Recent comments

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

    Ben dodds commented


    25/2/17

    The General Manager
    Inner West Council
    Attention the Assessing Officer Reference DA201500736.01
    2-14 Fisher Street
    Petersham NSW 2049


    Dear Sir/Madam

    RE: OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT DA201500736.01, 43-51 ADDISON RD, MARRICKVILLE

    I 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 ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these and also value the governing effort and responsibility of my local Council to enforce compliance for development proposals in my local suburb (Marrickville).

    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 relodged (sneakily) in late December 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. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. 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. The residents here have chosen quite tree lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road

    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 their impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour and often a party culture which is noisy at night. 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 livening 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. 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.

    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”. 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.

    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. 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.

    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. 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.

    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. 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.

    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. 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.

    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. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.

    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 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.

    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 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?

    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. 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.

    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: 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.

    20. 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.


    Objection to Development Proposal 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville ​pg. 4/4

    THIS WILL ADD NOTHING POSITIVE TO THE LOCAL COMUNITY WICH IS STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP WITH THE CURRENT HIGH IMPACT DEVELOPMENTS.

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

    H commented

    Regarding the above comment from Dylan, I don't think any of us in the community would have a problem if this were a cafe run in the same way as satellite, with daytime hours. I don't believe satellite is open til midnight with DJs and is entirely appropriate for the neighbourhood in which it is located.

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

    Callum commented

    I also support this application for the entended hours that would allow this space to add yet another layer to the vibrant and diverse culture that is Marrickville. Paying respect to the long term neigbours is of course very important, some of which have seen Marrickville change over decades. Allowing energetic, community minded people to create new spaces for culture is how a city grows, and right now this city needs all the help it can get. I believe with simple things like acoustic insulation and quiet departures a happy medium could be met.

  4. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Mardi Diles commented

    We support the development proposed by COMMUNE. They are an asset the local community and supportive of local grass roots community organisations such as Weave Youth & Community Services. They provide accessible space, events and sponsorship. They have empowered us to host a number of community events that are socially inclusive and give local marginalised people access to experience art/culture and meaningful community events.

  5. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Catalina Miguel commented

    I support the COMMUNE development! We need more places like COMMUNE in Sydney with good morals and business for gods! Sydney needs more venues like this to open and flourish. I approve of this application!!!

  6. In Kew VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 78 Sackville Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Marianne F commented

    Stop allowing the character of older suburbs like Kew to be destroyed by allowing characterless caverns disguised as homes to litter the landscape. There is much room for them to build an extension out the back instead of demolishing and rebuilding whilst still keeping the frontage and thus building a more respectful home in Keeping with the original character of the neighbourhood. Do not allow this build!!

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

    Sonja Ankucic commented


    25/2/17

    The General Manager
    Inner West Council
    Attention the Assessing Officer Reference DA201500736.01
    2-14 Fisher Street
    Petersham NSW 2049


    Dear Sir/Madam

    RE: OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT DA201500736.01, 43-51 ADDISON RD, MARRICKVILLE

    I 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 ask that the Land and Environment Court please consider these and also value the governing effort and responsibility of my local Council to enforce compliance for development proposals in my local suburb (Marrickville).

    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 relodged (sneakily) in late December 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. From memory, the previous application that was refused was for a backpackers hostel of dorm rooms with up to 12 persons per room and around 4 car spaces. The current development application should clearly be stating what sort of “motel” it is wanting to open and should be refused (for this and many other) reasons. 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. The residents here have chosen quite tree lined streets in a residential suburb and the community would be greatly impacted by the addition of another motel. The other backpacker hostels are:
    • Addison Travellers Lodge and Backpacker Accommodation at 12 Addison Road, Marrickville, and
    • Sydney Terraces, 1/14 Addison Road, Marrickville with a large number of Terraces between Phillpot St and Newington Road

    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 their impact on the community as they are not invested in the neighbourhood and community. They may be more likely to be involved in anti-social behaviour and often a party culture which is noisy at night. 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 livening 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. 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.

    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”. 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.

    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. 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.

    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. 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.

    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. 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.

    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. 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.

    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. This non-compliance could be a health and safety risk and hazard for those in the motel and impact those around the building.

    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 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.

    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 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?

    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. 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.

    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: 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.

    20. 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.


    Objection to Development Proposal 43-51 Addison Road Marrickville ​pg. 4/4

  8. In Kew VIC on “Demolition of existing...” at 78 Sackville Street Kew VIC 3101:

    Kerrie Knott wrote to local councillor Phillip Healey

    Look at as all the comments from your ratepayers and do something. Demonstrate that you are listening please!!!

