50-52 Warren Road Marrickville NSW 2204

I do not object to building an apartment block - i object to 9 stories. That is significantly higher rise than all surrounding apartment blocks in the area. In relation to Warren Rd - that many additional residents will have a significant impact on an already traffic choked & accident prone side street. I can’t imagine any traffic management plan that could alleviate the situation - or that the block will have enough resident parking.

Council should only approve to the height of surrounding blocks ( max 5 stories) to maintain local character & amenity.

SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (DA/2025/0816)
Property: 50-52 Warren Rd, Marrickville Applicant: [Developer Name, if known] Grounds for Objection: Unacceptable Loss of Affordable Housing and Failure to Address Displacement Requirements

I object to DA/2025/0816 on the grounds that it results in the unacceptable and permanent loss of long-term affordable housing, fails to meet the statutory requirements for resident displacement, and undermines the public benefit intended by state planning policy.

1. Unacceptable and Permanent Loss of Affordable Housing

The proposed development fails the public interest test by permanently reducing the quantum of long-term affordable housing stock, thereby having an adverse social and economic effect on the community.

A. Permanent Loss of Long-Term Stock:

The current site at 50-52 Warren Rd provides 17 units, containing 18 bedrooms, which function as de facto affordable housing due to the building's age, configuration, and perpetually low rents (well below the suburb median).

The proposal seeks to replace this with a net loss in long-term affordable housing units.

The proposal replaces these 17 units with eight affordable apartments (containing 17 bedrooms). Crucially, it appears only one of these new units will be retained as affordable in perpetuity.

The remaining seven apartments (16 bedrooms) will only be secured as affordable housing for a maximum of 15 years, by virtue of the NSW Government's bonus height and floor space provisions.

The long-term result of this development is the permanent loss of 16 existing affordable apartments (17 bedrooms), which fundamentally undermines the vision of a diverse Inner West community.

B. Failure to Meet the Intent of State Planning Policy:

NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (SEPP) requires the consent authority to consider the adverse social and economic effects on the general community.

The SEPP, specifically Section 47 (2)(c), is directly relevant to this development. The Land and Environment Court (LEC), in the case of LFD vs City of Sydney Council [Date: 10 July 2025, Selwyn St, Paddington], established that a project could be refused due to its unacceptable affordable housing loss.

Like the Paddington example, this development will result in "adverse social and economic effects on the general community" by sanctioning the permanent demolition of essential, lower-rent stock for a temporary, short-term benefit. The adverse long-term social impact outweighs the limited 15-year benefit of the temporary affordable units.

2. Failure to Address Resident Displacement Requirements

The developer has failed to demonstrate adequate arrangements for the displacement of current tenants, which is a statutory requirement for approval.

A. Insufficient Comparable Accommodation:

The developer acknowledges that the private rental vacancy rate in Sydney is currently below 3%.

Pursuant to Section 47 (3) of the SEPP, where the vacancy rate is less than 3%, sufficient comparable accommodation is “conclusively taken not to be available.”

The developer has failed to provide any solution or concrete plan for re-homing the displaced affordable housing tenants, who are being placed into a market with a record-low Australia-wide rental vacancy rate and rising rental costs.

B. Absence of Adequate Assistance Arrangements:

The application does not address Section 47 (2)(d) of the SEPP, which requires consideration of “whether adequate arrangements have been made to assist the residents who are likely to be displaced to find comparable accommodation.”

The tenants at 50-52 Warren Rd only learned about this application via the Council's public notice on the front fence.

There has been no offer of relocation assistance, compensation, or attempts by the developer and/or landowner to find alternate accommodation for residents.

The lack of any engagement or assistance plan confirms that the statutory requirement under the SEPP has not been met.

3. Inappropriate Unit Mix for Affordable Housing Demand

The proposed temporary affordable units are not suitably configured to meet the area’s documented affordable housing needs.

Of the eight temporary affordable apartments, the mix is heavily weighted towards larger units (five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom).

The greatest demand for affordable housing in the Inner West is concentrated in lone person households, which typically require one-bedroom units.

The proposed configuration of larger units appears to be designed for maximum future re-sale value (after the 15-year temporary period) rather than to genuinely address the pressing, immediate need for single-person affordable housing in the Marrickville area.

4. Recommended Condition of Refusal or Alternative Contribution

If the Council is minded to approve this application despite the overwhelming objection regarding affordable housing loss:

The application should be refused based on the unacceptable social and economic loss of 16 long-term affordable units, in accordance with Section 47 (2)(c) of the SEPP and the LFD v City of Sydney Council precedent.

