The Timberyards by RTL Co.

Thank you for the opportunity to object. Refer to the attached.

We object to this proposal, as outlined in the attachment

I object on the following basis:

- building heights, density and development footprint over the site. The proposal is grossly over developed and not in keeping with the character, design and community place-making scale of development that should be proposed at this site. Building heights should be capped at 8 storeys to provide a village community feel similar to that created in the erskinville master planned neighbourhood or the new surry hills shopping village development at redfern - that should be the design quality and outcomes sought here. Not creation of another green square or mascot!

- a strategic site such as this one, close to the city and public transport should deliver 30% affordable housing managed in perpetuity by a CHP. Marrickville is and will continue to vastly unaffordable for the majority of Sydneysiders. 2 bedroom apartments have broken sales records hitting as much as $1.4M!! The only way to deliver affordable housing for the community, for key workers, for anyone on a low income is to ensure the housing is affordable in perpetuity. Building more homes won’t solve affordability in a location like the inner west. Discounted market and build to rent will not provide the community with the affordable housing product it so greatly needs. Inner West Council and the NSW State Government needs to demand better outcomes to truly provide transformative development and meet the needs of the community.

- car parking is an issue today and will be into the future under these plans. This is both a council and state government issue - the suburb is used as a dumping ground for point to point taxi services. Cars are dumped on public roads all over the surrounding area for weeks and sometimes months on end by point to point taxi drivers. This removes short stay parking for residents and local community wishing to utilise the services of local businesses - shops, cafes, restaurants, breweries, community sports facilities of which there is an abundance! This is a fantastic place to live particularly for families, and brownfield well located sites can provide much needed additional housing in the area however the current status quo for access, traffic management and parking needs addressing. And it needs addressing now by both TfNSW and council even in the absence of this new development.

- an urgent review of early childhood daycare facilities and availability is required to support such a large influx of new homes. I waited 3 years for a council daycare place, and that was after pulling my child out of a private Guardian facility that had falling safety, wellbeing and education standards. Social infrastructure MUST keep pace with these developments. If you cannot provide these social services then the number of homes must be reduced or be phased to be delivered alongside the social infrastructure requirements. Childcare is a particular problem across the inner west council area, but so too is access to GP services - developments of this scale cannot be considered in isolation. Available commercial floor space must have mandated uses to support community service needs.

This developer wants to build 1200 ‘to rent’ apartments across the road from us. Housing around 3500 people. It will be NSWs largest build to rent project.

Whilst we are pro adding housing, build 2 rent historically demands higher rent and also inhibits on home ownership. Also there is simply not enough local infrastructure to handle this many people being added in the vicinity. The traffic is already terrible on Victoria rd.

Whilst we are pro adding housing, build 2 rent historically demands higher rent and also inhibits on home ownership. Also there is simply not enough local infrastructure to handle this many people being added in the vicinity. The traffic is already terrible on Victoria road

This project will create the worst environment within a suburb that already is suffering from a lack of infrastructure due to the recent building explosion in the area. This out-of-control housing policy is not the quick fix needed to make up for the inaction of previous governments. The Canterbury-Bankstown area suffered a permanent lowering of housing integrity in the 1970s thanks to then government policy to accommodate in influx of migrant refugees. That quick fix created the largest eyesore of ugly flats and other mass housing from which suburbs like Lakemba, Wiley Park, Belmore, etc. never recovered in terms of the unsightly flats. Sadly, this government is attempting to destroy the current culture and ambience of Marrickville. How destructive. Don't be lazy with your building for the future. Build the infrastructure then build outwards, not upwards. Show some guts and make that decision - for once think of the city, not the savings by letting developers reach for the sky - both physically and for their purse. It's shameful what your government is choosing for this city's future.

I often visit family in the area of the proposed development and strongly object to this development and the number of units being built. The area is already overcrowded, Victoria Road is extremely busy and it’s always very difficult to find parking. There is not enough infrastructure in the area to cater for the influx of people that these units would allow.

As a resident in the area around the development, I object to the project in its current form for a number of reasons.

