Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family, Marrickville Seniors Housing

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development application submitted by the Maronite Village for the demolition of the existing single-storey, 50-bed nursing home located between Pine Street, Marrickville Avenue, and Challis Avenue.
This application proposes replacing it with a significantly larger four-storey, 100-bed facility, along with an underground car park.

My objections are based on the following critical concerns:

1. Heritage Wall at Risk: The proposed large-scale excavation and construction activities pose a direct threat to the stability of the adjacent heritage wall. No credible remediation or protection plan has been presented, placing the wall at further risk of collapse, with potential consequences for public safety and the structural integrity of nearby properties.

2. Scale and Amenity Impacts: The proposed four-storey building will drastically overshadow the predominantly single-storey residential neighborhood. This excessive height and bulk will severely impact residents’ privacy and increase noise, affecting the quiet enjoyment of their properties.

3. Inadequate Stormwater Management: The provision of only 35 parking spaces for a significantly expanded facility is grossly inadequate, leading to inevitable parking overflow onto local streets and increased traffic congestion from visitors, service vehicles, and emergency services.

4. Loss of Trees and Biodiversity Impact: As a landlocked site, the facility’s scale and design raise serious concerns regarding the safe and efficient evacuation of residents in an emergency.

Furthermore, despite claims of "extensive community consultation," many local residents (people I know), were unaware of the proposal until recently, calling into question the transparency of this process.
I respectfully urge the NSW Government to reject this application or, at a minimum, require substantial revisions to address the critical issues outlined above.

Complaint re: DA for Maronite Village Expansion
I am making a submission to object to the expansion of the Maronite Village due to the risk it poses to the site’s mature trees. I am a regular visitor to my family members in Challis Ave and am horrified by the extent of the development in the enclosed space behind this street.
The property currently has mature turpentine and eucalyptus trees, some of which are over 100 years old. As well as their importance to the environment and to the amenity of the area, they are part of Sydney’s heritage. As a member of the National Trust I know that significant trees must be preserved.
The proposed excavation, which the DA says will extend two storeys below ground, will directly threaten the stability and general survival of these trees. It isn’t possible to do deep excavations without damaging the roots – being of great age the roots will be spread far and wide. The biodiversity of this area would be put under significant challenge if these trees were removed or damaged causing death.
The indiscriminate felling of tall, mature trees is totally unacceptable in the Sydney area. They are every bit as important as heritage houses that we go out on a limb to preserve. Each tree on this site needs to be considered individually and plans made for their preservation.
I am expecting that the NSW Department of Planning and Environment will reject or pause any decision on this building proposal until appropriate consultation with Heritage and Environmental Bodies have been consulted and protection is put in place.
Thank you for your consideration.

Formal Objection to Proposed 4-Storey Nursing Home Development – Inner West

As a 17-year resident of the Inner West, I strongly oppose the proposed construction of a four-storey aged care facility in our low-rise residential neighbourhood. This development is inappropriate for the area and raises serious concerns regarding its scale, impact on community infrastructure, environment, and heritage. Below are the key reasons for my objection:

1. Inappropriate Scale and Character
Out of Character: The proposed building exceeds the local height limit by 6 metres and stands in stark contrast to the existing one- and two-storey homes in the area. A structure of this size would dominate the streetscape and permanently alter the established residential character of our neighbourhood.
Precedent for Overdevelopment: Approving this proposal could set a dangerous precedent for high-density developments in areas not designated for such growth. Notably, the site is located outside the 400-metre radius for increased housing density around new Metro stations.
2. Negative Impact on Residential Amenity
Privacy Invasion: A four-storey facility would overlook surrounding homes and private gardens, resulting in significant loss of privacy for residents. This concern is worsened by the proposed removal of established screening trees.
Overshadowing and Solar Access: The height and bulk of the building would cast extensive shadows over nearby homes and gardens, reducing access to natural light and impacting residents' ability to install or benefit from solar energy.
Noise Pollution: Continuous operations, including service deliveries, ambulance movements, and mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units (noted to operate at 100 decibels), would introduce unacceptable noise levels into what is currently a quiet residential zone.
3. Environmental and Heritage Impact
Loss of Green Space: The development would significantly reduce open green areas, which are crucial for community wellbeing and ecological balance. The removal of established vegetation would also diminish the area’s natural beauty and cooling capacity.
Threat to Mature Trees: Construction of the underground car park poses a serious risk to established trees on or near the site. Tree root systems and trunks are likely to be compromised without stringent protection measures, potentially leading to long-term decline or tree loss.
Damage to Heritage Structures: A heritage wall adjacent to the site is at risk of structural damage or collapse during construction due to heavy machinery and vibrations. Despite multiple warnings over the years, there has been no proper remediation of the wall, further heightening the danger.
Streetscape Degradation: Marrickville is recognised for its unique heritage and village character. A modern, high-rise institutional facility would undermine the visual harmony and historic appeal of the streetscape.
4. Infrastructure and Safety Concerns
Traffic and Parking Pressure: The influx of staff, visitors, and service vehicles would intensify congestion on Marrickville Avenue—a narrow residential street with only one access point and limited parking. The area already struggles with street parking availability.
Emergency Access Risks: The facility is proposed to house over 100 vulnerable residents. With only a single point of access, the site poses serious risks in the event of a fire or other emergency, potentially delaying emergency services and evacuation procedures.
Flooding and Stormwater Management: Marrickville Avenue is already susceptible to flooding. Removing permeable surfaces and vegetation will worsen water runoff and increase pressure on stormwater infrastructure, despite any planned mitigation efforts.
Utilities and Service Load: The current infrastructure, including roads, sewerage, and community services, is not equipped to handle the increased demand such a large development would generate.
5. Lack of Transparency and Better Alternatives
Insufficient Community Consultation: The community engagement process has been minimal and ineffective. According to the developer’s own report, only 2% of surveyed individuals were aware of the proposal, reflecting a clear failure to properly consult or inform those most affected.
Alternative Suitable Sites Available: There is an existing nursing home for sale on Marrickville Road, already zoned for this type of use. This site would be a far more appropriate location for a facility of this scale, without the disruptions posed by the current proposal.
Conclusion
This development is wholly incompatible with the character, scale, and infrastructure of our neighbourhood. It threatens our privacy, safety, environment, heritage, and overall quality of life. The lack of proper consultation and availability of more appropriate alternative sites only strengthen the case for rejection.

For all these reasons, I respectfully urge the planning authority to reject this proposal and preserve the integrity, livability, and safety of our community.

Sincerely,
A concerned resident

I object to the submission for development of the Maronite Village aged care facility on several grounds. As a resident of Marrickville Avenue for 33 years, I have much experience of previous development on the site of both the school and aged care home. This experience includes many incidences of conditions not respected during and after construction and overall negative impacts on quality of life for residents.
For this project my objections are as follows:
* Scale of the project: the site is not large and the proposed four level plus two basements is overdevelopment, especially considering the access to the site is restricted to one entrance via Marrickville Avenue. Increasing the size of the gate in the heritage wall does not make a major difference to this access.
*Traffic and parking: the planned on site parking for the 100 bed facility is clearly inadequate and spillover into Marrickville Avenue, which already experiences issues with parking for St Nicolas church and Casimir College (as well as the Metro rail works at the current time) , is inevitable. Access to Livingstone Road from Marrickville Avenue is already difficult , with a cycleway and heavy traffic at peak hours and school drop-off and pick-up times
* Stormwater management has been a constant problem with flow into Marrickville Avenue from the increased area of hard surfaces and removal of trees on the site. On many occasion the drain at the Livingstone Road end has overflowed across the street and into residents’ gardens. The hydrology report in the application specifies underground tanks but has not clearly explained how the water release into Marrickville Avenue gutters would be managed.
* Impact of construction : During previous construction activity on the Maronite Village and St Maroun’s School sites, significant noise, traffic and safety issues have arisen , with construction conditions often not being adhered to. A recent example is demolition work on the school site, during which a huge skip was parked directly outside our house from afternoon until the next morning , blocking the gutter. Bricks were dumped into it. This clearly contravened the conditions that parking of demolition and construction vehicles should be restricted to within the property boundaries . I strongly expect that similar breaches would occur with the proposed development, especially, with the limited space on site, the condition for all vehicle access to be in a forward direction.
* Waste management: The management of waste currently is already problematic, with residents closest to the Village gates subjected to smell and overflow issues with the skips which are collected on Marrickville Avenue outside the gates. A much larger facility will exacerbate these problems.
* access between the Village and school : a condition of the consent for building of the current village was for access between the Village and school to be for emergencies only. This condition is regularly breached, which only adds to residents’ scepticism that future conditions will also be breached.
*safety of the heritage wall : the proposed development increases the risk of damage to the wall as well as collapse impacting buildings within as well as residences adjoining the wall.

