Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family, Marrickville Seniors Housing

I live on Marrickville Avenue, the sole access for entry to the site. I object to the development on the points.

1. Lack of Community consultation. In spite of claims that the community was consulted in the form of visiting residents and contacting them by phone, we, the residents most affected by the construction were not contacted and had to find out information from third parties.

2. Construction Traffic. The construction traffic management plan is inadequate. We are given a number of assurances as to volume of construction traffic but no real detail. Truck movements can vary between 10 and 50 per day (Appendix B 3.4) . How do the contractors propose to manage 10 trucks every hour without cueing or causing major disruption and safety concerns to the residents of Marrickville Ave. The exit and entry from Marrickville Avenue onto Livingstone Rd is already becoming more difficult without adding the steady flow of construction vehicles. During school drop off and pickup times Livingstone Rd gets congested with school traffic from Casimir college.

3. The construction workers parking has not been effectively addressed. We are assured that there will be parking on site but it is not quantified. The objective to encourage car pooling and using public transport is no more than an expectation.

4. The residents of Marrickville Av value their street trees. Who will be responsible when the construction traffic causes damage to the trees. Or more to the point, who will be responsible to prevent damage before it occurs.

Bearing in mind that the construction of the Nursing home and the subsequent St Maroun’s school development will ,according to the development application , take 20 months the above concerns need serious consideration and have concrete guidelines put in place in order for Marrickville residents to maintain the quiet enjoyment of their homes. We will expect a limit set on the amount of noise (dbs ) allowed at any given time. We would expect that residents close to the site will be offered alternative accommodation in the event that the construction experiences excessive noise or air particles. This is the same courtesy that the construction company building the new Metro offers residents at times of excessive noise.

Sincerely,
Cornelis Steen

My concerns are in relation to the scale and nature of the development. As it stands, the Maronite Sisters are proposing to double the size of the Village 2 nursing home on Marrickville Ave. The development includes as a result a 4-storey building plus 2 underground levels — requiring major excavation together with the demolition of 1.2 metres of the heritage-listed wall to widen a gate for access.
The development poses the following:
1. The proposed development will cause obstruction to neighbouring properties as it will affect their views and as a result their privacy and use of their property.
2. There is the issue of noise as a result of this development, including sirens and ambulances not coping with the additional patients.
3. The development will have an impact on parking and access to amenities in already over-stretched residential streets where parking is an ongoing issue and there is limited parking.
4. Given the scale and size of this development, there does not appear to have been formal consultation with the residents over the planned expansion. This is quite disappointing given the number of residents this will impact on surrounding streets. This will cause issues with parking. There are limited spots for parking and visitors are likely to park in surrounding streets which are already congested as there is the local school and limited parking due to the bike lane.
5. The development also only includes 35 car spaces. That will not be sufficient to cope with staff and visitors. This will cause issues with parking. There are limited spots for parking and visitors are likely to park in surrounding streets which are already congested as there is the local school and limited parking due to the bike lane.
6. The excavation so close to the heritage wall poses risks to neighbouring properties.
7. The development is over the legal height. The proposed height is 15.2m.
8. There are 4 significant trees to be removed.
9. The noise will be significant and there has been no consultation or planning regarding noise management or any concerns of residents being addressed.
10. There is also the issue of the remediation of the heritage wall. There has been no consultation or plan on when this will be remediated. Given the number of residents this affects this is quite concerning.
11. It appears that the planning regarding this development could have been planned to include consultation and transparency with residents. Given the scale and size of the development, residents could have flagged their concerns and have them addressed in a “have your say” forum.
12. the documents particularised in support of the development application do not include drawings showing the impact to nearby residents. This is a concern as privacy remains a crucial part of residential ownership. The large scale development is going to impact on nearby homes.

Having lived near the existing facility, I have several objections;

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.