The overshadowing of those properties close to the development is a major concern. This development would cause the loss of sun for some residents. The study into solar compliance was completed based on existing solar panels, however as more people are adopting this technology, there may be others who will now not have adequate sun to make it worth installing them.

The height of the proposed building on Sydenham Rd is much higher than other buildings along the street. The loss of privacy to those living around the project will be significant; balconies and windows would have clear sightlines into previously private backyards.

Parking on the streets around the project is already very hard to come by, and the limited parking provided in the proposal will only cause this to worsen. Traffic along Victoria Rd has significantly slowed down after the construction of Wicks Place, and this additional development would increase the problems.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this development.
Tere is a discrepancy between the actual statistics published in respect of the census data and those contained within Tables 6 and 11.
I have reviewed the ABS 2016 statistics for Marrickville (where the proposed development lies within) and they state:
Car, as driver - 4,800 - (34.9%)
Train - 3,321 (23,8%) - Tables state 37%
Bus - 1,083 (7.8%) - Tables state 9%
Walked - 651 (4.7%) - Tables states 6%
Train/Bus - 642 (4.2%).
The report states 'most residents.... used active and public transport to travel to work.... accounting for 46 per cent of all trips. This is incorrect as the census data states that people who travelled to work by public transport equated to 5,578 or 40% of respondents and those who travelled by car as driver or passenger equated to 5.597 or 40.1 % of respondents.
I am extremely concerned that for 1,188 apartments, there will only be allocated a total of 228 parking spaces of which 22 are privately operated car share spaces. The 2011, 2016 and 2021 census (Marrickville) reveal that the average motor vehicle per dwelling is 1.2 - this would equate to 1,425 car spaces. While I acknowledge that this number of spaces will not be delivered, it falls far short of the reality of what will be required. Parking in Marrickville is already horrendous, and this short-sighted parking 'strategy' will have an onerous impact of existing residence. It should be noted that 50.9% of people in Marrickville had at least 1 car - This at the very least should be the benchmark of car parking spaces.
I applaud the want to increase cycling as a means to get around, but again the reality of dropping children off at school, day care etc., doesn't overly lend itself riding a bike in preference to owning a car (especially with climate change making the weather wetter and hotter). It is not a reasonable assumption to assume people will walk, cycle or utilize public transport – the Census statistics clearly show cars are still very much a requirement. I would suggest the amount of money being spent on freeways also supports this premise.
Regarding household data, the census offers the following:
Average children per family: 2021 - 1.6, 2016 - 1.6 and 2011 - 1.7
Average people per household: 2021 - 2.3, 2016 - 2.5 and 2011 - 2.5
Average number of bedrooms per dwelling: 2021 - 2.4, 2016 - 2.5 and 2011 - 2.5.
The proposal suggests 83 studio's (7%), 201-1 bedroom (16.91%), 625 2-bedroom (21.96%), 261 3-bedroom (21.96%) and 18 4-bedroom apartments (1.52%). Again, the number of bedrooms data in the 2021 and previous census data, suggests this make up is at odds with what is required.
None - includes bedsitters: 196 (1.83%) - NSW has 0.70%.
1 bedroom: 1,472 (13.8%) - NSW has 6.6%.
2 bedrooms: 4.415 (41.5%) - NSW has 22.7%.
3 bedrooms: 2,908 (27.3%) - NSW has 34.7%.
4 bedrooms: 1,526 (14.3%) - NSW has 33.9%.
To ensure residents can have a long-term future in Marrickville, we need to ensure accommodation is provided for growing families. As per the above statistics, it is clear that more 3 and 4 bedroom apartments need to be provided as Marrickville is already behind the state average.
As a resident of over 20 years, I question the comments regarding the increase traffic...I can assure you at 7am it is gridlocked, as it is just about any time on the weekend.
I question the height of 8 storeys along Sydenham Road. Not only is it unsightly and extreme in a low-rise area, I understand the legal limit is 3 storeys. I would also draw attention to The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082. – 10848 of 2009, regarding overshadowing and solar amenity for neighboring properties.
Some time ago I attended the Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Corridor Information sessions and took the opportunity to speak with Town Planners to provide data from various Census reports on the number of people per dwelling, type of dwelling and number of vehicles per dwelling. The Planners stated they had not noted the Census data and acknowledged the fact that no-one is piecing together the overall impacts of the DA’s approved and in course. I would urge the planning authority to look at the ongoing cumulative effect of DA approvals in terms of the impact on residents. Marrickville and the Inner West has seen a significant increase in the number of flats/apartments in four or more storey blocks as evidenced in the past three census reports (attached). The 2021 census report for Marrickville states that over 47.2% of housing stock is flats and apartments. This is against the NSW percentage of 21.70% and 14.2% Australia wide. It will be of interest to discover what the next census reveals.
I also query with the addition of this proposal with that of Wicks Park and high-rise developments along Illawarra, Addison Roads and others, if there are sufficient services to cater for such a rapid influx of people including schools, childcare, medical practitioners, police, ambulance, fire services including sufficient equipment to deal with fires in high-rise apartments.
Marrickville has played a significant role in increased housing stock, but we are at breaking point. Please take into account the impacts on exiting residents and ensure they are not lost in the developer's pursuit of profits over good, fair and viable design.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments.

