The Timberyards by RTL Co.

I generally support the project as it is a step in the right direction for more housing, however the percentage of designated 'affordable housing' in these projects needs to be much higher. If I understand it correctly, the threshold is 10% for it to qualify for the tax benefits which would be barely justified. Much more can be done. Still, I think if this will lead to more similar developments with rapidly improved allocation to affordable housing then it is a good first step in my opinion.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I object to SSD-76927247 - The Timberyards by RTL Co.
If the 8-storey building is approved, it will overshadow the properties on Sydenham Road to such an extent that some homes will see less than 30 minutes of sunlight. This violates the intention of local planning controls and severely affects the quality of life for residents. There is inadequate of parking spaces available for the increase of number of residents within the proposed building which will cause an over flow of extra cars parking and flooding the nearby and surrounding streets causing congestion and major disruption to traffic flow to the area. Thers are also insufficient and limited recreational areas within the proposed building for the increased number of residents to utilise leading to poor and detriment health.
Therefore I urge you to reconsider and do not approve this application.
Kind regards, K.Huynh (concerned neighbour).

Highly supportive of this project, there is a desperate need for well located housing.

Hi there,

Parking:
I live with my mother at 114 Sydenham Rd Marrickville about 3-4 days a week. I often find it hard to find street parking and usually can only find 2 hours parking and far from the house. I don't mind the long walk but my mother, at 80 years old does as she is semi ambulant and cannot walk long distances. She needs to frequent doctors appointments; to pick-up and drop-off my mother at the house, I have to double park on Phantom Ave, close to Sydenham Road. The is not a no safe process for mum but this is the only option we have.
Limited street Parking spaces will only be in higher demand post the development due to increase in people living in the proposed development. I understand there will be parking provided for a percentage of the new residents from the development but what about the remaining whom will be putting additional parking pressures in the streets surrounds.
Has there been any consideration in the design with regards to this matter or does the design just simply meet the regulations?

Traffic:
The traffic at the traffic lights are already past acceptable capacity with right turning cars causing long queues, especially with cars parked creating only 2 lanes, one in each direction. Sydenham road is used by large semi trailers and the like. Victoria road is the main bus routes to the city. As you may appreciate, this junction point is a problem. What is proposed in the new development to improve current situation, or will it just get even worst with car entering and existing the development, at a location which is in very close proximity to the traffic light junction?

The height of the proposed 8 storey building will cause significant overshadowing of the houses along Sydenham Road and surrounds. Residents here rely on natural light for their well-being, and some homes will receive less than half an hour of sunlight each day. This will create an unhealthy and uncomfortable living environment.

To make overshadowing matter worst, my mother is a pensioner relying on solar power from her recently installed solar panels to run the household and reduce her electricity bills. The overshadowing will result in very little power saving, if any, and my mother will placed under additional financial pressure. Will my mother be compensated for the additional costs incurred?

I understand progress is necessary to reduce increasing housing demands and hope that the proposed development, if it is to proceed, will be redesigned to include resolutions to the surrounding community's concerns.

I look forward to your response.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development plans for The Timberyards. As a resident of the local area, I have several concerns regarding the potential impact of the development on both my property and the wider community. My objections are outlined below:

Excessive Overshadowing and Breach of Legal Standards The proposed development is excessive in its height and scale and would result in significant overshadowing of homes along Sydenham Road, including my own. The amount of sunlight that would be blocked by the proposed building is far beyond what is legally permissible. This not only affects my property but also the quality of life for several neighboring households. The extent of overshadowing is unreasonable and will have a detrimental effect on our homes, health, and well-being. I request that the development be reconsidered to comply with legal requirements regarding overshadowing and sunlight access.

