Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

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.

St Peters is at risk of losing its unique character

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.

📸Inner West Council and Precinct 75 for clarification-St Peters Town Hall not impacted by THIS development. Just a lovely photo showing some of the charm of our beautiful hood!

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 is not adequate parking or infrastructure to support such a significant increase in dwellings. Many studio dwellings will result in a significant shift in the suburb and I have concerns about the societal issues building so many studio apartments will cause. This will have a significant adverse impact on both existing residents of the area but also those wanting to buy or live in the area. There is no need for so many apartments when we consider the plans to allow for multi story dwellings across St Peter’s are now in train. Please consider this feedback.

To: NSW Department of Planning / Major Projects Board

I write to object to the proposed modification of the Precinct 75 development, which seeks to increase the approved dwellings from 206 to 471. This represents an 128% increase in apartments, an additional 4,842m² in floor area, and a scale of development that is fundamentally inconsistent with both the planning controls and the existing character of St Peters.

My objections are outlined below with reference to the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (LEP), Inner West Development Control Plan (DCP), and the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

1. Parking Deficiencies & Non-Compliance with DCP Requirements

•The modification proposes 293 parking spaces, with only 193 allocated to residents despite 471 apartments being delivered.
•This provides fewer than 0.5 spaces per dwelling, failing to satisfy the rates required under the DCP.
•Overflow demand will unacceptably increase reliance on surrounding residential streets, undermining the Principle of Amenity (SEPP 65, Principle 4) by reducing the liveability of both existing and future residents.
•I request that, at minimum, residents of Precinct 75 be excluded from Council’s street parking permit scheme if the modification proceeds.

2. Exceedance of Height Controls under the LEP

•The proposed building heights exceed the maximum controls established in the Marrickville LEP, representing a clear breach of statutory planning limits.
•This creates an overbearing and incompatible built form within a predominately single-storey, low-density context.
•It undermines the Principle of Context and Neighbourhood Character (SEPP 65, Principle 1) and the Principle of Built Form and Scale (Principle 2), which require development to respect surrounding character and transition sensitively to adjacent uses.
•Visual bulk, overshadowing, and privacy impacts further compromise the Principle of Amenity (Principle 4).

3. Traffic and Road Network Impacts

•An additional 850+ residents will generate significant traffic pressure on Mary Street (a one-way access),Edith Street, Alfred Street, Grove Street and Rolf Lane.
•These streets are narrow, already problematic, and not designed for two-way movement or increased traffic volumes.
•This presents safety and congestion risks inconsistent with Principle 6: Safety and Security (SEPP 65), as pedestrian and cyclist movement will be compromised.
•The absence of a comprehensive traffic and transport assessment to justify this intensification is a significant deficiency.

4. Infrastructure Capacity and Public Domain Burden

•More than doubling apartment numbers without corresponding upgrades to utilities, open space, schools, and transport places unacceptable strain on local services.
•This is inconsistent with Principle 3: Density (SEPP 65), which requires that density be appropriate to the site’s infrastructure capacity and context.
•The proposal also risks undermining the Principle of Sustainability (Principle 7), given the unresolved impacts on waste, stormwater, and service capacity.

5. Overdevelopment of the Site

•The modification, representing an 128% increase in dwellings, is a textbook case of overdevelopment.
•It fails to achieve the balance required by Principle 2: Built Form and Scale and Principle 4: Amenity, prioritising yield over design quality and neighbourhood fit.
•The bulk, scale, and intensity of the proposal are not aligned with the strategic planning intent for St Peters, nor with the orderly and sustainable development objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Conclusion

The proposed modification should be refused or deduced. It:

•Breaches LEP height and density controls,
•Fails to satisfy DCP parking requirements,
•Contravenes multiple SEPP 65 design quality principles (Context, Built Form and Scale, Density, Amenity, Safety and Security, and Sustainability), and
•Creates unacceptable traffic, infrastructure, and amenity impacts.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning / Major Projects Board refuse the modification to increase dwellings from 206 to 471.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed amendments outlined in SSD-82639959 for the Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development in St Peters. While I support responsible urban growth, this proposal raises serious concerns regarding overdevelopment, infrastructure strain, and planning integrity.
________________________________________
⚠️ Excessive Density and Height Increases
• The proposed increase in build-to-rent dwellings from 206 to 471 will more than double the residential population, placing unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure and services.
• Raising building heights to RL51m will disrupt the existing urban character, overshadow nearby homes, and contribute to visual congestion in a historically low-rise precinct.
________________________________________
🚗 Infrastructure and Traffic Impacts
• The Inner West already faces significant congestion and limited parking availability. This proposal lacks a clear strategy to mitigate traffic impacts or expand transport capacity.
• Reconfiguring the basement and adding communal amenities may improve internal circulation, but external traffic flow and pedestrian safety remain unaddressed.
________________________________________
🏗️ Inadequate Infrastructure to Support Increased Density
The proposed increase to 471 build-to-rent dwellings significantly exceeds the capacity of existing infrastructure in St Peters. While recent upgrades to St Peters Station under the NSW Transport Access Program have improved accessibility, they do not expand train frequency or platform capacity—meaning the station is ill-equipped to absorb the projected surge in commuter volume. Similarly, the WestConnex M5 interchange was designed to alleviate existing congestion, not accommodate the traffic generated by high-density residential developments. Without proportional investment in public transport, road networks, and community services such as schools and healthcare, this proposal risks overwhelming local systems and eroding quality of life for current and future residents.
________________________________________
🏡 Heritage and Environmental Concerns
• Demolishing the dwelling at 67 Mary Street and reconstructing Building 2 risks erasing local heritage and diminishing the precinct’s historical identity.
• Amendments to landscaping and civil design appear superficial and do not adequately offset the environmental footprint of increased density.
________________________________________
📏 Minimum Dwelling Size Falls Short of Government Standards
• The proposed dwelling sizes appear to fall below the recommended minimums outlined in the NSW Government’s Housing SEPP and Design Guide, which aim to ensure liveability, natural light, ventilation, and functional space for residents.
• Undersized dwellings compromise quality of life, particularly for long-term tenants, and contradict the government’s push for diverse, adaptable housing that meets the needs of families, seniors, and individuals with accessibility requirements.
________________________________________
📉 Undermining Planning Controls
• Amending Clause 6.27 to remove the requirement that residential floor space be less than 50% of the total gross floor area undermines the mixed-use intent of the precinct and sets a concerning precedent for future developments.
• Increasing the FSR from 2.15:1 to 2.42:1 without proportional public benefit or infrastructure upgrades compromises planning integrity.
________________________________________
🗣️ Lack of Community Consultation
• The scale of these changes demands robust public engagement, yet no public hearing has been mandated. This limits transparency and community input on a development that will significantly alter the local landscape.
________________________________________
Conclusion
This proposal represents a shift toward high-density residential development without adequate consideration for infrastructure, heritage, or community impact. I urge the Department to reject or substantially revise SSD-82639959 to ensure development in St Peters remains balanced, sustainable, and community-focused.

I live on Alfred Street, one block from the Precinct 75 site, and I’m writing to object to the expanded high-rise scheme now being delivered. While I recognise the project has an approval history, the scale has since been pushed far beyond what neighbours were shown at the outset. Public material shows the dwelling yield moving from roughly 200 apartments to a proposal for around 470 build-to-rent dwellings—more than double—together with a heavy commercial program. That scale materially changes the impacts that were assessed and consulted on.

Scale of Development and Approval Irregularities
The site’s principal frontages are Mary Street and Edith Street, with Roberts Street to the west. Council’s own assessment confirms the precinct is 15,247 m², previously industrial, now a mixed-use redevelopment with two basement levels and a new north–south shared zone between Mary and Edith Streets. Four submissions were received even for a relatively “minor” modification, largely because locals can see cumulative impacts mounting.

The doubling of residential yield has never been properly presented to the community. This is not a minor variation. It is a fundamentally different proposal, one that would have drawn far greater objection had the true scale been clear at the beginning.

Traffic and Street Operations:
Mary Street functions as a one-way residential street in this block. That restriction forces circulating traffic into narrow neighbouring streets to find legal approaches, U-turns and parking gaps. Property listings for this exact stretch explicitly describe the street as “one-way,” which reflects the everyday lived reality. This constrains access for residents, deliveries and waste services, and means any increase in traffic is felt acutely.