Overall, I object to the development on the basis that it is an inappropriate development given the constraints of the site.
While I support the upgrading of the aged care facility, what this application contemplates a highly intensive use of a site that borders the rear of a number of residential properties in Challis Avenue, Marrickville Avenue and Pine Street. It is an unusual site for a state significant development to be carried out on. It only has limited road access on Wardell Road and Marrickville Avenue and otherwise borders over 50 residential homes, many of which sit within a heritage conservation area that the Inner West Council proposes to maintain in its recently published Draft Master Plans for Housing Investigation Areas. The proposed development will have a significant impact on neighbours, including on my house on Challis Avenue, where the proposed apartments, communal dining areas and rooftop party and entertainment space all directly overlooking our family’s backyard, looking directly into the trampoline and pool space. This is in circumstances where we have received noise complaints from the aged care facility about our children playing in the backyard.
Given the proximity of the proposed development to our backyard (which is effectively a medical care facility for older people including with dementia and other cognitive issues), and given the unreality of being able to keep our kids quiet to a ‘hospital standard’, I am concerned that the development will lead to further noise complaints.
It involves significant subterranean excavation on a site with a substantial number of very mature trees, of a quality unlike anything else in the local area. There is no study or report provided with the proposed development application was analyses the root structure of the trees (which were planted at least 100 years ago) and how the large-scale excavation can occur without negatively impacting on these trees.
It risks further impact on the heritage wall surrounding the site (which was built in the early 1920s when the site was the Carmelite Convent), which has been the subject of concerns about its dilapidation for over 20 years, including proposed directions to remediate from Marrickville Council in July 1999 and 18 July 2008.
I have set out my concerns in more detail in the attached document, with some supporting information and context.
For the above reasons, I strongly oppose the development application in its present form. Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

Total lack of community consultation on this project. There is already daily traffic and parking chaos as a result of the school drop off and pick up. This will surely be compounded with an increase in the nursing home facility.
There has been no clarity around the proposed building of this new facility. What are the privacy impacts on the Challis Road residents whose homes back onto this facility? Further there has been no notification of proposed noise impacts both during construction and the proposed ongoing use of the property. And there will be further tree loss in a suburb already struggling to have enough tree canopy in these climate stressed times. We are already waging a small war in this suburb over proposed planning changes for housing - increased building heights and densities. This project adds to the overdevelopment of precious land, and potential overshadowing from a presumably tall structure.
I strongly object to this doubling of the size of the proposed nursing home. Further immediate and comprehensive community consultation is required . Thank you.

To Whom It May Concern,

As a long-term resident of Marrickville, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of a four-storey nursing home within our residential neighbourhood. This proposal raises numerous concerns that I believe will have lasting, detrimental effects on our community’s character, amenity, safety, and sustainability. I respectfully outline my key objections below:

1. Emergency Egress and Safety
The proposed facility would house over 100 elderly residents but is accessible by only one entry/exit point—Marrickville Avenue. In the event of an emergency, this poses a serious risk to both residents and first responders. The limited access could impede evacuation efforts and delay emergency services.

2. Strain on Local Infrastructure
Marrickville Avenue already faces flooding issues, and the increased sealed surfaces from the development will worsen these conditions. Existing infrastructure—roads, utilities, stormwater systems—is not designed to accommodate a development of this scale.

3. Increased Traffic and Parking Issues
This quiet residential street with limited parking and a single access point cannot support the added traffic from staff, service vehicles, and visitors. This will create congestion and significantly reduce available on-street parking for residents.

4. Noise and Operational Disruption
Nursing homes operate 24/7. Deliveries, emergency vehicle access, staff shifts, and waste collection will introduce constant noise to the neighbourhood. Notably, the proposed air conditioning system is estimated to generate 100dB—far exceeding the area's ambient sound levels.

5. Loss of Privacy
The height of the proposed building will cause direct overlooking into nearby homes and backyards, reducing the privacy currently enjoyed by residents. The removal of mature trees, which act as privacy buffers, will only heighten this impact.

6. Overshadowing and Reduced Solar Access
A four-storey structure will cast long shadows over adjacent properties, gardens, and solar installations, reducing sunlight and hindering sustainable energy use.

7. Damage to Established Trees
The underground car park and placement of infrastructure like substations threaten significant mature trees. The loss of these trees would reduce local biodiversity, shade, and visual amenity. Independent arborist supervision and tree protection measures are essential but appear to be lacking.

