The Timberyards by RTL Co.

9441

Redacted

15/12/2025

Object

Website

Submission Objecting to the Timberyards Development SSD-76927247 | Marrickville Introduction This submission objects to the proposed Timberyards development on the grounds that it represents a gross overdevelopment of the site, fails basic amenity and infrastructure tests, and does not deliver a commensurate public benefit given the scale of planning concessions sought. While housing supply is important, this proposal is not in the public interest in its current form. 1. Overdevelopment, Height and Amenity Impacts The proposal comprises seven buildings ranging from 5 to 14 storeys, reaching approximately 47 metres, with height variations beyond nominated controls enabled by affordable housing bonuses. This scale is wholly incompatible with the surrounding low-rise residential context and results in unacceptable overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual bulk and poor transitions to adjoining streets. Despite minor design amendments, the fundamental issues of excessive height, density and site dominance remain unresolved 2. Unsuitable Site Conditions: Aircraft Noise and Flooding The site lies directly under Sydney Airport flight paths within the ANEF 25–30 noise contour, one of the highest residential noise environments in NSW. State policy has historically sought to limit residential intensification in such locations, yet this proposal seeks to maximise population exposure. In addition, the site is low-lying and flood-prone, historically part of the Gumbramorra Swamp. Increased hard surfaces and reduced deep soil zones heighten flood risk and climate vulnerability, despite technical compliance claims 3. Inadequate Housing Mix and Affordable Housing Outcomes The development is heavily weighted toward studios and co-living dwellings, with 591 co-living units proposed. This does not reflect Inner West housing needs, where demand is highest for 2- and 3-bedroom dwellings suitable for families. Affordable housing provision is limited to 10% of Gross Floor Area despite substantial height and FSR bonuses of up to 20–30%. Given these concessions, affordable housing should be increased to at least 20–30% and secured in perpetuity, not time-limited to 15 years 4. Traffic, Parking and Access Failures Parking provision of approximately 0.2 spaces per dwelling across 1,181 dwellings is unrealistic and unsupported by local conditions. The site is not adjacent to the Metro, requiring a 700-metre walk along heavily trafficked roads under the flight path. Local roads, particularly Sydenham Road and Victoria Road, already experience congestion and safety issues near schools. Community experience directly contradicts traffic modelling assumptions used to justify the proposal 5. Infrastructure Deficits and Open Space Shortfalls The proposal fails to address cumulative pressure on local infrastructure, including schools, childcare, health services, sporting fields and open space. Council research identifies significant existing shortfalls, yet no adequate mechanism is proposed to prevent worsening per-capita provision. Communal open spaces within the development are largely passive and compromised by aircraft noise, and do not substitute for genuine public open space or active recreation facilities Conclusion The Timberyards proposal prioritises yield over liveability, applies disproportionate planning bonuses, and externalises amenity and infrastructure impacts onto the surrounding community. It fails to meet reasonable expectations for site suitability, housing diversity, infrastructure provision and public benefit. This application should not be approved in its current form. At a minimum, it requires substantial reduction in height and density, a materially improved dwelling mix, significantly increased affordable housing, and credible infrastructure mitigation before it can be considered in the public interest Margo Cashman

9436

Redacted

15/12/2025

Object

Website

Submission attached

Petra Jones - The Timberyards.pdf (PDF, 654.21 KB)

9426

New South Wales 2204

15/12/2025

Object

Website

Thank you Panel members. I attach my written response.

Submission to IPC_rdjajadikarta.pdf (PDF, 1.41 MB)

SDRP Advice Letter_TimberYards_01 highlights_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 176.03 KB)

TimberYards_Marrickville_AdviceLetter02 highlights_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 176.1 KB)

9421

New South Wales 2113

15/12/2025

Object

Website

See attached written submission

22258A.3KM_SUB2.pdf (PDF, 207.65 KB)

9416

Redacted

15/12/2025

Object

Website

I am the a co-owner and resident of the house immediately adjacent to Building G, purchased with my partner in 2020. Building G borders our house on the west side and Building E to the north side. My submission will focus on three items, notably the requirement to acquire our property, the timeline of the Developer’s communication to us, and my support of public submissions made by Laila & John Hallam specifically in relations to the corner site. Required acquisition of our property Appendix RR Traffic Report page 89 indicates that this development requires Acquisition of our property lot in the current SSDA Scheme where corner lot is excluded. We can confirm that we have not given consent for this acquisition to happen, in the scenario that the Corner Site is excluded from the development (current SSDA scheme). This contradicts Mr Combley’s information on the SSDA Form where Landowners written consent has been noted as required and had. From this perspective, the SSDA is not accurate. The Department and the IPC must not support SSDA that is not accurate. Timeline of Communication Mr Jonathan Combley from Scape as General Manager of Developments reached out to us on 9 September 2024, our negotiation concluded on 5 November 2024 with a signed return letter to Scape. However Appendix B Architectural Drawings include drawings dated 12 December 2024 on the SSDA submission revision (DA-110-007). This first revision of Architectural Drawings show that corner site is excluded, noting that this decision seems to be internally already confirmed in early Dec 2024, while the SSD application was submitted by Mr Combley not until 3 February 2025. There is no communication between November 2024 and February 2025. These series of events evidently shows that the negotiation was left to 2 months before the internal deadline, where we question the authenticity of the negotiation to include the Corner site in the development. This fails the test required to be presented in the application as a 3-step framework to amalgamate the Corner site. Support for Public Submissions I would also refer to and support John and Laila Hallam’s public submission on this matter on all raised issues. We are open to fairly renegotiating and genuinely facilitating the sale of property to assist the developer with obtaining the remaining lots in the corner site and making full use of the timberyard site, pursuing a better urban design outcome Marrickville really needs.

9401

New South Wales 2131

14/12/2025

Object

Email

Dear Sir/ Madam, Re: Timberyards by RTL Co. SSD-76927247 As an inner west resident, I write to raise serious concerns that I have in regard to this development. I object to it proceeding on a number of grounds. 1. Overdevelopment and dominant scale of the site. The size of this development is out of all proportion in relation to the size of the site. New buildings will loom over adjacent existing properties and will result in serious overshadowing and loss of sunlight. Planners have not given serious consideration to the overbearing impact of this development and its subsequent negative effect on surrounding home owners and tenants. A development of a smaller scale and size would be far more appropriate, have a lesser impact and therefore more acceptable to existing neighbours. 2 Loss of Amenity This very large development will result in reduced privacy for all who live near it. Also, as many of these apartments are now to be designated as shared accommodation, this will mean an influx of young students who often have very different lifestyles and entertainment needs from those of existing residents and families. This will result in considerable noise impacts from movements of young people throughout all hours of day and night. There are a very few small parks and limited sports facilities near this precinct and the pressure of increased population on these limited amenities will be significant. The increase in public space from this project is negligible. The allocation of communal amenity spaces to offset reduced private balcony sizes is no substitute for significant increase in public space that a development of this size should include. There is no mention of the provision of a pool as part of the project which will mean increased patronage on the local swim centre in Enmore Park that is already at capacity much of the time. 3. Increased population and strain on infrastructure. As with all such developments of this size, the increased population will dramatically impact roads, public transport, schools, hospitals, parks, playing fields and community facilities as they currently stand, not to mention essential infrastructure including water, stormwater, household waste and refuse collections etc. There is no evidence that provision has been made for these impacts. Looking just at transport for example. The number of residents who will eventually occupy this site, will have a dramatic effect by way of passenger numbers on the existing public bus services which are already “bursting at the seams” with commuter usage at one of the highest rates in all of Sydney. The distance to Sydenham station will preclude many occupants from using that transport option when buses are close by. Vehicle congestion on Victoria Road is already extreme and often at a stand still. The slow crawl of cars that are feeding into Enmore Road and King Street Newtown compete with all the bus services to and from the city on this route, often resulting in peak hour bus speeds being reduced to a walking pace. This extends what should be a short commute to the CBD into a ridiculously long affair. If new residents wish to use bicycles on these commutes, it will be at their peril due to the lack of dedicated bike paths. 4. Inappropriate location This high density development is some distance from jobs and services which will result in long commutes for residents. As more and more of these are built, the few remaining industries that exist in Marrickville are being forced out and with their closure resulting in the loss of the very jobs which would have been sort after by occupants of this development. These workers who would come under the category of “affordable housing” occupants are just the sort of people who would be seeking employment in some of the low skilled positions that currently exist in food processing and light industries that make up much of present day Marrickville. On this basis alone, this gentrification process inevitably conflicts with the idea of retaining jobs in these categories. It makes a mockery of the concept of affordable housing for those in the lower socio economic demographic. Finally, in the case of students, the location is a considerable distance from the University of Sydney, UTS and Sydney TAFE the closest tertiary education centres to this location. Currently, most of the recent student housing projects have been built adjacent to universities in areas such as Redfern and Ultimo where there is almost no requirement for students to use public transport, so there is minimum impact on these services. This is especially true for international students to whom student travel discounts that apply to Australian residents, are not available. For these reasons, among many others, I believe this is an inappropriate development for this location and should therefore not proceed. I ask that the Commissioners give favourable consideration to my submission. Yours sincerely, Dominic Quigley

