Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

I think this is an excellent project that will allow more people to live and stay in St Peters as I myself wish I could have. I would ideally like to see more visitor parking as I do think it is important for folks who don't have easy access to public transport, but that is a minor detail in my view. We need more housing and ameneties in Sydney and this is a great way to help achieve that goal.

Unless there is improvement in the parking spaces, I am concerned there will be a parking crisis with the updated Precinct 75 proposal. I am also concerned that the proposal will not mitigate the housing crisis given the majority of the apartments are small studio apartments not suitable for long term tenancy.

I object to the new proposal for Precinct 75 increasing dwellings from 205 to 471 on the following grounds:
It does little to ease the housing crisis as the increase is predominantly 30m2 studio apartments which is below the NSW minimum standard and with a insufficiently low amount of affordable housing, these are not long term housing solutions.
An increase to 10 storey building height, exceeding the original rezoning. The excessive height is incompatible with the predominantly single storey, low density streetscape.
Existing road infrastructure is already inadequate. The proposed additional residents will result in severe congestion and parking issues.
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 the current situation during clearway hours on Unwins Bridge Rd and creating a parking debacle.

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.

Please see the attached SWC response and DA information sheet (for the proponent).
If there are any questions, please contact [email protected]

Please refer to attached letter of objection.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

I am writing to object to the proposed amendment to the existing development consent for the mixed-use project, which seeks to increase the number of dwellings from 205 to 471 and convert a portion of the approved commercial floorspace into residential use. While I recognise the need for well-planned growth, I have serious concerns about the impacts this amendment will have on the local community.

1. Traffic and Infrastructure Capacity
The significant increase in dwellings will place considerable pressure on the local road network and public infrastructure. Traffic congestion is already an issue during peak times, and an additional 266 dwellings will exacerbate this problem. There is no evidence that local infrastructure has the capacity to absorb such growth without substantial upgrades.

2. Parking Shortages
Street parking in the area is already under strain, with residents struggling to secure parking close to their homes. This development will force more residents and visitors to rely on on-street spaces. This will make it impossible for existing residents to find parking.

3. Loss of Local Commercial Spaces
The existing consent included provision for light commercial uses, which provided a balance to the precinct and offered amenities for residents and the community, similar to the vision behind Precinct 75. The amendment reduces these commercial opportunities in favour of more residential dwellings. This erodes the diversity and vibrancy of the area, deprives the community of local services, and creates a dormitory-style development that adds population pressure without delivering commercial or employment benefits.

4. Height of Buildings and Amenity Impacts
The proposed building heights exceed the current Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Height of Buildings controls. Such high-rise forms will be inconsistent with the character of the area, overshadow adjoining properties, and block existing views and access to sunlight. This directly impacts the residential amenity and quality of life of existing neighbours.

Conclusion
For the above reasons, I strongly object to the amendment as currently proposed. The scale of the increase in dwellings, the loss of commercial space, the exceedance of height controls, and the lack of adequate infrastructure to support such growth will have long-term negative impacts on the neighbourhood.

I respectfully request that Council refuse the application in its current form or require substantial amendments to address the issues outlined.

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

Hello,
I am a local resident of this area, and while I don’t object to the overall project and redevelopment of the area, I would like to state my strong objection to the submission of proposed alterations to the originally approved plan.
The key reasons for my objections are:
1. Car parking – the proposal is looking to add a couple of hundred apartments without adding parking to match this increase. This would leave a shortfall of hundreds of residential and commercial parking spaces for the new development and result in potentially hundreds of cars looking to park in the surrounding streets which are already at capacity.
2. Roads & Infrastructure - the existing surrounding roads and infrastructure are already inadequate, and to narrow for safe two-way traffic. Adding potentially 850 new residents in this area could result in significant congestion, hampering access for all including emergency and council vehicles, and impacting pedestrian safety.
3. Building heights – the proposed 10 storey buildings are completely out of character for the area. The site is at the top of the hill further adding to how out of place buildings of this height will look.

I am keen to see this area redeveloped and had no issues with the originally proposed plans, however feel this new submission is completely excessive and will have a severe negative impact on the area and existing local community and needs to be brought back to the original proposal which was more balanced and while still addressing key issues such as affordable housing.

Please strongly consider rejecting this proposal and reverting back to the original development plans.

Regards,
Matt

I’m writing to express serious concern about the seemingly sudden and significant change in the proposal for Precinct 75, especially considering works are already underway. Whilst I accept a level of development is inevitable and haven’t officially objected prior to now, these new proposals fundamentally change the nature of the development from something the neighbourhood could potentially have stretched to, to something it absolutely cannot. The streets surrounding the precinct, particularly Edith St, have been in constant disrepair since works started, causing damage to cars including my own. It cannot handle the load. The narrowness of the streets in the area could only be widened by removing parking which is not viable considering the proposed parking for the development is insufficient and will mean more locals vying for already limited spaces. The lack of parking for visitors to our homes has a direct social impact on us, including those future residents of the development. Furthermore, the significant increase in height will not only likely block more light to more homes than previously proposed, but it becomes an imposition on an otherwise low rise area. As I said, the original proposal was already going to be a change in character for the area but what is now being proposed threatens to destroy it completely.
I am not opposed to change but I am opposed to the extent of this change.

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.

The project does not comply with parking requirements - this will lead to further parking problems in st peters .
The height of the buildings are also to high, exceeding the original aiming intent
The number of apartments is doubled ' this will lead to many more cars on the road in the area when it is already heavily congested
Housing impact - more than 80 percent of the added apartments are one bedroom so it does not seek to improve the housing crisis

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.