Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

I object to the proposed development at 73 Mary Street, St Peter’s for many reasons as a resident of St Peter’s

It fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Marrickville DCP. There are shortfalls in both residential and commercial parking, with no visitor spaces provided. As a resident I experience the high volume of traffic because of the building site and the frustrations of parking at my house, which will be exacerbated with the proposed development. Both Edith and Roberts Street do not have adequate infrastructure to accomodate the increased road demand.

The proposal only includes 16 additional ‘affordable’ housing options. This will not have an effective way to mitigate the housing crisis. As a University student living on a low income I object to this.

High rise buildings of the new proposed height do not fit within the suburban character of the Inner West area and would negatively impact the area. St Peter’s has a unique character that must be upheld as a pinnacle of Inner West culture.

Additional shade studies must be completed to assess the impact on surrounding houses. As well as traffic and flood modelling. The existing drainage and traffic conditions of the site are inadequate and will not be able to cope with the increased strain.

The proposal should be refused or amended to address these issues.

This proposal seeks to add to what is already a large-scale development. The area is already high density, and this extension will only diminish the quality of the existing project. At its core, this is a profit-driven move with little consideration for its impact on the approved development or the surrounding neighbourhood. The developer stands to gain financially, while leaving the community and local council to deal with the consequences.

The proposal does not meet the minimum parking requirements outlined in the Marrickville DCP for either residential or commercial use. No visitor parking spaces are included.
Edith Street and Roberts Street are unable to handle further traffic. These roads are already narrow, parking is scarce, and the main development has not yet been completed.
The proposal does not adequately address the need for more affordable housing options.
The proposed increase in building height is out of character with the area. It risks becoming an eyesore and will significantly impact neighbouring dwellings, with some potentially losing access to sunlight. Further studies are needed into this issue, along with other infrastructure concerns.

We are residents of St Peters since late 2014 and lived in Mary St near to Precinct 75 for 2014-2020. We continue to use the area (Sample and Willie’s) as well as rely on the surrounding streets for local access.

Whilst I support the general intent of this project and agree that this site can support a reasonable density, I object strongly to the scale of development and its consistency with and impact on the existing local traffic system and convenience of existing residents nearby. Traffic has always been a key issue for this site. I objected to the previous concept proposal some years back on several grounds, including traffic. The new proposal to add significant additional residential development with no material increase in off street parking and no visitor parking does not address previous concerns, nor provide sufficient justification for the additional development. Simply, the additional traffic generation in this area will add a level of congestion to the local streets especially in peak periods which is unfair on existing residents, may impact urgent access (eg emergency services) and not in keeping with the aspirations for our community and its character. Street parking which is already in short supply will come under further pressure and require parking some distance from residences with flow on effects felt many streets away.

I note I don’t believe my own street and convenience will be impacted, but feel those living very close in Mary Street, Edith Street and connecting streets are being asked to bear an unfair burden for this project.

I make this submission as a person who regularly visits this area to see family.

This additional proposal extends what is already an extensive development. It is already in a high density area and will detract from the existing development. It is purely and simply a greedy grab for profit with no regard to how it will affect the existing proposal or the areas around it. The developer extends its profits and leave the mess it leaves behind for the community and local council to manage.

I should also highlight as others have raised:

1. It fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Marrickville DCP for both residential and commercial parking. There are no visitor spaces provided.

2. Edith St and Roberts St will not cope with the extra traffic. The roads are already narrow and parking spaces are difficult to find and the substantive development is still to be completed.

3. The proposal requires more affordable housing options.

4. Increasing the height of the proposal is not within keeping of the character of the area. It will become an eye sore and directly impact the dwellings around it. Some may rarely see the sun. Further studies are required on this issue and other infrastructure related matters

The proposal should be refused by council.

I am writing on behalf of the local residents to formally object to the proposed addition of 200 + further residential units to the development currently under construction across the road from our homes.

While we understand the need for housing growth in our community, the scale and design of this amendment raise significant concerns that directly impact livability, infrastructure, and safety in our neighbourhood.

