The Timberyards by RTL Co.

I am all for encouraging density in our inner suburbs through well thought out, sensible and sustainable developments. The Timberyards development is none of these.

Poor mix of units for families: I am disappointed in the lack of thought put into the mix of apartments which are suitable for families. These new developments are an opportunity to challenge the status quo of rotten “investor grade” shoebox 1 & 2 bedroom apartments. Having only 40 3-bedroom apartments out of 1,188 is not acceptable. I would expect this to be at least 25% of these apartments to give families a chance at living here. The Building Australia’s Future plan calls for more density. We know we need it, however it needs to be done right rather than doing more of the same. This development is more of the same in mix and lack of family-suitable units which is incredibly disappointing.

Congestion and density: With Wicks place over the road already adding 272 apartments, an additional 1,188 units takes this to almost 1,500 in a very small, condensed area, with 1 lane each way. Victoria Road and Sydenham Road already suffer from significant congestion. I struggle to see how traffic will even move with the addition of nearly 1,200 extra units. Assuming everyone will catch the metro is ridiculous.

Amenities and Infrastructure: All these residents will not schools, childcare and medical practices. I already had to wait over a year to get my son into a local daycare. The additional population without the infrastructure means these will burst at the seams. This puts undue pressure on our critical services in the area.

Parking: The fact that there are 1,188 units and only 216 parking places is laughable. Where do the developers expect all these new residents to park? To think that less than 20% of the the units will drive makes no sense. The City of Sydney, where the least amount of residents own a car is 60%, compared to 90% in broader Sydney (https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/guides/city-at-a-glance). Even if we assume 60% of units own a car, which is generous as in reality it will be more), this will lead to an additional almost 500 cars in the surrounding streets. This assumes that every unit only owns one car, the rate in greater Sydney is 1.5 per household. The streets around the Sydenham Road/Victoria Road area are already crowded. Adding this number of cars to the pool is not feasible.

I object to the project in its current form and would encourage Build-to-rent Co to come back with a reasonable development which contributes positively to the Marrickville and broader Inner West community. The current development as it stands is untenable and clearly seeks to squeeze every cent of profit out of this development without any consideration for the community and it's long term impacts.

As a concerned community member, I would like to express my concerns in relation to The Timberyards by RTL Co SSDA currently on exhibition.

Every single building proposed in this development is in excess of the approved LEP + 20% AHB.
For the tallest building (Building E), architectural drawings and elevations demonstrate an overall height of RL50.8m, which is blantantly over the maximum height as permitted by the LEP+AHB (RL50m). There is absolutely no tolerance for any variances in construction and considering the proposal is almost 1m over the approved height in the LEP, the design of this particular building should be revised for compliance. In other buildings, maximum heights have been exceeded by 155%, with some accommodating an additional 4 stories.

Wicks Place overshawing studies have been conducted comparing the approved LEP massing (+20% AHB) and the proposed development, which exceeds the LEP approved massing and 20% AHB bonus. In the proposed design, a reduced number of existing Wicks Place apartments achieve a compliant 2hr solar access. The justification for this is the inclusion of architecturally significant sawtooth roofing structure. I would argue, that whilst significant, that council approved planning limits and any architectural details should be considered within the bounds of the design. A sawtooth roof is still possible to achieve whilst within the bounds of the approved height limit, especially when considering that a 20% affordable housing bonus limit has been granted. It is also stated within the Environmental Impact Statement on page 123 "As a result of the proposed development, 62.5% of Wicks Place apartments achieve direct sunlight access for a minimum of 2 hours on 21 June from 9am to 3pm. Given the substantial quantum of affordable housing proposed on the site, and in light of the flexibility envisaged in the Affordable Housing Practice Note, the minor overall reduction of 7.5% below the 70% ADG design criteria is acceptable."
As outlined in my feedback relating to building heights, the overall development is well in excess of the approved LEP. The approved bonus height of 20% is specific to creation of affordable housing. What this development is asking for is over and above the provision, and the justification for shadowing an entire existing residential lot is opinion based and misleading. If the development were designed in compliance with the LEP and 20% AHB bonus, a substantial quantum of affordable housing would still be achieved and shadowing impacts on Wicks Place would be reduced. The true benefit for the developer is increased NLA for their business model, which is being marketed as a desire to increase affordable housing.

It is my request and recommendation that LEP building heights be enforced and any increase over this range be within the 20% Affordable Housing Bonus.

