Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family, Marrickville Seniors Housing

I am pleased to attach my objection to the development in the form of the attached document

I am writing to formally object to the development application submitted by the Maronite Village for the demolition of the existing single-storey, 50-bed nursing home situated between Pine Street, Marrickville Avenue, and Challis Avenue.

The proposal seeks to replace the current facility with a significantly larger four-storey, 100-bed building, including an underground car park. My objections are based on the following key concerns:
1. Heritage Wall at Risk: The scale of excavation and construction poses a serious threat to the stability of the adjacent heritage wall. No credible strategy has been provided to mitigate this risk, leaving the wall vulnerable to collapse and endangering public safety as well as the structural integrity of surrounding properties.
2. Scale and Amenity Impacts: The proposed four-storey structure is completely out of scale with the surrounding predominantly single-storey residential area. Its bulk and height will result in significant overshadowing, loss of privacy, and increased noise, thereby diminishing residents’ enjoyment of their homes.
3. Inadequate Stormwater Management: The application fails to include a comprehensive assessment or management plan for stormwater, raising serious concerns about increased flood risks to neighbouring properties.
4. Insufficient Parking and Traffic Management: The allocation of just 35 parking spaces for a facility of this expanded size is plainly inadequate. This shortfall will lead to overflow parking on nearby streets and increased congestion from visitors, service providers, and emergency vehicles.
5. Loss of Trees and Biodiversity: The proposed removal of mature trees will negatively impact local biodiversity and diminish the green character of the neighbourhood, further reducing the area’s amenity.
6. Emergency Evacuation Concerns: Given the landlocked nature of the site, the scale and design of the proposed facility raise serious questions about the ability to safely and efficiently evacuate residents in the event of an emergency.

Additionally, despite assertions of “extensive community consultation,” many residents—myself included—were only made aware of this application recently, casting doubt on the transparency and inclusiveness of the consultation process.

I respectfully urge the NSW Government to reject this application, or at the very least, require substantial amendments to address the critical concerns outlined above.

I am objecting to the Maronite sisters nursing home redevelopment:
- the heritage wall around the whole site is structurally unstable and at risk of falling down. Further development will make the wall even more unstable
- inappropriate size for the site
- it will mean more of the amazing trees being chopped down
- no genuine effort by the school to hear the concerns of directly affected community members.


At a minimum, ensuring houses that the wall immediately impacts, have proper reinforcements.

The proposed plan is a terrible one. Not only does it leave the existing wall in a dangerous condition, but it will destroy the community feel of our neighbourhood.
We have a community which is built on a carefully laid foundation of care for each other and safety above all else. The proposed plans will obstruct this. With the plan comes more traffic, more people, more safety risks with the potential for the wall to fall and less consideration to the atmosphere of our area.
Wardell Road will only get more bank ups of traffic, not that it needs that between the busy morning rush of people to the station and the bustling school less than 200m down the road. The open span view of the street will be obstructed by the sight of a multi storey building. The once leafy area along the wall will be overrun with various walls, adding to a sense of gloominess and hostility.

I strongly object to the project and I will not stand for a mistreatment of our area.

I strongly object to the proposed Village 2 Nursing Home development on Marrickville Avenue due to serious and ongoing safety concerns with the adjacent heritage-listed wall. Structural engineers and Council have repeatedly warned that the wall is dangerously unstable and poses a risk to life and property, yet no remediation has been undertaken. The current proposal includes partial demolition of the wall for access, which would only increase the danger. Until the wall is fully repaired and made safe, no further development should proceed. Public safety and heritage protection must come first.

I am objecting to this project on the basis of
1) The proposed removal of mature trees. This tree removal is unnecessary and is not in keeping with the overall wider State level strategic plan for our communities which is to increase our canopy. Maintaining and extending canopy at the level of large significant developments like this, is crucial to achieve the increased canopies in our city and state. Replanting to "offset" tree loss does not offset canopy loss, because the trees slated for removal are more than 80 yrs old and any new planting would take at least this time to create equivalent canopy. Thus, the current DA creates a net canopy loss - this is unacceptable. The DA should be modified to ensure the mature trees at the site are preserved – keeping mature trees AND planting new ones is the only way to ensure canopy is preserved and increases across the city and state.