1. Severe Parking Shortages
• The current development of over 100 + units has already placed enormous pressure on street parking.
• The proposed 200 + additional units have been submitted with zero allocated parking spaces. This is not realistic or sustainable.
• The surrounding streets are already congested, leaving residents, visitors, and service vehicles with nowhere safe or legal to park.
• Lack of onsite parking will inevitably spill over into neighbouring streets, worsening tensions, reducing accessibility, and creating safety risks.

2. Traffic and Safety Impacts
• With several hundred new residents, traffic congestion in and out of the precinct will rise significantly.
• This poses safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and children in the area, as well as slowing emergency services access.
• The infrastructure and roadways around the site are not designed to absorb this volume of new traffic.

3. Strain on Local Infrastructure
• The proposed density will put further strain on public transport, schools, medical facilities, and community amenities that are already operating at capacity.
• Without adequate planning for infrastructure improvements, residents—both existing and new—will face declining quality of services.

4. Community Character and Livability
• Adding 200 units without addressing parking or infrastructure needs undermines the liveability of the neighbourhood.
• This scale of high-density development is inconsistent with the established character of the area and risks creating long-term social and environmental challenges.

⸻

In summary, we strongly oppose the proposed addition of 200 units without allocated parking or adequate planning for traffic and infrastructure. We request that Council reject this amendment or, at minimum, require significant redesign to include onsite parking and a plan to manage increased density responsibly.

We appreciate your consideration and trust that Council will prioritise sustainable, balanced development that serves both current residents and future growth.

I object to the proposed development at 73 Mary Street, St Peter’s.

It fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Marrickville DCP. There are shortfalls in both residential and commercial parking, with no visitor spaces provided. Both Edith and Roberts Street do not have adequate infrastructure to accomodate the increased road demand.

The proposal only includes 16 additional ‘affordable’ housing options. This will not have an effective way to mitigate the housing crisis, and is a tokenistic attempt to accomodate for our government area’s needs for inclusive housing options.

High rise buildings of the new proposed height do not fit within the suburban character of the Inner West area and would negatively impact the area.

Additional shade studies must be completed to assess the impact on surrounding houses.It is evident from the continuing progress of the build that there will be significant detriment to the surrounding houses, and this does not seem to have been sufficiently assessed or understood, alongside well as traffic and flood modelling. The drainage and traffic conditions of the site are inadequate, they are not sufficient and will not be able to cope with the increased strain.

The proposal should be refused or amended to address these issues.

Please find complete objection attached, summary provided below

I write to formally object to the proposed modification of DA/2021/0800 (now SSD-82639959), which seeks to increase the approved development from 205 to 471 dwellings - approximately 850 residents - on a constrained site in St Peters.
The modification is being advanced under the State Significant Development (SSD) framework, granting streamlined approval and bypassing local council oversight. While this pathway is intended to accelerate delivery of housing that addresses NSW’s housing crisis, the proposal fails to do so.
The additional 267 dwellings are overwhelmingly skewed towards studios:
• Studios: 84%
• 1-bed: 9%
• 2-bed: 7%
• 3-bed: 0%
This means almost all new apartments are tiny studios, while not a single three-bedroom unit has been added. By contrast, studios represent only around 2% of the broader NSW housing stock of units. This imbalance directly contradicts the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which requires developments to deliver a diverse apartment mix and sets a minimum size of 35 m² for studios.
Neighbouring Strathfield Council has already recognised this problem and proposed requiring 20% of apartments in new developments to be three-bedroom units. St Peters, like Strathfield, is an established inner-west suburb with similar demographics, infrastructure constraints, and family demand. The failure to provide meaningful three-bedroom stock here is therefore especially unjustified.
The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with:
• Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
• The Apartment Design Guide (ADG)
• The Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP)
• Ministerial Direction 1.1 – Business and Industrial Zones