Alternatively, if approved, the developer must be required to pay an Affordable Housing Contribution that reflects the true, permanent loss of affordable stock. This contribution must be based on the loss of 17 bedrooms of permanent affordable housing, not just one lost bedroom, as the proposed replacement bedrooms are only temporary (15-year) and therefore have limited value to the community's long-term housing needs. The contribution should comprehensively address the permanent undermining of the long-term affordable housing supply.

This development is based on profit with no genuine commitment to affordable housing.

Please reject this DA as it stands.

I support this application because it delivers much-needed housing exactly where it's most needed.

Increasing density near town centres and public transport hubs is the smartest way to tackle Sydney's housing crisis. It's efficient, sustainable, and makes the most of our existing infrastructure.

A hulking nine-storey concrete block does NOT belong within a neighbourhood of two-storey residences.

I object to this DA. The Marrickville Heritage Society points out that behind the brick facade from the late 1930s sit two large villas built in 1886-1887. The building has a significant history and should be heritage listed.
The proposed building would be totally out of character considering most of the buildings in the street. I also object to the loss of 8 trees.
I am very skeptical about the proposed provision of “affordable” housing. I doubt whether the current tenants would find any of these apartments affordable.
I agree with the objections lodged by Karen Soos, including the following points made by her:
I object to DA/2025/0816 on the grounds that it results in the unacceptable and permanent loss of long-term affordable housing, fails to meet the statutory requirements for resident displacement, and undermines the public benefit intended by state planning policy.
The current site at 50-52 Warren Rd provides 17 units, containing 18 bedrooms, which function as de facto affordable housing due to the building's age, configuration, and perpetually low rents.
The proposal replaces these 17 units with eight affordable apartments (containing 17 bedrooms). Crucially, it appears only one of these new units will be retained as affordable in perpetuity.
The developer has failed to demonstrate adequate arrangements for the displacement of current tenants, which is a statutory requirement for approval.
The tenants at 50-52 Warren Rd only learned about this application via the Council's public notice on the front fence – this is outrageous.
There has been no offer of relocation assistance, compensation, or attempts by the developer and/or landowner to find alternate accommodation for residents
The greatest demand for affordable housing in the Inner West is concentrated in lone person households, which typically require one-bedroom units.
The proposed configuration of larger units appears to be designed for maximum future re-sale value (after the 15-year temporary period) rather than to genuinely address the pressing, immediate need for single-person affordable housing in the Marrickville area.

I object to this development in its current form.
I agree with the points made in the excellent submissions from Karen Soo and Robynne Hayward.

I support this proposal. There’s a nice mix of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom apartments in a location with easy access to great transportation options. We need buildings of this sort to allow families to move into the Inner West, and to help create the conditions for genuinely affordable and accessible housing throughout Sydney.

I support this proposal as it would build 43 new apartments right next to the new metro station which is only 10 minutes from the city. This building will give much needed supply to an area which is currently becoming more and more expensive. The only complaint I have is that it should be taller for something that is time wise, equivalent to green square.

It is not removal of affordable housing as this construction will allow 43 people who currently occupy what could be affordable housing to move out and give that space back to the community.

As someone who is being forced to pay exorbitant rents in Sydney, I would like for the people who are currently bidding against me for dilapidated homes to be given the option to buy somewhere nice and let the old homes go to people who need them.

The idea that this development will help families move into Marrickville is bonkers. The new development above the vape shop on warren / Illawarra has two bedrooms for $1,200. The new development opposite Banana Joes gave no new homebuyers a chance because ONE person bought the lot.

“Yes in my backyard” is all well and good (and understandable since this is a great place to live) - BUT - there MUST be permanent and true low-cost and SOCIAL housing associated with these builds AND some way to ensure families really can move here rather than simply build for investors and high-cost rentals (as per warren & Illawarra examples above)

I do not support this development in its current form.
The height of the proposed building at 9 stories is well above those around it and in a very narrow street. There will be increased congestion from traffic both during and after construction, especially as three floors of basement parking is proposed. Traffic flow at the nearest intersection has already been modified with 2 significant developments at the corner of Illawarra and Warren Roads. There is heavy vehicle traffic on the eastern side of Illawarra Road due to the loading bay for Woolworths.
The limited nature of the 'affordable' housing is highly problematic , especially as this is time limited. 4 to 5 stories is a reasonable compromise given the need for more housing in this area. I note that Lars Nolles says the site is right next door to the new Metro Station, but it is in fact 450M. This inaccuracy implies a lack of familiarity with the area and its complexity.
The building has no provision for inclusion of solar power generation, which should be a requirement for all new developments in this district. This is not only of environmental concern, but also important to help reduce the cost of power to occupants.
The rooftop is flat concrete with no provision for use as a common area, and will be a source of excessive heat production. This needs to be addressed as it will increase the impact of losing mature trees.
The proposal is clearly outsized for the area, and will adversely impact the local area.