2) The excavations to build underground car parking and drainage risks the tree root systems along the boundary and the trees survival. This is unacceptable and the DA should be adjusted to 100% ensure the health of the trees is not put at risk.

These two points are also important as the trees along the border do two additional things - a) they create a screen between the proposed new buildings and the neighbours over the wall and b) they will contribute to the well being of the pending new residents of the aged care home. I quote a friend whose mother lived at this site in 2023: "the trees were the only thing that made the place a pleasant place to be". The impact of greenery (and the birds and wildlife that are drawn to the trees) on health and well being, especially of the elderly in such an institutionalised environment should not be underestimated.

3) The end of Challis Ave nearest the railway line has the closest neighbours to the buildings in this DA - the buildings are proposed to directly overlook our properties. Yet none of these direct neighbours were consulted on the DA submission. I certainly received no communication from St Maroun's or their representatives about this DA. There was no letterbox drop to explain what they were proposing and no invitations for discussion. As a direct neighbour, I find this a major oversight and highly misleading to say in their DA application that they "consulted widely". They simply did not.

4) I have concerns about St Maroun’s past records of complying with DA conditions. For example, the heritage walls have not been maintained over decades and now have serious leans on them and are in states of disrepair (temporary struts are mounted in several places), calling structural stability into question. This is in spite of wall remediation being a condition of many previous DAs and/or orders from council. St Maroun's have also over decades not adhered to promises of planting and caring for trees as part of their DA conditions, As such, the Queensland Box trees along their walls have been slowly depleted over time. This should not be allowed to continue. In the context of the privilege of a State Significant DA, it is imperative that DA conditions are met, and St Maroun’s simply does not have a good record in this regard – even at the local level, let alone the State level where greater issues should be addressed (such as aforementioned tree canopy concerns).

HERITAGE WALL RISK
The wall leans dangerously — yet no remediation is planned.
Excavation this close is a serious safety hazard for nearby homes.
TREE LOSS
4 significant trees to be removed — including for a substation that could go elsewhere.
Excavation threatens the remaining trees.
TRAFFIC & PARKING CHAOS
Marrickville Ave will be the only entry/exit for all cars, staff, deliveries, and construction vehicles
— with grossly inadequate parking, parking for staff and visitors will have to spill over into
surrounding streets
NO VISUALS, NO CLARITY
No renders or drawings provided.
No way to assess privacy impacts of a 4-storey building overlooking homes.
WAY OVER HEIGHT
Proposed height: 15.2m — over 60% above the legal limit.
NOISE, NOW AND ONGOING
No noise impact modelling for residents during construction or adequate noise protection for
residents for ongoing operation of the facility
ZERO REAL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Despite a glossy report, locals have seen no plans, attended no consultation sessions, have not
been able to ask questions and have had no say.

The Engagement Report notes that 3% of interviewees were aware of the report, that 1 person called the 1800 number and that Challis Avenue was omitted from the local letter drop despite several properties being adjacent to the development. This constitutes a failure to engage adequately with the local community.
The Geotechnical Investigation notes that the south west section of the boundary wall is in poor condition. Residents of Challis Avenue properties describe that several structural engineer reports have said it is at risk of collapsing and its condition is worsening despite bracing being installed at some points. The wall leans into the yards of several properties. It is also adjacent to the boardwalk on the architectural illustrations of the landscaping plan for the proposed development. For the safety of residents of the development, staff, visitors, and Challis Avenue residents, requiring repair of the wall to be included in the scope of the development seems reasonable.
There are privacy concerns despite the Visual Impact Assessment describing as low-moderate the impact of the height of the proposal for some properties on Challis Ave. Inner West Council correspondence comments on the potential loss of privacy (not views...) for some of these properties. The outdoor terrace on level 3 of the development faces these properties to the southwest. The wall which is at risk of collapse is described as improving privacy, though it will be easily overlooked from level 3.

