Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

I am a resident of Alfred Street, one block from the Precinct 75 site. While I support housing renewal that is well planned and balanced with local liveability, I strongly object to the current modification. The proposed uplift from near 206 to 471 dwellings—a 128% increase—fundamentally alters the project in scale, form, traffic generation, and social impacts.
This cannot reasonably be considered a “minor modification” under s4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The consequences for traffic, parking, amenity, infrastructure and local streets are severe, and the supporting assessments reveal significant gaps.

1. Modification Pathway – Misuse of s4.55
Section 4.55 of the EP&A Act allows modifications where the development is “substantially the same” and impacts are minor. The courts have acknowledged this as a test of both form and environmental impact.
Here, the uplift represents more than a doubling of dwelling numbers, an additional 4,842m² of floor area, and a significant shift in land-use mix.
The Social Impact Scoping Study itself acknowledges that only 16 dwellings will be affordable and that the remainder are build-to-rent, changing tenure and demographic impacts.
This is not “substantially the same development”. It is, in practice, a new project lodged through the wrong pathway.

2. Parking Deficiencies and DCP Non-Compliance
The proposal provides 293 spaces, with 193 allocated to residents of 471 apartments—less than 0.5 spaces per dwelling.
The Inner West DCP requires higher ratios, plus 1 car-share per 50 dwellings and 1 per 50 non-residential uses. By this standard, 11 car-share spaces are required, but only 6 are delivered.
The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) attempts to justify this by pointing to nearby off-site car-share pods. That is not compliance—it merely exports unmet demand onto already overstretched kerbs.
Even under the original approval, there was a technical shortfall of ~11 spaces (351 required vs 340 provided). For 206 dwellings, this was marginal; for 471 dwellings, it is catastrophic.

Regulatory conflict:
The Housing SEPP 2021 (Part 3B) does allow reduced parking rates for build-to-rent (0.2 spaces/dwelling in accessible areas), but this is intended as a minimum safeguard. It does not override DCP requirements for car-share, visitor parking or local impact management.

The Apartment Design Guide (ADG), embedded in the Housing SEPP, requires that developments achieve Principle 4: Amenity and Principle 7: Sustainability—standards which are plainly not met when residents, visitors and service vehicles overflow into narrow residential streets.

Condition if approved:
On-site provision of at least 11 car-share spaces.
Exclusion of Precinct 75 residents from Council’s on-street permit scheme to protect kerbside supply for existing households.
Unbundling of residential parking from leases to avoid speculative demand.

3. Traffic Generation, One-Way Constraints and Flawed Modelling
The TIA is based on 2022 traffic counts, uplifted by generic growth rates. No new counts were undertaken despite the substantial design change.
The Guide to Traffic Impact Assessment (Transport for NSW, 2024) requires fresh empirical data, kerbside surveys and multimodal modelling for significant developments. These have not been done.
Mary Street is one-way in this block, forcing circulation through Edith Street and Alfred Street. Internal site rules (entry-only on Edith, exit via Mary) concentrate turning traffic at choke points.
Ride-share pickups, courier vans and gig-economy deliveries peak at the same times residents seek kerbside parking, compounding unsafe conditions.
The TIA concludes there is “ample spare capacity” in 2025. This does not reflect the real-world operation of narrow residential streets where passing opportunities are limited and illegal U-turns already occur.

Condition if approved:
Require a new independent traffic and parking assessment (to GTIA 2024), including evening/weekend counts, kerbside occupancy surveys and micro-simulation of one-way geometry.
Occupation certificates must be linked to post-occupancy surveys (3, 6, 12 months) with corrective actions if queues, U-turns or overspill parking exceed benchmarks.

4. Waste, Servicing and Heavy Vehicle Safety
Waste collection and servicing rely on Council-style 9.5m trucks using Mary Street.
Swept path diagrams have not been tested against higher frequency movements or interaction with kerbside parking.
The Operational Waste Management Plan defers much detail to “future plans”. This is not acceptable given the density uplift.

Condition if approved:
No on-street servicing or waste collection on Alfred, Grove, Edith or Mary Streets.
Conflict-free swept paths must be demonstrated now, not post-consent.
An independent road safety audit must confirm manoeuvres before occupation.

5. Built Form, Height and Design Quality
The uplift breaches Marrickville LEP height and FSR controls.
The built form is inconsistent with SEPP Housing Principles 1 (Context and Character) and 2 (Built Form and Scale).
Overshadowing and privacy impacts have not been reassessed despite increased yield.
The Aviation Impact Assessment shows building envelopes already approach Sydney Airport’s prescribed airspace, with cranes needing controlled penetrations. This confirms that massing is at the upper envelope and any further intensification is inappropriate.

6. Social and Infrastructure Impacts
The proponent lodged only a Social Impact Scoping Study, not a full Social Impact Assessment (SIA).
This is despite the Department’s Social Impact Assessment Guideline (2023) requiring a full SIA where major population change, density uplift, or cumulative impacts are likely.
No updated analysis has been provided on:

Local school capacity,
Public transport strain,
Open space and recreation needs,
Impacts on vulnerable groups, or
Equity outcomes of limited affordable housing.

Request: A full, independent SIA must be undertaken before determination.