I hope this message finds you well. As a concerned resident of the Inner West, and a Marrickville business owner I feel it is essential to voice my strong opposition to the proposed 4-storey nursing home in a residential area. This development poses significant risks to the character and livability of the community.


Firstly, the proposed building’s height—6 meters above the local maximum—would drastically alter the aesthetic of the neighborhood, which is characterized by low-rise homes. Such a structure would overshadow existing residences, diminishing sunlight and privacy for many residents. The loss of established trees to accommodate this development further exacerbates these concerns, as these natural barriers currently provide essential privacy and contribute to our community's greenery.


Additionally, the increased traffic and parking issues that would arise from the nursing home are troubling. With staff, visitors, and service vehicles creating congestion on Marrickville Avenue—our sole entry point—finding parking will become a frustrating challenge for residents. The strain on local infrastructure, including roads and utilities, is another critical issue, especially given the existing flooding problems on Marrickville Avenue that would likely worsen with the removal of green spaces.


Noise disturbance is another concern; the continuous operation of a nursing home will disrupt the peace of our residential area. The anticipated noise from deliveries, ambulances, and daily activities will contrast sharply with the tranquility we currently enjoy. Moreover, the proposed air conditioning units, expected to emit 100db, will significantly increase ambient noise levels.


The impact on our neighborhood's heritage is also significant. Marrickville has a unique historic character that would be diminished by the introduction of a modern, high-rise facility. Approving this development could set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for more high-density projects that further erode our community’s residential character.


It is disheartening to note that many of my neighbors share these concerns, yet the wishes of the local community seem overlooked. A recent community engagement report indicated that only 2% of surveyed residents were aware of this proposal, raising serious questions about transparency and consultation.


Furthermore, there is an existing nursing home for sale on Marrickville Road that is appropriately zoned for such a purpose, making it a more suitable option for state development. The risk of damage to the nearby heritage wall during construction also warrants attention; a history of neglect raises concerns about its stability.


Lastly, the proposed nursing home would house over 100 aged care residents, yet the single access point raises serious concerns about emergency egress. Limited access for emergency services is a critical issue that cannot be ignored.


In light of these compelling concerns, I strongly urge the state to reconsider this development proposal. It is essential to preserve the character, livability, and safety of our cherished neighborhood.

Before any further development of St Marouns is consdiered, the heritage wall around the site must be made safe. An independent engineer recently flagged a serious risk to life and property if the wall is not remediated, as it has an obvious lean. There should be no further development until the heritage wall is properly remediated.