8. Loss of Green Space
The proposed development significantly reduces available open space and tree canopy, undermining local efforts to preserve greenery, manage heat, and support urban wildlife.

9. Risk to Heritage Wall
The site includes or is adjacent to a heritage wall known to be structurally vulnerable. Heavy machinery, excavation, and improper materials could cause irreversible damage. Previous warnings from structural engineers about its fragility must be taken seriously.

10. Impact on Heritage and Streetscape
Marrickville is known for its historic character and low-rise residential charm. This modern, four-storey structure would clash with the local aesthetic and degrade the area’s heritage value.

11. Out of Character with the Neighbourhood
The building exceeds the local height limit by 6 metres and is inconsistent with the surrounding single- and double-storey homes. The bulk and scale would dominate the streetscape and set an undesirable precedent.

12. Lack of Community Consultation
The proponent’s own engagement report revealed that only 2% of surveyed individuals were aware of the development. This highlights a serious failure in the consultation process, particularly for residents most directly impacted.

13. Setting a Dangerous Precedent
Approval of this proposal could open the door for more high-density developments in low-density, residential zones. This site lies outside the 400-metre radius designated for increased housing density near new metro stations and should be protected from overdevelopment.

14. More Suitable Sites Available
There is currently a nursing home for sale on Marrickville Road—appropriately zoned and far less disruptive to nearby residents. This is a more logical and community-compatible location for aged care services.

This development is incompatible with the scale, character, and needs of our neighbourhood. It poses clear risks to safety, heritage, environmental sustainability, and quality of life. I respectfully urge the planning authorities to reject this proposal and preserve the integrity of our community.

The heritage wall leans dangerously and no repair is planned
4 significant trees to be removed and others could be damaged
Traffic and parking is inadequately provided for
The height of the building exceeds legal building regulations
There is no noise impact modeling attached

I object to this project on several, very important grounds. Despite launching into two multi-million dollar developments (totalling up to 100 million) on their land, the Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family have not remediated the wall on the boundary of their property. This very high, brick, heritage wall leans dangerously into the adjacent properties - risking serious harm or even death to residents when it collapses. As the owners well know this wall has no footings and yet they propose to construct a four storey building with two underground levels within metres of it. My fear is that it would suit the Maronite Sisters for the heritage wall to collapse, allowing them to cheaply replace it,
This proposed building is over 60% above the legal limit. Aside from these extremely serious heritage wall and height issues, the Maronite Sisters did not let residents of Challis Avenue know about this development - we received no renders or drawings and there has been no way for us to assess privacy impacts of a 4 storey building. I am also extremely alarmed by the proposed removal of 4 significant trees to make way for a substation that could be placed elsewhere on the property. And excavation threatens the remaining trees. This is incredible. These trees provide an important habitat for birds and animals in the area.
In addition to these concerns, Marrickville Avenue will be the only entry and exit for all cars, staff, deliveries and construction vehicles. Along with grossly inadequate parking, vehicles will have to spill over into surrounding streets. We are also concerned about ongoing noise - both during construction and ongoing. There has been no community consultation regarding this development. I do not object to schools or aged care facilities in my area, but I do object very strongly to the way the Maronite Sisters have conducted themselves. Their flagrant disregard for the safety and well being of their neighbours is staggering, especially considering that they are a Christian community supposedly looking after two vulnerable groups - children and old people. I am actually horrified that the Maronite community is trying to push this development ahead in the face of so many legitimate objections and at the risk to their local community.