7. Weak Mitigation and Monitoring
The Green Travel Plan relies on voluntary measures (information packs, annual surveys).
There are no binding mode-share KPIs or adaptive triggers if outcomes are missed.

Conclusion
The proposed modification should be refused because it:
Is overdevelopment inconsistent with the objectives of the EP&A Act,
Breaches Marrickville LEP height and density controls,
Fails to meet DCP parking and car-share requirements,
Contravenes multiple Housing SEPP / Apartment Design Guide principles, and
Has not been supported by updated, guideline-compliant traffic, social or servicing assessments.

If approval is nevertheless considered, strict conditions must apply:
A full independent Traffic & Parking Assessment (GTIA 2024).
On-site car-share compliance (11 spaces minimum) and resident exclusion from on-street permits.
Final enforceable Waste & Servicing Plans before consent.
A full Social Impact Assessment under Department guidelines.
Binding Green Travel Plan KPIs with audits and adaptive triggers.

I object to the proposed development at Precinct 75 on 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 local residents already suffer due to parking issues
Our community are concerned that most are tiny studios. This does not provide real relief for the housing crisis and will only lead to high resident turnover and failure to meet council objectives of build to rent.
Road & infrastructure will be burdened, leading to severe congestion, compromising of pedestrian safety and compromising emergency vehicle access in our narrow streets and pathways.
Proposed new building height is overbearing, exceeding original rezoning intent of 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.
The proposal should be refused or amended to address these issues.
Many thanks,
DR (local resident)

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.

The proposed increase in height and density to the development is not in the community’s interest.
The project is surrounded, for many blocks, by R2 zoned dwellings. The new building will be utterly out of place. It is not within the prescribed vicinity of a train station or light rail (or bus routes). Whilst some parking will be provided, it will be insufficient to accommodate the additional vehicles of the new residents and their visitors.
The surrounding local roads are not suitable for the exponential increase in vehicular activity.
Given the housing crisis, it is imperative that affordable housing be provided. That is not what this project will do.
The developer’s existing, approved application is already too large in scale, to increase the height and number of units further will be a significant detriment to our community.
This new proposal is utterly incongruous with its surroundings.

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?

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 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.

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..

the increase dwellings from 205 to 471 is doing little to ease housing crisis (84% of them are tiny studios) but overloading our community and infrastructure; the new proposal has a shortfall of 276 commercial and 227 residential parking spaces, no visitor parking. we are already in a position that we have very limited parking on our streets.

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.

Major concerns for traffic, congestion, the surrounding roads and infrastructure will not be able to handle the congestion and number of people/ cars and traffic. We currently can not park, or struggle. Major concerns with potentially people able to view my backyard as well.

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!

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.

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.

Submission on SSD-82639959 – Precinct 75 Mixed-Use Development
I object to the proposed amendments to the Precinct 75 development. The uplift from 205 to 471 apartments is excessive and incompatible with the existing Inner West neighbourhood.
As a resident of Alfred Street, I already experience daily traffic congestion and long queues at peak hours. Increasing the number of apartments will worsen this problem and overflow onto Albion Lane, Mary Street, and Rolf Lane. These streets are narrow, residential in nature, and not designed to carry heavy traffic or large delivery vehicles. Parking is already at saturation point, and this proposal will create further spillover, leaving residents without reasonable access to on-street spaces.
Construction impacts are also of serious concern. Years of heavy truck movements, noise, vibration, and dust along Alfred Street, Albion Lane, Mary Street, and Rolf Lane will reduce liveability, endanger pedestrians and cyclists, and cause significant disruption to residents.
The proposal also fails to provide sufficient open space, infrastructure, or transport upgrades to support the scale of development sought.
For these reasons, I strongly object and urge the Department of Planning to reject the application in its current form.
Yours faithfully,
Resident on Alfred Street, St Peters
8 September 2025

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 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.

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.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing a submission supporting this project as I have witnessed organised action against it by certain members of the local community in Tempe, St Peters, and Sydenham. It is my belief that this group is more loud than they are numerous. Personally, I too have some concerns with the proposal, but none of these are sufficient to oppose it.

I would like to state my support for providing only the minimum required amount of parking - the site is very well-located and should not seek to facilitate increased private vehicle usage. It is possible for most people to walk to all every day needs from the site, including shops, services, social infrastructure, open space, and public transport.

I would also like to state my support for both the initially proposed unit yield and mix as well as the current scheme. Both schemes offer a range of dwelling sizes. The previous scheme would do more to contribute to addressing the existing lack of large apartments in Sydney as a whole, however, the current scheme better addresses a more localised need for smaller, well-made dwellings. From experience, the vast majority of small(er) and affordable(ish) dwellings in the area surrounding the site at present are 2-bedroom terraces in poor condition. Studio and 1-bedroom units will contribute to addressing this localised shortfall.

I would encourage the Department to employ the fullness of its powers in conditions of consent with regard to such matters as managing and maintaining shared / communal areas of the site or shared / communal areas for residents, as well as maintenance of the public-private interface components of the site (including any gardens and footpaths etc). If neglected, these matters can contribute poorly to the neighbourhood and there are myriad examples of such in the local area.

Cheers
Jesse

The objections of the St Peters Residents Action Group are detailed in the attachment