Within the project itself, conditions of consent require Makers Way to operate one-way—entry from Edith Street and exit via Mary Street—and the Edith Street basement access to be entry-only. In practice, this concentrates turning movements and queues onto Edith and Mary Streets. These pinch points already cause frustration for locals, and further density will make them unsafe.

Parking Pressure on Alfred, Grove and Surrounding Streets:
Alfred Street is short, narrow and heavily reliant on kerbside parking. When the Precinct 75 driveways on Edith Street are busy, vehicles spill onto Alfred Street, often leaving drivers with no safe parking options.
Even under the original approval, there was a “technical shortfall” against the DCP of around 11 parking spaces (351 required vs 340 provided). That was for 206 apartments. With the uplift to ~470 dwellings, the imbalance is unworkable. Overflow parking will inevitably spill into neighbouring streets—first Alfred, then Grove, then further afield—particularly at evenings and weekends. There is so much pressure on parking that on Alfred St and the adjacent Lata Lane, we are already regularly seeing people parking beyond “No parking” signs and also blocking residential driveways. It is a common occurrence already. If the additional apartments are added, this will only worsen.

Grove Street, a parallel street, has only recently been resurfaced due to heavy potholing and damaged footpaths. Increased parking demand and traffic diversion into Grove will worsen wear and safety concerns.

The Council report shows the approved scheme provided about 289 basement spaces in total. This is plainly insufficient for the higher yield now proposed. When residents, visitors, trades and gig-economy deliveries cannot be accommodated, the overspill lands squarely on Alfred, Grove, Edith and Mary Streets, stripping locals of the little kerbside capacity we rely on.

One-Way and Pinch-Point Effects:
Because Mary Street is one-way in our block, residents returning from Canal Road or the Princes Highway must loop via Edith Street to access their homes. The internal one-way system and entry-only rules exacerbate this, creating queues and awkward manoeuvres near driveways.

This geometry was never designed to serve a near-doubling of residential lifts, ride-share pickups and courier drop-offs. These movements cluster at peak times—weeknight evenings and weekends—when Alfred and Grove residents need safe access to homes and reliable parking.

Regional Road Assumptions vs Local Reality
Traffic evidence for the original approval leaned heavily on the assumption that regional routes such as the Princes Highway and WestConnex would absorb most of the demand. That assumption has not materialised.

In reality, drivers avoid the Highway gridlock by cutting through Mary and Edith Streets- and they come in at highway speed! Far from relieving pressure, the opening of new motorways has coincided with more ride-share and construction traffic. For Alfred and Grove Streets, the promised regional “relief” has never reached us.

What I’m Asking You to Do:
* Treat the doubling of apartments as a fundamentally new proposal, not a minor variation.
* Require a fresh, independent traffic and parking assessment that fully models one-way constraints, kerb demand, and ride-share patterns.
* If the developer insists on proceeding at the higher yield, impose a hard cap linking occupation certificates to demonstrated compliance with traffic and parking performance.

Closing:
Local residents are not opposed to renewal at Precinct 75. The original scheme was challenging but at least assessed. The subsequent push to ~470 dwellings, with existing one-way constraints, kerbside shortfalls and tree removals, will overwhelm the area and permanently erode liveability.

This is not a small adjustment—it is a major change to what the community was led to believe. I ask that you intervene to prevent this uplift, or at minimum require a full reassessment with enforceable safeguards for the surrounding streets and residents.

If the goal is a thriving quarter integrated with the local community, doubling apartments without properly testing the consequences will achieve very much the opposite.

I am concerned about parking congestion on Silver and Edith Streets which are already at capacity. The plans shown do not include visitor parking, and given the number of residents and businesses that will inhabit the new buildings, it is hard to understand where all the residents and visitors and customers are going to be able to park, by the hour, and overnight. Will there be timed/residential permit parking along Silver Street?

In addition, entering and exiting Edith street from Unwins Bridge Road is almost certain to created significant traffic congestion and affect pedestrian traffic crossing these rodds. There are now many children in the area, and the likelihood of many more to come.

Also, as a last point, there is a proposal to install a large, lit sign saying "NATION" facing Edith Street. I abject to this being an illuminated sign, for obvious reasons.