To Whom It May Concern,
RE: Objection to Proposed Seniors Housing Development on the Grounds of the Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family – SSD Application
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of a 99-bedroom seniors housing facility on the grounds of the Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family in Marrickville. As a long-term resident at 1/32 Pine Street, I am deeply concerned about the substantial adverse impacts this development would have on the local character, heritage, environment, and residential amenity of the surrounding area.
The proposal is wholly inconsistent with the established planning framework and fails to adequately justify multiple significant departures from local development controls. Furthermore, aspects of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and community engagement process appear to be misleading, incomplete, or dismissive of genuine community concerns.
Non-Compliance with Key Planning Controls
The development does not comply with several critical planning controls, including:
• Building Height
• Floor Space Ratio (FSR)
• Tree Retention
• Visual and Privacy Impacts
• Community Engagement Obligations
Each of these issues is elaborated below.

Building Height Non-Compliance
The proposed development exceeds the maximum building height prescribed by the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 by approximately 6 metres, or 66%, above the 9.5-metre limit. The EIS fails to provide an adequate or reasonable justification for the Clause 4.6 variation, and the purported public benefits are unsubstantiated.
It is particularly concerning that the LEP height map is buried in an appendix and not included in the main body of the report. This obfuscates the extent of the non-compliance and undermines the transparency of the planning process. The intent of Clause 4.6 is to permit minor departures (e.g., plant rooms), not significant exceedances that alter the character and scale of the area.
FSR (Floor Space Ratio)
The proposed development exceeds the permissible FSR under the LEP. Once again, a Clause 4.6 variation is sought without clear or reasonable justification. The developer argues that the permitted FSR (0.6:1) is “not achievable,” yet this does not constitute a legitimate planning rationale. FSR controls are not entitlements; they are performance standards designed to maintain local amenity and urban form. The exceedance represents an overdevelopment of the site.

Tree Removal and Heritage Significance
The development will result in the removal of several high significance trees, some of which could be preserved with better design. For instance, the electrical substation and vehicle turning bay, both cited as reasons for tree removal, could be relocated or redesigned to reduce impact.
Crucially, the trees in question are not merely of environmental value—they have heritage significance directly referenced in the NSW State Heritage Register for this site (Item ID 2030151). The listing states:
“To ensure complete privacy a continuous brick wall was built around the site. To give them [the Sisters] added privacy, the Sisters planted trees alongside the wall. With the same object in view, the local Council zoned and gazetted the adjoining properties as single-storey residence only.”
These trees are not incidental landscape features—they are integral to the historic function and spiritual retreat of the convent and represent early landscape planning for privacy and seclusion. The EIS fails entirely to address this context.
Their removal for operational convenience contradicts the intent of the site’s heritage listing and compromises the historic setting of a site recognised for its aesthetic, social, and spiritual significance.

Visual and Privacy Impacts
As a resident of the dwelling featured in Visual Assessment Photo VA9, I can confirm the image is highly misleading. The EIS does not include any reverse-view simulations showing how the development will overlook my living room and backyard. A comprehensive and balanced visual impact assessment must assess both viewpoints to adequately measure impact.
Moreover, the report falsely claims that existing trees obscure the building’s impact. These trees are located on private land and could be removed at any time. If this occurred, there would be a clear line of sight from the new facility directly into my home, representing a serious invasion of privacy and a substantial loss of residential amenity.

Inadequate and Misleading Community Engagement
The community engagement process for this State Significant Development has been wholly inadequate and, in some respects, intentionally misleading.
I personally participated in early consultation regarding visual impacts and raised strong objections. Despite repeated follow-up requests for updated plans and further information, I was ignored. I was never notified that the development application had been formally lodged, and only became aware of it via other channels.
This lack of transparency contradicts the obligations under the Department of Planning’s Community Engagement Guidelines for State Significant Developments, which stress early, genuine, and continuous engagement with affected stakeholders.

Conclusion
This proposal represents poor design, inadequate heritage consideration, and excessive scale. It breaches key planning controls, fails to address the State-listed heritage context of the site, removes significant vegetation, and ignores the privacy and amenity of neighbouring residents.
Given the above and the strong community opposition, I urge the Department to refuse the application in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
David Apostolidis
1/32 Pine Street
Marrickville NSW 2204
________________________________________
References
• NSW State Heritage Register – Convent of the Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family:
https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=2030151
(Heritage listing text referenced above)

Please see attached letter.

