Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

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.

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. 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’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.

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 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.

Please refer to attached letter of objection.

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

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 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.

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

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

Cheers
Jesse

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

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

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

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

I object to the proposed development at Precinct 75 on Mary Street, St Peters, as it fails to meet the minimum parking requirements set by the Marrickville DCP. There are significant shortfalls in both residential and commercial parking, with no visitor spaces provided. This will force residents and visitors to park on surrounding streets, worsening congestion and disadvantaging those without off-street parking. The local residents already suffer due to parking issues
Our community are concerned that most are tiny studios. This does not provide real relief for the housing crisis and will only lead to high resident turnover and failure to meet council objectives of build to rent.
Road & infrastructure will be burdened, leading to severe congestion, compromising of pedestrian safety and compromising emergency vehicle access in our narrow streets and pathways.
Proposed new building height is overbearing, exceeding original rezoning intent of council LEPs and previous council resolutions to limit heights for amenity and character preservation. These excessive heights are incompatible with our predominantly single storey, low density streetscape.
The proposal should be refused or amended to address these issues.
Many thanks,
DR (local resident)

There is not enough infrastructure to support increasing the number of units from the original plan.