Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

We need more housing across Sydney, and this includes in my LGA, the Inner West. Dwelling prices are too high here because we don’t build enough of them, and here we have opportunity to build many of them. These homes will be walking distance from the Sydenham metro, providing access to the rest of Sydney and amazing local amenity. Finally, I love that this will be a mixed used development since the presence of residents will lower the risk for prospective businesses and boost the local economy.

This is an important proposal that must be approved. The housing crisis is so severe and it demands an extraordinary response. The old ways of stopping housing is insanity in a crisis as bad of this. Enough is enough. We must build houses to meet the needs of the population.

We need more housing in the inner west. It’s difficult to find big sites, it’s difficult to get development to stack up. Current height limits prevent meaningful further densification in most places, and heritage covers 43% of Inner West Council.

The primary reason the Inner West is becoming more expensive, pricing out the low-income segment whose contributions made it great, is because we don’t build enough housing.

I oppose to building any more apartments or new residences without having enough parking included in the project. The proposed building does not have adequate parking for new residents, visitors or customers of the proposed retail space. Street parking is already an issue around the streets of the proposed new apartment block. This building cannot be built without proper in facility parking addressed.
Part of Silver Street in front of Precinct 75 is a school zone. It cannot be safe to have all this extra traffic in the area. Traffic during drop off and pick up times will create roadblocks.
This has been terribly planned and I have no idea how the council can let this happen aside from only caring about being paid. They are not thinking about local residents at all.

I object to the proposed modification of SSD-82639959 for 73 Mary Street, St Peters. The existing road infrastructure is inadequate for the increased density proposed. The Traffic Impact Assessment shows that key intersections will be over capacity by 2037, and Edith Street is too narrow for safe two-way traffic. This will lead to congestion, compromised emergency access, and pedestrian safety risks. The proposal must be refused or significantly reduced in scale to protect our neighbourhood.

I write as a resident located just two streets away from the proposed Precinct 75 site in St Peters. I oppose the scale of proposed modifications—including the significant increase in dwellings (from 206 to 471) and building heights (from max 29 m to potentially 51 m)—because of the following concerns:

1. Overdevelopment beyond Planning Policy Standards

The Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy, under Housing SEPP 2021, caps building height at 22 m (max 6 storeys) for areas close to town centres. The proposed increase to up to 51 m far exceeds this standard, undermining the intent of a gradual mid-rise precinct.
The intended FSR of 2.2:1 may align with policy—but only up to 22 m. Exceeding height limits purely for floor area undermines design quality and local amenity.

2. Adverse Impact on Local Character and Streetscape

A sudden jump from 7-storey buildings to heights of 15+ storeys will create an abrupt and incompatible transition, overwhelming the existing one- to two-storey residential context. The Apartment Design Guide recommends stepping down heights at boundaries to protect neighbouring amenity—a principle clearly violated here.

3. Insufficient Parking and Infrastructure Planning

There is no clear provision for additional parking, yet adding over 200 units will inevitably worsen parking pressure on surrounding streets. NSW design guidance under SEPP 65 requires contextually appropriate parking solutions.
Without dedicated parking or transport infrastructure upgrades, the proposal significantly risks exacerbating congestion, illegal parking, and safety hazards.

4. Local Zoning and Transition Not Respected

While the site is zoned B4 Mixed Use and allows up to 29 m height under the 2020 rezoning, these modifications exceed that envelope without credible justification. Such abrupt increases undermine community trust and the integrity of zoning provisions.

Conclusion & Request
I urge the Planning Panel to reject or significantly modify the proposed changes: reduce the height to align with standards (max 22 m), ensure a better transition in scale, include adequate parking solutions, and thoroughly assess the cumulative impacts on local infrastructure and liveability.

Thank you for considering my submission. I value responsible, well-planned growth—but this proposal in its current scope feels excessive and detrimental to surrounding residents.

