provide privacy to and from adjacent properties. The windows on the Southern Elevation:

    1. Do not serve any solar benefit
    2. Do not have an predominant views or sea views
    3. And will not affect natural ventilation negatively

    As mentioned in the SEPP 65 Design Statement, the cross ventilation requirement of 60% has also been far exceeded to 96.9%.
    There is no valid reason to have large windows on the Southern Elevation, and it also reduces the privacy to residents to the South.

    SIDE BOUNDARY FENCES
    While a 1.8m Modwood Fence would be aesthetically pleasing and a low maintenance choice, it would be expected that the existing lap & cap fences are to be replaced with fences that offer similar privacy between neighbouring properties. ie: Slatted fences (with gaps or spaces) would not provide the same level of privacy as the existing fences with no spaces or gaps in the fence.

    SITE OFFICE
    IF a Site Office or Material Drop off point is intended for 11 or 13 Ena Street, please give consideration to vehicular and pedestrian traffic to Terrigal Primary School which is on the same City Block as the Proposed Development. The street is currently narrow, and if a vehicle is parked on either side of the street (which is usually the case), the street is effectively only wide enough for the passage of one vehicle at a time. As you can imagine, currently, the street is completely congested during school drop off and pick up hours, with the situation intensified on a Friday (bin pickup day – with the addition of bins and bin pickup trucks). If you had to add delivery vehicles to the equation, there would be a traffic standstill in a school zone. There is also currently NO footpath or curb & gutter on the same city block as the Primary School (between 3 to 15 Ena Street) as a result, cars park on the area allocated for a footpath, this in turn results in young children walking in the street, around the cars that are parked on the area allocated for footpaths - on their way to or from school. Safety Standards need to be applied and the Developer or Council need to take responsiblity for the increased traffic conditions to provide and ensure a safe environment for young children.

  4. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Emmanuel Galanos commented

    As a local resident (Perry St), I support this application.

    The area is undergoing growth in population with the large number of apartment developments and is in major need of venues like this.

    In addition, Ash's proven cafe experience and serving of the queer community makes this a venue an essential community enhancement that will only enhance Marrickville.

    I think it would be much better to allow the full development than to over cautiously restrict hours. If sound does become an issue, it would be better to approach the problem methodically with sound level measuring and appropriate proofing measures.

  5. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gaz commented

    100% Support.
    Council should 100% support and assist this new business to thrive and grow. This commercial business strip of Addison rd has been neglected for too long... they don't even have garbage bins anymore either side....
    Supporting this application is a no brainer....

  6. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Ari Burkhart commented

    What a great venture for this area to help stimulate both business and community. Ash's projects in the inner west have been inclusive and respectful affairs that are sucessful as this one will surely be as well.

  7. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Daniel Bambagiotti commented

    Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  8. In Launceston TAS on “Residential - single...” at 217 St John Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Tony Szabo commented

    I would be grateful if the planning authority consider the following points in this matter:-

    1. The proposed dwelling is much higher than that already existing and will shade the neighbour's property at 219 St John Street most of the day. It appears that it will also throw shade onto my property at 9 Thomas Street in the afternoon.
    2. I believe that the proposed structure will negatively impact the surrounding properties in St John Street in that it is completely unsympathetic to the historical styles of the existing properties.
    In summary I believe that building a residence of this nature without due consideration of aesthetics will create a negative impact in terms of surrounding neighbour's lifestyle including the devaluation of many properties in the immediate area.

  9. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Darren Mapes commented

    I fully support this application. I love the sense of community at Ash's Satelite cafe & I think this venue will be a great contributor to inner west artistic precinct.

  10. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Pete manwaring commented

    I am very supportive of this application. Having a proven operator who understands the value of community and the balance of local amenity is exactly what our area needs.

  11. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Emanuel Schiena commented

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

  12. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Seb commented

    Hooray!

    Marrickville is such a fun neighbourhood, and this would be yet another wonderful reason to visit. Ash has done a great job with Satellite over the years, and I am confident that she and her team will do a similarly wonderful job here.