Please find complete objection attached, summary provided below

I write to formally object to the proposed modification of DA/2021/0800 (now SSD-82639959), which seeks to increase the approved development from 205 to 471 dwellings - approximately 850 residents - on a constrained site in St Peters.
The modification is being advanced under the State Significant Development (SSD) framework, granting streamlined approval and bypassing local council oversight. While this pathway is intended to accelerate delivery of housing that addresses NSW’s housing crisis, the proposal fails to do so.
The additional 267 dwellings are overwhelmingly skewed towards studios:
• Studios: 84%
• 1-bed: 9%
• 2-bed: 7%
• 3-bed: 0%
This means almost all new apartments are tiny studios, while not a single three-bedroom unit has been added. By contrast, studios represent only around 2% of the broader NSW housing stock of units. This imbalance directly contradicts the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which requires developments to deliver a diverse apartment mix and sets a minimum size of 35 m² for studios.
Neighbouring Strathfield Council has already recognised this problem and proposed requiring 20% of apartments in new developments to be three-bedroom units. St Peters, like Strathfield, is an established inner-west suburb with similar demographics, infrastructure constraints, and family demand. The failure to provide meaningful three-bedroom stock here is therefore especially unjustified.
The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with:
• Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
• The Apartment Design Guide (ADG)
• The Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP)
• Ministerial Direction 1.1 – Business and Industrial Zones

I object to the proposed development at 73 Mary Street, St Peters.

It fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Marrickville DCP. It has a shortfall of 276 commercial and 227 residential spaces, with NO visitor parking proposed. This will force hundreds of vehicles onto surrounding streets, worsening the already severe parking situation for existing residents of the area who who are part of the residential parking scheme and have no off street parking. This will create a parking crisis! The proposal should be refused or amended to provide significantly more parking, double what is being planned.

In addition the majority of proposed apartments, being studios will not ease the housing crisis, will result in high resident turnover and do not comply with the objectives of build to rent developments.

Existing road infrastructure and stability in the surrounding streets is already inadequate. Roads are narrow and are not safe for large volume or two way traffic. The additional residents this development would bring, around 850, will severely add to current congestion and will risk pedestrian safety and limit access for emergency vehicles.

The increase in levels to 10 storeys exceeds to original rezoning intent Council LEPs and previous council resolutions to limit heights for amenity and character preservation. The excessive heights are incompatible with our predominantly single-storey low density streetscape.

As a resident of Edith st St Peters, I am concerned about the carparking provision allowed. I understand the spaces have been calculated using the DCP requirements for commercial and calculated using S74 (2) of the Housing SEPP for build-to-rent for residential. The total allocated 293 spaces have been therefore derived using guidelines which might not necessarily reflect what the actual number of additional vehicles will be once the project is complete. Theory versus Actual does not always align.

Edith st is already reasonably difficult to find parking after 4pm during weekdays and on weekends it is even more difficult. I therefore propose an increase in car spaces allocated - please advise if this can / will be considered.

Also, in the event the actual number of cars exceeds the spaces allocated, will the Precinct 75 residents have the privilege of obtaining parking permits even though car space requirements were underestimated? In this scenario are you expecting residents to park in another street?

Lastly, I'm no expert in this area, therefore if the allocated car spaces is deemed sufficient by Precinct 75 can someone explain in detail why this is the case and provide assurance there will not be more cars than spaces available.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission.

I object to the proposed development at 73 Mary Street, St Peter’s.

It fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Marrickville DCP. There are shortfalls in both residential and commercial parking, with no visitor spaces provided. Both Edith and Roberts Street do not have adequate infrastructure to accomodate the increased road demand.

The proposal only includes 16 additional ‘affordable’ housing options. This will not have an effective way to mitigate the housing crisis.

High rise buildings of the new proposed height do not fit within the suburban character of the Inner West area and would negatively impact the area.

Additional shade studies must be completed to assess the impact on surrounding houses. As well as traffic and flood modelling. The existing drainage and traffic conditions of the site are inadequate and will not be able to cope with the increased strain.

The proposal should be refused or amended to address these issues.