Our community are concerned that almost 84% are tiny studios no relief for housing crisis. Will lead to high residents turnover. Fail to meet council objectives build to rent. Road & infrastructure burden severe congestion pedestrian safety and compromise emergency vehicle access. No visitor parking proposed forcing hundreds of cars into local streets create parking crisis. Building heights is overbearing increase to 10 storeys exceed 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 trying to double it's already approved unit capacity? I am not a civil engineer, however, I can not grasp how a development already under construction would have the foundation strength in place to accommodate the additional load bearing weight of more than 200 additional units? Why are the NSW Government failing to investigate the links between this developer and the Opal Towers disaster?
The initial approved Precinct 75 development was already well over capacity for the site, resulting in a complete loss of character & utter destruction of the local skyline for a building situated at the top of the highest hill in the area. Not other buildings within the original St Peters, Sydenham and Tempe precinct exceed four stories. The Town and Country Hotel, a culturally significant building, circa 1881, has a maximum height of three stories. This should set the precedent for all of the the surrounding buildings.
There has been absolutely no consideration given to the considerable parking shortfalls & traffic congestion. If the developer can not supply parking for every single proposed unit, then the IWC has an obligation to NOT allow parking on the local streets by future residents and their guests. Local streets must be all be re-zoned "Permit holders only 7 days per week 8am - 10pm", in line with City of Sydney new development restrictions. There is already a parking shortfall, why has this not already been implemented?
Studios below minimum size = high turnover. This results in a transient community who don't partake or involve themselves within the local community, or contribute to the local society. For example filling in a form such as this in order to try ad preserve our local environment!
Loss of employment land. As a creative person myself, I am absolutely appalled with the way the previous small business owners and creatives were treated by the Precinct 75 developers. Two weeks notice? Our community and culture is so much the poorer for the removal of those working in the arts and music industries. Where do these people go? We do not want to see any further poorly constructed development in this country. Developers must be held accountable for what they are building for the next 30 years.
No existent sustainability & poor public space planning. Our sporting fields and parks are already over capacity. Our children have sports training late into the night in order to give everyone time as is and games are played Fri, Sat and Sun now. Where are the new parks and facilities? The brand new Metro is already at capacity at Sydenham Station by 7.30am, with standing room only most mornings. We do not have room for any more people.
This development is all about developer profit. The only agenda is corporate greed. It must not be increased any further in size. Shame on any Government who allows this!

I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification of the Precinct 75 development, which seeks to increase the approved dwellings from 206 to 471. This proposed modification constitutes an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, representing a 128% increase in residential units and an additional 4,842m² of gross floor area. This scale is fundamentally inconsistent with the statutory planning controls and the existing character of the St Peters locality.

My objections are grounded in the following failures to comply with the relevant planning instruments, specifically the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (LEP), the Inner West Development Control Plan (DCP), and the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

1. Breaches of Statutory Planning Controls
The proposed modification presents a clear and direct contravention of established planning controls.

Exceedance of Height Controls: The development’s proposed building heights exceed the maximum controls specified in the Marrickville LEP, which is a clear breach of statutory limits. This creates an overbearing and incompatible built form that disregards the low-density, predominantly single-storey context of the surrounding area. This failure undermines both the Principle of Context and Neighbourhood Character (SEPP 65, Principle 1) and the Principle of Built Form and Scale (SEPP 65, Principle 2), which require development to respect and transition sensitively to its surroundings.

Non-Compliance with Parking Requirements: The modification proposes only 193 residential parking spaces for 471 apartments, which falls short of the minimum rates required by the Inner West DCP. This provides fewer than 0.5 spaces per dwelling. This deficiency will inevitably lead to an unacceptable reliance on on-street parking, placing an untenable burden on the already constrained local road network. The resulting reduction in liveability and amenity for both existing and future residents is inconsistent with the Principle of Amenity (SEPP 65, Principle 4). I formally request that, should this modification be approved, residents of Precinct 75 be excluded from Council's street parking permit scheme to mitigate this adverse impact.

2. Inadequate Assessment of Infrastructure and Amenity Impacts
The proposal fails to demonstrate that local infrastructure can support the proposed intensification, leading to significant adverse impacts on public amenity.

Traffic and Road Network Pressures: The addition of an estimated 850+ new residents will generate a substantial increase in vehicle traffic on Mary Street, Edith Street, Alfred Street, Grove Street, and Rolf Lane. These narrow streets are not designed for such traffic volumes or for two-way movement, which will pose significant safety and congestion risks. The absence of a comprehensive traffic and transport assessment to justify this intensification is a critical deficiency that violates the Principle of Safety and Security (SEPP 65, Principle 6) by compromising safe movement for pedestrians and cyclists.