The billion-dollar Timberyards development has been heavily marketed as a solution to Sydney’s housing crisis and as a supposed benefit to the community. However, this glossy image fails to reflect the reality on the ground. In truth, the Timberyards proposal does very little to address the urgent need for genuinely affordable housing, while causing lasting and irreparable harm to the existing fabric of our neighbourhoods. This development represents a clear overreach by private interests, prioritising short-term profit over long-term community benefit and social cohesion.

As concerned residents of Sydney’s Inner West, we call for seriously reconsidering this project and demand that any new development in our area uphold the principles of fairness, sustainability, transparency, and community wellbeing.

1. A False Promise of Solving the Housing Crisis
At the heart of the public justification for the Timberyards is the claim that it will “help solve” the housing crisis. Yet when we look closely at the proposed housing mix, this promise falls flat. A significant majority of the planned units are high-end, luxury apartments marketed towards investors and wealthier buyers. These units are not affordable for key workers, low-income families, single parents, students, or pensioners—the groups most affected by housing insecurity.

Sydney is already full of overpriced, investor-grade apartments sitting empty or used for short-term rentals. What we need are genuinely affordable homes—priced within reach for people on average or below-average incomes, and protected from speculative ownership. The current Timberyards proposal allocates only a minimal percentage of units as “affordable,” and even those lack a long-term guarantee of affordability.

There is a growing consensus among urban planners, housing experts, and community advocates that the only way to address this crisis is through increased provision of social and affordable housing, not luxury stock. Developers should be mandated to dedicate a minimum of 30% of all new builds to affordable and social housing, and these should be managed by not-for-profit housing providers with proven track records of supporting tenants.

2. Inappropriate Scale and Breach of Planning Intentions
Another major issue is the sheer scale and density of the proposed Timberyards development. It is far beyond what was originally envisioned for this area, and far exceeds what existing infrastructure and amenities can support. The proposed building heights are set to dwarf surrounding homes and breach established planning guidelines. These high-rises will cast long shadows, increase wind tunnels, block views, and destroy the current low-rise character of the neighbourhood.

This is not about being anti-development—it’s about demanding that development respect the legal building limits, heritage values, and human scale of existing communities. When developers are allowed to override planning rules through loopholes or political pressure, it sends a clear message: profit is more important than people. The community has spent years participating in planning processes and local strategies that respect sustainable growth. This project undermines that trust.

We urge the planning authority to reject any proposal that exceeds current zoning or building limits, unless it delivers a clear and measurable public benefit—something this development currently fails to do.

3. Loss of Community Character and Displacement
The Inner West is home to a diverse, vibrant, and tight-knit community. Developments like the Timberyards risk eroding the very fabric that makes this area special. Longstanding residents, local artists, small business owners, and community organisations are being priced out or pushed aside in the name of gentrification.

The proposed retail and commercial components of the development are likely to cater to higher-income demographics, with rents unaffordable for existing local shops and cafés. As we’ve seen in other parts of the city, this leads to sterile, soulless “lifestyle precincts” rather than living, breathing communities.