    Having spaces that cater to all hours of the day, from breakfast to a fun evening, is a normal part of any confident, creative culture. Go Marrickville!

  13. In Marrickville NSW on “Review request under...” at 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Alison Schiena commented

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

  14. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Leggers commented

    I support this application. Given the aircraft noise overhead it's hard to argue that music would be detrimental until curfew time.

    Also that part of Addison Rd could do with some vibrancy - it could do with a good refresh.

  15. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Zac Turner commented

    This area NEEDS a spot where people can come and collaborate during the day and night in a creative space. I've seen these guys do what they do all over the inner west and they do it incredibly well. Very strong sense of community and overall good vibes all round. Plus the coffee and food is off the hook, so i know any plans of progression and development will be just as amazing.

  16. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Tori Folkard commented

    I support this application wholeheartedly. This would be a great addition to the area.

  17. In Bankstown NSW on “Demolition of Existing Site...” at 2 Conway Road Bankstown NSW 2200:

    Robbie Kaysar commented

    A 40m radius on French Ave has seen 3 full scale apartment constructions being built and this would be the 4th. This vicinity within the Bankstown CBD cannot cope with additional population in terms of road, infrastructure, transport and parking. The area has been rocked by noise pollution from the construction works for the past 24 months

  18. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Charlotte M commented

    As a local resident (Cowper st) and young queer women I totally support this application. Many of the queer spaces in Newtown and Enmore have been turfed out by gentrification and bigger business so it will be nice to have a small local space to gather. Small business with good intentions for our community and culture should be supported.

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Charlotte Moules commented

    I 100% support this application

  20. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Josh S commented

    Marrickville is becoming the new cultural heartland of Sydney and it's because of venues like this proposed and the people behind them. Sydney's lost some of its vibrancy (and its queer spaces) to politicians and developers and it's only through venues like this that it'll get some of it back. Satellite Cafe in Newtown is up there with the best in Sydney (if not THE best) and I support the people behind it and their other ventures. Who could say no to more safe queer spaces?

  21. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Liz barrett commented

    I wholeheartedly support this application.
    Marrickville has long been a critical hub for creative projects and live music in Sydney. This project continues that proud tradition and will support the community through providing a space for culture to thrive and a boost to the economy.

    I have lived in and around this area for most of my adult life. Addison road seems like an ideal location for such a development given its high level of existing inner city noise and close proximity to both public transport and other late night venues.

    Addison road experiences high amounts of traffic (including trucks) and is directly under the flight path, to the point where you can't hear a person next to you speaking when a plane flies overhead.

  22. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Ivan Crozier commented

    I fully support this application, and think that it will improve the quality of life for the citizens of Marrickville and visitors alike. I have been a patron of all three of Ash Houghton's cafes; they at each all important community hubs, being diverse, inclusive, and providing employment opportunities for locals - not only her staff, but the local businesses she supports in buying her supplies, the artists she employs to decorate her spaces, and in this case the DJs she is proposing to employ for entertainment. The community needs this space, and others like it.

    There is no suggestion that this is going to be a heaving nightclub five nights a week; I would be surprised if people would be able to hear the music over the airplanes over head, the buses driving past, and the motorcycles that are far noisier than what is being proposed here - which is more like one of those cosy, cool bars that are found all over Europe. Having DJs would be no louder than streaming music from a laptop - but it would provide a unique space in Marrickville for local and up-coming performers to develop their art - which is of crucial importance given the closure of so many venues around Sydney.

    At a time when there is a significant increase in homophobic and transphobic violence in Sydney (and especially in the inner west), it is important that locals have somewhere safe to go out. Being a café/bar will mean that there is somewhere to go for local entertainment throughout the week without necessarily relying on alcohol, like at a pub - but rather to go to a community space where we can relax with friends, listen to music, and enjoy the fantastic food and coffee for which Ash's other ventures are renowned.

    Marrickville needs this venture. Ash is providing an important community service bub offering it. It has my full support.