Inadequate Parking and Increased Congestion The development proposes nearly 2000 units, yet the amount of onsite parking provided is insufficient for the number of residents, let alone visitors. It is unrealistic to assume that the residents of this development will not own cars, nor that there will be no need for parking spaces for guests. Currently, parking is already difficult in the area, and the addition of hundreds of new residents without the necessary parking infrastructure will exacerbate this issue significantly. Street parking is already at capacity, and this development will make it unfeasible for residents and visitors to park in the area. The proposed parking provision does not meet the needs of the community, and I urge the planners to revisit this aspect of the proposal.

Increased Traffic and Local Disruption The scale of the development, with nearly 2000 units, will result in a dramatic increase in traffic in an already congested area. The roads surrounding the development are not equipped to handle the additional strain that will be caused by the influx of new residents, delivery vehicles, and visitors. The increase in traffic is not only an inconvenience but will also pose a safety risk to pedestrians and other road users. The local infrastructure is inadequate to support this level of development, and I believe the traffic and congestion concerns need to be thoroughly addressed before the proposal is approved.

Local Services Are Already at Capacity Local services, including childcare, are already operating at full capacity. The wait times for local childcare facilities are unreasonably long. My own family experienced a wait time of over six months for a spot at a local childcare center, which ultimately led us to seek alternative childcare options in other suburbs. With the proposed addition of nearly 2000 units, the demand for local services will only increase, further exacerbating existing challenges. It is unreasonable to approve a development of this scale without ensuring that local services are adequately prepared to meet the increased demand.

In conclusion, I strongly object to the proposed development of The Timberyards and request that these concerns be carefully considered before any further action is taken. Specifically, we would like to see the height of the buildings, particularly the one facing Sydenham Road, be reconsidered to better align with the surrounding community's needs and legal standards.

I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues further and provide additional input as part of the planning process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I live just down the road from the project and I am really glad to hear that high density housing is being proposed for the site. It is in an excellent location, close to public transport and amenities of all kinds, and in my view it is exactly the sort of site that should be put to use for apartment living, in the same way that the Wicks Place development across the road has been. More landscaped, publicly accessible space in the area will also be a bonus: at the moment there are some great takeaway food outlets within a short walk of the site but not a lot of nice places to sit and eat the food.
There are two things I am a little concerned about which I would ask the planners to be mindful of: Firstly, I would like to see a a higher proportion of the dwellings being designated as affordable housing. The suburb is expensive enough as it is. Secondly, the Metro is already very full in the mornings, and when the Metro south west extension opens, I am worried that the trains will be so full by the time they reach Sydenham that residents of the new development won't be able to fit on.
Ultimately, though, I am feeling really positive and hopeful about this development proposal. Marrickville is one of the nicest places I've ever lived - it is a thriving, vibrant community where there is always something interesting to see, eat or do. More people should be able to come and enjoy living here. If we don't build more young-person-friendly apartment complexes like this one proposed, all the cool people who make Marrickville what it is will be priced out and the suburb's culture will die. I thoroughly support the Timberyards development.

I am writing to formally object to the building proposal for the Timberyards development, which seeks to construct an apartment complex that I believe will have significant and detrimental effects on the local community. As a resident of Sydenham Road, I am deeply concerned about the negative impacts this development will have on my family's home, the surrounding area, and the broader community. My objections focus on the following critical issues: loss of sunlight, increased traffic and parking congestion, pressure on local schools and medical services, and the violation of the legal maximum height restrictions for the Sydenham Road area.

Firstly, the proposed building is set to be significantly taller than the current structures in the area, which will result in a serious loss of natural sunlight for my home and others in the vicinity. The shadows cast by the building will impact the quality of life for residents, especially during the winter months when daylight is already limited. Natural light is a vital part of our living environment, affecting both the well-being of individuals and the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood. This loss of sunlight is unacceptable, particularly when there are more suitable locations for development that would not result in such negative consequences for existing residents.

Secondly, the increased traffic and parking congestion caused by the proposed development is a major concern. Sydenham Road is already a busy area, and the addition of a large apartment complex will exacerbate the existing traffic issues. The development will likely lead to overcrowded streets, longer commute times, and increased pollution. Furthermore, the lack of sufficient parking spaces for both residents and visitors will add to the congestion, making it more difficult for local residents to find parking. This is a serious issue that will affect the daily lives of everyone in the area, and it must be carefully considered in any planning process.