References:
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/low-and-mid-rise-housing-policy/summary-of-key-provisions
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/apartment-design-guide-part-2-developing-the-controls.pdf
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/car-parking-requirements-in-sepp-65.pdf
https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/s456-modification-precinct-75

We support the initial precinct development (what was promised), but we don’t support the proposed changes.
It’s an iconic inner west site, and going 10 stories high will be completely out of sync (eye thorn) to the whole neighbourhood.
Instead, just build multiple 6-7 story complexes (i.e. princes highway), but don’t go from 1 to 100 with the first complex.

I object to this project, and in particular the proposed changes to the nature and scale. The original plan (as approved), was barely acceptable; the new proposal is completely unsustainable.

There have already been numerous rounds of submissions in respect of the Precinct 75 development and, having previously seen some positive changes in terms of its scope including in particular, building height, it now feels like we are starting from scratch. It is frankly exhausting to be here again and having to repeat the same arguments, especially after construction has already commenced.

From the beginning I have been in support of some development at the Precinct, so long as it was proportionate and complementary to the surrounding area. New housing is necessary especially in the Inner West, and I am supportive of additional services for the community including restaurants, shops and recreational facilities and green spaces. However, the current proposal significantly increases the number of apartments (more than doubling from 200 to 471!) and GFA while reducing the amount of commercial and community space. This completely changes the nature of what had been promised to the community, and removes many of the facilities that were to be of benefit to locals.

While these changes are made under the guise of solving the housing crisis, it is apparent it is little more than a money grab; only a small number of apartments will be affordable housing, and looking at the rents charged at the developer's other projects - even for tiny studio apartments - it is clear that they will be out of reach for many Sydney-siders in need of housing. (And the fact that there are so few 3-bed apartments means it will be of little assistance to families looking for housing in the area.) Claims of providing diversity in housing are dubious at best; the proposal appears to be an attempt to cram as many apartments into the relatively small Precinct site as possible.

The changes propose a development that is bigger in scale than ever, and completely disproportionate to everything in the surrounding neighbourhood. Having previously had the height of Building C (the tallest building) reduced to 7 stories, it is now proposed to increase to 9 stories. This is significantly taller than anything in the nearby area, and will have a substantial impact on existing residents in terms of light, views and privacy. There is no justification or legitimate reason for Building C to be higher than what was initially approved, following extensive consultation with stakeholders and submissions from the community.

My other core concern about the new proposal is around parking and the traffic impacts. Despite the huge increase in apartments and therefore resident numbers, the carpark will not increase in size (I understand this is not possible due to the construction completed to date). For 471 apartments there will be only 193 parking spaces. While it is claimed that this within the guidelines for this type of studio-style development it is inconceivable that this will not have severe impacts on local residents.

That allowed ratio of 0.2 spaces per apartment might be suitable in other contexts, but here street parking is already extremely limited such that one extra car on the street (be it a Precinct resident without a dedicated space, or a visitor to any one of the 471 apartments) will mean a local resident is unable to park near their house. This is not a development on a main road, or near open spaces. The surrounding streets are narrow and many have parking on one side only. The majority of houses do not have off-street parking - there are old houses without garages and newer builds somehow approved by council without off-street parking despite having 3, 4 or even 5 bedrooms. It is already a battle to find a park most days and certainly if you are not home by 5 or 6pm it is very unlikely that you will be able to park near your house overnight. It is difficult to fathom the impact an additional 471 residences will have on this situation and how anyone can feasibly suggest that 193 resident car spaces (and less than 300 spaces in total) is anywhere near sufficient for a project of this scale.

It is unrealistic that only 1 in every 5 apartments will have a car (and only 1 at that), and require parking. While nearby public transport is adequate, this is not a development that is situated right next to a train or metro station. Even then, the services that go from the nearby stations all go to the CBD so anyone needing to commute elsewhere (or who works in different locations such as a tradesperson, or otherwise requires a car during their work day), will likely need to drive and therefore own a car. A bus stop is close, but services are already packed in peak hour, and the 422 city bus has had its services reduced (in numbers, but also in terms of the route) in recent years. Such a large number of apartments will also mean frequent visitors who will most likely arrive by car as well (especially given the transport limitations noted).