To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to express my serious concerns about the proposed 4-story nursing home development in Marrickville. My wife's sister and her young family live in close proximity to the site, and I'm deeply worried about the potential negative impacts this development will have on their lives and the surrounding community.
Here's a breakdown of my main objections:
• Heritage and Safety: The proposed construction poses a significant risk to the heritage wall. Any damage or collapse could have disastrous consequences, not only for the wall itself but also for neighboring homes and the safety of residents. This is a major safety hazard that needs to be thoroughly investigated.
• Overdevelopment: The sheer size of the proposed building – far exceeding the current height limits – will drastically alter the character of Marrickville. This area is known for its low-rise residential feel, and this development flies in the face of that.
• Traffic and Parking: I'm already familiar with the parking situation on Marrickville Avenue. It's a nightmare. This development will only exacerbate the problem, making it even more difficult for people like myself to visit family.
• Loss of Privacy and Amenity: The proposed high-rise will loom over my sister-in-law's home, robbing them of their current privacy. The removal of trees, which I understand is part of the plan, will only make this worse.
• Environmental Impact: The shadows cast by the new building will block sunlight from reaching nearby homes and gardens. This will not only impact residents' enjoyment of their properties but also hinder the adoption of solar energy. The increased strain on existing infrastructure, including roads and utilities, is also a major concern. Marrickville is already prone to flooding, and reducing green space will only worsen this issue.
• Noise Pollution: A 24/7 nursing home will undoubtedly increase noise levels in what is currently a quiet, residential area. This will negatively impact the quality of life for my sister-in-law's family and other residents.
• Community Character: This development will erode the character and appeal of Marrickville, diminishing the green spaces that are so vital to the community. It also threatens to detract from the area's historical charm and unique streetscape.
• Precedent for Overdevelopment: Approving this project could pave the way for further high-density developments, fundamentally changing the residential nature of Marrickville. There's widespread community concern about this, and the lack of proper consultation suggests a disregard for local interests. The risk to established trees during construction is also a serious issue that demands proper protection measures.
• Alternative Site and Access Issues: There's a more suitable site for a nursing home on Marrickville Road, which is already zoned for this type of development. The proposed site has only one access point, raising serious concerns about emergency evacuations and response times. The potential for increased congestion and parking problems will also make it more stressful and difficult for families to visit their loved ones.
In short, this development raises a multitude of serious concerns. I urge the authorities to reject this proposal and consider the long-term interests of the community.

As a sister concerned about my sibling and her young family living in Marrickville, I find the proposed 4-storey nursing home deeply troubling. Here are my reasons:
There is a serious concern that construction vehicles or vibrations during the building process could damage the heritage wall. The wall’s potential collapse could have catastrophic consequences, including structural damage to homes and even risks to resident safety. Additionally, the proposed building significantly exceeds height limits and would alter the aesthetic of Marrickville, known for its low-rise homes.
The development is likely to increase traffic and create parking challenges. Visiting my sister could become difficult, as Marrickville Avenue already faces limited parking. A high-rise building would overlook my sister’s home, affecting the privacy her family currently enjoys. Tree removal would exacerbate this issue.
The new structure would likely cast shadows over nearby homes and gardens, limiting sunlight and hindering solar energy adoption. This development would put additional pressure on existing roads and utilities. Marrickville already struggles with flooding, which could worsen with reduced green space.
A nursing home operating 24/7 would increase noise levels in this quiet, residential area, affecting the quality of life for my sister and her family. The development would reduce green spaces, crucial for the community’s character and appeal to residents and visitors alike. Furthermore, the project could detract from Marrickville's historical charm and distinct streetscape.
Approving this project could lead to further high-density developments, altering the residential nature of Marrickville. Many residents share these concerns. The lack of effective community consultation suggests a disconnect from local interests and needs. There is a significant risk to established trees from the construction, necessitating comprehensive protection measures.
A suitable site for a nursing home is available on Marrickville Rd, which is already zoned for such development. The single access point to the proposed site raises concerns regarding emergency evacuations and response. Additionally, potential congestion and parking difficulties could make family visits more stressful and less frequent, impacting how I can support my sister and her family.
Given these concerns, I urge the authorities to reconsider approving this development, to preserve the character and livability of my sister’s neighborhood.