Strain on Public Services: The more than doubling of dwelling numbers without corresponding upgrades to utilities, open space, schools, and public transport will place an unacceptable strain on local services. This is inconsistent with the Principle of Density (SEPP 65, Principle 3), which requires that density be appropriate to the site’s infrastructure capacity and context. The proposal’s unresolved impacts on waste management, stormwater, and utility services also undermine the Principle of Sustainability (SEPP 65, Principle 7).

3. Conclusion: Yield Over Urban Design
The proposed modification is a textbook case of overdevelopment. It fails to achieve the balance between yield and design quality required by the Principle of Built Form and Scale (SEPP 65, Principle 2) and the Principle of Amenity (SEPP 65, Principle 4). The sheer bulk, scale, and intensity of the proposal are not aligned with the strategic planning intent for St Peters, nor do they align with the orderly and sustainable development objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

For these reasons, the proposed modification must be refused. It directly contravenes a suite of planning instruments and will result in unacceptable impacts on local infrastructure and community amenity. I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning and Environment reject the modification to increase dwellings from 206 to 471.

As a resident of St Peters for forty years, I find the latest proposal for Precinct 75 thoroughly abhorrent. In brief:

1) The proposed altitude of the proposed buildings simply do not fit in with the current reality of St Peters. The vast majority of buildings in St Peters are one or two story dwellings. But the Precinct 75 buildings are slated to be from 10 to 14 stories, though it’s difficult to know the heights with any certainty because the information provided by the developers consists mainly of glossy pictures and over hyped prose. The Inner West Council’s plan for St Peters is for it to remain light residential with some allowance for light industry/manufacturing, particularly north of Campbell St.

2) The proposed development is supposed to provide hundreds of built to rent flats. The vast majority of these are to be one bedroom units. There appears to be no social housing, let alone public housing. And very few units suitable for families. So the increased population in St Peters would seem to consist of single individuals or perhaps couples, who would not sink their roots into the community. Rather, there would be a large transient population who may well be less inclined than current residents to care for neighbours and the local environment.

3) Traffic would, of course, also increase, and with it greater difficulty to find a parking spot. Most houses in St Peters do not have garages. The residents of Precinct 75 might choose to park in the street, and, of course, their visitors would also have to find street parking. Moreover, the surrounding roads are narrow, and already result in bottlenecks especially in peak hours and on weekends. Noteworthy blockages already occurring include Campbell St, Unwins Bridge Rd, Edgeware Rd, the Princes Highway, the roads around Sydenham
Railway Station, and any roads leading onto the Princes Highway. And getting into and out of Marrickville Metro on the weekend, and at some other times, is a daytime nightmare.

4) St Peters has been under attack for many decades. After the European colonialists disposed of the indigenous Gadigal people, the area was devastated by the clay mining of the brick industry, the Tubmans Paint factory, and then had to endure being turned into a mighty tip, the land of which still produces toxic fumes and gases. More recently, we’ve had the noise and air pollution generated by the planes using the third runway. And even more recently there’s been the attack by WestConnex, when we lost over forty houses and the families who inhabited them. The promises given to us by WestConnex, such as massive green parks adjacent to the flyovers etc of the old tip, have not been met, apparently because of the poisonous fumes still being released from the old tip. Developers promise paradise, they deliver hell.

5) To conclude: The current Precinct 75 Plan should be rejected. Constructions on the old Taubmans site should be in harmony with the current surrounding constructions including with regard to design and height..

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 changes to the Precinct 75 development, particularly the significant increase in residential density and building height, and the reduction in commercial and community space. These changes are wholly inconsistent with the original approved plan and will have serious impacts on local infrastructure, parking, traffic, and community amenity.

While I fully support appropriate development in my local area and the government’s aims to urgently stimulate housing supply, the revised proposal is excessive, unsustainable, and fails to meet the needs of the local community.

