Report comment

In Saint Peters NSW on “Boarding House” at 96 May Street St Peters NSW 2044:

Dave S commented

St Peters is currently hosting worksites for WestConnex, the Sydney Southwest Metro, multiple large scale development sites along the Princes Highway corridor and carrying the traffic/truck congestion for the Marrickville Metro shopping centre expansion. There is a massive glut of construction related activities for such a small suburb, with the infrastructure of an old industrial area, ie. narrow streets, close living quarters. For all the activity going on in St Peters, there will be no Metro station, the WestConnex simply ends at a narrow road, and to add insult to injury WestConnex have recently reneged on a deal to recreate Camdenville Park as a wetlands. It will instead deliver a motorway wall and remediated worksite as a park.

Allowing the further construction on May St of a boarding house (without much further information) is an abhorrent decision that completely misunderstands the community sentiment. Boarding houses are arguably tax friendly 'investments' that offer transient residences that are easily changed to short term letting style abodes - akin to AirBnB. May St is predominantly light industrial and residential, there is no reason to allow this transient type of residence in this area.

The building 'design' itself does not fit into any category that is appropriate for the area. In the last version of the 'St Peters Triangle', the council itself identified that any development within this area (that includes May St) will:

integrate design excellence and sustainability across the precinct and within
individual buildings and open spaces/public domain, and

ensure that higher density development demonstrates good urban design and
environmental sustainability and provides suitable amenity for occupants of those
developments, and
ensure that the design of higher density development protects the residential
amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties

The application achieves none of these.

This application does not warrant consideration for council and further development in the area should achieve the goals called out by council itself. There is a saturation point that was passed long ago in St Peters and adding extremely poorly designed developments to this is not fair to ratepayers and residents.

delivered to the planning authority

This form is for reporting comments that should be removed. Reasons can include that the comment is spam, abusive, unlawful or harassing — in other words, where people are going out of their way to cause harm. Please explain clearly why you think the comment should be removed.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

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

Back PlanningAlerts