Instead, new developments should be required to actively contribute to the local community by:

Offering subsidised commercial leases for small local businesses, artists, and not-for-profits.
Including space for community use (youth centres, libraries, food co-ops).
Protecting local heritage buildings and public spaces.
We must prioritise inclusive development that welcomes existing residents rather than pricing them out.

4. Lack of Infrastructure to Support Increased Population
Adding thousands of new residents without a matching investment in schools, healthcare, transport, and public amenities is irresponsible and short-sighted. Local roads are already congested, public transport is at capacity during peak hours, and our schools and clinics are overstretched.

The development will inevitably place enormous pressure on already strained public infrastructure. Families moving into the area will struggle to find school placements or access timely medical care. There are no concrete plans in the proposal for how the developer intends to contribute to improving or expanding local services.

We call on the relevant authorities to place a moratorium on large-scale residential developments until there is a comprehensive, funded plan to expand local infrastructure proportionally. At a minimum, developers should be required to contribute substantially to public infrastructure upgrades through levies, land dedication, or direct project partnerships.

5. Environmental Impact and Sustainability Failures
The environmental impact of the Timberyards development has also been largely overlooked. The proposed construction will involve clearing green space, disrupting biodiversity, and significantly increasing emissions through construction and ongoing energy consumption.

This is happening at a time when Sydney is experiencing the escalating effects of climate change: rising temperatures, urban heat islands, flash flooding, and air pollution. We cannot afford to approve large-scale developments that ignore their environmental footprint.

All future developments should:

Include green roofs and walls, urban gardens, and native vegetation corridors.
Maximise solar power, water capture, and passive cooling in building design.
Use sustainable, low-carbon building materials.
Incorporate thorough waste management plans during and after construction.
The Timberyards plan is sorely lacking in all of these areas and should not proceed in its current form.

6. Lack of Genuine Community Consultation
Perhaps most frustrating is the sense that community voices have been sidelined throughout this process. Information sessions have been limited, tokenistic, and poorly advertised. Many residents only found out about the scale of this project after it had progressed far into the planning pipeline.

A development of this size and impact should not go ahead without widespread, meaningful consultation—especially with First Nations stakeholders, renters, youth, and vulnerable groups whose voices are often left out of the conversation.

We ask the government and planning authorities to:

Pause the project until a genuine, independent community consultation process has occurred.
Provide transparent reporting on community feedback and how it will be incorporated.
Hold developers accountable to the commitments they make, with enforceable agreements.
In Conclusion
The Timberyards project, as currently proposed, is a deeply flawed response to a real crisis. It does little to address housing affordability or equity, ignores infrastructure and environmental limitations, and threatens the character and sustainability of our community. We do not oppose thoughtful, inclusive development—but we do oppose overreach, gentrification, and profit-first planning masquerading as public good.

We urge the planning authorities and government to stand with the community, not with powerful developers. Demand better. Demand fairer. Sydney deserves nothing less.

As a local resident, I have serious concerns about the proposed development at the timber yards site in Marrickville. From firsthand experience, the scale and density of this project are completely inappropriate for the area and far exceed what the existing infrastructure can support. Roads like Victoria Road, Sydenham Road and surrounding streets are already under significant strain, with traffic frequently at a standstill during peak times. Introducing over 1,100 apartments—and the corresponding increase in vehicles—would likely result in chronic gridlock, further reducing liveability and safety for the local community.

Beyond traffic concerns, the sheer density of the proposal poses a broader risk to the area’s character and sustainability. Marrickville remains a hub for light industry, and abruptly injecting thousands of new residents into a precinct not designed for such a scale of residential living risks creating a poorly integrated and unsupportable urban pocket. Without adequate investment in transport, amenities, green space, and community infrastructure, this kind of overdevelopment risks degrading rather than enhancing the neighbourhood.

While I recognise the need to increase housing supply, the current scale and design of this proposal threaten to permanently alter the cultural identity of Marrickville. I urge the council to reject the proposal in its current form and push for a more balanced and appropriately scaled approach to development in the area.