I object to the Maronite Sisters Nursing Home Expansion project. I live in Challis Ave, and we have the dividing Heritage Wall between all the adjoining neighbours and the Maronite Sisters property. They have not done remedial works and there are serious leans in a number of parts of the Wall, that they continue to neglect to remediate, despite doing other demolition & excavation works in other parts of the School Expansion Projects. I am concerned about the structural integrity of the Wall and I am also concerned for other neighbours who have serious leans towards their properties. We received no notification from the Maronite Sisters about their Nursing Home Expansion - there has been no consultation by them, despite their assertions that this has occurred. I am concerned about the size of this latest project on the Nursing Home Expansion and the loss of 4x significant trees to be removed. This loss of trees is an ever increasing number with all their projects. The environmental impact/destruction is of what was once a wonderful site is devastating. This project will also lead to further traffic & parking consequences for Marrickville Ave in particular, but it will also spill out on to other surrounding streets. I am concerned about the 4 stories & the height & consequences for neighbours. If this is approved, where will it end ? The proposed height is significantly over the legal limit (I understand it is over 15m in height). The building will be an eyesore to the area & for neighbours & adversely impact privacy and amenity. There has been no true community consultation - they have not arranged consultation sessions, we have not seen plans & we have not been able to ask questions to inform ourselves of the true extent of their plans and the impact on neighbours and the community.
In my view, the whole site has been completely over-developed with terrible consequences for the beautiful mature trees & environment and their ever-expanding developments which will adversely affect neighbours and the surrounding areas & neighbouring community.

I object to the loss of part of the Heritage wall that will be impacted by the project. This wall need to be maintained and brought up to safe standards.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development involving the significant expansion of St Maroun’s School and the Village 2 Nursing Home located on Marrickville Avenue.

What’s Proposed:
The proposal includes:

Expanding St Maroun’s School to accommodate 800 students;

Doubling the Village 2 Nursing Home from 50 to 100 beds;

Constructing a 4-storey building above ground with 2 levels of basement excavation;

Providing only 35 car spaces for a facility of this scale.

Why I'm Concerned:

1. Heritage Wall Risk
The heritage wall adjoining the site is visibly leaning and structurally compromised — yet no remediation is planned. Deep excavation in such close proximity presents a real and immediate danger to this fragile structure and nearby homes.

2. Tree Loss
The development will result in the removal of four significant trees, including to accommodate a substation that could easily be relocated elsewhere. Furthermore, the proposed excavation poses a serious threat to the remaining mature trees, compromising both local amenity and biodiversity.

3. Traffic & Parking Chaos
Marrickville Avenue is slated as the sole entry and exit point for staff, residents, visitors, deliveries, and construction traffic. This is entirely unworkable given the scale of the development and its inadequate 35 car spaces. Overflow parking and traffic congestion will inevitably spill into the surrounding residential streets, affecting safety and amenity for existing residents.

4. No Visuals, No Clarity
The proposal lacks any architectural renders or drawings, making it impossible to assess the impact of a 15.2m, 4-storey building on neighbouring properties. There is no information on how the development will protect residential privacy, daylight, or streetscape character.

5. Way Over Height Limit
The proposed building height of 15.2 metres exceeds the local planning limit by over 60%. This is not a minor variation — it’s a clear breach of planning controls and sets an unacceptable precedent.

6. Noise – Now and Ongoing
No construction noise modelling has been provided to address how nearby residents will be affected during what will be a lengthy excavation and building process. Likewise, ongoing operational noise from a significantly expanded facility is not addressed with any credible mitigation strategies.

7. No Genuine Community Consultation
Despite being described as “consulted,” the local community has seen no plans, received no direct communication, and been offered zero opportunities for meaningful input. This undermines the integrity of the entire process and violates the principle of transparent, community-inclusive development.

Conclusion:
This proposal is over-scaled, under-planned, and community-blind. It disregards fundamental planning controls, environmental responsibility, and neighbourhood amenity. I urge Council to reject this proposal in its current form and demand a proper, transparent consultation process with full community participation.