9366

New South Wales 2204

14/12/2025

Object

Website

As a resident and homeowner across the road from the development, I am concerned about the pressure on parking and road congestion that the influx of over 1,100 residences will create. As a homeowner without access to off-street parking, and with two children both aged under 5, we are certain to miss out on nearby carparks after completion pushing us further from home. The intersection of Sydenham Road and Victoria Road is already now facing congestion with new developments, and will likely be pressured further. I am also concerned about the height of the buildings in this otherwise residential neighbourhood of single-story homes. I worry that the 13 or 14 story buildings will dominate the surrounds, and for some homeowners it will block natural sunlight.

9371

New South Wales 2204

14/12/2025

Object

Website

The proposed 7 buildings ranging from 5 to 14 storeys are an overdevelopment of the site which results in poor transitions, overshadowing, loss of privacy and amenity. Density and scale needs to be reduced. Heights need to be reduced to 4 to 8 storeys. The site is not suited to this overdevelopment because it’s under an ANEF 25-30 flight path noise contour, plus there is the risk of flooding. Noise will be a health hazard for residents in this development. Sydney needs more housing , however this project will not help relieve the housing crises nor make housing more affordable. Build to Rent attract much higher rentals . Marrickville needs many more 2 and 3 bedroomed apartments, however this proposal is heavily weighted with Co-living, studios and one bedroomed units. and the housing mix needs to be reviewed and the number of co-living rooms drastically reduced. The mix of dwelling types doesn’t meet the social need for more family-sized dwellings. Provision for parking is grossly inadequate with a 0.2 allocation for almost 2,000 dwellings and retail. Traffic congestion on local roads is already problematic. Overflow from lack of parking will create a nightmarish situation for current and future residents. Demand for parking already exceeds supply. The assumption that people will not own cars cannot be made. The assumption that many people will ride bicycles cannot be made because there are no dedicated cycle paths on the adjacent streets, which have clearways needed for peak traffic flows. The Applicant argues that the devvelopment is close to the Metro station however its a 700 metre walk to the station , which would be difficult for workers carrying equipment or people with mobility problems. Buses are already full in peak hours. The parking allocation must be increased considering current Sydney car ownership. The allocation of Affordable Housing is inadequate because of a) the large bonus used by the developer in return for Affordable Housing, and b) the expected above average rent for dwellings in this development. It should be 20% considering the fact that FSRs and heights have had bonuses of 20% and 30% and it needs to be inperpetuity, not just for 15 years. The current shortage of green spaces for active and passive recreation will be aggravated. There is already a problem with scarce open space and playing fields for netball, football etc in the immediate area. From Inner West Council's own research Marrickville & Dulwich Hill need 6-8 playing fields and a new aquatic centre to service the current population. Enmore Pool fitness classes are already at capacity and members frequently are excluded. The Timberyards Precinct should consider providing a pool and Gym to take the pressure off local amenities. Contribution levies do not mention contributions to more active open space and playing fields. Their planned pocket park, communal areas and rooftop areas will not provide what is needed for active recreation. Loss of historic workers' cottages is of concern and a loss of heritage not acknowledged because the cottages had no heritage protection. The development is very close to Marrickville Primary school and increased traffic in Farr St will endanger the students. It is a shame that they could not have been included in the design. Tree canopy is lacking and needs to be increased to 35%. There has been a lot of community concern regarding The Timberyards development. The original DA was for 6 00 apartments. This proposal in its current form is not in the public interest. Please review it and reduce the scale, heights and density and dramatically increase the parking provision. Please listen to the concerned members of the community to get a much better outcome for this site.

9351

Better Future Coalition

New South Wales 2204

13/12/2025

Object

Website

Please find attached Submission on behalf of Better Future Coalition

Better Future Coalition Submission on Timberyards by RTL Co. SSD-76927247_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 133.76 KB)

9276

New South Wales 2204

13/12/2025

Object

Website

I object to the project in its current form for the following reasons. 1. Parking. The project includes parking spaces for only around one quarter of the units planned. The developers have said that they do not anticipate that all of the residents will want to use a car. As a local resident, my experience of the neighbourhood is that this expectation is farcical and does not reflect reality. Even with an abundance of public transport options, almost all of my neighbours also have at least one car per residence. The lack of parking will cause havoc in the neighbourhood, which is already a busy area with very few unrestricted parking spots. 2. Overshadowing. (a) As submitted at the previous stage, the plan was for 8-storey buildings fronting Sydenham Rd. The opposite side of the street is composed of residential houses 1 or 2 storeys high. The State Significant Development Assessment Report stated that this had been reduced, but I am unable to see any overshadowing analysis in the documents available at this stage of the development process. At the previous stage, some residents had their access to sunlight significantly affected, and I consider this to be unacceptable. (b) I also consider that it is inappropriate for the building to have windows overlooking the primary school on Farr St. I understand that this does happen with some developments, but that in itself is not a reason why it should be considered acceptable. 3. Infrastructure. Another large development was recently completed a block or two away from this site, with no new schools, medical centres, or other services opening to service that community. The addition of another 2000 or more residents will put an additional strain on already scarce resources. 4. The plan involves primarily 2-bedroom units. The local area is already well-serviced by this size of dwelling. What is needed is larger accommodation (3 or 4 bedrooms) so that couples who live in the area can have families without being forced to leave their communities. 5. Further comments. I don't object in general to the construction of apartment buildings in my area. I can see that it's a necessity, and I would welcome affordable housing in particular. However, I don't think this plan is appropriately adapted to the current needs of the community or to local infrastructure.

9266

New South Wales 2204

12/12/2025

Object

Website

To the Commission, I am the owner-resident of [redacted] Sydenham Road Marrickville, and I object to the Timberyards Development, as proposed as per the NSW Major Projects website, for the below three reasons: 1. Building height and shadowing. The up-to-13 or 14 storey height of the buildings will block the sunlight, and cast shadows onto existing homes on Sydenham Road to the south. In addition, the 13 or 14 storey height of buildings will dwarf nearby homes in all directions, and create privacy-invading sight lines into current homes. 2. Lack of multi-bedroom apartments. The predominance of single bedroom apartments does not support families in need of housing, and will not introduce families in proportionate numbers to the neighbourhood as part of the development. 3. Parking. The plans show that there will be more than 950 more apartments than car spaces in the new development. This will invariably result in increased competition for off-street parking in nearby areas. Council has given no indication yet that existing affected residents will be protected via a meter parking and permit scheme, as exists in nearby Marrickville areas including Garners Avenue. If Government is seeking to modify the area towards a high-density residential and pedestrian precinct then it should, to assist parking pressure and modify driving behaviours, remove the part-day clearways on Sydenham and Victoria Roads. Anthony Mason Owner and resident - [redacted] Sydenham Road Marrickville

9256

11/12/2025

Object

Email

Hi IPCN Pls find attached the paper I used to speak with on Monday 8th Dec. I’m not sure whether it is a submission or speaking notes. Either way, here it is. There are links in the document to public sites for your reference. There are also references to documents and correspondence that we will forward if requested. Some may require the permission of others, which will seek prior to sending.