A development in this location cannot be increased in scope - especially to the proposed level - without any increase in the amount of car parking given the extremely limited availability of street parking in the surrounding streets. It appears that being unable to now increase the size of the carpark the developer proposes the maximum number of apartments allowed under the 0.2 ratio, but for the reasons mentioned this is just not suitable at the Precinct.

The proposed changes and in particular the steep increase in resident numbers will also have a severe impact on local traffic. The streets surrounding the Precinct are all narrow, local streets; many barely cope with the traffic as it is. Mary Street in particular is extremely busy, being a main thoroughfare from the highway and Canal Road to Unwins Bridge Road. With more and more people moving in and out of the Precinct, particularly in peak hour, it is apparent there will be a significant increase in traffic with which the surrounding streets just will not cope. Not to mention services such as waste removal requiring access to the site via streets that cannot handle large trucks. A significant concern is the intersection of Edith Street and Unwins Bridge Road where there is no traffic light; cars turning right in either direction will cause delays especially in busy periods. The entrance and exit to the development on Mary Street will also cause a bottleneck especially as it is so close to the traffic lights at Unwins Bridge Road.

Finally, I query the impact such a large development - and subsequent increase in population - will have on local amenities and services, including the local public school.

Thank you for considering my submissions.

I object to the proposed modification of SSD-82639959 for 73 Mary Street, St Peters. The existing road infrastructure is inadequate for the increased density proposed. The Traffic Impact Assessment shows that key intersections will be over capacity by 2037, and Edith Street is too narrow for safe two-way traffic. This will lead to congestion, compromised emergency access, and pedestrian safety risks. The proposal must be refused or significantly reduced in scale to protect our neighbourhood.

I object to the proposed modification of SSD-82639959 for 73 Mary Street, St Peters. The existing road infrastructure is inadequate for the increased density proposed. The Traffic Impact Assessment shows that key intersections will be over capacity by 2037, and Edith Street is too narrow for safe two-way traffic. This will lead to congestion, compromised emergency access, and pedestrian safety risks. The proposal must be refused or significantly reduced in scale to protect our neighbourhood.

I object to the proposed modification of SSD-82639959 for 73 Mary Street, St Peters. The existing road infrastructure is inadequate for the increased density proposed. The Traffic Impact Assessment shows that key intersections will be over capacity by 2037, and Edith Street is too narrow for safe two-way traffic. This will lead to congestion, compromised emergency access, and pedestrian safety risks. The proposal must be refused or significantly reduced in scale to protect our neighbourhood

The originally approved development plan provided for 206 residential units and 293 parking spaces, of which 193 were allocated for residents. Even under this arrangement, our community has already experienced significant parking pressures in the surrounding area.

The current proposal seeks to increase the number of residential units to 471 — a 128% increase — without any corresponding increase in parking provision. This raises serious concerns about where the additional residents’ vehicles will be accommodated and the inevitable overflow onto surrounding streets.

Furthermore, no clear assessment has been provided regarding how this substantial intensification of use will affect traffic flow, congestion, and overall road safety within our neighbourhood.

We strongly object to this proposal in its current form and urge that any amendment must:
    •    Include an appropriate increase in on-site parking provisions, and
    •    Provide a comprehensive traffic impact study to demonstrate how the development will manage vehicle access, congestion, and pedestrian safety.

Until these critical issues are addressed, this proposal is neither practical nor sustainable for our community.

Objection to Proposed Modification of SSD-82639959 (73 Mary Street, St Peters)

I strongly object to the proposed modification to increase the height and density of this development.

The proposal is excessive in scale, prioritises developer profit over community benefit, and will cause lasting harm to the neighbourhood.