Sincerely,
A concerned resident

I am objecting to this project because it is well oversize for the site and access to the site is via a narrow tree lined street where medium sized trucks are unable to turn, therefore need to either reverse to or from the site. Widening the gate will NOT alleviate this problem.
The residents of Marrickville Avenue have been deliberately not informed of any developments, therefore community consultation has not occurred.
In the past the nursing home has not considered residents at all, with stormwater gushing down the gutters, even though informed of the problem made no attempt to remediate it. Garbage trucks collecting their rubbish, which is left outside resident's property, must reverse up the street to collect it. Also the large iron gates are allowed to open and shut any time of the day or night, without any consideration for the residents. These gates make a tremendous bang opening and closing.
I have outlined these issues to show the total lack of consideration for residents and the fact they have ridden roughshod over any concerns we may have and the likelihood of any change for the better will not happen, even when they have promised to consider residents needs.
The trees in Marrickville Avenue are growing on the edges of the road, not on the verge, and I am most concerned about their welfare. This is based on the fact trees have been disappearing for the nursing home, although heritage listed.
Another issue is their total lack of concern for the heritage values of the wall and the environment. They make promises with no intention of following up.
I live in Marrickville Avenue and I know there is no way it can deal with the volume of traffic, both cars and trucks that will use this street. It is already difficult to leave the street at the Livingstone Road end with a raised cycleway/bike path. The difficulty in turning in either direction is already difficult. There is reduced access, to slow traffic at the end of the street, and I cannot see how any large trucks will be able to turn without damage to infrastructure

Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback on this development. As an active member of the Dulwich Hill community it feel that this proposal will not benefit the community of Dulwich Hill. While I appreciate the importance of providing aged care facilities and services to the community, I have serious concerns about the potential impacts of this development on the surrounding neighbourhood. Primarily my concerns are as follows:
Heritage Wall Maintenance and Safety
The existing heritage wall that borders the development site along Wardell Road, Challis Avenue and Marrickville Avenue is in visible disrepair and presents a serious safety concern. Without appropriate remediation and ongoing maintenance, the wall is at risk of collapse. This poses a danger to both pedestrians and vehicles.
Traffic Congestion
The addition of a 100-bed facility will significantly increase local traffic volumes, including staff, visitors, service vehicles, and delivery trucks. This will place further strain on the surrounding streets, especially:
Wardell Road, which already suffers from severe congestion during school zone hours, with traffic frequently at a standstill.
New Canterbury Road, which serves as a major arterial route and is already heavily congested, particularly during peak periods.
Increased Commercial Vehicle Activity and Waste Management
A development of this scale will lead to an increase in commercial traffic, including garbage collection trucks and supply deliveries. The increased noise, pollution, and frequency of heavy vehicles navigating residential streets will have a negative impact on the amenity and safety of the neighbourhood.
Given these concerns I would recommend that there be a full structural assessment of the boundary wall with all necessary works completed prior to commencement of any development, a comprehensive traffic survey focusing on Wardell Road and New Canterbury Road during school zone times and peak traffic hours.
Thank you once again for this opportunity and your attention to this matter. I trust that you will value the concerns of the local members of the community and prioritise the the safety of Dulwich Hill residents.

Kind regards,

Ylana Magni

We request immediate review of the proposed Village 2 nursing home expansion at St Maroun’s on Marrickville Avenue due to serious safety and heritage concerns.

The development includes a 4-storey building with 2 underground levels and plans to demolish part of the heritage-listed boundary wall for access. This wall is in critical disrepair and poses a known risk to life and property:

Engineers have repeatedly warned of its instability.

Council has ordered urgent remediation.

An independent engineer recently confirmed the risk of collapse.

Despite this, no repairs have been carried out, and no timeline has been provided.

Approval of further development without first fixing the wall is unacceptable. The developer and school admit the wall needs remediation but continue to delay action.

We ask the Planning Panel to:

Halt further approvals until the wall is fully remediated.

Prioritise community safety over further expansion.

This is not just a heritage issue — it is a matter of public safety.

This submission opposed the development. The accompanying document details this objections to this project.