As a local that lives in the immediate adjacency of the proposed development, I can anecdotally attest that current road infrastructure and traffic arrangements on Victoria Road / Sydenham Road are not sufficient to support the proposed development. The traffic report & peer review is based on current traffic flow and doesn't seem to account that a potential 3000 extra inhabitants are going to be taking up residence in what is currently a commercial lot. I strongly suggest that addressing this increase through traffic management alone will be insufficient for this volume of people & their associated vehicles. I would suggest that additonal clearways would eventually have to be added on both main roads (which would be of great detriment to the existing local and future local community). It is idealistic to think the future congestion can be managed through clearways & management alone, good public transport infrastructure does not alleviate the need for appropriate road infrastructure & management. In terms of traffic management alone, I specifically suggest that green turning arrows for turning right from Sydenham Road to Victoria Road be installed, as a lack of turning opportunity already causes a great deal of congestion currently.

Lastly, the current plans provide insufficient focus on essential community infrastructure such as early childhood care facilities. With the development of such a large residential precinct, there should be a corresponding increase in accessible educational and childcare facilities for local families. As it stands, the proposed plans overlook this pressing need, which will force families to seek services in already overburdened areas. The lack of these essential amenities further highlights the gap in planning and the neglect of community well-being in the proposed development.

I urge planners to reconsider these aspects, ensuring a more sustainable and community-focused approach to development that balances growth with quality of life for existing residents.

My concerns: Footpaths can’t manage the foot traffic currently, so your development is wanting the residents to walk so are the paths going to be widen & improved especially the Sydenham Rd going to the station
Road traffic the intersection of Victoria & Sydenham Road is dangerous so including a right turn arrow would be helpful
Green space as you increase the resident the local parks need to be improved including play area for children, fenced dog off lead area
Bike/ scooter pathway so that you don’t have pedestrians & bikes on a shared path
The plans include a lot of 1 bedroom units , this might mean regular turnover of tenants so the kerbside rubbish would increase

I have serious concerns about how this development will impact on the local area.
8 storey frontage to Sydenham Road exceeds the current massing in the urban planning.
The amount of resident parking is woefully inadequate for the number of units.
The traffic impact report is at best ingenuous if not completely fanciful.
There is no way the streets around the area will cope with the increased traffic and parking during construction and after completion.
I support more medium density development in the local area but not a scheme that ignores the amenity of the existing local residents and the incoming residents

I object to the Timberyards project for the following reasons:
1. This project does not provide a true affordable housing option for low-income people and is not family-friendly.
Less than 10% of these units are set aside for Affordable Housing.
Out of the 1188 units, there will only be 40 three-bedroom apartments. That is not enough apartments for families. Clearly, this development is for housing wealthy people. One look at Scape's( the company behind this development) building projects shows the true aim of this project and the costs of the rental. A studio of 15 square metres is advertised at $789 a week per person in Darlington. Another studio is advertised at $760 a week per person in Glebe. This is not truly affordable housing for the people of NSW.
2. Lack of infrastructure, parking space and traffic congestion
I understand that the government wants people to stop using cars and instead get on bikes or walk to nearest public transport. However, this is not working well. I have watched young people riding recklessly without helmets and experience. Bikes have become street litter everywhere. Even though public transport is good in Marrickville, it is no where near as good as London, Paris or Tokyo to support 1188 extra apartments. Public transport in NSW is expensive. If we are serious about being environmentally conscious we need to REDUCE the human population in the community and not increase it , as this Build-to-Rent project aims to do. The community is better off building a nature reserve for the environment or building a creative entertainment/arts precinct.
The development will increase the traffic congestion that Marrickville residents have to deal with every day as a consequence of the suburb's proximity to the airport, the city and Princes Highway. People park here from all over Sydney and then take an uber to the airport. It is cheaper to park in a Marrickville street and catch an uber to the airport than using public transport or the airport parking facilities. Allowing to build 1188 apartments will exacerbate the problem we have with traffic congestion and parking space.
3. The development is too close to Marrickville Public School. Increased traffic congestion will be unsafe for everyone near the area.
4. The proposed height of 8 floors to 13 floors of the buildings, the architecture and design are not sympathetic to the character of the local neighbourhood. I believe the proposed height of 8 floors and above is illegal, aesthetically displeasing and it will cause overshadowing around Farr Street, the streets off Sydenham Road, including houses on Sydenham Road and Victoria Road.

I object to the building heights of over 7 storeys. This is totally out of character for the Marrickville area. It will also set a precedent to change building heights throughout Marrickville. At present there is a cap of 7 storeys.