Traffic, Parking, and Access:
• The number of units will increase from 206 to 471, yet only 193 residential parking spaces are provided. This is egregiously inadequate for 471 apartments (267 studios, 86 one-bedroom, 109 two-bedroom, 9 three-bedroom).
• While the 2021 SEPP reduced the minimum parking requirement from 0.5 to 0.2 spaces per dwelling, these figures are far out of step with average car ownership rates in Sydney. Residents will inevitably spill into already overcrowded on-street parking.
• Surrounding streets are narrow, many homes lack driveways, and access relies on a one-way street already congested at peak hours. This proposal will significantly worsen traffic, congestion, and safety risks.

Infrastructure and Safety:
• The Traffic Impact Assessment acknowledges that key intersections will be over capacity by 2037.
• Edith Street remains too narrow for safe two-way traffic. Increased density will compromise both emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety.

Overshadowing and Open Space:
• The proposal exceeds the maximum permitted building heights under the Marrickville Development Control Plan.
• The increased height will further overshadow neighbouring R2-zoned, single-storey homes to the south, south-east, and south-west, severely impacting residential amenity.
• Council has already raised concerns that the Lawn will be in shade for the majority of the day; the proposed increase in height will only worsen this, leaving residents and the community with a diminished public open space.

Housing Mix and Community Benefit:
• The majority of the additional dwellings are small studio apartments. This will not meaningfully address Sydney’s housing needs, which require a diversity of housing, including family-friendly options.
• The proposal is not designed to serve the local community but to maximise yield for the developer.

Conclusion:
This modification represents overdevelopment. It breaches planning controls, creates serious traffic and parking shortfalls, overshadows both homes and public open space, and provides a poor mix of housing that fails to meet community needs.

I urge Council to refuse this application or require a substantial reduction in scale.

I'm concerned about the more than doubling of proposed dwellings most of which are small studios. There will be high resident turnover and this won't address the housing crisis or meet councils objectives to build- to -rent developments. An additional 850 residents will result in severe congestion in what is already a narrow street. There are only planned 227 residential parking spaces and so will lead to a parking crisis! Also the building heights exceeds the original council intent. This is incompatible with mostly single level low density street scape

Dear Major Projects,
As a St. Peters resident very near Precint 75, I strenuously object to the modifications proposed to Precinct 75.
I supported the original plan of 205 dwellings as it brings vibrancy to our area.
But adding 471 units is just outrageous. The suburb infrastructure just cannot handle the extra strain of that many people. There is no bus service and a fair walk to either Sydenham or St Peters stations. The streets are narrow suburban environments with families and kids - it’s just not suitable.
There are just not enough car spaces for residents now - we often have to park 2-3 streets away.
The character of this area, with workers cottages, small housing and a lively migrant background will be swamped with 10 storey units in mostly single level cottages. It just doesn’t fit.
And the cynical ply of creating 30m2 apartments is totally unsuited to this lovely private residential area with local families and a local school supported by us all.
Our lovely low density environment is not like Dee Why or Mascot or anywhere like the areas blighted by monstrous high rise killing the original feel.
We chose this suburb because it was filled with lovely homes, friendly families and emerging amenities. We didn’t choose it to live by itinerant home dwellings which are out of character and, if we’re open, present an unacceptable risk to the family charter of this area.
In summary; we are stressed for parking, Unwins Bridge Road cannot tolerate extra traffic, small side streets are for family use and are already crowded, slow and effectively one way, with the narrowness. Tall units are a blight. They don’t fit in St Peters.
It’s a cynical push by developers to get more money and abuse the NSW planning departments.
Please reconsider. Very happy for the original project - totally against ruining another suburb of Sydney through greed and devious development tactics.

I object to the proposed modification of SSD-82639959 for 73 Mary Street, St Peters.
The existing road infrastructure is inadequate for the increased density proposed. The Traffic Impact Assessment shows that key intersections will be over capacity by 2037, and Edith Street is too narrow for safe two-way traffic. This will lead to congestion, compromised emergency access, and pedestrian safety risks.
The proposal must be refused or significantly reduced in scale to protect our neighbourhood.

