Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

The development is poorly planned without regard to the current traffic infrastructure. Mary st is a one way st and Edith st only has enough width for one car to go down at a time.

The location of the development is not close enough to a major train station to assume residents will not have vehicles. Currently as a resident it is hard enough to park on the street as is for those who do not have garages and the development proposal does not allow make space for visitors parking. The development needs to consider current traffic and parking capacity and if wanting to develop more units, then incorporate more parking onto the premise.

Please find complete objection attached, summary provided below

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

Please find complete objection attached, summary provided below

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

I object to this development as it represents overdevelopment for our small area. The proposed unit density is too high and the parking allocation is completely inadequate. There must be at least one car space per unit — Sydney residents still rely on cars, and this site is not close enough to a train station to justify reduced parking.

We live just a street away and are already seeing serious spill-over parking issues, which impact our daily lives, access to our homes, and safety on narrow streets. This development will worsen congestion and reduce local amenity.

The proposal should be reduced in scale and required to provide proper parking to protect the character and liveability of the area.

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 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.

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

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

Objection Letter – Precinct 75, St Peters
To the Planning Committee,
We are writing to object to the proposed increase in dwellings, excessive height, and insufficient parking in the revised development plans for Precinct 75, St Peters.
We are not opposed to redevelopment of this site. On the contrary, we welcome the energy and life that sensitive, well-designed urban renewal can bring. Good development should deliver quality amenities, connected transport options, and foster socially cohesive neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, the current proposal falls short of these principles and risks undermining both local character and broader state planning objectives.
1. Scale, Density and Local Character
The increase from 205 to 471 apartments almost doubles the density of the site. Much of this increase is achieved by adding height (up to 10–11 storeys) in a precinct surrounded by predominantly 1–2 storey dwellings. This scale is inconsistent with the Better Placed design objective of being a “better fit” – contextual, local and of its place . It also risks overshadowing and congesting the narrow surrounding street network. Reducing the major tower to six storeys would better align with the local context and urban design principles.
2. Apartment Mix and Social Isolation
The majority of new dwellings are proposed as studios or small one-bedrooms. Research consistently shows that living alone is strongly correlated with higher risks of loneliness and depression. Australian studies further demonstrate that apartment buildings with poor communal design exacerbate social isolation, while well-designed shared spaces significantly reduce loneliness.
The NSW Apartment Design Guide explicitly requires an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes to support housing diversity. A studio-heavy yield fails this principle and risks creating a monoculture of transient or isolated residents rather than a balanced, resilient community. We therefore urge that at least 50% of the new dwellings be 3-bedroom apartments, which would attract families and long-term residents and help strengthen community cohesion.
3. Public Space and Placemaking
Despite the large increase in dwellings, the provision of public and communal open space is modest. The NSW Public Spaces Charter emphasises that good development must be “open and welcoming, community focused, and healthy & active” . Yet the proposed pocket parks and laneway equate to only a few square metres per new resident. This falls short of placemaking principles and diminishes opportunities for incidental encounters that combat isolation. A more generous provision of accessible, usable green and social spaces is essential.
4. Parking and Local Safety
The proposal increases the number of apartments without a proportionate increase in parking. This will inevitably force overflow parking into narrow residential streets. Given the area’s many primary-aged children, this raises road safety risks, neighbour tensions, and a long-term compliance burden on Inner West Council. A robust parking and traffic management plan is required to prevent ongoing local harm.
5. Public Interest and Long-Term Costs
We appreciate the intent to fast-track housing supply. However, poor planning today will impose long-term social and health costs on the community and state. Loneliness is already described by NSW Parliament as a “growing public health crisis” affecting up to 40% of residents . Adding hundreds of studios without adequate communal design or family dwellings risks intensifying this crisis, leading to higher burdens on health and social services.
Requested Changes
To bring the project into alignment with NSW planning objectives and community needs, we respectfully request that the Planning Committee require the following modifications:
• Reduce the height of the tallest tower to six storeys.
• Ensure at least 50% of new apartments are 3 bedrooms, in line with ADG objectives for housing diversity.
• Expand and improve public and communal open spaces, ensuring they are functional, inclusive, and welcoming.
• Develop a comprehensive parking and traffic management plan to prevent spill-over impacts on surrounding streets.
We support redevelopment of this site, but only in a form that genuinely embodies NSW’s own principles of good urban planning and placemaking. The current proposal does not meet that test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am writing in support of this project. In my time living in the inner west, I have seen St Peters go from a suburb that working class people and students could live in to somewhere they had been completely priced out of. The housing crisis has robbed the inner west of its culture and diversity. This development would create more housing, and ease the price pressure on other areas in the inner west. Its proximity to the Metro line, amenities and green space makes it perfect for high density housing.