I do not believe this project should commence until certain conditions have been met.
1. The wall is at risk and must be remediated before any works commence. The vibrations from heavy traffic of large vehicles, digging underground, two levels deep or more, will have adverse effects on the wall and neighbouring homes. Homeowners must have written assurances from the developers, engineers and the Maronite Sisters that this 100 year old wall surrounding the perimeter will be remediated and will continue to stand without any risk to property or life.
2. Demolition of the heritage listed wall to widen a gate must not be allowed.
3. The nursing home should be less than 4 storeys tall. If there is need for an emergency evacuation, lifts are not usable. Build out not up in this residential area which is primarily full of older homes, federation homes, workers' cottages. Marrickville is a flood area. What happens if there is excessive rain during the build? Can the public have access to environmental reports pertaining to this build?
5. Loss of greenery. Please do not destroy four significant trees. Probably more trees could be threatened by the excavations. Many trees were lost when the school was built. The trees should be saved.
4. This is a community issue that needs to be addressed now. Residents' privacy has not been accurately or transparently addressed. Once plans are approved can they be altered to add more levels to this build? Currently, the proposal is 60% above the legal limit. What is the privacy impact?
5. The community has not been able to ask questions or receive any answers.
We live here. Who in government is standing up for us?

I do not believe this project should commence until certain conditions have been met.
1. The wall is at risk and must be remediated before any works commence. The vibrations from heavy traffic of large vehicles, digging underground, two levels deep or more, will have adverse effects on the wall and neighbouring homes. Homeowners must have written assurances from the developers, engineers and the Maronite Sisters that this 100 year old wall surrounding the perimeter will be remediated and will continue to stand without any risk to property or life.
2. Demolition of the heritage listed wall to widen a gate must not be allowed.
3. The nursing home should be less than 4 storeys tall. If there is need for an emergency evacuation, lifts are not usable. Build out not up in this residential area which is primarily full of older homes, federation homes, workers' cottages. Marrickville is a flood area. What happens if there is excessive rain during the build? Can the public have access to environmental reports pertaining to this build?
5. Loss of greenery. Please do not destroy four significant trees. Probably more trees could be threatened by the excavations. Many trees were lost when the school was built. The trees should be saved.
4. This is a community issue that needs to be addressed now. Residents' privacy has not been accurately or transparently addressed. Once plans are approved can they be altered to add more levels to this build? Currently, the proposal is 60% above the legal limit. What is the privacy impact?
5. The community has not been able to ask questions or receive any answers.
We live here. Who in government is standing up for us?

I do not believe this project should commence until certain conditions have been met.
1. The wall is at risk and must be remediated before any works commence. The vibrations from heavy traffic of large vehicles, digging underground, two levels deep or more, will have adverse effects on the wall and neighbouring homes. Homeowners must have written assurances from the developers, engineers and the Maronite Sisters that this 100 year old wall surrounding the perimeter will be remediated and will continue to stand without any risk to property or life.
2. Demolition of the heritage listed wall to widen a gate must not be allowed.
3. The nursing home should be less than 4 storeys tall. If there is need for an emergency evacuation, lifts are not usable. Build out not up in this residential area which is primarily full of older homes, federation homes, workers' cottages. Marrickville is a flood area. What happens if there is excessive rain during the build? Can the public have access to environmental reports pertaining to this build?
5. Loss of greenery. Please do not destroy four significant trees. Probably more trees could be threatened by the excavations. Many trees were lost when the school was built. These trees should be saved.
4. This is a community issue that needs to be addressed now. Residents' privacy has not been accurately or transparently addressed. Once plans are approved can they be altered to add more levels to this build? Currently, the proposal is 60% above the legal limit. What is the privacy impact?
5. The community has not been able to ask questions or receive any answers.
We live here too. Who in government is standing up for us?