I also think the government should be part owner in this development. Build to rent developments, put rental accommodation into the hands of the private sector and surely allows these owners to treat the development how they see fit in regard to rents and maintenance.

Re: Objection to the Proposed Timberyards Development (SDD-76927247)

To Whom It May Concern,

I strongly object to the proposed Timberyards Community development in Marrickville, NSW. As a local resident, I have significant concerns regarding the scale, environmental impact, and community disruption this project will cause. While I attended a meeting held by the site owners at Marrickville Bowling Club years ago, I did not receive any flyers or information regarding community consultation until the DPHI notification in February 2025. This lack of transparent community engagement is deeply concerning.

Cultural and Environmental Concerns

This development is planned on Gumbramorra Swamp (Wetlands) in Gadigal Country, an area with deep historical significance to Aboriginal communities. The development plan mentions consultation with Aboriginal groups but lacks clarity on which groups have been consulted and the process followed. It is imperative that full archaeological assessments be conducted before any excavation begins. I urge Government Architect NSW to invite Mr. Dillon Kombumerri to review this plan to ensure best practices are followed in honoring the cultural and historical significance of this land.

Furthermore, the environmental impact is unacceptable. The project has received a BDAR Waiver, which should be rejected. The bulk and scale of this development will create an ‘urban heat island’ effect due to inadequate mature tree planting. The landscape plan primarily features small-crowned, dwarf species unlikely to exceed 5 meters in height. The proposal misses an opportunity to integrate meaningful green infrastructure, such as linking Wicks Park, Marrickville Public School grounds, Henson Park, and Addison Road through green corridors. Additionally, rooftop gardens in a 30 ANEF zone directly under a flight path are neither viable nor a substitute for proper green space.

Excessive Scale and Overdevelopment

The proposed buildings, particularly the central 13-story towers, are grossly out of scale with the surrounding low-rise residences, which consist mostly of single-story homes and apartment blocks no taller than four to eight stories. The seven buildings are crammed into an already congested area, lacking sufficient open space and community-focused design.

The high density of 1,188 units, projected to house between 2,500 and 5,000 residents, is excessive for the available space. The current plan lacks proper contingency for alternative housing for displaced long-term Farr Street residents, many of whom are low-income families. Additionally, the overemphasis on co-living spaces at the expense of family-oriented housing does not reflect the current needs of the community. Given the government’s emphasis on housing for essential workers, the project should include significantly more two- and three-bedroom affordable units.

Traffic, Parking, and Safety Issues

The proposal’s transportation and parking plans are inadequate and will create significant congestion and safety hazards. With only 216 parking spaces for 1,188 units, residents will be forced to compete for already scarce street parking. The local council car park in Frampton Avenue is fully occupied by 8 AM daily, and Marrickville, Sydenham, and Victoria Roads are already at capacity with heavy traffic congestion. The additional influx of cars and commercial deliveries will exacerbate existing traffic problems and pose serious risks to pedestrians.

The placement of vehicle access points on Farr Street is particularly problematic. Farr Street is a key pedestrian route for students at Marrickville Public School, and the increase in traffic directly contradicts the NSW Government’s Active Transport to School Program. Additionally, the Mitchell Road entry will worsen congestion on Victoria Road, creating further bottlenecks.

Emergency and Infrastructure Concerns

The project does not provide adequate emergency access. With up to 5,000 potential residents, evacuation routes and emergency vehicle access are critically insufficient. Fire trucks may struggle to reach buildings, and in case of an emergency, pedestrian egress will become dangerously congested. Ambulance access is also inadequate, requiring stretcher transport over long distances, potentially delaying critical care.

Conclusion

This development, as currently proposed, fails to adequately address environmental sustainability, community integration, and essential infrastructure. It lacks proper consultation with Indigenous groups, does not provide enough affordable family housing, and places excessive strain on local roads and services. The bulk and scale of this development are inappropriate for the area and will significantly diminish the existing community's quality of life.

I request that this objection be formally acknowledged and that a comprehensive review of the Timberyards development be conducted with meaningful community engagement and revisions that prioritize sustainable, livable outcomes.

