Precinct 75 Mixed Use Development

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 am a local resident in the area and I have concerns with the updated Precinct 75 Project development to increase the no. of dwellings from 205 to 471 (130% increase) without adequately assessing and addressing parking and local traffic issues.

Parking Issues: As of now, residents do not have enough street parking. Many houses in the vicinity of the project do not have off-street parking available and based on the Traffic Impact Assessment (25035 - 23 July 2025) , only 193 resident parking spots will be available for the new 471 residents of Precinct 75. The requirement of parking allowances for residents of new developments should also be a function of the existing parking capacity in the area and not just based on accessibility as many of the new residents will undoubtingly be parking on the local streets. The existing street parking capacity is not taken into consideration in the assessment and if included would likely indicate that more resident parking spots will be required for the project to not worsen the already strained resident street parking situation. The developer should at the very least maintain the dwelling no. to resident parking ratio of >0.5 in the Approved Development and consider the current street parking capacity of the area. At the minimum, 236 resident parking spots should be proposed with the increase in dwellings. The proposal also doesn't include enough carshare spots. The requirement for the new development is 11 and the proposal is only for 6. The 5 existing in the area is to service the existing neighborhood and should not be counted for exclusive use by the Precinct. There are new developments in the local neighborhood that will add to the usage of these existing carshare vehicles as well. No assessment on capacity of existing carshares has been done in the provided assessment either. The development should provide the required carshare spots.

Traffic Flow Issue: The traffic assessment do not consider all the intersections with Mary St. The intersection of Bakers Lane and Mary Street has been left out of the assessment. There are significant traffic inflows to Mary St from Bakers Lane that would further add to local traffic congestion.

I am supportive of new developments and projects that enhance our community however, I believe the issues mentioned above have not been adequately assessed and considered by the developer.

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 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 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 this project, and in particular the proposed changes to the nature and scale. The original plan (as approved), was barely acceptable; the new proposal is completely unsustainable.

There have already been numerous rounds of submissions in respect of the Precinct 75 development and, having previously seen some positive changes in terms of its scope including in particular, building height, it now feels like we are starting from scratch. It is frankly exhausting to be here again and having to repeat the same arguments, especially after construction has already commenced.

From the beginning I have been in support of some development at the Precinct, so long as it was proportionate and complementary to the surrounding area. New housing is necessary especially in the Inner West, and I am supportive of additional services for the community including restaurants, shops and recreational facilities and green spaces. However, the current proposal significantly increases the number of apartments (more than doubling from 200 to 471!) and GFA while reducing the amount of commercial and community space. This completely changes the nature of what had been promised to the community, and removes many of the facilities that were to be of benefit to locals.

While these changes are made under the guise of solving the housing crisis, it is apparent it is little more than a money grab; only a small number of apartments will be affordable housing, and looking at the rents charged at the developer's other projects - even for tiny studio apartments - it is clear that they will be out of reach for many Sydney-siders in need of housing. (And the fact that there are so few 3-bed apartments means it will be of little assistance to families looking for housing in the area.) Claims of providing diversity in housing are dubious at best; the proposal appears to be an attempt to cram as many apartments into the relatively small Precinct site as possible.

The changes propose a development that is bigger in scale than ever, and completely disproportionate to everything in the surrounding neighbourhood. Having previously had the height of Building C (the tallest building) reduced to 7 stories, it is now proposed to increase to 9 stories. This is significantly taller than anything in the nearby area, and will have a substantial impact on existing residents in terms of light, views and privacy. There is no justification or legitimate reason for Building C to be higher than what was initially approved, following extensive consultation with stakeholders and submissions from the community.

My other core concern about the new proposal is around parking and the traffic impacts. Despite the huge increase in apartments and therefore resident numbers, the carpark will not increase in size (I understand this is not possible due to the construction completed to date). For 471 apartments there will be only 193 parking spaces. While it is claimed that this within the guidelines for this type of studio-style development it is inconceivable that this will not have severe impacts on local residents.

That allowed ratio of 0.2 spaces per apartment might be suitable in other contexts, but here street parking is already extremely limited such that one extra car on the street (be it a Precinct resident without a dedicated space, or a visitor to any one of the 471 apartments) will mean a local resident is unable to park near their house. This is not a development on a main road, or near open spaces. The surrounding streets are narrow and many have parking on one side only. The majority of houses do not have off-street parking - there are old houses without garages and newer builds somehow approved by council without off-street parking despite having 3, 4 or even 5 bedrooms. It is already a battle to find a park most days and certainly if you are not home by 5 or 6pm it is very unlikely that you will be able to park near your house overnight. It is difficult to fathom the impact an additional 471 residences will have on this situation and how anyone can feasibly suggest that 193 resident car spaces (and less than 300 spaces in total) is anywhere near sufficient for a project of this scale.