Opposition to proposed development of St Maroun’s nursing home

Traffic and parking:
The proposal is for an extra 50 to 200 beds in the nursing home which along with the proposed increase in the number of students (800) at the school on the same site will significantly add to the difficulty in negotiating the intersection of Challis Avenue and Wardell road. At school start and finish times this intersection is almost impossible to negotiate as many parents double park while they drop off/pick up their children. Similarly with a second entrance at the end of Marrickville Avenue, a small residential street of Livingstone Road, increased traffic in this small street will be a problem for residents. Albermarle Street provides a short route down Challis Ave via a narrow bridge between these two entrances and the increase in both students at the school and residents in the nursing home will cause an increase in traffic in this quiet street with increased parents dropping off students, visitors to the nursing home, staff going to and leaving work and the increase in deliveries which will be required for the larger facility.
Around both entrances the increase in size of the nursing home coupled with the increase in the number of students will increase the parking issues for the area - many teachers already park out the area around the Wardell Rd/Challis Ave intersection and with the new cycleway on Livingstone Road and the subsequent loss of parking spaces, Marrickville Avenue and Albermarle St have already seen an increase in parking. As only 35 car parking spaces will be provided for the 50-100 increase in beds (many which could be taken by the increase in staff needed) this will mean an increase in the need for on street parking making resident parking in the area even more difficult.

Tree Loss:
This is a particular issue in regard to the number of trees already lost in the area due to the conversion of the heavy rail to metro - while the loss of trees always comes with a promise to replant something, these trees are established and cannot be adequately replaced in the immediate future, the preservation of established, healthy trees is essential for the cooling effect of their canopy and to preserve what birdlife is hanging on in the urban environment we live in.

Height:
The height of building will severely impact the privacy of the houses on the boundary of the development and along with the removal of trees will affect the outlook of many houses in the area, including Albermarle Street, which is currently single storey dwellings, trees and Church towers.

This project is yet another in a string of developments proposed on the Maronite Sisters site. I expect this is not the end of the plans, but the site has failed to provide a master plan of all they have planned for the next 10 years at least, despite multiple requests. I live in Marrickville Ave and between the rail works, current development on the St Maroun's site and Livingstone Rd bridge work, we are living in a dangerous construction site that is fraught with danger to my small children. The site is overdeveloped and already causing various issues in our street concerning safety, stormwater drainage, parking and traffic which I have detailed in the attached document. I urge Major Projects to take a good look at all that is planned on this site now and into the future and consider whether a better alternative should be for the whole site to be relocated to a more suitable site. It is land locked and should never be allowed to expand in the manner proposed if the safety of the nursing home residents, staff and school students is truly a consideration for the organisation concerned. In Marrickville Ave, we have been let down time and time again with broken promises by this organisation- enough is enough.

Hi There.

Unfortunately I’m opposed to this development.
I’m quite concerned about it for a number of reasons which I don’t believe can be sufficiently resolved. As such I don’t think the development should proceed. Another alternative site should be used.

My main concerns are; that it will negatively impact traffic, access & parking for residents, that it will tower over nearby houses (blocking natural light and reduce privacy), and it will put unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure that already struggles.

Starting with traffic and parking, it’s such a narrow entry in a small street it will surely impact parking for residents, create noise at all hours and be a challenge with larger transport and service vehicles coming and going.

Secondly it’s bad for the area, taking away much needed greenery and canopy cover that’s vital for heat resilience. The overshadowing of the height will almost certainly reduce the effectiveness and uptake of rooftop solar energy, and make nearby homes shady and prone to mould. At the same time, increases in hard surface will exacerbate the stormwater and flooding in increasingly severe and frequent rain.

Finally it’s really not at all in keeping with the character of the area. There are no other buildings of this height anywhere nearby.
The proposed building surely exceeds local height limits and definitely doesn’t fit with the low-rise, residential nature of the street. It would dominate the streetscape, reduce privacy for private residents, and overshadow nearby homes and gardens.

This development is too large, too disruptive, and in the wrong location. I urge planners to reject this proposal and protect the safety snd wellbeing of our existing local community.
I would suggest there are alternative sites that are larger and more suitable, while still close by, that are more accessible and closer to public transport and road infrastructure, which will better serve users of such a facility.

Thanks,
Kieran

I am a direct neighbour and am writing to object to this project. Please read my full submissions (attached). Also attached are three audio recordings, which I refer to in my submissions. Thank you