I am writing to formally express my concern regarding the proposed expansion at St.Marouns. My concern regards the ever changing information and the lack of information available to nearby residents regarding this development.
My concerns are as follows:
1. Communication - There is a lack of information available on what is being proposed here, my understanding is that nearby residents are yet to see any images about what the development will be.
1. Parking and Traffic Impact - This is an ongoing issue and the prospect of more vehicles needing parking as a result of the School expansion and now the Nursing Home doubling in size is concerning.
2. Heritage Wall Remediation - This needs to be sorted out, the wall is in urgent need of repair (or replacement), this is obvious in places by looking at it.
I oppose any development until there is meaningful communication regarding what the school is planning, including diagrams and an isometric representation of the development and any building works.

I am a resident of Marrickville Ave for the past 35 years. To date we have not received detailed communication what so ever in relation expansion/redevelopment of the Maronite Sister's Village. This has been far been very disappointing. We need to have clear communication going forward in regards to the noise and disruption and many of the issues that are being raised in this submission which will cause to the residents of Marrickville Ave.

Below are my key concerns and this needs to be addressed:

The widening of the gates.
This is our primary concern, the heritage wall runs along the whole length of our house which is approximately 20 metres long. From the wall to the wall our house is 1.5m. Widening of the gates will cause structural instability and we need our house is at high risk if the wall becomes unstable. There has been no consultation on how this will be addressed. There has been no transparency on measurements of how wide this gate will be. The gate is currently 7 metres from our bedroom window and our privacy is lost once this gate is widen. The current intercom placement is sits on our side, we hear visitors and employees entering and leaving from our bedroom. How much will this new gate encroach on our doorstep?

We need to know the exact details of what the widening of the gates entails, from design, measurements, materials used and placement of the intercom. We request that this is not to be placed on our side of the gate. What is the minimum distance for a delivery truck to fit inside? In the proposal, "Cutting trees to make way for additional car spaces" does this mean that the landscaping will change inside the property? Will this accommodate all delivery trucks and garbage trucks being able to turn their trucks around inside? Will the bins going to stay inside their property and not outside the gate?

We also understand that the wall is structurally unstable and is in a dangerous condition. Our house is right next to the heritage wall. There is a serious threat to life and to properties along this wall. We need to know what the plans are to remediate this wall. There has been no communication from council and the Maronite Sisters on how this would be addressed.

Placement of waste/Bins.
One of our other concerns is that the garbage bins from the nursing home are placed outside of the gates near our front door and is left outside the gates for days once emptied. There has been no communication from the council or the Maronite Sisters about addressing this issue. There are 4-5 bins at a time and the placement is 4 metres from our house. We cannot open the windows and front door for the fresh air. Different days for bins, Red bin, blue bins and bins with PPE gear disposal. We have raised this multiple times with management of the nursing home and council but have been ignored. We have 4 young kids from ages 3-8 and cannot open our front door and bedroom window for fresh air. This is quite sad and it’s a basic necessity- there is no respect for neighbours beyond the gate. When construction does take place, no construction or waste bins should be left outside of the gate, this is hazardous.

Street Congestion & Parking.
We are facing both foot and vehicle traffic into our street. Visitors, workers, delivery trucks and garbage trucks every day. Every second day, Garbage trucks will reverse into the street during the day. This is extremely dangerous. Given that garbage trucks have challenges with entering and leaving our street, heavy construction vehicles will face the same issues. They will not be able to complete a U turn and will be reversing out of the street. We have the elderly and children in our neighbour hood and its unsafe with this "practice" of reversing out of the street at such a distance.