Personal Submission – Objection to Proposed Modification

I write as a concerned local resident to formally object to the proposed modification to the development consent for 73 Mary Street, St Peters NSW 2044 (DA/2021/0800 – MOD/2025/0159). I believe the proposal contravenes key planning standards and will negatively impact the amenity, safety, and liveability of our neighbourhood.

1. Insufficient Off-Street Parking for Increased Units
The modification proposes more residential units without increasing off‑street parking, contrary to requirements.

Under the Apartment Design Guide (Housing SEPP), parking must meet minimum requirements—specifically, it must be no less than the rate in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments or the council rate, whichever is less

Inner West Council’s DCP mandates parking provisions for new developments to mitigate on‑street congestion and protect residential amenity

As it stands, the additional dwellings without matching parking exacerbate existing parking stress, posing safety risks and detracting from neighbourhood livability.

2. Cumulative Intensification Exceeds Original Approval
The project has repeatedly expanded in scale—adding more units at the expense of communal spaces—without proper reassessment.

Section 4.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act stipulates that modifications must not result in a substantially different development (i.e., one with materially new or intensified impacts).

This cumulative intensification exceeds the scope of the original approval and undermines the integrity of the planning process.

3. Reduced Amenity and Liveability Contradict SEPP/Housing SEPP Design Principles
The Housing SEPP (formerly SEPP 65) sets essential design principles, including density, amenity, and social interaction, which must guide apartment developments

The Apartment Design Guide emphasises the importance of communal open space and internal amenity across Parts 3 and 4, including “communal and public open space,” “deep soil zones,” “internal layouts,” and “access to natural ventilation”

By reducing shared amenities and increasing density, the proposal erodes these liveability standards, compromising both quality of life and social cohesion.

4. Strong Community Opposition Reflects Public Interest
This development has continually faced public rejection due to its scale, traffic, and parking implications.

Section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act requires that public interest be considered in planning decisions.

Persisting with this generalised modification, despite resident concerns, undermines trust in transparent and responsive planning.

5. No Updated Traffic or Infrastructure Assessment
The submission provides no evidence that existing roads, public transit, or community facilities can handle the increased population.

Without such infrastructure impact studies, the proposal remains speculative and inadequately justified.

Conclusion
This modification increases parking stress, reduces amenities, disregards community concerns, and deviates from planning principles and statutory requirements. I respectfully request the Panel refuse this modification.

Please also reference

Excerpts from the Inner West Council DCP showing parking requirements and amenity expectations
https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/develop/plans-policies-and-controls/development-controls-lep-and-dcp/development-control-plans-dcp/leichhardt-dcp