    Delivered to local councillor Phillip Healey. They are yet to respond.

  9. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Leah Cutler commented

    We the community simply need this space!

  10. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Clara nguyen commented

    COMMUNE is exactly the type of movement that the City of Sydney should be encouraging: a space for community based, inclusive activities, by the community for the community.

  11. In Northbridge NSW on “Proposed alterations to...” at 361 Sailors Bay Road, Northbridge NSW 2063:

    Leonard Nicita commented

    I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 361 Sailors Bay Road Northbridge. I am the owner of the adjacent property. My primary cause for concern is the height of the proposed development.

    As per the Statement of Environment Effects and Site Plan DA.002, the maximum height proposed is 8.845m, which is clearly in breach of the maximum building height prescribed under the height map in the LEP of 8.5m.

    Unless our understanding is incorrect, the proposed development will therefore contravene Part D.1.2.3 of the Willoughby DCP which states an objective as:
    “Retain and enhance the qualities and characteristics of the Northbridge locality comprising both the inland and peninsula residential areas by …siting and design of dwellings to minimise the obstruction of views from neighbouring dwellings…”.

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

    Dylan commented

    I absolutely support this application and the creation of a safe space for the queer community to socialise in. Although movingly from the inner west to Bronte two years ago I still travel back to Satellite due to the sense of community and connections the space has created. Personally, i hate techno music however love the vibe the team has worked hard to create and I don't see this proposed space being any different. I hope council can remove emotion from decision making in this situation. Satellite is as residential as it gets and the business has a proven track record of respecting its neighbours.

  13. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Mahira Sobral commented

    Since the beginning COMMUNE has always put community first. Their public programs are centered around suppourting small businesses, bringing neighbours together and collaborating with other social impact groups. Founder Sam Ali has dedicated all his efforts and hard work to making sure COMMUNE is a space for everyone to enjoy and make their own. Their events are very creative, well-planned, safe, family orientated and attract respectful crowds - which is exactly what Sydney needs more of!

    The approval of this DA is a step forward in the right direction. It acknowledges that community spaces such as COMMUNE and the imperative work that they do is something the City of Sydney encourages and celebrates. I strongly approve of this application.

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

    Linda West commented

    RE: OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT DA201500736.01, 43-51 ADDISON RD, MARRICKVILLE :

    I object to the development proposal listed above at 43-51 Addison Road for the following reasons.

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

    Years ago the owner of the block attempted to build a backpacker accommodation and was knocked back due to concern from neighbours.
    I believe this DA is another attempt to attract low cost customers with resulting abandoned vehicles, litter, noise and general lack of care of local residents and the local area.

    Parking in the local area is a growing problem and we will see an increase in the struggle to find a park in our already cluttered streets.
    The development would also significantly increase the already overloaded traffic between the streets that back onto the development. These streets weren't designed for the number of cars that developments like this bring.
    This proposed development has not enough car parking on site.

    There will be a huge lack of privacy for residents on the south side of Gordon Street and also for the residents of the Globe Mills building (located on the north side of Gordon Street).

    The proposed development will also overshadow the residents on the south side of Gordon Street, therefore affecting the energy efficiency of these properties. It's important to note that a lack of sunshine greatly affects general wellbeing too.

    Waste management for this site is a huge concern considering the size of Fahey Lane and Philpott Street.

    And finally, I do not believe that the design of the building is 'complimentary to the existing character of the area'. Marrickville has a thriving suburban and industrial heritage that is quickly becoming eroded by buildings that overuse render to create monolithic, characterless blocks.

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

    Hannah McGrath commented

    I absolutely support this, another hopefully exciting venue to add to the culture that is Marrickville. My husband and I love supporting our community and this place only adds to us staying local.

  16. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Kylie Gow commented

    I wholeheartedly support COMMUNE and all that they do for the community.

    As a new small business owner and having recently moved from Brisbane, COMMUNE have helped me to meet so many wonderful people in Sydney, to gain confidence, to inspire and be inspired. They have created something special - their events and yoga classes truly foster a sense of belonging. The staff are genuinely passionate about providing a place for locals to connect, and creatives to shine.

    As a landscape architect, I know the City of Sydney are passionate and committed to creating a truly integrated, resilient city. Awareness and connection is a huge part in achieving this, and COMMUNE have successfully generated conversation and growth in the community.

    Please approve this application and keep the spirit of community, entrepreneurship and small business alive as it is connection that makes this city so wonderful.

