Report comment

In Arncliffe NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 30 Firth Street, Arncliffe NSW 2205:

Kirstin Benade commented

There a several areas which this development proposal fails to convince me that it, in its current form, will be a positive development for current residents and business owners and for intended residents of the boarding house.
1. Heritage/character
There appears to be little acknowledgement of the historical significance of the street front of the site itself or the heritage listed sites in its direct vicinity.
Arncliffe Post Office (Lot 1, DP 1000369) is listed as a heritage site of local significance. Arncliffe Railway Station Group (Part Lot 1, DP 1033288) is listed as a heritage site of state significance.
The Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 states that heritage concerns are to be listed in any proposal where development occurs on land that is located in the vicinity of heritage listed sites. There is nothing in the current application that considers the local heritage.
More generally, as many other residents have commented, the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 lists 'to conserve the environmental heritage of Rockdale' as one of its main aims.
One look at the document "Streetscape Elevation - 30 Firth Street Arncliffe - Zervos" in the application demonstrates how completely out of sync this boarding house will be with the character of the rest of Firth Street.
2. Traffic
The document "Traffic & Parking Report - 30 Firth Street Arncliffe - Zervos" is questionable.
According to their calculations the boarding house will bring a 'reduction in traffic' to the area.
I find this very hard to believe.
The developer's application states: 'The proposal contains a total fourteen (14) boarding rooms all of which have been nominated as double rooms. Each boarding room is provided with an open plan kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities'.
If each room contained two residents, with Sydney rent prices as they are this is highly likely, we are looking at possibly 28 residents and a manager. That is a lot more significant than what most people would expect from a boarding house with 14 rooms.
3. Parking
The provision of parking spaces is also highly misleading.
The document "Traffic & Parking Report - 30 Firth Street Arncliffe - Zervos" states:
'14 boarding rooms @ 0.5 spaces per room 7 spaces
1 x manager @ 1 space per manager 1 space
Total requirement 8 spaces'.
So that is for the residential dwellings only.
It later states:
'3.1m wide single stacker 2 x retail tenant spaces + 1 resident space
5.4m wide double stacker 6 x resident spaces'.
So the earlier calculation is 8 (for the residential portion alone including the boarding house manager).
The later calculation is 9 (this is supposed to include the residents, the boarding house manager AND the 2 retail).
If I add 7 spaces for residents, 1 for the manager and 2 for the retail I get 10 car spaces.
Nowhere in the document does it indicate that 10 will be provided.

Either way, whether there are 7 or 6 for residents, that's hardly any for possibly 28 residents.
Yes, as the development states, the residents will be able to access the train station. But the reality for many people is that they require a car to get to and from work where their workplace is not serviced well by public transport.
What is most likely to occur is that residents of the boarding house will be occupying the already scarce street parking utilised by people trying to access the small businesses in the area.

This could be disastrous for those businesses with consumers likely to avoid the area altogether and go to larger shopping areas where parking is ample.
Additionally, I don't think a stacker carpark is in keeping with the look of the local area and I doubt many residents are aware that this is the plan. I don't know of any stacker parking in the area.

Development is part and parcel of living in an urban area. I don't deny this nor oppose development generally. But please consider local residents before creating another Wolli Creek style high-rise hell.

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