Horrible idea . Warren rd is already choked with traffic and can barely accommodate the congestion.
A 9 storey building in this street would Look preposterous and destroy the equanimity in our beloved neighbourhood.
This is housing at the expense of everyone who lives in the community .
Inner west council is a disgrace .corrupt and callous to the core .

Why is IWC demolishing affordable housing to build unaffordable housing - in an affordable housing crisis? Demolishing 17 cheap rentals and replacing them with 43 apartments that will inevitably be over a million dollars each is not fair. Including only 8 ‘below market rent’ units (pegged at 80% of market rate - AND only for 15 years) is not fair. Housing is a human right. Building multiple million dollar units is only good for developers and investors. Trickle down economics has not worked and neither will trickle down housing. The human and environmental cost of the loss of these beautiful & affordable units/homes is unacceptable. Please- Do better IWC and provide us with other options to consider to increase housing stock immediately (eg Why are there thousands of units sitting empty across the inner west right now and what can you do to make them available?).

I object this development for the following reasons:

- The development will result in the unacceptable loss of affordable housing in Marrickville and the Inner-West community
- There is not available sufficient accommodation to satisfy demand from the displaced tenants
- There has been no attempt by the developer and/or landowner to find alternate accommodation for residents
If left untouched, 50 and 52 Warren Rd are likely to continue to provide affordable housing in perpetuity, as the unit configuration and building age are likely to always lead to rents which are well below the suburb median average

I wish to object to DA/2025/0816 50 Warren Rd, Marrickville on the following grounds.

Residents across the Inner West have expressed concern about the TOD and the Inner West Fairer Futures Plans regarding the great loss of current affordable housing. Demolishing old houses, flats, many boarding houses & current shop top housing will remove vast numbers of affordable rentals. To replace these with only 2% of affordable rentals at 80% of market rental rates will force many people to be displaced and forced to leave Marrickville, friends, community & services that support them

This development at 50-52 Warren Rd will result in the unacceptable loss of affordable housing for 18 residents in Marrickville. Students, Key workers, low income earners and seniors currently live in the units. They will not be able to afford the rentals of the luxury apartments & will be forced to leave Marrickville which will undermine the diversity of community so valued in the Inner West
There is not available sufficient accommodation to satisfy demand from the displaced tenants
There has been no attempt by the developer and/or landowner to assist in finding alternate accommodation for residents

If left untouched, 50 and 52 Warren Rd are likely to continue to provide affordable housing in perpetuity, as the unit configuration and building age are likely to always lead to rents which are well below the suburb median average

The development is proposing to replace 17 affordable apartments at the site, containing 18 bedrooms, with only eight affordable apartments containing 17 bedrooms

 
In the Selwyn St, Paddington boarding house case (LFD versus City of Sydney Council dated 10 July 2025) the Land and Environment Court found a project could be refused because of its unacceptable affordable housing loss
Considering the Paddington decision, this development will result in “adverse social and economic effects on the general community”, pursuant to Section 47 2(C) of the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, and should be refused. 
The developer acknowledges that the vacancy rate, in private rental accommodation in Sydney, is currently less than 3% and therefore, in line with Section 47 (3) of the SEPP, sufficient comparable accommodation is “conclusively taken not to be available”

There has been no offer of relocation for these tenants.
As such, the application does not address Section 47 2(D) of the SEPP, namely “whether adequate arrangements have been made to assist the residents who are likely to be displaced to find comparable accommodation”. 

In addition, the application should be refused because the proposed replacement affordable apartments will not be suitable for affordable housing tenants. Of the eight temporary affordable housing apartments, five will be two-bedroom and two will be three-bedroom.

As such, these apartments will not meet the needs of lone person households, from which comes the greatest demand for affordable housing in the Inner West

If the application was to be approved, the developer should be required to pay an affordable housing contribution for the loss of 17 bedrooms worth of accommodation, rather than just paying a contribution for one lost bedroom as is proposed. 