In addition to the traffic concerns, the local schools and medical services are already operating at full capacity, and the proposed development will place additional strain on these essential services. The increased population in the area will result in higher demand for school places and medical care, which could lead to longer waiting times for appointments and limited access to education for local children. This is particularly concerning given that both schools and medical services play an essential role in the well-being of our community. The local infrastructure is not equipped to handle the surge in demand that this development will create.

Lastly, I would like to highlight that the proposed building exceeds the legal maximum height for the Sydenham Road area. This is a clear violation of the zoning regulations that are in place to maintain the character and livability of our neighborhood. Allowing this development to proceed would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the planning framework that has been established to protect residents and preserve the integrity of the area.

In conclusion, I strongly urge you to reconsider the Timberyards development proposal. The impacts on sunlight, traffic congestion, local services, and adherence to zoning laws are substantial and cannot be ignored. I hope that my concerns are taken seriously, and I respectfully request that the proposal be revised or rejected in its current form.

Dear Commissioners,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Timberyards build-to-rent development, particularly in light of its negative impact on my daughter’s primary school and the wider community. While I support responsible development that meets community needs, this project prioritises developer profit over livability, infrastructure, and safety.

1. Increased Traffic & Safety Risks for School Children

• The development will introduce 1,188 residential units but only 216 parking spaces, forcing residents to park on nearby streets.
• This will significantly increase traffic congestion around my daughter’s school, making school drop-offs and pick-ups chaotic and dangerous for young children.
• There is no clear plan for pedestrian safety measures, which are essential given the proximity to a school.

2. Overdevelopment & Non-Compliance with Local Planning Laws

• The 8-storey building on Sydenham Road exceeds the legal limit of 3 storeys, setting a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment.
• High-density developments should not be approved when they blatantly violate existing planning regulations.

3. Lack of Family-Friendly Housing & Community Infrastructure

• The proposal includes only 40-43 three-bedroom units, which is inadequate for families.
• Families need affordable, well-designed housing options—not an influx of small rental apartments that do not support long-term community growth.
• There is no significant provision for schools, childcare, or medical facilities, meaning current services will be overwhelmed.

4. Environmental & Amenity Concerns

• A development of this scale will increase noise, pollution, and strain on public transport, reducing the quality of life for existing residents.
• Green space is essential for children’s well-being, yet this plan fails to prioritise open recreational areas.

5. Lack of Genuine Community Consultation

• This project has been designed with profit in mind rather than the needs of local residents.
• Community input should be valued, and significant revisions should be made to address these concerns.

Conclusion: Development Must Be Revised or Rejected

I urge the Commission to reject the Timberyards proposal in its current form. If a development is to proceed, it must:

• Reduce height to align with zoning laws (3 storeys maximum)
• Significantly increase parking provisions to prevent school-area congestion
• Provide more family-friendly housing options
• Ensure adequate infrastructure (schools, childcare, medical facilities) before approving large-scale developments

Our community deserves a development that enhances our neighbourhood, not one that prioritises developer profits at the expense of safety, livability, and infrastructure.

I appreciate your time in considering my objection and look forward to seeing a more balanced and community-focused approach to urban planning.

I am objecting to the proposed Timberyards development in Marrickville (bordered by Victoria Rd, Sydenham Rd, Farr and Mitchell Streets). Although development of this site is inevitable, the scale and height of the development, the potential number of residents, the increase in traffic and parking required, as well as other issues such as pressure on local infrastructure is not considerate of existing and future residents in the surrounding neighbourhood. Unlike the recently completed Wicks Park development this development has far more impact on the surrounding residential community.

Scale and Height of the Development
The large number of units - 599 BTR apartments and 589 co-living dwellings ranging from 8 to 13 stories - is excessive for an area that is adjacent to low rise residential properties to the south and west of the site.