Sincerely,

Adrian Hinder
61 Frampton Ave
Marrickville NSW 2204
0430 555 994

I am deeply concerned about the $1.5 billion Timberyards development in Marrickville, which plans to add 1,188 rental apartments across seven buildings. With only 278 parking spaces, overflow will flood already congested streets like Garners Avenue, where parking is already being reduced. Public transport upgrades, limited to more buses and metro access, are not enough to support this scale of development. The site is in a flood-prone zone from Addison Road to Sydenham Station, an area that has historically avoided medium-high rises for this reason. Despite being pitched for families, only 40 of the 1,188 units are three-bedroom. This project raises serious concerns about the current infrastructure, flooding risks, and whether it truly meets the community’s needs.

I understand the need for more medium density housing in our area but I am concerned about the size (1,000+ apartments and 10+ stories) of this development. I have concerns about the impact on roads around the site and particularly into and out of Frampton Ave. In addition the site is disproportionate to the surrounding housing - single or double storey vs 10+ storeys. The current proposal will have a negative impact on the streetscape, public amenity and general living conditions in the area. I would prefer to see buildings limited to 6 storeys

I object to the proposed Timberyard Community development.
This Project is far too large for the physical area and situation within central Marrickville.
The buildings in the centre are extreme at 13 stories high and will dominate the skyscape. The surrounding area looking West and south of the Project is single storey or with apartment blocks of 4 or 8 stories- nothing like the 13 stories proposed.

The 7 buildings are crowded onto the site which has very restricted access mainly from Mitchell street for residents and commercial deliveries and parking. The Farr Street access brings a lot more traffic to the ‘drop off and pick up area’ of Marrickville Public School and is a safety hazard to the school children. The Mitchell Road entry will add a lot more cars and trucks to Victoria Road and bank the traffic up further with turning right. As Mitchell Road does not go through there will be congestion of turning around trucks and cars belonging to the commercial section that will operate on Victoria Road.
The Project will have too many people in this space. The 1188 units are said to be for 2500 renters but since there are 40 3 bedroom and 272 2 bedroom units it would be expected that families of at least 4 people would be in the 2 bedroom units and more in the 3 bedroom units bringing occupants to even 5000 people.
Evacuation and emergence access for this large amount of people is in adequate. In the case of fire access for fire engines is in sufficient to easily reach each building and if evacuation was necessary egress for pedestrians will cause choke points of people frantically trying to get out.
Ambulance access for occupants is far away from some buildings and will involve stretchering for quite some distances and take valuable life saving time away from care.
Given the State Government emphasis on providing for essential workers, the amount of affordable housing is inadequate. Marrickville with its excellent public transport is a central area for staff at RPA hospital, university staff and students schools, medical staff and schools. This Project needs to provide more affordable units for these people and their families. The affordable housing needs to have more 2 and 3 bedroom apartments to cater for families

The Project is unsustainable in regard to traffic and parking. The local streets are already fully parked out and the long day Council car park- 112 spaces- in Frampton Avenue is full by 8am each day. Many dwellings in this street already cannot find a carpark as their property does not have provision for car parking. Often when I go out in the morning and return in the afternoon there are no parking spaces for residents either on the street or in the long time carpark which is only 112 spaces. This massive Project is only providing 216 spaces for 1188 units and occupants will need to find parking in our local streets which already cannot cater for present residents. Our streets cannot take any more cars seeking parking.
The Project is only providing 216 parking spaces for the 1188 units. While Public Transport is accessible some households will have two cars even if some have none. It is inconceivable as to where up to even 5000 people or even the stated 2500 people will find space to park as the streets are full. The traffic created by this number of cars plus commercial trucks and deliveries cannot fit into our current streets. Currently Sydenham, Marrickville and Victoria Roads are packed backed up and even difficult to enter and will not be able to fit in any more traffic.
Risk of car accidents and accidents to occupants as pedestrians and school families and children will be at a dangerous level as frustrations rise.
Heat and Trees- Marrickville currently has a shortage of mature trees to provide shade and absorb reflective heat from footpaths and roads. More mature trees are needed not less. Removal of 22 street trees needs to be replaced with mature trees to cool footpaths and roads.
High rise apartments require the shade of mature trees to minimise the heat reflected from the blocks and surfaces between. The current proposal fails to address this need.
Within this Project there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to create and urban oasis that not only can be enjoyed by the large number of people living there but enhance the surrounding areas and the suburb as a whole. Creating a habitat for birds and small creatures, with mature trees will provide shade and cool areas rather than the hard paving and small bushes and grasses planned.
Conclusion
Marrickville has received World Wide recognition for the redevelopment of the old Marrickville Hospital site. Our Library is held up as a model of catering for current and future needs of a cosmopolitan Marrickville Population in a sustainable and respectful way regarding our heritage- traditional usage and Aboriginal Culture.
The area covered by this Proposal holds the promise of meeting the challenge of housing our citizens in an creative, respectful vision equal to that shown by our Library. This proposal falls far short of this vision.