Local roads cannot accommodate the amount of traffic and parking available in area as it is.
Building is out of character for area.
They building will over look into my backyard. It’s already impossible to drive in area on weekend!
Parking on adjacent street is already impossible at any time of the day.
There isn’t enough parking space currently at Marrickville metro.
Sydenham station is a major interchange and is already busy as is.
Roads surface on the area with many pot holes and ware and tear, more traffic will make roads worse
Sydenham is already a thoroughfare, streets have been made smaller due to stupid bike lanes that never gets used.
One accident will cause mayhem in surrounding streets, traffic will be at standstill around Sydenham station
One lane in edgeware road in both directions can not handle more traffic.
Just doesn’t make sense to allow 407 residential units!

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.

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. Also problem with height of building overlooking existing residential home, blocking sunlight to neighbourhood homes and surrounding.

As a long-standing resident of the St Peters community, I wish to formally object to the proposed expansion of the Precinct 75 mixed-use development SSD-82639959.

While I acknowledge the intent to accommodate future growth, I am concerned about the impact the expansion will have on environmental quality, residential amenity, and the mental health of existing and future residents.

No Relief for Housing Crisis: a large percentage of additional apartments will be studio apartments and fail to meet the NSW minimum standard.

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 Deficiencies: the new proposal has a significant shortfall of commercial and residential parking spaces compared to Council DCP, with no visitor parking proposed. This will force hundreds of cars onto already overcrowded local streets. It currently near impossible to find street parking for residents and visitors in this area.

Overbearing Building Height: an increase in the number of levels to 10 storeys, exceeding the original rezoning intent Councils LEPs and previous council resolution to limit heights for amenity and character preservation. These excessive heights are incompatible with our predominantly single storey, low density streetscape.

Mental Health of Residents: The psychological toll of living in an overcrowded area will be significant. Residents can experience increased stress, anxiety, and depression due to noise, lack of privacy, and increased density and congestion. Additional apartments to this project will undermine the mental health of residents who rely on the current character and rhythm of the neighbourhood.

Strain on Public Services: Overcrowding puts a significant strain on public services, including healthcare, education and public transport. Increased demand for healthcare services can lead to longer wait times and decreased quality of care. Similarly, overcrowded schools can result in larger class sizes and decreased educational outcomes.

Overall, this expansion will significantly impact residents' physical and mental health, social cohesion, and overall quality of life. The development must be scaled back and include stronger measures to support a healthy, stable, sustainable community.

We support responsible development that enhances our neighborhood—not projects that compromise safety, livability, and community character. The current proposal for Precinct 75 raises serious concerns that must be addressed before approval is considered:

1. 🚫 No Meaningful Relief for the Housing Crisis

The addition of 267 apartments may sound promising, but 84% are cramped 30m² studios—well below NSW’s minimum standard. These units do not support long-term housing stability or family living, and they fall short of Council’s Build-to-Rent objectives. This is not a solution—it’s a missed opportunity.

2. 🚧 Infrastructure Overload and Safety Risks

Local roads surrounding Precinct 75 are already too narrow for safe two-way traffic. Adding 850 new residents will dramatically increase congestion, block emergency vehicle access, and endanger pedestrians. When every second counts, lives could be at risk.

3. 🚗 Parking Crisis in the Making

The proposal falls short by 276 commercial and 227 residential parking spaces—and includes zero visitor parking. This will force hundreds of vehicles onto already crowded local streets, turning quiet residential areas into daily battlegrounds for parking.

4. 🏢 Excessive Building Heights That Erase Neighborhood Character

The proposed 10-storey buildings far exceed the original rezoning intent and Council’s LEP studies, which aimed to preserve the low-rise, single-storey charm of our streetscape. These towering structures will visually dominate the area and permanently alter its identity.

---

📣 Our Call to Action

We urge Council to reject this proposal in its current form and work collaboratively with residents to develop a plan that truly reflects our community’s needs—one that prioritizes livability, safety, and long-term sustainability.