Inconsistency with Planning Reforms
The proposed changes to the Precinct 75 development are fundamentally inconsistent with the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2025, which was introduced to streamline planning processes while ensuring developments are practical, proportionate, and responsive to community needs. According to the NSW Government, the reforms aim to:
- Support councils in making practical planning decisions, including modifications that do not alter the nature of the development[1].
- Modernise affordable housing contributions, enabling faster assessments and more meaningful delivery of affordable housing[2].
- Ensure community feedback is respected [2].
- Accelerate housing delivery through the Housing Delivery Authority, with a focus on quality, affordability, and strategic alignment with local infrastructure[3].

The Precinct 75 proposal, however:
- More than doubles the number of apartments from 200 to 471 while reducing community and commercial space, undermining the balance between housing and local amenity.
- Offers minimal affordable housing, contrary to the Government’s stated goal of increasing access for young people, families, and key workers[3].
- Proposes a disproportionate increase in building height and density, which is inconsistent with the call for practical and context-sensitive planning decisions[1].
- Fails to address the severe parking and traffic impacts, which contradict the reforms’ emphasis on efficient and sustainable infrastructure planning.

In light of these discrepancies, it is difficult to see how the proposed development aligns with the intent of the EP&A Act reforms. Rather than supporting streamlined, community-focused development, the proposal appears to prioritise maximum yield over livability and long-term sustainability.

Having participated in various prior rounds of community consultation over several years, it is disappointing that the effect of this revised proposal is that much of this input has been entirely disregarded. This significantly undermines the commitments made to local residents, prioritises profit over public interest and fails to deliver on the balanced, mixed-use development originally promised.

Some key issues I wish to specifically convey my concerns on are as follows:

- The proposed increase in Building C’s height from 7 to 9 storeys is excessive and out of character with the surrounding area. It will negatively impact residents’ access to light, views, and privacy.
- Despite the sharp increase in resident numbers, parking remains at 193 spaces for 471 apartments. The 0.2 space-per-unit ratio may meet technical guidelines but it fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Marrickville DCP - and in any case, is wholly unsuitable for this location, where street parking is already extremely limited and many homes lack off-street parking.
- The surrounding streets are narrow and already congested. The development will significantly increase traffic, particularly on Mary Street and at the Edith Street/Unwins Bridge Road intersection, which lacks traffic controls. Service access, including waste removal, will cause even more disruption on these small streets.
- The substantial increase in population will place additional strain on local amenities, including schools, public transport, and recreational facilities. These impacts have not been adequately addressed in the revised proposal.

Conclusion
The proposed changes to the Precinct 75 development are excessive and detrimental to the local community. I urge the relevant authorities to reject the revised proposal and uphold the integrity of the original plan, which better balanced development with community needs.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Footnotes:
[1] Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2025, NSW Legislation. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/pdf/asmade/act-2025-24
[2] NSW Planning – Recent Act Changes. https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/environmental-planning-and-assessment-act-1979/recent-act-changes
[3] NSW Government Ministerial Release – Minns Government Continues to Reform the Planning System. https://www.nsw.gov.au/ministerial-releases/minns-government-continues-to-reform-planning-system

I object to the proposal because the pocket of residential density it will create will cause local streets to be overwhelmed with traffic - especially in Mary Street at the intersection with Unwins Bridge Road and Mary Street with the Princes Highway. The proposal was originally approved with a smaller number of units that would have increased density to the edge of what is acceptable and I did not object to the initial development. This project will exceed that level and be unsustainable when combined with other neighbouring developments, urban gentrification that is increasing density in the area with older houses being knocked down and rebuilt with 2-3 townhouses.

The proposal does not comply with the Inner West Council flood space ratio as set out in the LEP - a planning instrument endorsed and supported by NSW Planning.
The proposal should also be discouraged out of principle because of the cynical way in which it was originally submitted for approximately 200 units, and then once approved and work commenced the proposal was more than doubled to 470 dwellings and tries to leverage the purported 'housing crisis' to gain SSD support. This getting the foot in the door approach should be discouraged in favour of a strategic planning approach based on upfront proposals which outline their ultimate end game up front.
Parking
- the parking allocated - 193 residential spots in manifestly inadequate to meet the demand of the dwellings. This will result in street parking which is already oversubscribed being further utilised by residents. The assumption that a significant proportion of residents will rely on public transport alone to meet their traffic needs is fallacious
- relying on share cars as a solution to this issue is not appropriate and severely underestimates the reliance of tenants on cars