These proposed megalithic towers need to be retired to the dirt bins of history and a proposal that is an exemplar of Marrickville as an exciting, creative urban centre be put forward.

I have raised just a few points above to outline my Objection. There are many other aspects that need to be raised and will be examined in the Review of this Project which I together with other local residents are requesting.
I request acknowledgement of receipt of this Objection

I object to SSD-76927247 – the Timberyards by RTL Co.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed large development project across the road from my residence on Farr Street. While I understand the necessity for urban development, I believe this particular project will significantly impact the quality of life for residents in this area, specifically those directly across the road.

The knock down and construction phase of this project will undoubtedly bring with it significant noise and dirt. Constant construction noise, large vehicle access and vibrations from drilling are all of concern. What plans have you put in place for any foundational damage to houses? Moreover, the inevitable dust and dirt generated by the construction activities will not only be an eyesore but also pose potential health risks, especially for those with respiratory conditions. There are small children living on the street and many parents use Farr Street to walk to the nearby primary school. Large vehicles are inherently dangerous for pedestrians.

Another concern is the lack of sunshine and overshadowing that my house and the buildings on Farr Street will receive in the morning. The new development is expected to be quite tall (more about that later), which would cast long shadows over the existing homes. This reduction in natural light will lead to an increase in dampness and mould, in an already mould-prone house. Have you done the projections on how much direct sun the houses will receive? If so, I would like to see it. Existing residents should not be negatively affected by this.

Another major issue is parking. Our area is already facing a shortage of parking spaces, and the introduction of this large development is likely to exacerbate the problem. With an influx of new residents and visitors, finding available parking spots will become increasingly difficult, leading to frustration and potential conflicts among neighbours. The development will have 216 spaces for the proposed 1188 units. We would need to have residents' parking permits for our side of the street. Traffic on Victoria and Sydenham Roads is already appalling in rush hour and even on weekends. Assuming 1 car per household, this can only increase the gridlock and cause frustration and animosity among drivers.

Is a six-storey apartment block directly opposite residential houses even legal? Building A will loom over Farr Street. I’ve read that the heights proposed breaches the Local Environment Plan. If this is approved, it creates a precedent for other development to breach the laws. Can the buildings on Farr Street be smaller? Again, existing residents should not have to be negatively affected. We live in a small and lovely community on Farr, Edward and Gorman Streets.

In light of these concerns, I urge the council to reconsider the scale and design of this development project. I believe it is essential to strike a balance between urban growth and the well-being of the existing community. I hope my concerns will be taken into account, and that alternative solutions can be explored to minimise the negative impact on our neighborhood. I know the development is inevitable. We’ve lived on Farr Street for 14 years and I know there are not many actual residents on the street but we still deserve to be taken into consideration.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The permitted height is 3 storeys, but the proposal is 8 storeys. This is not only excessive and illegal but will also overshadow surrounding homes, homes will lose majority of our sun, negatively impacting the community. For some homes this is more than the legal limit of shadowing allowed. Proposed 1,188 units, with only 216 parking spaces planned. It's going to get even harder to park in surrounding streets. Less than 10% of these units are set aside for Affordable Housing. This plan does not provide enough housing for low-income residents. In today's climate we need more housing assistance.

. To whom it may concern,
I object to SSD-76927247 - The Timberyards by RTL Co.
The developer's proposal for the building located on Sydenham Rd, an 8-storey structure, goes well beyond the 3-storey height restriction. This will create significant overshadowing for the homes along Sydenham Road, leaving many residents with less than half an hour of sunlight each day, which could pose serious risks to our health and overall well-being.

1. To whom it may concern,
I object to SSD-76927247 - The Timberyards by RTL Co.
The plan to build the 8-storey building located on Sydenham Rd exceeds the allowed 3-storey height limit by a considerable amount. As a result, it will cause major shading of the homes on Sydenham Road, and many of us will get less than 30 minutes of sunlight daily—an issue that could have a detrimental effect on our health and quality of life and affect residents existing minimal parking availability.