This is particularly the case for Buildings A, F and G that will face Farr Street, which are planned to be 24 metres in height. This in excess of the LEP building height of 20 metres. The plan states that heights can be increased due to the affordable housing component, however an increase in this height seems unwarranted with only 10% of the development to be allocated to affordable housing, with the remaining 90% to be “for profit” BTR and retail.

A BTR development with a majority of apartments aimed at higher end of the rental market rather than affordable housing does not justify the provision allowed to increase the overall heights of the building

The higher apartment in these buildings have the potential to overlook existing homes, reducing privacy for residents and impacting the quality of life for people who currently enjoy private outdoor spaces in their backyards, particularly residents on the eastern side of Edward Street. These buildings will also generate substantial light pollution for the residents in adjacent streets.

An influx of approximately 1,700 residents will place significant strain on local services, particularly Marrickville Primary School and child care centres who will not be able to meet the demand from such a large increase in the number of residents.

This development would seem to be designed with excessive density to maxmise profits. There seems to be very few apartments being built to accommodate families, with the focus on 1 bedroom and studio apartments. This has the potential to impact the community with higher turnover rates in BTR developments, particularly the co-living component, leading to a transient population and less community cohesion, with less investment in the long-term welfare of the local community, potentially leading to a less stable and engaged neighborhood.

Traffic and Parking
The large number of apartments and residents will lead to increased traffic volume and congestion in what are now relatively quiet streets to the west of the development, impacting both existing and new residents.

The JMT Consulting Traffic Report states that their assessment of the impact of the traffic generated from the site is “conservative”, and also says: “the extent of traffic impacts … is likely to be greater than that experienced in reality, given the traffic modelling completed has not discounted the existing traffic movements generated by the current site use.”

The plans indicate that Farr Street is to be the parking access point for the basement carpark planned to have 278 on-site parking spaces. This increase in the number of cars accessing Farr Street, particularly at peak times of the day, will greatly impact traffic flow on the surrounding streets, many of which are too narrow to accommodate two-way traffic (Edward Street, Thompson Street, Gorman Street and Illawarra Avenue). The traffic in these local streets will also be increased by residents’ visitors and those driving to access the retail and commercial businesses on site.

Farr Street is also a main access point for staff and students at Marrickville Primary School, further increasing traffic congestion, particularly at peak times.

Victoria Street is already heavily congested, especially since the Wicks Park development was completed, and will only be further impacted when cars from this new site require to use this main access road in and out of Marrickville.

With apartments for approximately 1700 residents, 278 on-site parking that includes only 238 residential, 33 retail / commercial spaces and 7 staff car spaces is not sufficient to accommodate the number of cars that will require parking. There is also the need to consider the additional visitor parking for both residents and retail.

There is currently insufficient parking available in local streets, as the majority of existing properties do not have access to off-street parking. The close proximity to Henson Park which is frequently used for large events also currently impacts the amount of local on-street parking for existing residents. The soon to be opened Marrickville Traders will also exacerbate this situation.

The report cites that 22 drive crossovers will be removed to create additional on-street parking but this is far from sufficient to accommodate the increase in on-street parking required. Cars from the development’s residents will likely spill over onto the surrounding streets, causing further congestion and limiting parking availability for existing residents, visitors, and local businesses.

No thought process has gone into this planning . There is too much traffic on Sydenham rd as it is this project will only add more. Not enough car spaces are allowed for parking in this development . I think 216 parking spots Is definitely inadequate. We also object the the height of this development of 8 storeys high. Three storeys is the legal max. The current infrastructure and services can’t cope with the existing population let alone the amount of people this development will bring to the community . Thanks Jim

I refer to the proposed Timberyards development by Rent to Live Co. (RTL Co.) in Marrickville aiming to deliver approximately 1,190 homes across seven buildings, ranging from 8 to 13 storeys. Whilst I am pro-progression for this city, including addressing issues such as the housing shortages and contribute to urban renewal, I have several concerns that I believe warrant consideration:

1. Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight: The height and scale of the proposed buildings may result in significant overshadowing of adjacent properties, including my apartment in Wicks Place. This could lead to reduced natural light, adversely affecting residents' quality of life and potentially diminishing property values.