Traffic
- having the only exit from the premises onto Mary street will overload an already at capacity street that has a traffic control lights a short distance after exit from the premises
- the traffic assessment does not adequately account for other cumulative increases in road use from neighbouring areas such as Marrickville developments and infilling from urban renewal in the area (which has been happening at a consistent rate over the last decade).
- the traffic assessment notes that the Princes Highway/ Mary Street/ Canal Road intersection is at capacity. This would be further exacerbated by the proposed development

Neighbourhood character
- the proposed development is at odds with the current development profile and character of the area. This development will tower over and dominate the existing neighbourhood and is not sympathetic to the character of the suberb.
- The renewal of older individual dwellings into 2-3 additional dwellings would be development that suits the area and current road network

Dwelling mix
- the proposal to configure the proposed development to include 267 studio apartments is questionable in terms of meeting purported housing needs
- having all properties build to rent effectively creates a boarding style of housing which does not lead to a situation where long term owners with a vested interest of living in the area creates a sense of community. This style and mix of housing could lead to social issues with such a large proportion of transient occupants.

The proposed changes to increase the number of dwellings from 205 to 471 is an outrage. The impact to the surrounding community will be horrendous - there is no infrastructure in this proposal to cope with these changes - minimal parking, increased traffic on already congested roads - and the increase in building heights will affect many adjacent properties. This cannot proceed, the damage to St Peters will be significant and destroy the character of the suburb forever.

Infrastructure and parking situation is not adequate for such an increase in population, residents are already struggling to navigate these narrow streets and find parking - the lack of adequate parking for the intended building will make the situation only worse.
How will the local school cope with an expected influx of children?
Development as initially suggested was within height limits but new proposal exceeding and is well out of character for St Peters.
I do object to this huge increase!

The scale/size of this proposed additional development on this site is ridiculous considering the very narrow streets of Mary St and Edith St. These streets were simply never made for this amount of dwellings that the developers are proposing. These very narrow streets will not be able to handle the extra volume of traffic and will make parking even more difficult for the residents, as street parking is already limited. Not to mention how ugly it will look towering over our workers cottages/semi detached houses, casting shade over our gardens. There are no other buildings of this height/scale in St Peters, whatever happened to town planning?

I had hoped for the original Precinct to be developed into apartments but it has been mainly demolished and 267 apartments proposed mainly30mm square studios (below the NSW minimum standard) which will not resolve the chronic housing shortage but will lead to high resident turnover. Existing road structure is too narrow for safe two way traffic. Parking spaces are inadequate and no visitor parking proposed creating a parking crisis in the surrounding area. An increase in the levels to 10 storeys is excessive and will overshadow nearby properties. What could have been a vibrant and exciting development has been degraded to a getto.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed modification of the Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development at 73 Mary Street, St Peters. As someone with lived experience of homelessness and now working to sustain tenancies for vulnerable individuals through Housing First programs, I deeply understand the importance of well-planned, inclusive housing. While I support the government’s efforts to increase housing supply, this proposal fails to meet the needs of the Inner West community and risks undermining the character and liveability of St Peters.

---

1. Overdevelopment and Loss of Local Character

The proposed increase from 205 to 471 dwellings is excessive and out of step with the scale of the surrounding neighbourhood. St Peters is a unique and tightly-knit community, and such a dramatic increase in density will irreversibly alter its character. While some growth is expected and welcomed, this scale of development places undue pressure on existing infrastructure and community cohesion.

---

2. Inadequate Affordable Housing Provision

Only 16 units are designated as “affordable housing”—a mere 3.4% of the total. This is not a meaningful contribution to addressing the housing crisis. The proposal lacks clarity on how “affordable” is defined and who will manage these tenancies. If managed by Nation, transparency and accountability must be ensured.

The development appears to follow a Build-to-Rent (BTR) model, which is increasingly favoured by the NSW Government. While BTR can offer benefits—such as longer leases and on-site amenities—it is primarily designed to attract institutional investors and deliver market-rate housing. It does not inherently address the needs of low-income renters or those at risk of homelessness. Without mandated affordable housing quotas, BTR risks sidelining public and social housing investment.

Innovative, community-focused solutions—such as cooperative housing, inclusionary zoning, and social housing partnerships—should be prioritised over investor-driven models.