I have objections to the Timberyards Project in Marrickville NSW
I feel that the project is too large for the area. Would impact the light and sun from surrounding homes and parks Not enough parking spaces have allocated with only 230 spaces for 1188 units
There would be an dramatic increase in motor vehicles and pedestrians in the area creating more traffic flow problems which are already severe at times on Victoria Rd.
As there will be an increase in cars in causing congestion in Farr St which is the main entrance to Marrickville Public school which is making the area unsafe for children and parents to drop off and pick-up children.
As indicated in the propsal there would be shops, cafes and restaurants in the development which would attract visitors from out of the area with cars needing parking. Also Electric bikes and scooters all which are unregisted and uncontrolled by police or council rangers would be coming into the area .
I think that the propsal is too large and bulky for the area

This project looks like a brilliant addition to the neighbourhood. Please consider shifting the mix of dwelling sizes to include more three and four bedroom units that will accomodate growing families.

I especially love the commercial spaces on the ground floor and the focus on active transport over private vehicle use (via the low car parking amount and huge amount of bike parking).

Please use development contributions to build a cycleway along Victoria Rd Marrickville. This will alleviate the wailing and gnashing of teeth you’ve likely heard from other car-brained Marrickville residents regarding traffic and parking. This site is perfect for build-to-rent, and could help Sydney’s shift from car dependency to greater use of cycling and public transport.

Good luck and well done!

I very much object to this development for a few reasons:

- It’s set to be built more than double the legal height
- It will cripple the current local infrastructure due to
• providing less than 1/4 of adequate parking space to residents in an already popular area
• Less than 3.7% of proposed apartments are 3 bedrooms, excluding most families and any members of smaller families who require a home office (a staple in the wake of covid)
• The influx of thousands of new residents (this is a realistic projection unless it can be guaranteed that every single apartment will house only 1 person) will completely overwhelm the local education and medical system.

As a longtime local who has enjoyed the evolution and development of Marrickville for 20 years (I’m 34, lived here since I was 13) this is a shocking step in the wrong direction. I wholeheartedly object to this thoughtless cashgrab and wish to protect my community.

I object to this project as Marrickville cannot support the infrastructure of another large apartment complex. The Victoria Road corridor is already under pressure with huge congestion throughout the day and will not cope with the additional residents. There is already limited parking on the Victoria road corridor making it difficult for visitors to access the local businesses. The schools and daycare will not be able to support the additional residents at such a large number. There needs to be significant road improvements and more infrastructure for me to be able to support such a large development.

This is an appalling project. Illawarra road is a narrow one lane road which is already highly congested. Marrickville has had numerous apartment projects but his monstrosity will be absolutely devastating for long term residents in terms of parking, public space and amenities. Apparently the number of units which are social housing is minimal so this is not even justified in terms of providing housing to low income groups. Why do you people wish to burden even further suburbs which have taken on medium density by this behemoth. Please reconsider. You are not making any friends in the locality.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express my strong support for this proposal, which represents exactly the kind of development we need to tackle the housing crisis head-on. The reality is simple: every home we don’t build worsens the problem. People want to live here—so why shouldn’t we make that possible?

This project will deliver 1,200 new units of much-needed housing in Marrickville, one of Sydney’s most in-demand areas. With buildings up to eight storeys, this development will significantly add to the housing supply, improving affordability and providing more options for people who want to live in an area that already has great transport links and amenities.

Despite what NIMBYs are claiming, Marrickville Public School is currently 300 students under capacity. Increased enrolments will only strengthen the school by securing more resources, not overwhelm it. The fearmongering around school crowding is completely unfounded and should not be used as an excuse to block homes for families who need them.

Beyond just housing, this development is well-designed and includes retail space, affordable housing, and public space contributions, making it a valuable addition to the community. It is also a model for sustainable, transit-oriented development. With 278 car spaces and 762 bike spaces, the project prioritises active and public transport, with Sydenham Metro station just a 10-minute walk away and Marrickville Road shops only seven minutes away. This kind of planning reduces car dependence, lowers emissions, and helps fight climate change.

This proposal sets an important precedent for future developments along the Southwest Metro line, demonstrating that we can build well-connected precincts that are not dominated by car storage. If we are serious about solving the housing crisis, reducing emissions, and creating walkable, vibrant communities, then this is exactly the kind of development we should be encouraging.

Sydney is becoming a city of no grandchildren. Young people are being priced out, forced to move to Melbourne, Brisbane and other capitals, and future generations may never get the chance to grow up here. Those opposing projects like this may not feel the impact today, but they will when they realise their families have moved away, and there is no one left to care for them in old age. Thoughtful development isn’t just about today—it’s about ensuring Sydney remains a thriving, multi-generational city for decades to come.

Sincerely,
Sharath Mahendran