Laila & John- Speaking notes_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 187.06 KB)

9211

New South Wales 2204

11/12/2025

Object

Website

I object to the development for the following reasons: (i) the bulk and height is monolithic and confronting. The density will be extreme - for a suburb already rated 'very high density'. The proposed development needs to be substantially reduced and some effort made to become more harmonious with the character of the 1 - 2 storey federation houses of the surrounding streetscapes; (ii) the traffic outcome will be horrendous. The narrow local streets already cannot accommodate existing traffic particularly at school drop-off and pick-up. This will present an unacceptable risk of injury to children; (iii) the parking outcome will be horrendous. 216 parking bays for 1,188 units is outrageous and shows utter contempt for the amenity of existing residents; (iv) the excessive size of the proposed development will have significant adverse amenity and liveability impacts on all residents of Marrickville. We feel under siege with the state and local government falling over themselves to give blank cheques to developers without the slightest regard for the community. Specifically, after the state government mandated its TOD policy, the Inner West Council voluntarily doubled that number again (under their 'Fairer' Future Plan) without any regard for the community and shifted a disproportionate volume of density onto Marrickville - then topped again by this development which further again exceeds even the Council's 'Plan'. This is destroying the character and heritage of the suburb with the irony being these are the attributes that make it appealing to future residents. With a 0% rate of natural population increase, why is there a housing crisis and who is benefiting from the community's erosion of lifestyle, liveability, cohesion and amenity? (v) I note the developer's Heritage Report concluded there will be no adverse heritage impacts to the Marrickville Town Hall arising from the development. I suspect the report has incorrectly referenced the wrong Town Hall (303 Marrickville Road). The original Marrickville Town Hall (built in 1879 SHR Ref: 00573) is located at the end of Thompson Street (specifically, 96 Illawarra Road, Marrickville) only 220 metres from the proposed development and with a direct line of sight. The Heritage Report would therefore appear to be defective. We implore the Commission to consider the very real concerns of the community and appreciate the significant detrimental impact this development will create.

9071

New South Wales 2038

09/12/2025

Object

Website

The concept is fine--just too manyapartments on the 2.2 hectare site Mixed use retention good-recognise though that it s result of ability for provision of higher density Needs more car parking spaces (double at min) --a myth that people in Sydney don t need cars. We don t live a European life style--our climate encourages residents to be active and travel in out of work/study commitments to a social and active life well beyond ones suburb . No amount of public transport allows for the extent that residents pursue this.1188 units will prob mean 2 x number of residents and local infrastructure will be stretched--no room currently for on street parking, so must have more on-site 7 blocks with heights 7-13 storeys is too bulky and too high. 3 storey means cheaper rent--no lifts so some at that height are needed --max height 7 Too dense, too high, too big a footprint of buildings, insufficient parking for the number of residents

9116

Marrickville Landowners

Redacted

09/12/2025

Object

Website

Dear Commission Panel Members, Thank you again for the opportunity to present yesterday. Attached is the updated presentation as well as the supporting Clause 4.6 review. There was one major issue I was unable to cover within the allotted time, and I ask that the Commission explicitly consider and record it. 1. Through-Site Link – Departure from the Rezoning and DCP Intent The through-site link is not a discretionary design element; it was a secured public benefit embedded in the 2018 rezoning and DCP. It was intended to provide a clear, direct and universally accessible public connection between Farr Street/Wicks Park and Mitchell Street. The current design falls well short of that obligation: - The path is internalised within private open space and can be easily gated or controlled. - Movement relies on narrow stairs, split levels and elevated ramps, meaning universal access is not achievable, contrary to the DCP’s intent. - The alignment and landscaping present as a semi-private internal garden rather than a public thoroughfare. Slides 7a and 7b in the attached deck illustrate these deficiencies and the departure from the public access outcome envisaged at rezoning. We ask the Commission to specifically refer to those slides and recognise that the proposal does not deliver the public link required by the planning framework. 2. “Asks” – For the IPC’s Formal Consideration As set out in the attached deck, we are asking the Commission to: - Ensure the 10% affordable housing is genuinely new GFA, net of the 10 existing affordable dwellings on Farr Street. - Limit height to the Housing SEPP FSR bonus only (≈14%), with no additional exceedance via Clause 4.6. - Require all parking to move below ground, enabling excess height currently generated by above-ground parking to be redistributed or removed. - Relocate all vehicular access away from Farr Street and require reinstatement of a signalised crossing at Victoria Road/Mitchell Street. - Require a genuine, open through-site link, co-designed with Council, consistent with the rezoning and DCP intent. - Re-balance the dwelling mix, capping co-living + one-bed stock at 50%, increasing family housing, and replacing the 10 lost affordable dwellings. - Address overshadowing and character impacts so they align with the LEP/DCP masterplan and do not rely on excessive 4.6 variations. These items reflect the minimum changes needed to ensure the development is lawful, accessible, and consistent with the planning framework. 3. Additional Material Attached is a Clause 4.6 review, which outlines the proportionality issues and the failure to satisfy the two-prong test for height variations, particularly along the sensitive southern interface. Thank you for your time and for considering these matters. Kind regards,

DPHI Timberyards review IPC v3.pdf (PDF, 1.49 MB)

4.6 review.pdf (PDF, 131.38 KB)

8846

New South Wales 2204

08/12/2025

Object

Website

Whilst I’m not opposed to the submission in principle, it needs vastly more parking. If this was addressed I’d support.

8841

New South Wales 2204

08/12/2025

Object

Website

Regarding Timber yards development My name is Darren Friend, I am the co-owner with my wife of [ADDRESS REDACTED], which we purchased in 2007 We have renovated over time as money allowed and have done our best to make our property “green”. We have added the following infrastructure as improvements to our property 1 solar panels. First in neighbourhood. 2 skylights 3 more solar and a household battery 4. heat pump hot water 5 a/c for heating and eliminated gas heater 6 electric stove top (closed the gas mains off) 7 electric car Our House and car is now all electric, I try to charge the car during the daytime. It feels like I’m driving on sunshine. We are concerned that shading will nullify our investments in green technology and are also concerned for our front garden. Our own renovation was actively resisted by council ….. we were told it was not in keeping with street scape, yet we only wanted to move fwd 1.5m to be in line with our neighbour’s (plural) properties. I understand the need for new housing and recognise that my neighbourhood has potential for further housing Why can’t the higher structures be pushed back or reduced so shading doesn’t fall across my property? I understand that a reduction in height of the building (building G I think) that will throw shade over our home will only reduce the total number of units in this development by 1%. This seems like a very small compromise to allow the development to go forward while keeping its neighbours happy.