We are supportive in principle of the redevelopment of Precinct 75, this is an important site for St Peters that has been neglected for too long. We also understand the potential it provides to increase the number of dwellings in the inner west, however we fundamentally feel that the sheer size and scale of this proposed development is excessive for this area. The original proposal of 207 dwellings was an appropriate and welcome development - we were excited to see the site reinvigorated, with the size of the development being comparable to nearby Marrick & Co or Wicks Place. This excessive development of 471 units feels like a greedy financial grab by the developers, at the expense of the local community.
Secondly, we believe that increasing the population of St Peters by +42% in a single development, and in an almost instant fashion, will drastically change the profile of the suburb and marginalise the existing community. Changes of this scale to a suburb with such a rich history should happen slowly and organically, not through the forced development, designed primarily for the financial gain of the developers.
Thirdly, the design itself lacks creativity and has no architectural value, this development would be at home in the already over developed areas of Mascot or Wolli Creek – or as we call it “Lego Land”, row after row of poorly designed blocks to cram as many people in to one area as possible. This design does not suit the unique streetscape of St Peters, with it’s cool mix of heritage, industrial, new builds and terraces. There should also be a greater emphasis on providing space of local small business owners to operate, and add their touch to the local community.
Lastly, Mary St is not sufficient to handle the peak hour movement of 250+ cars from this development. This is a small one way residential street, that generally has approx. 8-10 cars waiting for a traffic light change at the Unwins Bridge Road intersection now. I struggle to understand how this intersection could support this enormous increase in traffic. Mary St is also used a common thoroughfare from the Princes Hwy to Unwins Bridge Road.
As a resident of St Peters since 2019, I have seen the profile of this suburb change for the better over the last 6 years. So much so, that we have chosen to renovate our existing home to accommodate our growing family, rather than move to another area. This development fills me with deep concern for the future of our community, and other small, creative, unique communities like it around NSW.

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 initial proposal has doubled in the number of units from 200 to over 400. The commercial spaces so far are leaning towards retail and arts - additional thought is required how other services such as child care and schooling can handle the potential additional pressure.

I object to the project at 75 Mary Street StPeters.
The street is too narrow and the area can't provide the propper infrastructure.
Mary Street is at a higher location and having a 10 story building is also not appropriate for air traffic due to the flight path. Residents currently struggle with the lack of street parking space and
as a large number of the proposed new residents in the tower will have 2 cars, this will make it impossible for existing residents to find local parking, visitors will also not be able to park, delivery vehicles will be impacted and most importantly, emergency vehicles will be impacted. Congestion will increase by over 100% and this is not acceptable for small inner city suburbs and streets. The environmental impact would be devistating. It is beyond beleif that we even need to discuss this issue when common sense should prevale.

I am writing to object to the most recent proposed changes to the Precinct 75 Development.
The quality of our daily lives and our neighbours is already severely diminished - it is stressful and overwhelming to compete daily for parking spots , read illegal and threatening signage, combat orange blockades, late night building, delivery of construction materials in large trucks .
This project is taking place in small residential streets that already can't support the current workers, let alone the extra people that will living in 426 units. Access points to the work site have been poorly conceived, with no regard for the existing residents .
The sheer scale of this project has not taken into account the impact on the local area : the small streets are already overwhelmed, where is the extra green space ? where are the commerical areas ?
The inclusion of only 16 affordable houses is tokenistic at best - patronising at worst - this demonstrates the lack of true community building and care .
What compensation is available to local residents that currently endure 6 days of work noise, congested access to their streets, difficult parking, extra street rubbish left by workers, street blockades ?

I support this project.

We need higher density housing in Sydney to solve the housing crisis. This is well located near Sydenham Station, which now has the Metro available. Perfect place for high density housing.

No relief for housing crisis, road and infrastructure burden, parking deficiencies, and overbearing building heights.

I am writing in regard to the Precinct 75 development in St Peters and to the recent request to increase the number of apartments from 206 to 471. An extra 255 apartments is a huge increase. It is more than double and an addition that I strongly oppose. The development will be enormous and just too big for this area.
I understand there is a need for more homes but construction needs to be careful and well planned with impact on the community in the foreground. Roads are narrow and cannot support the increased flow of traffic. On street parking is already at capacity. There just isn't room for more cars to be parked on surrounding streets. Precinct 75 is a reasonable distance from train stations and the closest shopping centre so residents in the new apartments will in all likelihood have cars that will need to be parked somewhere. The surrounding streets just cannot support any more parked cars.
Most of the surrounding properties are older single and double storey dwellings which will decrease in value with such an ugly property development in their midst. It is ugly and will be a real blight on the area. Such concentrated living arrangements will create a ghetto like feel. It will be a ghetto.
No thought has been given to the surrounding community. Nothing attractive is offered to the surrounding community. It is just a case of cramming in as many people as possible so the developers can make more money.
I have little faith in the integrity and good will of decision makers. Decisions need to be made so they are good and not monstrous. If approval is given for 471 apartments the decision will be monstrous and the result hideous.
I reiterate that I strongly oppose the new development proposal.