I am not against the idea of a larger nursing home, as I understand the importance of residential aged care facilities in our community. However, the proposed development will impact a heritage wall. A number of my neighbours have reported that the wall is not properly maintained, and that it leans at a dangerous angle towards their homes. There's a real risk this issue could be made worse by excavation that takes place as part of the development. Before the development progresses, I think it's important for the wall to be remediated.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the planned works. I do believe the timing of breaking ground need be of great consideration as currently a major entrance for the bansktown line works is on Marrickville Ave. our street is FULL of construction vehicles all day from very early in the morning. This makes parking very difficult and our peace is already greatly disturbed. I would propose works be postponed until after the completion of Bankstown line works- to minimise sound pollution/ physical pollution/ and ensure residents of this small marrickville avenue have access to our street parking and a small sense of peace and quiet before another major works is started. A crossover of two major works schedules on such a small street, that is already on a freight train line and under the flight path is unacceptable. Adequate measures must be installed to minimise vehicular disruption to already limited parking. Ie onsite parking for trade vehicles only. No street parking. Enforced start times. No vehicles on site prior to 7am. No tradesman loitering by their vehicles early in the morning. A dedicated meeting point onsite for tradesman that they must go to straight away once they have exited their vehicles. Security cameras installed along marrickville Ave should a request for proof of tradesman breaking any of these conditions be made by a resident of marrickville avenue. Respite vouchers offered to residents of marrickville avenue for planned weekend days of major earthworks where sound disturbance is unavoidable. Progress updates be provided by means of letter box drop to residents with a clear schedule of works provided with key dates for major works highlighted to ensure enough notice is given for residents to prepare for planned works. A real attempt to provide updates of any evolving works or changes to the schedule of works. Major attention directed to the reduction of noise pollution as a result of the demolition, earth works and construction of planned new development. Schedule of planned works, noise pollution, managing tradesman and parking are my biggest concerns. Addressing these key items will go along way to ensure you have an easy time with this development.

Overdevelopment of the school has caused significant traffic problems in Challis Avenue and Albermarle St at school pickup times. At 3pm every school day parents double park in Challis Avenue making it extremely difficult to drive down this street and creating danger for children as they come to meet their pickup cars. The expansion of the Nursing home which has access in Marrickville Avenue and on Wardell Rd will increase the traffic in Albermarle St as a “rat run” between the entrances and cause an increased traffic hazard on the narrow railway bridge in Albermarle St which already presents a traffic hazard for larger vehicles. Increased traffic from Marrickville Avenue will also cause traffic issues as it tries to join Livingstone Rd near the railway bridge and the Greek church. This is already an area of traffic concern.
The construction of a 4 storey building in the precinct will equal the height of the local Church towers and dominate the skyline of a mostly single storey family home area. Are there accessible plans or artist impressions available to locals regarding the impact of this building on surrounding dwellings including obstruction of current views?
The area around the school and nursing home has been greatly impacted by the conversion of the railway to the Metro. Many trees have been removed and roadscapes changed. This proposed extension will further degrade the environment by removal of more trees.

My wife and I are very upset about this. We are worried about lack of privacy, noise, traffic and the heritage wall. I have heart issues and this stress is very bad for me.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the large-scale building development proposed for the nursing home. This matter requires your urgent attention, particularly in relation to the common property wall between Challise Avenue and Pine Street.

This wall has been a known concern for nearly 20 years. Its condition continues to raise serious safety risks for all neighbouring properties, and any development in close proximity must not proceed without a thorough investigation and proper remediation of this longstanding issue.

Furthermore, the scale of the proposed development will significantly impact local infrastructure, not only within this immediate zone but across Marrickville more broadly. Increased pressure on roads, parking, and community resources must be carefully considered.

I respectfully request confirmation that this correspondence has been received, acknowledged, and understood. I look forward to your response and to seeing appropriate action taken.

I write to formally object to the Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family, Marrickville Seniors Housing development proposal.

While I acknowledge the importance of providing quality aged care facilities, I believe this proposal presents several significant concerns that warrant reconsideration, including overdevelopment, heritage degradation, and adverse local impacts.

1. Overdevelopment and Planning Non-Compliance
The proposed four-storey residential care facility significantly exceeds the local building height limit of 9.5 metres, with a proposed variation of 72.6%. This scale of development is wholly inconsistent with the surrounding low-density residential character and risks setting a precedent for future planning breaches.

2. Heritage Impacts
The site contains a locally significant heritage item — the former Carmelite Convent and its surrounding wall. The demolition of "Village 1" and extensive alterations on-site risk irreparably compromising this culturally valuable site. The development offers inadequate safeguards or interpretation strategies for this heritage.

3. Incompatible Zoning and Loss of Community Land
The use of SEPP (Housing) to override the SP2 Educational Establishments zoning is highly problematic. Seniors housing is prohibited under SP2, and the site's primary use has historically supported community and educational purposes. Replacing educational land with private residential infrastructure undermines the public interest.