There has now been incidences that our parked cars in front of our house has been damaged due to trucks and cars either from visitors and employees doing U turns into our driveway at the end of the road. We have attached photos of a 4 metre long truck which damaged our car as it reversed into our drive way in an attempt to do a U-turn. There should be restrictions placed on trucks coming into the street.

We face school peak hour and traffic congestion coming from Livingstone Road. The recent installation of the bike lanes on Livingstone Road, has impacted the entry to our street. The visibility of entering and leaving the street is low and entry to the street is narrow. Trucks cannot turn into the street unless the other vehicle gives way. There are times where the street is congested as traffic from the Greek Orthodox Church located on Holland Street/Livingstone Rd. Traffic from the surrounding schools; parents double park at the end of the street as a point of pick up for the kids from Casimir Catholic College.
As there are limited parking and how narrow the street is, timed parking should be considered (except for residents).

Storm water Issues.
When there is heavy rain, the storm water coming from the nursing home has caused flooding at the end of the street. This needs to be addressed as cars cannot exit and come into the street when this occurs which is quite often when there is heavy rain.

We object to this project due to the many issues that we have raised in this submission due to the fact that it has been brought up many times over the years which have gone unanswered by the Maronite Sisters and council, which shows that they have no respect for the residences of Marrickville Ave.

I understand the need to provide more aged care beds for NSW residents but I believe the proposed expansion of the Maronite Village AgedCare Facility is of a scale completely inappropriate for the site and will have a very adverse impact on the surrounding local community. I live in Marrickville Ave, which will be directly and severely impacted by the both the construction phase and going forward if the facility is expanded in such a major way. The number of beds proposed will generate a large increase in traffic volume and vehicles parking in Marrickville Avenue. Please do not approve the proposal without at the very least reducing the size and providing residents parking in Marrickville Avenue. 2 hour parking for non residents will go some way to ameliorate parking issues during and post construction.
The Maronite order have purchased a house, or houses, on Pine Avenue that they wished to demolish and provide another way of accessing the school and aged care facility. Why was this proposal abandoned? Without an access point in Pine Avenue, 100% of the construction traffic will enter through Marrickville Avenue. This just doesn’t seem fair or at all practical.
The proposed development is, as mentioned, too large for the site and four stories will dominate our streetscape. The plan does not contain adequate on site parking when visitors, staff and allied health staff and other visitors are considered. The development application argues that many of the staff travel by public transport but that has not been our experience and how can the transport preferences of all the extra employees that will be needed be predicted?
The tree canopy around the village provides habitat for a larger number of birds and other wildlife. Some of the trees are significant trees and really should not be allowed to be removed. In fact no trees really need to be removed except perhaps one to widen the entrance if the project was to be approved.
The proposal really needs to be assessed in terms of overall site density. So much construction has occurred on this site between the age care facility and the school and it really does have to stop somewhere.
The community consultation has been tokenistic at best and certainly exaggerated in the supporting documentation for the project . I would accept a minor expansion or redevelopment of the aged care facility and I imagine most reasonable residents would too, but the current proposal really is of a scale that will permanently adversely affect local residents but most notably permanently alter the amenity of Marrickville Avenue residents.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed expansion of St Maroun’s Village 2 nursing home, which seeks to increase capacity from 50 to 100 beds. As a resident of Challis Avenue, I believe this development will have a direct impact on our street. Unfortunately, I have not been included in any consultations regarding this project.

My concerns are as follows:
1. Preservation of the Heritage Wall – The heritage wall is at risk, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate a remediation plan & action to ensure its protection.
2. Loss of Mature Trees – The removal of four mature trees is deeply concerning, as it takes many years for trees to reach this size and contribute to the local environment.
3. Parking and Traffic Impact – The influx of builders and subcontractors parking in the surrounding area, particularly our street, will significantly affect parking availability and increase traffic congestion during construction of the four-story facility.