8831

New South Wales 2204

08/12/2025

Object

Website

As a co-owner of [redacted] Road I object to the proposed development going ahead but specifically in relation to the current plan and the misrepresentation of the developer in their attempts to purchase the remaining properties in what is referred to as “the corner site”. If the developer purchased all of the properties in the corner site they would have the envelop to full develop the site and the meet the various concerns with their current proposal which include: • Overshadowing • Significant site isolation impacts • Height issues of buildings on Sydenham Road and the impact to surrounds • Genuinely increase the net yield of low-income housing as part of the development, including the opportunity to house families like the properties on Farr Street have traditionally met • Environmental and soil concerns • Severe negative impacts to existing residents through construction and ongoing • Traffic and possibility to include more underground parking to enable the increased residential and retail needs of the proposal About me My partner and I purchased [redacted] Road in 2020 as first home buyers and tenants in common. We love our home, our yard and the neighbourhood and have had no intention of leaving but with this development the special exemptions given to the developers will make our property far less inhabitable. We will lose all privacy, almost all access to solar and see the value of our property diminish. We had plans to renovate our property but have had to put all of those plans on hold since 2024 due to the uncertainty of the situation. This has been extremely limiting on our ability to improve our home and quality of life. Dealing with the developer We were approached by the developer in September 2024 for the first time. They said they wanted to purchase our property, and we agreed to a proposed price and signed and returned an EOI but after signing the developer went silent and after multiple attempts to contact them, they finally told us they would not be proceeding as they needed to lock in our neighbour before proceeding (in November 2024). They told us not to speak with our neighbours and that we needed to keep any offer details confidential. One of the other owners from a neighbouring home eventually told us they had also been told the sale they had been approached for was not proceeding. It seems the developer was saying different properties in the “corner site” were not willing to sell so they could not proceed however all the 8 owners in that block have agreed to sell, but despite that the developer has been non-responsive. They appear to be using a lack of willingness to sell for their reason for exclusion but that is clearly not factual and their lack of transparency and openness with the owners highlights their deception in relation to the corner block. Property prices have significantly increased for us to be able to buy a similar sized property in the area since we negotiated with the developer. We expect to renegotiate and for consideration to be given to the impact these delays have had on us and our ability to move on with our lives and improve our quality of living. That being said, we are open to renegotiating and genuinely facilitating the sale of our property to assist the developer with obtaining the remaining houses in the corner site and making full use of the Timberyard site. 119 Owner consent We believe that the planning document stipulates that the development requires our property ([redacted]) owners’ consent for the planned development to proceed. The developers have not attempted to contact us for this consent or enter into any discussions since November 2024. Exemptions and special inclusions and poor planning It appears NSW State Planning has enabled special exemptions and inclusions by deeming this proposed development a State Significant Development (SSD) however these leeway’s directly negatively impact us as exiting residents/owners. The height of the buildings next to and surrounding us will impact our solar access and have people’s studios/apartments towering above our property and looking into our yard and windows. The claim that people won’t own cars is absolutely impossible to control and is an outrageous element for a development of this scale which also included retail which will bring people to the site. There is no way to say people won’t have a car and then be forced to use street parking. Renters are likely to have cars and use them for visiting family/friends etc. Currently in Marrickville many residents don’t have onsite parking and park on nearby streets. The council refuses to give us (as [redacted]) residential parking permits to allow us to access the residential parking areas on Frampton Avenue and as such parking is extremely limited with many people now coming to Marrickville to enjoy the cafes, restaurants and events in the area. Parking must be increased if this development is to proceed especially if it is to include retail spaces. Their does not appear to be a net increase in the number of affordable housing options compared to the 11 properties in Farr Street that this development is removing. Also those properties on Farr Street house families and groups but the proposal focuses on low-income housing for studio/1-bedroom apartments. This won’t meet the needs of the community and seems to be a token element included to enable the Government to grant the SSD which in turn allows the developer to exceed limitations around height, green areas and solar impact on existing properties. Include the corner site If the developers purchase the houses and commercial properties on the corner site then they will have space to properly develop the site and ensure there is parking, accessibility for the new developments’ residents, more homes and the ability to replan how the tall building fit within the design to limit the impact to the community. It will also enable them to put in more housing for low-income families to ensure the development meets its requirement to increase the net yield of low-income housing beyond the 11 homes it has impacted on Farr Street. It will also enable the traffic improvement for the corner of Sydenham Road and Victoria Street to be met. These were in an original plan and given the proposed increase of residents from this development seriously needs to be considered to enable not only a better flow of traffic but safety for those crossing the road at that junction to access Sydenham Metro or the buses along Victoria Road. Properties excluded from Timberyards Development (formerly Victoria Road Precinct) Marrickville but all have confirmed they are willing to sell: Residential Owners Lot numbers Commercial Owners Lot numbers [redacted] I oppose the development if it does not include the properties in the corner site and if it remains in breach of so many of the NSW planning guidelines. The site has huge potential, but it must be developed properly and with consideration for the long-term use and impact. Even if we were not included in the development it cannot be allowed to proceed with the current design as it impacts the current residents and owners properties, will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding community by not properly addressing traffic concerns, parking concerns, increased low-income housing including to accommodate family/group units and bring greater foot and road traffic to the community without providing the adequate infrastructure to handle this increase.

TField submission re Timberyards 8 December 2025_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 91.94 KB)

7956

New South Wales 2204

04/12/2025

Object

Website

Subject: Objection to State Significant Development Application - Timberyards RTL Co. (SSD-76927247) - Marrickville To the Planning Department, My name is Damien Rhodes, and I reside at [redacted] in Marrickville. I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) application submitted by Timberyards RTL Co. for the development located around Farr St, Sydenham Road and Victoria Road, Marrickville. I am deeply concerned about the scale, density, and potential impacts of this project on our local community. Summary of Concerns: I object to this development due to its excessive scale, incompatibility with the existing neighborhood character, potential strain on local infrastructure, perceived lack of adequate community consultation, and potential environmental impacts. Detailed Explanation of Concerns: Scale and Density: The proposed development, confirmed by the planning portal (https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/timberyards-rtl-co), represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. The sheer size and height of the proposed buildings are disproportionate to the existing residential landscape of Marrickville. This level of density will drastically alter the character of our neighborhood, creating an urban environment that is out of scale with the current low to medium density housing. Personally, I am concerned that the height of the buildings will block sunlight and create wind tunnels Impact on Local Character and Amenity: The proposed development threatens the unique character and amenity of Marrickville. The increased density will inevitably lead to increased noise, traffic, and a loss of privacy for existing residents. As highlighted by the community website (https://timberyardscommunity.com/), there are widespread concerns about the development's impact on the streetscape and the overall quality of life in the area. The increased traffic will make it dangerous for children to walk to school. I am also concerned about the potential for overshadowing of existing homes, and the loss of views. Infrastructure Strain: The influx of new residents will place a significant strain on existing infrastructure, including roads, schools, and recreational facilities. I am particularly concerned about the potential for increased traffic congestion on Farr Street. There is insufficient parking built into the proposal which will severely impact on local parking. Lack of Community Consultation: The community website clearly demonstrates the widespread opposition to this development, indicating a perceived lack of meaningful consultation with residents. I feel that the concerns of the local community have not been adequately addressed in the planning process. I feel that the community should have been involved in the initial design phases of this project. Proposed Solutions: I suggest that the height of the buildings be reduced to three stories for Sydenham Road and no more than five stories for the other buildings. Conclusion: For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development application for Timberyards RTL Co. in Marrickville. I urge the planning department to carefully consider the concerns of the local community and reject this application, or require significant modifications to mitigate its negative impacts. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Damien Rhodes [redacted]

Damien Rhodes submission redacted.pdf (PDF, 78.53 KB)