With the proposed updates to the project, I am worried about the following things:
1) Retaining wall behind my property
2) Privacy of my backyard if a 10 foot apartment building looming above it and windows looking into it
3) Blocking light
4) Parking and traffic congestion

The original proposal was for the structure behind my property to remain as is and that was acceptable

I write to formally object to the proposed modification of DA/2021/0800 (now SSD-82639959), which seeks to increase the approved development from 205 to 471 dwellings—accommodating approximately 850 residents—on a constrained site within St Peters.
St Peters is a small suburb with approximately 3,600 residents, according to the 2021 census. While it spans around 1.8 square kilometres, nearly half of this area is non-residential. The proposed increase would represent a 23% rise in the local population, concentrated within a limited residential footprint. This level of intensification is disproportionate and places extraordinary pressure on local infrastructure, services, and community amenity.
Furthermore the proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (S4.15), the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), and the Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP).
While I acknowledge the role of Precinct 75 in contributing to Inner West Council’s (IWC) housing targets under the National Housing Accord, the proposed intensification raises significant concerns regarding traffic, infrastructure, amenity, and environmental impacts. These concerns are outlined in the attached, along with recommended mitigation measures.

1. No relief for housing crisis
Despite 267 new apartments being added to the development, 84% of these are a tiny 30m square studio apartment (below the NSW minimum standard). This will fail to fulfil the original proposed goal of a thriving Build-to-Rent community with workspaces and community and creative outlets - in fact it creates the risk of a high turnover, transient resident population in a residential area with no community services in close vicinity.
2. Road and infrastructure burden
Despite the massive Westconnex development, council has made no attempts to mitigate the massive amount of traffic on Mary St - a narrow, one-way rat run. Other surrounding streets are too narrow for safe two-way traffic. An additional 850 residents will result in severe congestion. Council could at least consider two-way access between Precinct 75 entrance/exit and Unwins Bridge Road, and close all traffic from Cana Road onto Mary Street - traffic can turn left or right onto Princes Highway and use either Campbell St or Railway Terrace to travel west (or use Westconnex!)
3. Lack of parking provision
The proposal has a massive shortfall of commercial and residential parking with no visitor parking proposed. How will Council address the parking needs of current residents ? What consideration has been made?
4. Overbearing building heights
The significant community consultation, and resulting adaptations, in the original approval, demonstrated a level of compromise and good will by both the community and developer. The new owners have not conducted any meaningful consultation on issues such a the number of storeys, shadowing or boundaries. Increasing the number to 10 storeys exceeds the original rezoning intent Council LEPs and previous resolutions to limit heights for amenity and character preservation. ,
Please carefully consider these objections - whilst recognising the need for additional housing in the inner city, including building heights up to 8 storeys, this proposal will overload the local commuity and infrastrucutre.

I write to formally object to the proposed modification of DA/2021/0800 (now SSD-82639959), which seeks to increase the approved development from 205 to 471 dwellings—accommodating approximately 850 residents—on a constrained site within St Peters.
St Peters is a small suburb with approximately 3,600 residents, according to the 2021 census. While it spans around 1.8 square kilometres, nearly half of this area is non-residential. The proposed increase would represent a 23% rise in the local population, concentrated within a limited residential footprint. This level of intensification is disproportionate and places extraordinary pressure on local infrastructure, services, and community amenity.
Furthermore the proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (S4.15), the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), and the Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP).
While I acknowledge the role of Precinct 75 in contributing to Inner West Council’s (IWC) housing targets under the National Housing Accord, the proposed intensification raises significant concerns regarding traffic, infrastructure, amenity, and environmental impacts.
• The NSW Apartment Design Guide specifies 35 m² as the minimum acceptable size for a studio (open-plan) apartment. This guideline exists to ensure a basic standard of liveability (space for bed, small kitchen, bathroom, etc., within one open room). A 30 m² unit is ~14% smaller than the minimum standard. The fact that NSW explicitly set 35 m² as the floor for studios suggests that anything below that is considered exceptionally small and potentially unsuitable for normal housing needs;

• The proposal itself acknowledges “this apartment mix represents a higher amount of studio apartments and a lesser amount of larger 3-bedroom apartments when compared to the requirements of section 4K – Apartment Mix of the ADG and what would typically be found in a regular build-to-sell development”;

It will lead to strain on the local parking, traffic jams. It doesn't go with how St Peters is as a suburb. We don't want high rise it will ruin the look and feel of the suburb.
also we need livable, affordable housing not micro units - they sound depressing! “City Starter/Stayer” studio apartments will not be liveable long-term, resulting in a high turnover of residents.