  23. In Coffs Harbour NSW on “Amenities Building -...” at 8 - 20 Castle Street Coffs Harbour NSW 2450:

    Mr Ratepayer commented

    Haven't council just spent many thousands of ratepayers money building these amenities?

  24. In Marrickville NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 107 Addison Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Billie Muchmore commented

    I 100% support this application. With the dwindling numbers of good venues left, the inner west is crying out for people like Ash to put their hand up to give it a shot. We need to breathe some life back into our dying towns, which used to be so colourful and vibrant - the reason why most of us moved here in the first place.

    I know Ash as an incredibly responsible cafe owner and total Wonder Woman. If there's going to be someone out there to take this on and make it work for everyone, it's her.

  25. In Eastwood NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 7 Edgar St, Eastwood, NSW:

    Fred commented

    I must agree. This development is NOT in community interest. The infra-structure doesn't exist to support all of the new residents. It won't help make housing more affordable because it's all being done to make as much money for everyone involved.
    Schools are over flowing, roads are rediculous, the environment is dying, Eastwood is dirty and stinks, and we now find that we can expect power to all over in Summer due to increased demand.

    This seems to be madness across all local councils, so who are they taking their instructions from? It's certainly not their constituents. It is not in the interest of the constituents, and not the desire of the constituents. We have lost our quality of life.

  26. In Cleveland QLD on “Commercial Office and...” at 2-16 Wynyard Street, Cleveland, QLD:

    Brian Whitelaw wrote to local councillor Peter Mitchell

    Dear Peter,
    With regard to your response - "An independent valuation was carried out to determine market value. The property was offered for sale, with three companies expressing and interest and making an offer to purchase." - could you please advise just how the property was offered for sale?
    Thanks
    Brian

    Photo of Peter Mitchell
    Peter Mitchell local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Brian Whitelaw

    Dear Brian,
    To serve you faster and as accurately as possible I have asked that the CEO of Redlands Investment Incorporated, who negotiated this land sale correspond with you directly.
    They are pleased to provide you with any relevant detail.
    Peter Kelley is your contact at: <>
    Thank you for your interest,
    Peter Mitchell

  27. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of property for...” at 500 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Dave commented

    They should develop the car park on stud road and Somerset st to a multi level car park if people need for car parking spaces. Like what Glen Waverley has done.

  28. In Wantirna South VIC on “Development of property for...” at 500 Burwood Highway, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    David Ruse commented

    Now they propose and eight storey complex. Amazing.

  29. In Redland Bay QLD on “Secondary Dwelling” at 6 Bartlett Terrace, Redland Bay, QLD:

    Lynn Adams wrote to local councillor Mark Edwards

    I am totally against introducing multi dwellings in the Orchard Beach area. This area is currently a prestigious neighbourhood with large dwellings on large (by today's standards) blocks which make it a very desirable location and whether this application is for sub-dividing or adding another dwelling on the existing block would be start of introducing a high density housing on a very narrow street.

    Photo of Mark Edwards
    Mark Edwards local councillor for Redland City Council
    replied to Lynn Adams

    Hello Lynn,

    Thanks for your email and I share your concerns. However you are asking the impossible. The 2006 Planning scheme, long before I was interested in politics, enabled the subdivisions. That scheme is still in place. I would also suggest that the next planning scheme due to be delivered this year, requires the State Ministers agreement and I don’t see any desire to change the ability of land to be reduced to an average of 400 square metres. My personal position is that significant change needs to be applied where the Council is not instructed by the State. Either the Council makes the decisions based on a COMMUNITY planning scheme or the State take over the Councils role and makes the approvals based on their SEQ planning scheme.

    Regards,

    Mark

  30. In Gladesville NSW on “Internal fitout and change...” at 33 / 297 Victoria Rd, Gladesville, NSW:

    Andy Morelli commented

    Why are we been flooded with another 24hr gym there is the same one located 500m from the proposed location? The complex car park will be more active and so will the adjacent streets. This will create a safety concern aswell as more people having 24hr access to the carpark and lifts. I strongly believe that accepting the proposal is not in the best interests of the community.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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.

Donate