7841

New South Wales 2204

03/12/2025

Object

Website

Dear commission, I write below my strong objection to the development proposal in its current form. 1. School and privacy. The building will be so high that people will be able to watch children in the playground at Marrickville public school. This is an unacceptable child protection risk. In addition, the school children have already been subjected to the noise of the Wicks park development over the last few years. How will the project guarantee that the children will not be disrupted in their schooling and subjected to environmental pollution from the project. 2. Not affordable. 10% affordable housing is such a small amount that it will not offset what the project takes away from the community. While renters will not have the worry of the apartments being sold, they will still be subjected to market rent and the inordinate rental increases that have forced others to move out of the area. This is being sold as affordable housing but for that to be the case rents would have to have an increase cap to protect renters from the price-gouging of the rental market. 3. The height of the building is illegal. The current maximum is 3 storeys. The spin behind this project is that the pay off for a higher development will be affordable housing but this is simply not sufficient. The surrounding residents will lose their privacy. 4. Some houses in surrounding areas will not meet legal shadowing requirements due to the height of the building. This area that already struggles with damp issues in buildings and flooding of roads and will receive inadequate sunshine to help deal with this. 5. Services- there are already long waiting lists for services in the area. With other large developments in the area occurring at the same time, how will these thousands of new residents find services? The local school as an example is very small, where will the new children go. 6. Parking. The market rent of the are is quite high. This means that most of the residents will have a higher income and yet the developers have not made adequate provision for cars. It is naive to assume that people will not have cars and parking and traffic is already difficult in the surrounding streets. 7. The local community and performance venues. There are many existing performance and dining establishments in the area. After previous similar developments, the new residents have made noise complaints, shutting down venues and destroying the artistic soul of those areas. 8. Traffic during construction. Frampton ave already has an issue with trucks double parking and causing dangerous near misses with head-on collisions despite clear signage at the entrance of the street not permitting vehicles over 3 tonnes. Adding construction vehicles to an already high-traffic area and a school zone will create traffic chaos. 9. Construction noise. For the last four years the local streets have been subject to extended-hours construction noise from the Wicks park development. It is far too soon to subject the local area to yet another four years of this. In conclusion: while this development is being sold to the community as an affordable housing solution, it is simply another cash grab by developers who have no interest in listening or helping the community. The developers have listened to none of the concerns of the community gathered during consultation and instead pushed ahead with a project that is completely inappropriate for the needs of the community.

7471

New South Wales 2204

02/12/2025

Object

Website

This proposal is excessive in orders of magnitude. I make the following submissions: (1)Bulk and scale: the proposed development presents a bulk, scale and height that is off-the-charts excessive for the locality (which includes Thompson Street, Edward Street and Gorman Street). The locality comprises 1 – 2 storey Federation residential buildings. The development is overwhelming and inconsistent with the character and form of dwelling house developments within these surrounding streets. This will result in substantial amenity impacts for local residents and adverse streetscape outcomes. It is not in the public interest for this development to exceed what is already an excessive height limits and will set an adverse precedent for future development proposals in the locality. In my view, the development should be reduced to a maximum of four storeys, with the upper two levels set back in order to assist with the transition in bulk and scale from the surrounding residential buildings to the (extreme and overbearing) high density developments of the Victoria Road Precinct. There are also amenity and privacy and shadowing issues with the proposed development. (2)Traffic: the local streets are already used as a rat-run for vehicles and comprise streets that are incapable of accommodating two way traffic and desperately needs widening. There is also heavy traffic at drop-off and pick-up times for the primary school located on Thompson Street / Farr Street. The addition of hundreds of cars accessing and leaving the proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on traffic flow for surrounding areas. With 1,188 units this will pump an overwhelming number of cars into the locality. Consideration must also be given to the effect on traffic once all developments in the area (including the Wicks Park development and other developments on Farr Street). The traffic study which accompanied the application is fanciful. Victoria Road is already gridlock (it was never like this only 5 years ago). An independent traffic study is required. (3) Parking: the local streets are already devoid of parking. The parking situation is exacerbated at drop-off and pick-up times for the primary school located on Thompson Street. Thompson Street and its surrounds will not be able to accommodate the significant demand for parking resulting from the development. 1,188 units and 216 parking spots will create an utter parking dystopian nightmare. We have been petitioning Council for years to introduce resident parking as the situation is already beyond capacity. (4) Heritage: items I1281 (2 Thompson St, Marrickville) and I246 (96 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville – being the original Marrickville Town Hall which will book-end the proposed development at the other end of Thompson Street) will be significantly impacted by this gulag inspired monolith. Thompson Street is the original center of Marrickville and its character needs to be protected. (5) Amenity: we are beyond capacity. Every high rise development continues to destroy more and more of our amenity.

7466

New South Wales 2204

02/12/2025

Object

Website

I am writing to formally object to the proposed apartment development: The Timberyards by RTL Co. as outlined in SSD-76927247. As a resident of Marrickville for almost 20 years and a Demographer of over 25 years, I have significant concerns regarding the potential negative impact this development may have on our community and the misalignment of the proposed development with the needs of the community. 1. Impact on Community Character, Liveability, and Privacy The proposed development represents a gross overdevelopment, with building heights that far exceed any existing structures in Marrickville. The neighbourhood is predominantly composed of single detached family homes in a relatively quiet, low-traffic area. The introduction of high-density housing will fundamentally alter the peaceful and close-knit nature of our community, leading to increased noise levels, reduced privacy for existing residents, and significant changes to the social fabric of the area. Furthermore, I note that neighbouring town centres such as Annandale, Leichhardt, Petersham, and Stanmore will be exempt from the “low and mid-rise” housing reforms due to their location under Sydney Airport’s flight path (“The Sydney suburbs excluded from ‘missing middle’ housing plan” , Sydney Morning Herald, 28 February 2025). However, the Timberyards development, which falls within an ANEI of 25, is still being considered for an 8-13 storey proposal, despite the fact that Petersham and Stanmore’s town centres—classified under an ANEI of 20—are exempt. This raises serious questions about the consistency and fairness of the planning process. Additionally, the height and scale of the proposed buildings may lead to overlooking issues, reducing the privacy of adjacent homes and outdoor spaces. This is particularly concerning for residents who have long enjoyed the tranquillity and security of their properties. 2. Mismatch with Community Demographics and Housing Need The proposed development fails to align with the existing demographic composition of Marrickville. According to the 2021 ABS Census, 60.6% of households in Marrickville were family households, 11.8% were group households, and 27.6% were single-person households. However, with 73% of the proposed Timberyards development consisting of one-bedroom apartments or smaller, the project is disproportionately catering to single-person households, failing to provide appropriate housing for families and larger households in the area. Studio and co-living apartments in Sydney are typically occupied by younger residents (under 30 years old), whereas Marrickville, like the rest of Australia, has an ageing population. The Australian Homelessness Monitor has also highlighted that the fastest-growing group affected by homelessness in the last six years are individuals aged 55 to 64. The proposed development does not provide adequate housing solutions for this vulnerable demographic, further exacerbating housing inequalities in the area. Additionally, the 12 existing dwellings on the eastern side of Farr Street, which are set to be demolished as part of this development, currently provide low-cost rental housing for many family households. Their removal will displace these families, forcing them into an already stretched rental market. Given the significant demand for family and group dwellings in Marrickville, there is a real concern that these studio and co-living apartments will be inappropriately occupied by families and groups, placing even greater pressure on local infrastructure and services. 3. Flawed Architectural Justification and Design Issues The developer’s ‘Design Report’ presents a skewed perspective by focusing primarily on Marrickville’s industrial areas while overlooking the broader architectural character of the suburb. While the site is located within an industrial zone near two major roads, industrial architecture is not the dominant style in Marrickville. A short walk from Farr Street to Thompson Street, Edward Street, or Gorman Street reveals a predominantly Victorian-era architectural landscape. The only reason the Timberyard site is available for redevelopment is its industrial zoning, which meant it was historically developed with low-cost infrastructure, anticipating future redevelopment. However, the developer is using the existing industrial aesthetic as a justification for applying an ‘industrial design’ theme—typically associated with cheaper construction materials and finishes—rather than respecting the surrounding Victorian-era character of the broader area. This approach risks creating a development that lacks longevity and may devalue nearby heritage homes. Additionally, the proposed design does not adequately consider the existing residential context. The scale of the development on Farr Street is extreme, despite it being the only part of the site directly adjacent to existing residential properties. Given its location, this section should feature smaller-scale buildings, greater setbacks, and enhanced landscaping to provide a more suitable transition between the high-density development and the surrounding homes. The other three sides of the development face major roads (Sydenham and Victoria Roads) or industrial areas (Mitchell Street), making Farr Street the most sensitive interface. However, the current proposal for Building A, in close proximity to Marrickville Public School and the heritage Victorian homes along Thompson Street, is excessive in scale and lacks appropriate mitigation. Building A should be the most modest in height to ensure a more harmonious integration with the existing neighbourhood. 4. Inadequate Parking Provision and Congestion Issues The proposed development includes only 200 parking spaces for 1,200 apartments, which is a drastic underprovision. With Marrickville’s average household size of 2.3 people per dwelling (ABS Census 2021), this development could bring approximately 2,760 new residents to the area. Given that parking on Farr Street and Thompson Street is already extremely limited and that there are no parking facilities available on Sydenham or Victoria Roads, the question remains—where will the remaining 2,500 residents park? This lack of parking will inevitably lead to significant overflow into surrounding residential streets, creating congestion, restricting access for emergency services, and causing frustration for existing residents. Additionally, the increased number of vehicles will place further strain on the already stretched local road network, particularly on Victoria Road and Sydenham Road, which were not designed to accommodate such high volumes of traffic. This will likely result in increased commute times, road safety concerns, and greater pressure on public transport systems that are already at capacity. I respectfully urge the NSW Government to reconsider this development proposal, taking into account the concerns of local residents. I request that alternative solutions be explored, such as reducing the density/height of the development, reviewing the mix of dwelling types being provided so that they meet the needs of the local community and that the design, particularly along Farr Street, is of an appropriate scale and quality design.