Loss of Heritage should also be considered.

The buildings of 50-52 Warren Rd are good examples of art deco units, worthy of retention and protection. Number 50 is a converted 19th century house that matches the style of its neighbour. Together, the two buildings form a pair of inter-war art-deco residential buildings, which retain period detail such as decorative cornices, ceilings, fireplaces, glass doors & woodwork.

Unfortunately the buildings do not have the protection of a Heritage Listing however “The Marrickville Local Government Area Southern Area Heritage Review Final Report”* prepared by Paul Davies Pty Ltd (dated April 2015) stated that both buildings should undergo further research.
The report goes on to recommend listing the properties as heritage items of local significance.

With their attractive tapestry-style brickwork and arched doorways, the buildings are an aesthetically appealing addition in the streetscape, and interestingly are linked via a brick screen over a passageway between them. Number 50 was converted to flats with a new front in 1934.
These buildings show evidence of 1930s redevelopment of the late 19th century subdivision (Harnleigh Estate) and they should be protected.

*https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/develop/heritage-and-conservation/heritage-studies

This proposed development does nothing to address low cost housing, social housing or any other type of accommodation that the current tenants are in receipt of currently. The tenants have not been given notice- except on the DA notice pinned to their building; there are no arrangements to rehouse the current tenants in a similar property with rental rates that are within their capacity to pay.
The development has scant regard for the need to provide the inner west community with accommodation that allows for reasonable rents at stable pricing .
The local developments in the area in the past 8 years have been at the higher end of the market price, with concomitant rental rates- which does nothing to assist those on low incomes/ single persons/ essential service workers to have long term housing the inner west- in this instance in Warren road.
The neighbourhood appreciates the diversity and talent of our community and want the street to reflect this current demographic; and want local and state government to support low cost, regulated accomodation for the current and future tenants.

The Marrickville Heritage Society does not support the demolition of 50-52 Warren Road for a nine storey residential development. The existing pair of joined two storey Art Deco styled apartment buildings are worthy of heritage listing, and should be retained and adapted.

The buildings were identified for local heritage listing in the former Marrickville Council’s South Marrickville Heritage Review in 2015. The buildings weren't listed because the owners objected, and commissioned the Urbis report, which rejected listing. Council commissioned their own peer review by Graham Hall (heritage consultant), who found that

on inspection it is obvious that No. 52, like No. 50, is a Victorian villa with a substantial extension, not simply a new facade, added in 1934. The assessment carried out by Urbis for the owner has not identified this serious error.
Hall noted that the South Marrickville Heritage Review focussed on the nominated study area, and does not include a comparative evaluation. The full extent of the phenomenon demonstrated by these buildings, of apartment conversions of Victorian villa, and the distribution of reasonably intact examples, are not known. The research necessary for an informed assessment of the nominated items was beyond the scope of Hall's review and the South Marrickville Heritage Study.

Hall therefore recommended that the property is not listed, but that

an LGA-wide heritage review of historic conversions of houses into residential flats be undertaken to fully evaluate the historic significance of the property.

Sadly this survey has never been undertaken.

Having recently inspected the building, the Society believes that the buildings have aesthetic and historical significance at the local level and should be retained and protected. Apart from the intact intricate patterned brick façade, the interiors retain period detail such as Victorian decorative cornices, ceilings and fireplaces, with Interwar architectural joinery comprising decorative glazed doors and stair balustrade.

The proposed nine storey residential building is stylistically intrusive and out of scale for the surrounding character area of the former Harnleigh Estate.
We request that Council reject the development and engage with the proponent about developing a scheme that retains and adapts the existing building in a new development.

Scott MacArthur
President, Marrickville Heritage Society
M. 0416 152 501

I object to the proposed development on aesthetic, heritage and affordable housing grounds.

As with nearby shop top apartment developments at the intersection of Warren & Illawarra Roads, the facades of 50 and 52 Warren Rd should be carefully retained if the site must be redeveloped. These facades are striking, friendly and characterful landmarks to locals, and speak of a friendly community. The proposed building appears overbearing, exclusive and pretentious.

The existing buildings have also affordably housed friends of mine, single women on lower incomes in proximity to vital jobs, transport, shops and services. The proposed development does not provide or guarantee affordable housing on a permanent basis to protect lower income households. As Marrickville generally has a very large proportion of single person households, any new development must cater to this obvious need.