Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

NO RELIEF FOR HOUSING CRISIS
Despite 267 new apartments being added to the development, almost all (84%) are: tiny a 30Msquare studio apartments (below the NSW minimum standard), fail to mitigate the housing crisis, will lead to high resident turnover, and fail to meet the Council's objectives for Build-to-Rent developments.


ROAD & INFUSTRACTURE BURDEN
Existing road infrastructure is already inadequate. Steets surrounding Precinct 75 are too narrow for safe two-way traffic. An additional 850 residents to a suburb containing 2000 will result in severe congestion, compromising emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety.

PARKING DEFICIENCIES
The new proposal has a shortfall of 276 commercial and 227 residential parking spaces compared to Council DCP, with NO visitor parking proposed. This will force hundreds of cars onto local streets - creating a parking crisis.

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.


SITE AND PLANS LACK INNOVATION
Site plans and architectural style lack any innovation or substance to an area with an identity. It deserves more than four blank tall boxes.

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.
I also object to the style of apartments - 84% will be tiny 30sqm apartments. These will not fix a housing crisis, where families cannot afford a decent-sizes place to live, nor will it assist older couples to downsize. This is about profit generation for the private sector disguised as "housing relief". I think that re-developing the Precinct is a fantastic decision, however what the studies show is we're lacking ore spacious apartments, most importantly three bedroom apartments for families and downsizers. What we don't need is tiny 30sqm apartments which will be short-term rentals, so that companies can profit from students and the lower socio-economic population.
The proposal should be refused or amended to address these issues.

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

St Peters is at risk of losing its unique character

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

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

I object to the proposed development at 73 Mary Street, St Peters, as it fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Marrickville DCP.

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.

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

1. 🚫 No Meaningful Relief for the Housing Crisis

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

2. 🚧 Infrastructure Overload and Safety Risks

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

3. 🚗 Parking Crisis in the Making

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

4. 🏢 Excessive Building Heights That Erase Neighborhood Character

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

---

📣 Our Call to Action

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

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

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

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

Road and Infrastructure Burden: existing road infrastructure is already inadequate. Streets surrounding Precinct 75 are too narrow for safe two-way traffic. An additional 850 residents will result in severe congestion, compromising emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I object to the proposed 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.

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

I support the mixed-use development comprising residential apartments (BTR), affordable housing and commercial. Amendment to an existing consent to increase the approved dwellings from 205 to 471 and convert some commercial uses to residential.

I believe it will improve housing availability in the area.

I object to this project due to the burden on road and infrastructure and parking deficiencies. I live on this block and it is already incredibly difficult to drive down Edith street and also to find any suitable parking. I have two children and at times it is dangerous trying to get from my car to my door.

This project should not be approved if Precint 75 is unable to supply adequate parking.

Further, planning needs to reassess the local traffic and parking conditions in the area.

I would suggest:

40kms per hour on unwins bridge road, removal of clear ways on unwins bridge road, 15 minute parking spaces unless the vehicle has a resident permit, no supply of residents permit to residents of precinct 75.


I believe this would reduce the traffic burden in our area and funnel traffic onto the larger highway and tunnels, prevent the existing residents of the area from being unable to find parking and stop visitors to the retails businsss at precinct 75 coming by car and taking away the limited number of parks which are available to the residents of the area, many of whom do not have car parks on their property.
Thank you

existing roads infrastructures already inadequate. Streets surrounding the precinct 75 are already congested and narrow.
living in St Peters already feels like living in a sardine can. .Give us a break. You have given us the airport runways, WestConnex. You have devastated our suburb

Road and infrastructure burden, parking deficiencies, overbearing building heights.

This is not a good development for the housing crisis
Tiny studio apartments which are below the NSW minimum standard.
Insufficient road infrastructure

I strongly object to the modification of SSD-82639959, as the increased population density will lead to more noise, litter, and transient occupancy. The proposed studio apartments are below the minimum size recommended by the Apartment Design Guide, likely resulting in high turnover and reduced community cohesion. The development must be scaled back and include stronger measures to support a stable, sustainable community.

I'm writing to formally object to the proposed Precinct 75 development at the corner of Mary, Roberts, and Edith Streets, where I am a resident.
​While I support new housing, the current proposal's significant increase in dwelling density (from 205 to 471) and studio apartments is problematic. This fails to address the housing crisis by offering mostly tiny units and will likely lead to high resident turnover, harming community cohesion.
​The development also poses a major road and infrastructure burden. The planned number of new residents will overwhelm local streets, particularly the narrow residential roads of Edith St. This will create a pedestrian safety and traffic nightmare, especially with a major parking shortfall. The proposal's lack of adequate visitor parking will push more cars onto our streets, exacerbating an already stressed situation.
​Finally, the overbearing building heights of up to 10 storeys will negatively impact our local character and amenity. It is not in keeping with the predominantly single-storey, low-density streetscape of our area.
​I urge you to reject this proposal in its current form and require a plan that respects local infrastructure and our community.

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