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

    Jonny H commented

    I live directly across the road and frankly, cannot wait for this to go through! It'll be great - the life this little cafe has already brought into the area has been wonderful.

    Let them open until 12am, so long as the party stays inside, but I think the team are smart and respectful enough to have the best interests of the local community at heart.

    Good on you guys. We need you in this area - it's been a weekday dead zone after 4PM - looking forward to the change.

  18. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Alicia McFadzean commented

    COMMUNE is an invaluable, community-centric establishment that stands for everything that we need more of in Sydney. Its diverse offering collectively nurtures creativity, culture supports local business and is pivotal in generating good vibes amongst the community. Please Share The Love and approve this application.

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

    Caro commented

    I fully support this application. Ash is a responsible operator and her new venue will contribute to the culture and vibrancy of the neighbourhood.

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

    Brian Walker-Caychpole commented

    Totally support this proposal. Will add to the vibrancy of the local community, will provide economic benefits and will add a unique nuance to the Marrickville area.

  21. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Chi min Chan commented

    I have been participated in a few of the market events that the Commune organized. They were very successful and brought the whole community together!

  22. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Sam George commented

    Commune has been a fantastic supporter and enabler for emerging artists and creative industries over the years and has contributed greatly to the cultural scene of Sydney. I strongly support this proposal and am confident it will provide real economic benefits, cultural benefits, and community benefits.

  23. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Nick Carter commented

    Absolutely support this! COMMUNE do fantastic work that is really valued in our community and I'm happpy they will continue to expand doing so.

  24. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    SY commented

    COMMUNE do great stuff! Culturally inclusive & important. This should happen!

  25. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Eastside Radio commented

    It's important that Commune be allowed to grow and develop in accordance with their communities needs. Their support of Sydney's arts, cultural and ethnic communities is unique and encouraging. We are grateful for their role in helping Sydney to be a vibrant creative culture, something all of us can be proud of and we wholeheartedly support their application to continue to make a positive difference to Sydney.

  26. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Bradley Scott commented

    Without Commune I would not be where I am today. I strongly support this application. Commune provided me a safe and affordable place to deal with my anxiety and depression through their yoga and meditation classes; they serve as a lifeline in the community for so many people. Commune constantly supports local artists and non for profit organisations for one ideal - a healthy and connected community of people all looking out for one another.

  27. In Brunswick East VIC on “Approval of the 80 John...” at 80 John Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Michael Cunningham commented

    There is a lane running behind my property at 28 Albert st and under the plans that have been published for the 80 John st Development, the existing factory site will be replaced by a residential development which is 3 stories at the interface with the laneway, but after just 5 metres depth it increases to 5 stories. This means there will be numerous units that overlook my back yard and this is bound to have a significant negative impact on the value of my property.

    From the plans I have seen, it doesn't seem to me that reasonable steps have been undertaken to ensure that the development does not have a detrimental impact on adjoining and nearby residential properties. The plan appears to maximise development without regard to issues such as overlooking of properties next to or near the proposed development. I would like clarification on this and would like Moreland City Council to protect the rights of existing property owners that will be affected by this development.

  28. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Sandra Kennedy commented

    I strongly support this development.
    Commune is one of the few business that sees beyond profit and looks for the greater good within our people and community.
    Their events foster acceptance & embrace diversity, they celebrate the vast cultures within our neighborhood, no matter the ethnicity. Above all commune helps bring people together, in a time where there are so many things trying to tear us apart.
    I am proud that this type of business exists in my community, it is something we should cencourage people to embrace & cherish.
    Thanks

  29. In Eltham VIC on “Building and works to...” at 25 Dudley Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Vicky Evans commented

    I cannot believe anyone would want to clog up the middle of Eltham with a totally inappropriate 5 storey development like this. How can they think they can get away with removing all vegetation, it is unbelievable. I am sure you would not be able to build a house taking up the whole site if it was a normal sized building block..
    Why should they get a waiver of car park spaces, and as for triple decker mechanical car stackers, I can't think of anything more revolting, especially in Eltham.
    The effect on the already crowded roads would be horrific.
    PLEASE SAY NO TO THIS DREADFUL PLANNED EYESORE!!!!!!

  30. In Waterloo NSW on “Change of use of premises...” at 895-899 Bourke Street Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Harry commented

    Commune is truly a unique and inspirational outfit. They create innovative and inclusive community events that aren't replicated by many other operations/venues in Sydney. I strongly support their application to broaden the scope of their activities and events. It brings the community together and builds awareness of wellness.

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