The development of the St Maroun's school is already a strain on our neighbourhood, adding another development for St Maroun's nursing home is simply too much.

I urge you to take these concerns into serious consideration when reviewing this development application. The potential impact on heritage, green space, and local infrastructure should be carefully assessed before approval.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Kind regards, Carolien Dieltjens

I own 3/33 Cameron Street, Dulwich Hill which is usually leased. My property abuts the heritage brick wall. This development should not proceed in its current form for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is too high for the site and will likely leave my property in constant shade, especially in winter. My house is only 4 metres from the fence. Secondly, the development application does not provide adequate assurance that there will not be an impact on the fence itself. Thirdly, the proposed removal of some of the trees would be disappointing given their age. Also, it is not clear that the remaining trees will not be adversely impacted in terms of their root systems.

I object to the submission. The parking allocated to this project is totally inadequate. At shift changeover times in particular there won't be anywhere near enough parking spaces. The assumption that many employees will catch the train is ridiculous. At the moment ( and probably for the next couple of years ) there is no train, only a bus stop. The employees will be mostly women and for the shifts ending when it is dark it won’t be safe for them to walk to the station or bus stop as the streets are not well lit. Therefore many more car parking spaces will be needed.
The heritage wall is another problem. It is dangerous and this hasn't been rectified in the past 30 years despite it being a condition of previously approved submissions.

Parking is very tight in the area already. This will make it worse in the surrounding streets.

I am not against the development fundamentally but very much believe that the development has not provided for local engagement por consultation.
1. I was made aware of this development through a neighbour. Having read the documentation provided especially in relation to community engagement I am very concerned about the veracity of the documents. At best the consultation was very selective. It is unclear how it could be considered extensive consultation when no one I know was consulted.
2. The Marionites projects have a history of not engaging with the community, not being part of the local community in general and not willing to address any issues brought forward from the community. Since they have bought the property their was a requimewnt to remediate the heritage wall but for over 30 years they have avoided their obligations. This wall is unsafe and children and familes play and live on both sides. Does someone have to be seriously injured or worse before anthing is done to enforce the Marionites obligations on this matter.
3. Local traffic is a disaster and the Marionites through school staffing, residential care staffing, school kids parking and parent drop off and pick up contribute significantly to this issue. Very little is done in this proposal to address these issues. The traffic survey does not reflect the reality of living adjacent to this property.
4. The height of the building will be a significant infrastructure and will affect the local aspect of surrounding streets given the existing classification of lowe rrise developments.

I am worried about St Maoruns and all their development
I had to get help to fill this paperwork
The new plans are on top of all the other plans they have
This development will cut away/pull down part of the heritage wall that is very importnat for the whole site.
They will cut trees down
They will make it 4 stories and it will be a very tall building
Already the traffic in my street and all teh other streets is very busy
We need help to make this nursing home smaller development for this site - so it fits in and doesn't damage tress, neighbours and the wall.
Please listen to us
Thank you

I have lived at this address for over 30 years

The Carmelite Monastery site (now owned and operated by various businesses of St Marouns) is a site of historical significance.

For years St Marouns various business endeavours (aged care, early chidlhood centre, primary school, high school) has sought to expand their business activities on what is essentially a land locked site.

This application represents a significant over development of the site.

My concerns relate to the loss of trees on the site, the impact of the development on local traffic and congestion (on top of the already unsafe traffic conditions) and most importantly the demolition of part of the heritage wall that is the defining piece for that site.

This is an applicant who blatantly misrepresents their own interests and does not adhere to laws and regulations. For example, please see attached photo that shows a doorway that has been made by the Maronites from their Pine street owned house directly into the site. This was done to enable easy access for some of the nuns and the staff at St Marouns school and nursing home. The heritage wall was cut into and impacted to suit their needs.

Please consider my objection of this development and ensure St Marouns works with the community to deliver a good outcome for locals as well as their own business targets.