Dear Inner west council,

I am writing to formally object to this proposed development application on the following grounds.
1. The project fails to deliver the community benefits which seem to partly be the justification for its quick approval. My grounds for this statement are particularly focused on the large percentage of high cost for profit student accomodation operated by SCAPE. These units will be prioritising short term occupation with a high turnover and will inflate the rental market in the area .This seems to contradict the stated goals of the project to provide sustainable housing. These kind of student housing developments tend to have a negative impact on local community areas.
2. The build to rent model is not designed in invest in long term housing solutions and will again inflate the rental market without providing stable accomodation. This will also negatively impact community in the area which is part of the value that has generated the inner wests economic success.
3. Less than ten percent of housing in the development is designated as affordable. The definition of affordable at 20 percent below market value will also become meaningless when rents are inflated due to the economic actions from the other 90 percent of housing in the development.
4. I object to such a blatant profit making scheme going through under state significance when it is clearly meeting the needs of the developer and not the community .
5. It is too large for the area to absorb. Mega developments do not enrich neighbourhoods. It would be far better to offer smaller scale community driven housing especially given the proximity to the public school which will struggle to absorb this many new potential students.
6. Local infrastructure. The inner west is at capacity for its current services and will struggle to absorb this many new high turnover residents in one position. This is not the value adding development that the sector needs. It could well end up as a ghetto isolated from the rest of the area which would present significant social problems.

Please see attached reasons why I ask you to reject the Timberyards Development. I have outlined reasons why this development plan is inappropriate and highly detrimental to the current community, it does very little to make a genuine attempt to ease the housing crisis or offer affordable housing that people need.
Thank you for your time in considering my reasons.

The project in its current shape should not go ahead.

The density of the proposal is unsustainable with current infrastructure. Public transport in the area is already overcrowded, and parking is impossible. I have two young children and we often have to park great distances from our house, which is difficult to manage when children are sick, or it’s raining. Buses are overcrowded, and the metro is standing room only.

The height of the proposed buildings will diminish liveability of the area, which already lacks open and green spaces. The shadow of the proposed buildings impact on surrounding residences and Marrickville Public School, where the children (including my two school aged children) already only have a modest and small play area. Height should be limited to 3 storeys only.

I support the idea of increasing density in our inner suburbs through carefully planned, sensible, and sustainable developments. Unfortunately, the Timberyards development does not meet these standards.

Inadequate mix of family-friendly units: It is disappointing to see such little consideration given to providing apartments suitable for families. Large-scale projects like this are a chance to move beyond the outdated approach of prioritizing small "investor-grade" 1 and 2-bedroom apartments. With only 40 out of 1,188 apartments being 3-bedroom units, the proposal misses the mark. At least 25% of these apartments should cater to families, creating a more diverse and balanced community. While increasing density is necessary, it must be done thoughtfully, not just repeating past mistakes. The current proposal fails to address the demand for more family-suitable housing.

Traffic congestion and overdevelopment: Wicks Place across the road has already added 272 apartments. Adding another 1,188 units in such a compact area, with only one lane each way, will overwhelm Victoria Road and Sydenham Road, which already experience heavy congestion. The assumption that everyone will use the metro is unrealistic and doesn’t reflect the realities of daily life.

Strain on infrastructure and services: The local infrastructure is already struggling to keep up with demand. Schools, childcare centres, and medical facilities are under pressure — I personally experienced the difficulty of securing a daycare spot, waiting over a year for my son to get in. Adding such a significant population increase without ensuring these essential services are expanded will only worsen the situation, putting further strain on already stretched resources.

Insufficient parking: The allocation of only 216 parking spaces for 1,188 units is absurd. Expecting less than 20% of residents to own a car is unrealistic. Even in the City of Sydney, where car ownership is lowest, 60% of households have at least one vehicle, compared to 90% in greater Sydney (https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/guides/city-at-a-glance). Using even the lower estimate of 60% would mean nearly 500 additional cars competing for already scarce street parking — and that’s assuming each household only owns one vehicle, which is unlikely given that the average in greater Sydney is 1.5 cars per household. The local streets simply cannot handle this influx.