The surrounding area predominantly comprises single-storey Californian-style residences, characterized by a low-density, cohesive streetscape. The proposed building heights (with upto 6, 9 and 10 storeys) are incompatible with the nearby residential area. Even if the heights are transitioned to limit the impact on neighbours, it will still appear incongruous or out of scale with the surrounding areas and given that it does not have a frontage to a major road, it would not be in keeping overall.

While I support the delivery of new housing, uplift value must be measured not only in dwelling numbers but in the quality, sustainability, and social cohesion of the community created. The proposed modification prioritises quantity over liveability, and risks undermining both local amenity and broader housing objectives.
I respectfully request that the Panel refuse the proposed modification or require a substantial reduction in scale with enforceable mitigation measures as I've briefly stated above. thank you

I object to the proposed modification of SSD-82639959 for 73 Mary Street, St Peters.
The reasons are as follows:
Road and infrastructure burden
Existing road infrastructure is already inadequate. Streets surrounding Precinct 75 are too narrow for safe two-way traffic. An additional 850 residents will result in severe congestion, compromising emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety.
Parking and traffic flow issues
The new proposal has a shortfall of 276 commercial and 227 residential parking spaces compared to the Council DCP, with NO visitor parking proposed. This will force hundreds onto local streets – creating a parking crisis. Parking for local residents is already very difficult on Edith, Mary, Roberts and Silver Streets and with this over development residents and visitors will be left to park on surrounding streets, worsening congestion and disadvantaging those without off-street parking. The proposal should be refused or amended to address these issues.
Overbearing building heights
An increase in the number of levels to 10 storeys, exceeding the original rezoning intent Council LEPs and previous council resolutions to limit heights for amenity and character preservation. These excessive heights are incompatible with our predominantly single-storey, low density streetscape. This development is way too large for this site. If the applicant were to reduce the height to a maximum of 4 storeys this would be more acceptable to the local community.

I want to make it clear that I’m not opposed to development that is environmentally responsible and that enhances local amenities and complements the community. I don’t believe building over 400 units plus commercial premises in this area achieves that at all and is a detriment to the local community. The development must be scaled back and include stronger measures to support a stable and sustainable community and complement the current street look and feel.

I object to the proposed modification of SSD-82639959 for 73 Mary Street, St Peters.
The reasons are as follows:
Road and infrastructure burden
Existing road infrastructure is already inadequate. Streets surrounding Precinct 75 are too narrow for safe two-way traffic. And additional 850 residents will result in severe congestion, compromising emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety.
Parking and traffic flow issues
The new proposal has a shortfall of 276 commercial and 227 residential parking spaces compared to the Council DCP, with NO visitor parking proposed. This will force hundreds of cars onto local streets – creating a parking crisis. We constantly get construction vehicles, cement trucks and utes park across our driveway blocking our access.
Overbearing building heights
An increase in the number of levels to 10 storeys, exceeding the original rezoning intent Council LEPs and previous council resolutions to limit heights for amenity and character preservation. These excessive heights are incompatible with our predominantly single-storey, low density streetscape on Edith Street. This development is much too large for this site and area. If the applicant were to reduce the height to a maximum of four storeys, this would be more acceptable to the local community.

We are not opposed to development that is environmentally responsible and that enhances local amenities and complements the community. I don’t believe building over 400 units plus commercial premises in this area achieves that at all and is a detriment to the local community. The development must be scaled back and include stronger measures to support a stable and sustainable community.

There is not enough infrastructure to support increasing the number of units from the original plan.

The amount of affordable housing is far too low. For a project that is meant to boost housing affordability (rent to build), affordable housing should make up at least 5%.
There are too many <35m2 apartments - there should be a higher mix of 3 bed apartments to support diversity in groups living in the complex.

I object to the proposed development at 73 Mary Street, St Peters, as it fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Marrickville DCP. There are significant shortfalls in both residential and commercial parking, with no visitor spaces provided. This will force residents and visitors to park on surrounding streets, worsening congestion and disadvantaging those without off-street parking. The proposal should be refused or amended to address these issues.