Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

Objection to Proposed Modification of SSD-82639959 (73 Mary Street, St Peters)

I strongly object to the proposed modification to increase the height and density of this development.

The proposal is excessive in scale, prioritises developer profit over community benefit, and will cause lasting harm to the neighbourhood.

Traffic, Parking, and Access:
• The number of units will increase from 206 to 471, yet only 193 residential parking spaces are provided. This is egregiously inadequate for 471 apartments (267 studios, 86 one-bedroom, 109 two-bedroom, 9 three-bedroom).
• While the 2021 SEPP reduced the minimum parking requirement from 0.5 to 0.2 spaces per dwelling, these figures are far out of step with average car ownership rates in Sydney. Residents will inevitably spill into already overcrowded on-street parking.
• Surrounding streets are narrow, many homes lack driveways, and access relies on a one-way street already congested at peak hours. This proposal will significantly worsen traffic, congestion, and safety risks.

Infrastructure and Safety:
• The Traffic Impact Assessment acknowledges that key intersections will be over capacity by 2037.
• Edith Street remains too narrow for safe two-way traffic. Increased density will compromise both emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety.

Overshadowing and Open Space:
• The proposal exceeds the maximum permitted building heights under the Marrickville Development Control Plan.
• The increased height will further overshadow neighbouring R2-zoned, single-storey homes to the south, south-east, and south-west, severely impacting residential amenity.
• Council has already raised concerns that the Lawn will be in shade for the majority of the day; the proposed increase in height will only worsen this, leaving residents and the community with a diminished public open space.

Housing Mix and Community Benefit:
• The majority of the additional dwellings are small studio apartments. This will not meaningfully address Sydney’s housing needs, which require a diversity of housing, including family-friendly options.
• The proposal is not designed to serve the local community but to maximise yield for the developer.

Conclusion:
This modification represents overdevelopment. It breaches planning controls, creates serious traffic and parking shortfalls, overshadows both homes and public open space, and provides a poor mix of housing that fails to meet community needs.

I urge Council to refuse this application or require a substantial reduction in scale.

I object to the proposal to increase the number of dwellings and building to 10 stories
This will be invasive to my privacy, bordering the precinct and parking will be insufficient. Both will devalue my home.

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

Our neighbourhood does not have the means to take on such a large project. Parking, transportation and our local community cannot possibly deal with this increase in structure. Strongly opposed.

I 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 Desig 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. Other key concerns regarding the modification include:
- 84% of the apartments are tiny 30 meter square studio apartments, below NSW minimum standard, which will lead to high resident turnover and fail to meet council's objectives for Build-to-Rent developments
- Existing road and infrastructure is already inadequate. Streets surrounding Precinct 75 are too narrow for 2-way traffic. An additional 850 residents will result in severe congestion, compromising emergency vehicle access and pedestrian safety
- The new proposal has a shortfall of 276 commercial and 227 residential parking spaces compared with Council DCP with NO visitor parking proposed. This will force hundreds of cars onto local streets and creates 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

Please consider building in the outer suburbs of Sydney and not in. We are already overcrowded in St Peter's and surrounding suburbs. Traffic will be an issue for one not like it isn't already. We have no clearway in the main peak hour traffic and weekends which makes the commute long especially with the slow 40 km speeds. You haven't even proposed ample parking for this project also. It is a nightmare to park in the inner west and this will make it harder for existing residents. Are our motor vehicles a decoration that we can never move because there will be no where to park later on?. Also our public transport is already overrun and is already overcrowded. It cannot support more people. Please build elsewhere we do not need it here.

I 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 support the development application for Precinct 75 in St Peters. St Peters is majority low rise housing and is in dire need of an uplift. With its proximity to the Sydenham Metro line station and bus routes on the Princes Hwy, it is the perfect location for increased density. We are in a housing crisis and this is the perfect opportunity to increase housing in the Inner West.

There isn’t enough parking provisions. I live around the corner and I can’t find a parking space most days due to clear ways, the climbing gym, airport parkers, and residents. It seems ridiculous to increase capacity this much with no provision of parking. If something as simple and obvious as this has been ignored, there no doubt is a multitude of other corners cut as well

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 oppose to building any more apartments or new residences without having enough parking included in the project. The proposed building does not have adequate parking for new residents, visitors or customers of the proposed retail space. Street parking is already an issue around the streets of the proposed new apartment block. This building cannot be built without proper in facility parking addressed.
Part of Silver Street in front of Precinct 75 is a school zone. It cannot be safe to have all this extra traffic in the area. Traffic during drop off and pick up times will create roadblocks.
This has been terribly planned and I have no idea how the council can let this happen aside from only caring about being paid. They are not thinking about local residents at all.

I 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.

We need more housing across Sydney, and this includes in my LGA, the Inner West. Dwelling prices are too high here because we don’t build enough of them, and here we have opportunity to build many of them. These homes will be walking distance from the Sydenham metro, providing access to the rest of Sydney and amazing local amenity. Finally, I love that this will be a mixed used development since the presence of residents will lower the risk for prospective businesses and boost the local economy.

I 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 am a property owner of a previous project of Coronation. Since purchasing the apartment, my owners corporation has been in a law suit against their builders for a defective building.

The development so far has caused major disruption to our neighbourhood with works being done overnight with loud noises, immense dust from the site and road disruptions especially in the mornings. As a shift worker, this has made it extremely difficult since the development commenced.

There is already not enough parking in our area and the development isn't building enough spots to accommodate for the amount of properties they are building for residents alone and are not planning to make room for any visitor parking.

A 10 storey building is NOT appropriate for this area of the neighbourhood, especially for the street it is on. It is an absolute insult to our neighbourhood to allow a project like this to move forward.

Please take care of your current residents in the area, especially the long-standing residents who have been here for 30 years and longer.

We need more housing in the inner west. It’s difficult to find big sites, it’s difficult to get development to stack up. Current height limits prevent meaningful further densification in most places, and heritage covers 43% of Inner West Council.

The primary reason the Inner West is becoming more expensive, pricing out the low-income segment whose contributions made it great, is because we don’t build enough housing.

Building new housing walking distance the Sydenham Metro allows us to colocate housing and public transport investment, which fits the State’s strategy.

Mixed-use (residential & commercial) is fantastic and there’s a reason all the most expensive parts of Sydney have it extensively.

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.

This is an important proposal that must be approved. The housing crisis is so severe and it demands an extraordinary response. The old ways of stopping housing is insanity in a crisis as bad of this. Enough is enough. We must build houses to meet the needs of the population.

We need more housing in the inner west. It’s difficult to find big sites, it’s difficult to get development to stack up. Current height limits prevent meaningful further densification in most places, and heritage covers 43% of Inner West Council.

The primary reason the Inner West is becoming more expensive, pricing out the low-income segment whose contributions made it great, is because we don’t build enough housing.

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.

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.