---

3. Parking Shortfalls and Increased Congestion

The proposal fails to meet the minimum parking requirements outlined in the Marrickville Development Control Plan. The absence of visitor parking and shortfalls in residential and commercial spaces will force overflow parking onto surrounding streets, exacerbating congestion and disadvantaging residents without off-street parking. This is unacceptable and must be addressed before approval.

---

4. Inadequate Road Infrastructure

The Traffic Impact Assessment indicates that key intersections will be over capacity by 2037. Edith Street, in particular, is too narrow to safely accommodate two-way traffic. Increased density without corresponding infrastructure upgrades will compromise emergency access, pedestrian safety, and overall traffic flow. The scale of the proposal must be reduced to align with infrastructure capacity.

---

5. Risks to Community Cohesion

The proposed studio apartments fall below the minimum size recommended by the Apartment Design Guide, likely resulting in high turnover and transient occupancy. This undermines efforts to build stable, inclusive communities. BTR developments often favour smaller units to maximise yield, but this comes at the cost of long-term residency and community engagement. The development must include design and tenancy measures that promote stability and connection.

---

6. Excessive Building Heights

The proposed buildings of up to 10 storeys are completely out of scale with the predominantly single-storey homes in the area. This will overshadow existing residences, reduce amenity, and alter the visual landscape of St Peters. The proposal should be refused or substantially scaled back to respect the existing urban fabric.

---

7. Loss of Employment Land

The modification disregards planning objectives to retain employment-generating uses. The original rezoning struck a balance between residential and commercial activity, which this proposal undermines. Retaining employment land is essential for local jobs and economic diversity.

---

8. Misalignment with Strategic Housing Needs

The Inner West Council’s “Fairer Futures” plan and the National Housing Accord emphasise the need for diverse, sustainable, and community-oriented housing—not small studios that cater to investor returns. The NSW Government’s increasing reliance on BTR as a housing solution may fast-track supply, but without affordability mandates, it fails to meet the needs of vulnerable populations. This proposal does not reflect the strategic vision for housing in the Inner West and should be reconsidered in light of these frameworks.

---

9. Lack of Genuine Community Consultation

There is little evidence of meaningful engagement with local residents. A development of this scale demands transparent, inclusive consultation—not token gestures. The community deserves to be heard, and their feedback must shape the final outcome.

---

10. Environmental Sustainability Gaps

The proposal lacks detail on how it will meet sustainability targets. There is no clear commitment to net-zero construction, green building standards, or integration of renewable energy. Developments of this scale must lead by example, incorporating:

• Solar panels and battery storage
• Green roofs and rainwater harvesting
• Passive design for energy efficiency
• EV charging infrastructure


---

11. Lack of Family-Friendly Housing

The dwelling mix leans heavily toward studios and one-bedroom units, which do not meet the needs of families or multigenerational households. The Inner West needs housing that supports long-term community stability, not transient occupancy. A more balanced mix—including 3+ bedroom units—should be mandated.

---

12. Public Space and Amenity Shortfalls

Although the proposal mentions public open space, it’s unclear how accessible, safe, and usable these areas will be. Will they support community events, play areas, or quiet green zones? The development must include well-designed public spaces that foster connection and wellbeing.

---

Conclusion

I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to refuse or significantly amend this proposal. We need housing that strengthens communities, not developments that prioritise profit over people. As someone who has experienced homelessness and now works to prevent it, I know what inclusive, sustainable housing looks like—and this is not it.

Local resident - currently badly impacted by Coronation Property right now!

The road and infrastruture of surrounding streets and area is inadequate. Most streets within close proximity are two way streets however only allowing one vehicle down the road at a time. The addition 850 odd vehicles on the road will cause severe congestion compromising pedastrin safety.
Furthermore, the parking in surrounding streets are inadequate. Unwins Bridge road is already congested with parking from Council in the morning and a clearway in the afternoon. Even with metered parking in surrounding streets parking is difficult for current residents. With a already a shortfall of parking capacity with current development. The additional, 205 dwellings with no parking will increase the already parking crisis.
The rezoning of 10 storeys, not only exceeds the orginal intent for height limits - it will invade my privacy on my own property with residents being able to see in my back yard as most properties are either single storey or double.
The impact on the safety of current and future residents, should be considered over the money that wil be made by Developers on this increase in units.