I urge Build-to-Rent Co to revise their plans and propose a development that better serves Marrickville and the broader Inner West. As it stands, this proposal prioritizes maximizing profit over creating a sustainable, inclusive community. A more balanced plan that genuinely considers the long-term impact on residents and infrastructure is necessary.

I object to the current proposal for The Timberyards on the following grounds:

Overshadowing:
- the project significantly overshadows existing housing to the south on the opposite side of Sydenham Road in winter, access to winter sun will be lost to these houses and terraces
- the project overshadows itself, the 13 storey tower to the North East will over shadow the 13 storey behind it, and that will overshadow the 8 storey building on Sydenham Road

No sunlight or cross ventilation:
- a significant proportion of the apartments will have no sunlight, or cross ventilation, this is not healthy and will lead to increased energy use through heating and cooling

Bulk:
- the development is being proposed across a site which currently ranges from ground level to 3 storeys high warehouses and commercial buildings, the project is a significant change to this, the residential buildings surrounding the site are predominantly detached 1 storey dwellings, with some 2 storey and 3 storey blocks. The transition from 1 storey to 8 is abrupt and should, in my opinion, be mitigated or gradual.

Views:
- the developer's application has not taken into account views of the sky as a beneficial, calming and grounding thing

Traffic:
- the current use of the site generates very little traffic, the proposed development has 200+ car spaces, it's unclear how cars get into and out of the carpark but Sydenham Road, and Victoria Street are already very busy, as isMitchell Street
- bicycle traffic - see the above, also, the area is currently unsafe for children to ride in
- pedestrian traffic - with the large number of people moving into the area the existing footpaths and routes to Sydenham Station will need to be widened and improved
- public transport - buses are already well used, as is the train and metro

Thank you

See attached submission with points raised - thank you

I am a Marrickville resident in the area local to the proposed development. I object to the project in it's current form for the following reasons:
1. There are insufficient parking spaces provided. For the proposed 1,188 units proposed, only 216 parking spaces have been provided. It is likely that at least a majority of people renting apartments in the development will own cars. This means that at least 378 cars will have to find parking in the local streets, where parking is already scarce. There are many houses in the area without parking, so any new development should provide sufficient parking for the residences created and should not contribute to worsen local parking issues.
2. There are insufficient number of affordable units provided. Many local residents are already struggling to find affordable housing.New developments designated as state significant should be required to provide at least 20% affordabel housing as this is the section of the community facing the most difficulties with housing.
3. I am very concerned about the impacts of traffic on Victoria and Sydenham Roads. These roads are already very busy and this development will contribute a significant number of additional cars to an already congested intersection.

I object to the project in its current form for the following reasons.

1. Parking. The project includes parking spaces for only around one quarter of the units planned. The developers have said that they do not anticipate that all of the residents will want to use a car. As a local resident, my experience of the neighbourhood is that this expectation does not reflect reality. Even with an abundance of public transport options, almost all of my neighbours also have at least one car per residence. The lack of parking will cause havoc in the neighbourhood, which is already a busy area with few unrestricted parking spots.

2. Overshadowing. The plan is for 8-storey buildings fronting Sydenham Rd. The opposite side of the street is composed of residential houses 1 or 2 storeys high. The overshadowing analysis shows that most (not all) of the affected residences will receive the required 2 hours of sunlight in winter, but even so, a number of them will have their access to sunlight significantly affected. It is also not clear to me whether the development would include windows overlooking the primary school, which I believe would be inappropriate.

3. Infrastructure. Another large development was recently completed a block or two away from this site, with no new schools, shops, medical centres, or other services opening to service that community. The addition of another 2000 or more residents will put an additional strain on already scarce resources.

4. The plan involves primarily 2-bedroom units. The local area is already well-serviced by this size of dwelling. What is needed is larger accommodation (3 or 4 bedrooms) so that couples who live in the area can have families without being forced to leave their communities.

5. Further comments. I don't object in general to the construction of apartment buildings in my area. I can see that it's a necessity, and I would welcome affordable housing in particular. However, I don't think this plan is appropriately adapted to the current needs of the community or to local infrastructure.