It is unrealistic that only 1 in every 5 apartments will have a car (and only 1 at that), and require parking. While nearby public transport is adequate, this is not a development that is situated right next to a train or metro station. Even then, the services that go from the nearby stations all go to the CBD so anyone needing to commute elsewhere (or who works in different locations such as a tradesperson, or otherwise requires a car during their work day), will likely need to drive and therefore own a car. A bus stop is close, but services are already packed in peak hour, and the 422 city bus has had its services reduced (in numbers, but also in terms of the route) in recent years. Such a large number of apartments will also mean frequent visitors who will most likely arrive by car as well (especially given the transport limitations noted).

A development in this location cannot be increased in scope - especially to the proposed level - without any increase in the amount of car parking given the extremely limited availability of street parking in the surrounding streets. It appears that being unable to now increase the size of the carpark the developer proposes the maximum number of apartments allowed under the 0.2 ratio, but for the reasons mentioned this is just not suitable at the Precinct.

The proposed changes and in particular the steep increase in resident numbers will also have a severe impact on local traffic. The streets surrounding the Precinct are all narrow, local streets; many barely cope with the traffic as it is. Mary Street in particular is extremely busy, being a main thoroughfare from the highway and Canal Road to Unwins Bridge Road. With more and more people moving in and out of the Precinct, particularly in peak hour, it is apparent there will be a significant increase in traffic with which the surrounding streets just will not cope. Not to mention services such as waste removal requiring access to the site via streets that cannot handle large trucks. A significant concern is the intersection of Edith Street and Unwins Bridge Road where there is no traffic light; cars turning right in either direction will cause delays especially in busy periods. The entrance and exit to the development on Mary Street will also cause a bottleneck especially as it is so close to the traffic lights at Unwins Bridge Road.

Finally, I query the impact such a large development - and subsequent increase in population - will have on local amenities and services, including the local public school.

Thank you for considering my submissions.

The originally approved development plan provided for 206 residential units and 293 parking spaces, of which 193 were allocated for residents. Even under this arrangement, our community has already experienced significant parking pressures in the surrounding area.

The current proposal seeks to increase the number of residential units to 471 — a 128% increase — without any corresponding increase in parking provision. This raises serious concerns about where the additional residents’ vehicles will be accommodated and the inevitable overflow onto surrounding streets.

Furthermore, no clear assessment has been provided regarding how this substantial intensification of use will affect traffic flow, congestion, and overall road safety within our neighbourhood.

We strongly object to this proposal in its current form and urge that any amendment must:
    •    Include an appropriate increase in on-site parking provisions, and
    •    Provide a comprehensive traffic impact study to demonstrate how the development will manage vehicle access, congestion, and pedestrian safety.

Until these critical issues are addressed, this proposal is neither practical nor sustainable for our community.

We support the initial precinct development (what was promised), but we don’t support the proposed changes.
It’s an iconic inner west site, and going 10 stories high will be completely out of sync (eye thorn) to the whole neighbourhood.
Instead, just build multiple 6-7 story complexes (i.e. princes highway), but don’t go from 1 to 100 with the first complex.

I write as a resident located just two streets away from the proposed Precinct 75 site in St Peters. I oppose the scale of proposed modifications—including the significant increase in dwellings (from 206 to 471) and building heights (from max 29 m to potentially 51 m)—because of the following concerns:

1. Overdevelopment beyond Planning Policy Standards

The Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy, under Housing SEPP 2021, caps building height at 22 m (max 6 storeys) for areas close to town centres. The proposed increase to up to 51 m far exceeds this standard, undermining the intent of a gradual mid-rise precinct.
The intended FSR of 2.2:1 may align with policy—but only up to 22 m. Exceeding height limits purely for floor area undermines design quality and local amenity.

2. Adverse Impact on Local Character and Streetscape

A sudden jump from 7-storey buildings to heights of 15+ storeys will create an abrupt and incompatible transition, overwhelming the existing one- to two-storey residential context. The Apartment Design Guide recommends stepping down heights at boundaries to protect neighbouring amenity—a principle clearly violated here.

3. Insufficient Parking and Infrastructure Planning

There is no clear provision for additional parking, yet adding over 200 units will inevitably worsen parking pressure on surrounding streets. NSW design guidance under SEPP 65 requires contextually appropriate parking solutions.
Without dedicated parking or transport infrastructure upgrades, the proposal significantly risks exacerbating congestion, illegal parking, and safety hazards.

4. Local Zoning and Transition Not Respected

While the site is zoned B4 Mixed Use and allows up to 29 m height under the 2020 rezoning, these modifications exceed that envelope without credible justification. Such abrupt increases undermine community trust and the integrity of zoning provisions.

Conclusion & Request
I urge the Planning Panel to reject or significantly modify the proposed changes: reduce the height to align with standards (max 22 m), ensure a better transition in scale, include adequate parking solutions, and thoroughly assess the cumulative impacts on local infrastructure and liveability.

Thank you for considering my submission. I value responsible, well-planned growth—but this proposal in its current scope feels excessive and detrimental to surrounding residents.

References:
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/low-and-mid-rise-housing-policy/summary-of-key-provisions
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/apartment-design-guide-part-2-developing-the-controls.pdf
https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/car-parking-requirements-in-sepp-65.pdf
https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/s456-modification-precinct-75

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 ?

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.

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

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.