Doc_Timberyards Submission_V1_20250316_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 78.36 KB)

7506

New South Wales 2204

02/12/2025

Object

Website

To Whom It May Concern, I strongly object to the current plan for the Timberyards in Marrickville and have outlined my concerns below. Illegal Building Height The proposed building exceeds the current maximum of three storeys. The justification that increased height is acceptable in exchange for affordable housing is inadequate. Surrounding residents will lose their privacy, and the scale of the development is out of character with the existing area. Overshadowing and Environmental Impact Some houses in surrounding areas will not meet legal shadowing requirements due to the excessive height of the building. This will worsen existing problems in an area already struggling with damp issues in buildings and flooding on roads. Reduced sunlight will only exacerbate these conditions. Lack of Genuine Affordable Housing The proposal offers only 10% affordable housing, which is an insignificant concession compared to what the project takes away from the community. While renters may not have to worry about their apartments being sold, they will still be subjected to market rent and excessive rental increases, which have already forced many people out of the area. This project is being promoted as affordable housing, but for it to be truly accessible, rent increases would need to be capped to protect tenants from price gouging in the rental market. Strain on Local Services There are already long waiting lists for essential services in the area. With multiple large developments occurring at the same time, how will thousands of new residents access the services they need? For example, the local school is already at capacity—where will additional children be accommodated? Parking and Traffic Congestion The high market rent in the area means that most residents will have higher incomes, yet the development fails to provide sufficient parking. It is naïve to assume that people will not own cars, and parking and traffic congestion in surrounding streets are already serious issues. Traffic Disruptions During Construction Frampton Avenue already experiences issues with trucks double parking, leading to dangerous near-misses and head-on collisions. Despite clear signage prohibiting vehicles over three tonnes, this continues to be a problem. The addition of construction vehicles in an already high-traffic school zone will create traffic chaos. Impact on School and Privacy The proposed building will be so high that it will allow people to overlook children in the playground at Marrickville Public School, presenting an unacceptable child protection risk. Additionally, schoolchildren have already endured years of disruption due to noise from the Wicks Park development. How will this project ensure that students are not further disrupted in their schooling or exposed to environmental pollution from construction? Construction Noise Over the past four years, local streets have been subjected to extended-hours construction noise from the Wicks Park development. It is far too soon to impose yet another multi-year disruption on the local community. Threat to Local Community and Performance Venues The area is home to many well-established performance and dining venues. Previous developments have led to new residents making noise complaints, which in turn has forced venues to shut down, destroying the artistic and cultural identity of the area. This pattern will likely repeat with this development. Conclusion While this development is being presented as an affordable housing solution, it is in reality another cash grab by developers who have shown no interest in addressing community concerns. Despite community consultation, none of the raised issues have been addressed. Instead, the developers have pushed forward with a project that is entirely inappropriate for the needs of the community.

7676

New South Wales 2204

02/12/2025

Object

Website

Dear Commissioners, I am writing to formally object to the proposed development. I live at Edward Street, one street away from the site, and I believe the scale, design, parking provision, and orientation of the project will have significant and unreasonable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood. Below are my key objections: 1. Excessive Height and Overdevelopment The proposal for a 14-storey building is completely out of scale with the surrounding area. Edward Street and Farr Street are small residential streets characterised by low-rise dwellings. A tower of this height would: • Visually dominate nearby homes • Disrupt the established character of the area • Create a sense of enclosure for surrounding residents • Introduce urban density far beyond what local infrastructure can reasonably support The height and massing are not appropriate for this location. 2. Privacy and Overlooking Impacts Because of the height and proximity, residents of the proposed building would have direct views into the backyards and private spaces of existing homes, including mine. This is a major intrusion on privacy. My backyard — currently private — would be directly visible from numerous levels of the building. No meaningful mitigation appears possible given the height and orientation. 3. Inadequate Parking & Increased Congestion Parking in this area is already extremely limited, and many properties on Edward Street do not have off-street parking. Adding a development of this scale without adequate on-site parking will worsen: • On-street parking pressure • Traffic congestion • Safety for pedestrians and local residents • Competition for already limited parking spaces The surrounding streets cannot absorb the extra resident, visitor, and service-vehicle parking demand such a development would generate. 4. Housing Type Not Suitable for Families / Local Needs The proposal appears to mainly provide single-dwelling or small units, rather than housing that supports families. This is not aligned with the nature of the neighbourhood, nor does it contribute to balanced long-term community growth. High-density, small-unit developments often create transient populations rather than stable, family-oriented communities. 5. Negative Impact on Farr Street Farr Street is a small, narrow street, and placing the main building frontage or significant massing onto this street will: • Overwhelm the streetscape • Create shade, bulk and visual intrusion • Introduce additional traffic movements that Farr Street is not designed to handle The orientation of the building towards Farr Street is inappropriate and should be reconsidered. Requested Amendments (if the project is not refused) If the Commission does not refuse the development outright, I request that the following be required: 1. Significant reduction in height 2. Stepped-back upper levels to reduce bulk 3. Meaningful privacy screening 4. Increased on-site parking provision 5. Reorientation or redesign of the Farr Street interface 6. Better housing mix, including units designed for families 7. Landscaping buffers to soften impacts on neighbouring properties This proposal, in its current form, represents overdevelopment and introduces substantial adverse impacts on privacy, parking, neighbourhood character, and liveability. I respectfully request that the Independent Planning Commission refuse the development or require major redesigns to address the issues raised above. Thank you for considering my submission.

7446

Redacted

28/11/2025

Object

Website

I am writing with regards to objecting to the proposed Timberyards development on Fitzroy Street / Sydenham Road I am a long-term resident of Marrickville and feel this proposed development will have many adverse impacts on myself, my neighbours, the surrounding areas and the community at large Social housing is an issue that needs attention, as does the cost of renting. The selling point of the development appears to be around affordable housing, however the scale and lack of direct concessions to affordable housing lay clear that this is purely a money making venture. Average income earners would see little or no benefit per the proposed development as it does little in the way of addressing the key issues. Of the 1,188 proposed units, it appears only 315 units are allowed for with regards to 2 or 3 bedrooms. This small amount of family sized units vastly under allows for the “families” that the project is looking to assist The documents available show that an allowance of less 10% has been made for affordable housing. That then by default says that greater than 90% of the proposed units are geared towards those are not within the catchment of affordable housing. Low-income earners will not be able to benefit from this project outside of housing assistance As and when these units are bought, many of them will clearly function as investment properties. The impact here is that those people looking to rent will once again be at the mercy of the unit owners, who will look to recoup their investment by setting market-based rents. This will price those low to middle income earners, who are looking for affordable housing, out of the market in this precinct The documents show that the proposal is slated to be 8 storeys high, whereas the legal maximum is 3 storeys. This would have an immediate and detrimental impact to the surrounding house in terms of overshadowing, noise and environmental impact On street parking in the surrounding streets including Thompson Street, Farr Street, Edward Street and Gorman Street are already at capacity. With only 216 parking spots allocated for the 1,188 units, the parking impact on these already overcrowded streets will be immediate and severe. Given Council has not flagged any sort of residential permits for residents in these surrounding streets that would exclude residents of the proposed development, the parking will significantly increase frustration, angst and accessibility for existing residents. Several residents in the surrounding streets are elderly and require the ability to close park to their home. A substantial increase in vehicles will no doubt lessen their ability to do so, and thus impact their day to day life and health Marrickville is a busy suburb with regards to those with children. Access to things such as schools and childcare services are already stretched. The addition of 1,188 units in a confined area will have an overwhelmingly negative and immediate impact on not only those existing residents with young families, but also those seeking to move into the units and utlise those services

7436

25/11/2025

Object

Email

A submission I made in relation to the above development proposal.