4. Flood Risk to Vulnerable Populations
Part of the site is subject to 1% AEP flood risk, and seniors housing is classified as a sensitive use. The proposal offers no robust flood mitigation strategy at this stage, raising serious concerns about the safety of future elderly residents.

5. Traffic, Parking, and Infrastructure Pressure
The development will generate additional traffic and parking demand in an already congested area. which has already limited road capacity and on-street parking availability. Public transport, while nearby, may be inadequate for elderly residents, especially those with mobility constraints. The plan also lacks detail on local infrastructure capacity to support increased demand.

6. Ecological and Environmental Risks
The site is identified on the terrestrial biodiversity map, but the environmental assessment is currently superficial. Without a full and detailed biodiversity report, the potential for ecological harm cannot be properly assessed.

7. Lack of Genuine Community Engagement
The proposal claims “early engagement,” but no substantial community consultation has been undertaken to date. This absence of dialogue with residents suggests a top-down approach, lacking transparency or responsiveness to local concerns.

8. Misuse of SSD Pathway
The classification of this development as State Significant appears to be based solely on capital investment value, rather than its genuine strategic merit. This enables fast-tracking and reduced local oversight, raising questions about fairness and due process.
________________________________________
This development, in its current form, threatens to compromise local heritage, increase environmental and safety risks, and disregard established planning principles designed to protect the character and wellbeing of the Marrickville community.

To Whom It May Concern,

For many years, I have been deeply concerned about the stability of the heritage wall behind our property. This concern has persisted since my children were young and continues to this day. Over time, I have observed that the wall is leaning increasingly towards our property and neighbouring properties, raising serious safety concerns.

During renovations to our home in 2007, our engineer assessed the wall and confirmed that it was unsafe. They recommended that urgent action be taken to address the issue. Despite this, no permanent solution has been implemented.

What is particularly troubling is the ongoing lack of communication from St Maroun’s regarding the danger posed by the wall. Although they have acknowledged that the wall requires repairs, there has been little indication that they consider this a genuine priority. The absence of meaningful action over the years has only heightened my concern.

In addition to the structural issues, let alone the height of the building, I am also worried about the impact of further development in the area. Increased traffic and reduced residential parking will place additional strain on local residents, making everyday life more difficult.

I strongly urge all responsible parties to prioritise the safety and wellbeing of the community by addressing the wall’s condition and improving engagement with residents moving forward.

The Maronite Village Nursing Home Expansion Development
I have looked at this development and am concerned about the impact it will have on neighbouring property prices as the building will overlook the yards of the current owners removing their privacy for one which they considered important when purchasing in the area.
Will the development provide existing owners the value loss of their properties due to this development, as they will definitely be affected?
Traffic will also be an issue in the area, particularly on Livingston and Wardell Roads
I believe there are only 35 car spaces for this development which will affect local premises existing parking which is already congested.
The planning process appears to not take into account the impact on not only directly adjoining properties affected but also local residents in general.
I do not believe the NSW Department of Planning and Environment has not given the existing property owners affected by this development a fair consideration with regard to the impact to their lives and investment.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a resident of Pine Street, Marrickville. In 2007, we undertook renovations on our property. During this time, engineers advised us that the back wall of our property was structurally unsound and posed a serious risk of collapse, with the potential to cause injury or even death without warning.

After a year of daily phone calls to both the Council and St Maroun’s, two metal support beams were finally installed. However, these beams were only intended as a temporary measure and have not resolved the underlying safety hazard. The wall remains a significant risk, and I strongly urge that no work be carried out in or around this area without fully addressing the danger it presents.

Any nearby construction as part of the proposed nursing home development could potentially destabilise the wall and trigger its collapse. This is a matter of public safety that must not be ignored.

In addition to safety concerns, it has already become increasingly difficult to find parking outside our home. Further development in the area is likely to worsen traffic congestion and reduce available residential parking.

Lastly, there has been minimal communication from St Maroun’s regarding these developments or the concerns of local residents. It is vital that the community is properly informed and consulted moving forward, and the first priority must be addressing the safety condition of the wall.