2. Strain on Local Infrastructure: Introducing nearly 1,200 new residential units could place additional pressure on existing infrastructure, such as roads, public transport, schools, and healthcare facilities. Without adequate upgrades, this influx may lead to congestion and reduced service quality for current residents.

3. Insufficient Community Consultation: Effective community engagement is crucial for developments of this magnitude. Some community members feel that the current plan prioritises profit over people and does not provide the homes and infrastructure needed. Ensuring that local voices are heard and considered is essential for fostering community support and addressing legitimate concerns.

4. Environmental and Heritage Impacts: The development site has historical significance, being part of the historic Marrickville brickmaking area. It's important to assess how the proposed construction might affect local heritage sites and the environment, ensuring that preservation and sustainability measures are in place.

5. Potential Alteration of Community Character: Marrickville is renowned for its unique character and vibrant community. A development of this scale could alter the suburb's identity, leading to concerns about gentrification and the displacement of long-standing residents.

Conclusion: While urban development can bring positive change, it's vital to balance progress with the well-being of existing communities. Addressing the concerns outlined above is essential to ensure that the Timberyards project benefits both new and current residents without compromising the suburb's integrity. I personally believe this development will bring more good than bad, though the overall height is a concern, especially with it been in the current flight path of Sydney Airport.

I think the proposal is generally good but needs adjustments - I believe the extent of overshadowing of Wicks Park is both unacceptable and easily avoidable, particularly given the limited amount of public parkland in Marrickville, and that the traffic submissions pay too little attention to the likely impact on traffic to Victoria St and Sydenham roads on weekends - the traffic reports (original and peer) appear to play it down but without clearways and parking restrictions both roads are choked most of Saturday, and despite the new Metro station (many living in the area drive past the site to get to the metro station, and metro shopping centre), over 1000 new units plus shops and F&B will undoubtedly have a significant worsening effect that needs to be addressed.

I already made a submission but wanted to include some points and couldn't work out how toi ammend.
For all the residents on the surrounding street to this new development such as Edward St, which backs onto the dvelopment, I think it will be really important that there is some sort of parking restrictions introduced before construction begins so we can still park on our street and exclude trucks driving down in it for construction. Its a very narrow street with mostly semi detached houses with hardly any driveways and no garages. We all park on the street and parking can be quite limited already. We do not have the space for all the vehicles of the workers of this huge development - and we know that they will start parking in our street because its currently free and unmetered and there are few other options. I propose Edward St becomes metered 2 hour parking except for residents to allow us to be alel to park near our house for shopping and children wrangling etc. It would also be wise to exclude trucks from driving down our very narrow street - only one car fits as it is (others have to wait in the gutter for a car to pass now), residents have lost side mirrors already frequently in our street because iof the narrow width so a truck will not comfortably drive down it and the noise would be another disruption to an already noisy situation.

My property is 122 Sydenham Rd and will be directly affected by the shading from this development.
I have invested in solar panels and a house hold battery. The plans indicate that my property will be in shade from 9am each day. Obviously this will have a detrimental affect on our capacity to generate rooftop electricity.

The development is not in keeping with the streetscape. It would make more sense to have the he higher buildings pushed back and lower level properties at the Sydenham Rd street front.

I understand the need to build housing and acknowledge that we all need to share the space of our neighbourhood, however this shouldn’t put established properties in a position where they are disadvantaged by excessive building height and shading caused by this.

Sincerely

Darren Friend
122 Sydenham Rd
MARRICKVILLE 2204
0422522888

Since the opening of Wicks Park apartments, the traffic around the intersection of Victoria Rd and Sydenham Rd has increased significantly. The intersection is single lane outside peak hour. I don't believe in its current form, the intersection is capable of handling the increase in traffic associated with another 1,200 apartments within the vicinity.