SSD Submission Jodi Fleming.docx (DOCX, 15.74 KB)

7411

New South Wales 2204

25/11/2025

Object

Website

This is project is proposed on the premise of providing community benefit and affordable housing. Those two aspects are reflected minimally in the proposal, the primary benefit is a return to investors and developers. The vast majority of the proposed dwellings will be rented at market rates which are not affordable. There is insufficient parking for residents or guests, which will negatively impact the already full local streets. When asked directly in a feedback sessions, the Developer Representative replied that our community would be the "guinea pigs" for a site with such minimal parking, they also noted that it had worked in cities like London and Paris - there is a sizable difference between suburban Marrickville and these cities. I would also like to highlight the impact to surrounding communities of Scape's existing student housing assets - these have no parking available, this doesn't deter residents from owning vehicles. This problem will be magnified by guest parking on weekends., and people coming to visit the proposed restaurants and public space. There is insufficient local amenities for the proposed population increase. The proposal is much too high. It does not fit the local area and has far reaching negative impact to existing resident's natural light.

7406

New South Wales 2204

25/11/2025

Object

Website

Dear Commissioners, I write to formally object to the proposed development as outlined in the Assessment Report (PDF) published by the IPCN, for the following reasons. I live on Edward Street, one street away from the proposed development, and I strongly believe the design, scale, and traffic/parking implications will have significant adverse impacts on my property and the wider neighbourhood. Key Objection Points 1. Excessive Height and Bulk • A 14-storey building (as proposed) is incompatible with the surrounding context, particularly given that Edward Street and Farr Street are small, low-to-mid-rise residential streets. • Such height will dominate the streetscape, creating an overbearing form that is out of scale with its surroundings. • This scale reduces the liveability and amenity of neighbouring homes, changing the character of the area in a way that is not justified. 2. Privacy and Overlooking • The proposed tower height and design will lead to direct overlooking into private open spaces (backyards) of existing homes, including mine. • This is not a minor or hypothetical impact: the lines of sight from upper levels will likely intrude into my backyard and private space, significantly reducing privacy for my household. • There seems to be inadequate mitigation (screening, setbacks, landscaping) in the assessment report to address overlooking. 3. Inappropriate Housing Typology / Social Impact • The development appears oriented towards single-dwelling units / units for individuals, rather than family-friendly housing. • Given the scale, the proposal could result in a high-density form that does not deliver enough diversity (e.g., larger units suitable for families) to meet local housing needs. • Without a more balanced housing mix, the development may not contribute positively to community cohesion or long-term neighbourhood stability. 4. Parking, Traffic, and Congestion • There is insufficient parking provision in the proposal relative to demand: Edward Street and surrounding roads are already congested, and many existing homes (including mine) do not have off-street parking. • Additional residents from the development will likely exacerbate on-street parking pressure, leading to increased competition for limited parking and reduced amenity for current residents. • The traffic generation from the development (both during construction and once occupied) will worsen safety and congestion on nearby streets, particularly smaller local roads not designed for high traffic volumes. 5. Orientation, Street Relationship & Character Impact • The building’s Farr Street façade is particularly problematic: it faces a smaller street, making the height more intrusive. • This orientation does not integrate well with the existing street network, and will likely feel like a “wall” or barrier rather than a sensitive addition to the area. • There is a lack of adequate setbacks or design articulation to reduce the bulk and soften the visual impact from the street. I respectfully request that the following conditions or changes be required to mitigate the identified impacts: 1. Reduce Building Height or Scale • Either cap the building at a lower number of storeys, or introduce a stepped form so that the upper levels are set back significantly from neighbouring low-rise properties. • Especially reduce height facing Farr Street, to lessen the visual dominance. 2. Privacy Mitigation Measures • Require screening (e.g., fixed louvers, high-performance glazing, privacy fins) on windows that overlook private open space. • Implement boundary landscaping or vertical screening (trees, green screens) to buffer privacy impacts. 3. Parking and Traffic Management • Increase the number of on-site parking spaces to reduce demand for on-street parking. • Introduce a parking demand management plan (e.g., resident permit parking, shared car-parking arrangements). • Conduct a traffic impact study (if not already done) to ensure local roads can safely accommodate the projected traffic. 4. Design Refinements • Re-orient and articulate the building facade on Farr Street to reduce the perception of a blank wall; use setbacks, balconies, recesses, and varied materials. • Include landscaping (trees, shrubs) around the base of the building to soften visual bulk and help integrate the development into the local streetscape. 5. Housing Mix • Require a portion of the development to be designed for family housing (larger units) to improve social diversity. • Consider affordable / mid-cost housing to benefit local needs, not just high-density, high-turnover units. The Assessment Report does not adequately account for or respond to the lived experience of residents on Edward Street. Some assumptions about amenity impacts (especially privacy) appear optimistic and under-stated. For the reasons detailed above, I urge the Independent Planning Commission to refuse or significantly amend the proposal so that it is more compatible with the local context, preserves the amenity of nearby residents, and meets the real housing needs of the community. Thank you for considering my submission.

7401

Redacted

24/11/2025

Object

Website

On review of the plans for the Timberyards, I find some considerable items of concern. Firstly, the proposed height profile is more than two and a half times that of the largest building in the surrounds, this well beyond the lga council approved height and with the building to stand taller than the Wicks Place development at 182 Victoria Road, it would appear the only way such a decision can be taken is to circumvent council completely. The suggestion of low-cost housing and a family oriented development is quickly eroded, when considering 1100+ units, all with a strong bias to 1 and 2 bedroom apartments. The inclusion of only 40, 3 bedroom units, appears geared to the benefit of the developer only, and not furthering what is a dynamic, family oriented enclave, close to the CBD and in the case of the Timberyards, abutting a primary school. With the development of the recently completed Wicks Place, approved in 2019/2020, the car parking spaces were at a 1:1 ratio (lot/apartment). For the newly proposed Timberyards, a meagre 200+ car spaces are proposed. With this at a 5:1 ratio compared with the earlier development, what has changed over the past 4 years? Certainly not vehicle registration in NSW, having jumped over 250,000 units over the past two years. This ratio falls at only half the lowest possible consideration for residential property under the SEPPs. Consideration for the proximity of the Metro station at Sydenham could be considered, however it’s fair to assume those people attempting to make use of the proposed low cost housing, may likely will not work within the CBD or lower North Shore. Overall the height, number of small apartments and woefully inadequate car parking allocation stand to adversely impact the amenity for the impacted community, all without fostering a new one. I hope an independent panel can review and give thought and recommendation to, the positive impact a marginally smaller height line, coupled with increased parking and greater consideration for young families.

