Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

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 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.

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.

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.