7366

New South Wales 2204

14/11/2025

Object

Website

I would like to object to a few key elements with the preposed development 1. Greenspace - the complex is going to apply for an exemption to the Biodiversity Conservation Act on the grounds that it will not generate significant impacts on biodiversity values given the site at present is currently devoid of significant vegetation. This makes sense in its current use, however such a large housing development requires green spaces for the residents to use - especially those with children and animals. 2. Parking for residents - for a complex with 1200 residences, the planned 350 car spaces is insufficient and unrealistic. This will lead to more cars being parked in the surrounding residential area where parking is already at a premium. 3. Traffic of surrounding areas (Sydenham Road, Farr Street and Victoria Road) - the current roads are very busy without this development, further analysis of the impact of additional housing needs to be taken into account and planned for accordingly (even if the residents dont have cars, there will be deliveries and visitors to consider). 4. Building height - the preposed buildings will be extremely close the flight path, which currently go directly over the school next to the development. 5. Lack of infrastructure in the local council, including schools, hospitals, garbage and stormwater - all of which are at capacity currently.

9376

New South Wales 2204

15/12/2025

Comment

Website

I note that a 3 storey wall will front Sydenham road and my street frampton avenue My concern is the heat that will be reflected from that expanse adding to that of the heavy traffic More in depth trees with large canopy need to be planted to cool the local area

9356

New South Wales 2204

14/12/2025

Comment

Website

There needs to be at least 1 car spot, per unit, incorporated into the design of the complex There is also a retail area as part of this proposed design and parking again is not adequately catered for The surrounding area of this proposed complex, already has major car parking issues When a major event is on at Henson Park - the already congested area is even more congested, and car parking is out of control The proposal has less than 300 car spaces provided for over a thousand units. The complex “rental pricing” will be at market value, and will not target students and the like that don't own cars. The renters will be more established and will own cars! Saying that the Metro and heavy rail is only a short distance away so no one will own cars is farcical - the rail network only takes you to certain areas - not soccer, dancing etc Once the building is complete, you can't go back and say "Well we got that wrong" It would be good to have an actual development of the complex on display for community consultation not a proposed building being shown for consultation I attended the community consultation meetings twice and was told two very different things One representative said that vehicles would be exiting from the complex into Farr Street On another day, a different representative, told me it would be using Mitchell street Mitchell street would be a much better and safer choice - With Marrickville Public School on Thompson Street via Farr Street would make school drop off and pickup so much more dangerous and with child safety being a high priority, the last thing we want is a child being killed because of the increased traffic flow The footprint of the proposed area will be more than be enough, to provide underground parking for 1000+ cars - And for the few units that don’t have cars, they could rent their car spot, to help reduce parking issues in the area Whilst adding the necessary carpark capacity will add to the construction costs, it must be deemed a necessary requirement

9251

Office of Jo Haylen MP - State member for Summer Hill

11/12/2025

Comment

Email

Good afternoon, Please find attached correspondence from Jo Haylen MP Kind regards, Team Summer Hill

State member for Summer Hill_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 7.08 MB)

9171

New South Wales 2204

11/12/2025

Comment

Website

1. Introduction: Support for the Vision I write to express my general support for the Timberyards Marrickville development. I believe the project represents a significant opportunity for urban renewal and provide much-needed housing and amenity to the Marrickville community. My objective is not to hinder the progress of this development, but rather to ensure that the site is developed to its highest and best use by incorporating my property, which is currently excluded. 2. The Issue: Unnecessary Site Isolation By excluding [redacted] Marrickville NSW 2204 and the other property owners along Sydenham rd beside, the current proposal creates a "landlocked" or isolated site. Under the NSW Land and Environment Court Principles regarding Site Isolation, developers are encouraged to make reasonable offers to acquire neighboring sites to avoid leaving behind small parcels of land that: Cannot meet minimum frontage or area requirements for independent redevelopment. Are overshadowed or physically hemmed in by the larger scale of the new development. Result in an inefficient "jagged" site boundary that compromises the architectural integrity of the block. 3. Benefits of Site Consolidation The inclusion of my land into the Timberyards masterplan offers clear benefits to both the community and the developer: Architectural Cohesion: Integration allows for a consistent streetscape and better building separation, avoiding the "squeezed" aesthetic of an isolated cottage next to a modern mid-rise complex. Public Benefit: A larger site area may allow for increased public open space, better pedestrian through-links, or enhanced deep-soil zones that are not achievable on a fragmented lot. Infrastructure Efficiency: Consolidating the land allows for more efficient underground basement parking and waste management access, reducing the number of driveway crossovers on the street. 4. Readiness to Negotiate I wish to place on the record that I am a willing participant in this renewal. I am open to a fair-market negotiation to see my land integrated into the project. To date, I believe the full potential of a consolidated site has not been explored. 5. Final Point I too have been in this process/matter/circumstances along with the other neighbouring properties especially property [redacted] Marrickville NSW 2204. We have been working together (as to other property owners along Sydenham Rd) to seek an amicable solution. I too received an offer that was under market value. We all just want to sell and leave the area. So the isolated area can to be re-development to something positive to the community as a whole. 6. Conclusion and Request I urge the Panel to require the applicant to demonstrate that they have made every reasonable effort to acquire my property to avoid site isolation. A truly "incredible" development for Marrickville should not be compromised by poor boundary planning. I request that the developer be asked to submit a revised masterplan that illustrates the benefits of including[redacted], Marrickville NSW 2204 and the properties along Sydenham Rd that been excluded in the final footprint. Submitted By: Huy VU,[redacted] 11/12/2025

7396

New South Wales 2204

23/11/2025

Comment

Website

I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed development and its potential impact on my property at [address redacted]. Please find below the relevant context and questions for your consideration. Context: 1) I am the owner of the property located at [address redacted]. 2) When the precinct was initially proposed (circa 2018), the plans did not indicate any adverse impact on my property. 3) Subsequent to the initial proposal, the Department of Planning placed an SP2 road reservation across approximately 50% of my property to accommodate road widening, required to support increased traffic arising from the development. 4) When I raised this matter with the Council, I was advised that the decision was made by the Department of Planning. Upon contacting the Department and the Minister, I was informed that compensation would be provided under the “just terms” provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 through the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA 2018/9539). Which was executed without any consultation or due process. 5) The VPA remains in place, and the proposed development, which includes well over 300 residential lots, would appear to trigger compulsory acquisition of my property. In more recent discussions, I have been approached by the new proponent, who indicated that preliminary traffic analysis suggests that road widening may no longer be required. However, the SP2 road reservation and VPA remain in effect. Questions for Consideration: 1. How can it be reasonable that the addition of well over 300 residential lots will not result in increased traffic in an already congested area? 2. If road widening is deemed unnecessary, how will I be compensated for the SP2 reservation on my property? The only offer made by the proponent was significantly below market value. When questioned, I was informed that the SP2 zoning had devalued the property, which has left me materially disadvantaged. 3. If the developer does not acquire the property this will result in site isolation impacting the overall area and any much needed future development for the area. As only the current proponent make use of the available GFA through the reminder of the development. 4. In the event that the development proceeds without necessitating increased road capacity, the VPA and SP2 reservation must be removed. How will this be incorporated into the development approval process?

8056

Redacted

04/12/2025

Support

Website

As per my submission to the SSD - * We are in a housing crisis and this will deliver an uplift in terms of housing where people want to live - near to good and frequent public transportation and also close to the Sydney CBD in terms of employment & job opportunities * Because of the closeness to the (~10 mins walk) to Sydenham Metro station & shops (a short walk away) - the development provides for the opportunity for those living in after completion of the project to not need to purchase a car - this has climate implications * The proposal does not include any gas appliances or gas usage - it is great to see induction cook-tops . One minor point that I think could possibly be improved is the use of heat pump hot water which are more efficient than electric boiler systems * The inclusion of affordable housing is great to see * Likewise it is great to see the inclusion of retail & public space * Consider to what degree taller buildings with a higher density yield may be suitable for the site - taking into account solar and/or other related impacts of taller buildings (e.g. shading) in the area.

7376

New South Wales 2048

15/11/2025

Support

Website

I support this proposal. Sydney’s housing crisis is severe, and solutions like the Timberyards proposal that increase density near public transport and local shops are the most effective ways to address it.