Is there a plan to upgrade the intersection with right hand turning lanes or removing parking for a longer period throughout the day and night? How many entry points are planned for the complex and will there be improved infrastructure at said entry points (e.g. turning lanes, merging facility, etc).

Separate to the immediate intersection, the traffic around Marrickville Metro has worsened since the opening of the extension to the shopping complex, as well as the opening of Wicks Park apartments. With another 1,200 households in the near vicinity, is there a plan to upgrade the infrastructure around the shopping centre?

I object to this project on the basis that:
- there is a brand new apartment block opposite this site on Victoria Road. Although incomplete, this is having a massive impact on the infrastructure and general amenity of the area
- parking is not adequate in this area and building this development will bring many more vehicles to the area, with on street parking. For existing residents with only access to on street parking this will cause a significant drop in amenity. If this development does go ahead then something needs to be put in place to protect residents ability to park near to their residences
- Surrounding streets, including Sydenham Road, Illawarra Road, and others are already struggling with significant local traffic, as are bus routes

The The Timberyards by RTL Co. in Marrickville - SSD-76927247 - cannot go ahead. The ghastly Wicks Place development across the road by the same company is hideous. This will go down as one of the most terrible developments if it does go ahead. Victoria Rd is now a parking lot because of the over crowding adding another 500+ apartments will cause traffic chaos. I understand people need housing. But surely this needs to be scaled back somewhat? Have we gone completely mad? The fact that this bypasses local council is crazy. It effects the local community but they get little to no say. You have dropped the ball on the Wicks Place development. Please do not make the same mistake with SSD-76927247.

I am all for development to improve and benefit the community, but not when it comes at the expense of current residents.
The proposed height of the buildings ranging from 8 to 13 storeys is way too high and I believe the current legal maximum is 3 storeys?? Buildings with the proposed height would block sunlight from our house which we rely on for our solar panels, our greenery and also our enjoyment.
If there are over 1000 units but only about 200 or so car spaces, where are the rest of the residents going to park?There aren’t enough parking spaces along the streets/council park and will further add to congestion on our already crowded roads. Sydenham and Victoria Roads are already congested and noisy enough and the addition of potentially thousands more people will create even more havoc on our roads.
Will our local existing infrastructure and services be able to cope with the influx of so many more people? E.g. local schools, medical centres, childcare.
The current proposal as it stands is not acceptable as it would cause more harm than good.

This proposal is excessive in orders of magnitude. I make the following submissions:
(1) Bulk and scale: the proposed development presents a bulk, scale and height that is off-the-charts excessive for the locality (which includes Thompson Street, Edward Street and Gorman Street). The locality comprises 1 – 2 storey Federation residential buildings. The development is overwhelming and inconsistent with the character and form of dwelling house developments within these surrounding streets. This will result in substantial amenity impacts for local residents and adverse streetscape outcomes. It is not in the public interest for this development to exceed what is already an excessive height limits and will set an adverse precedent for future development proposals in the locality. In my view, the development should be reduced to a maximum of four storeys, with the upper two levels set back in order to assist with the transition in bulk and scale from the surrounding residential buildings to the (extreme and overbearing) high density developments of the Victoria Road Precinct. There are also amenity and privacy and shadowing issues with the proposed development.
(2)Traffic: the local streets are already used as a rat-run for vehicles and comprise streets that are incapable of accommodating two way traffic and desperately needs widening. There is also heavy traffic at drop-off and pick-up times for the primary school located on Thompson Street / Farr Street. The addition of hundreds of cars accessing and leaving the proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on traffic flow for surrounding areas. With 1,188 units this will pump an overwhelming number of cars into the locality. Consideration must also be given to the effect on traffic once all developments in the area (including the Wicks Park development and other developments on Farr Street). The traffic study which accompanied the application is fanciful. Victoria Road is already gridlock (it was never like this only 5 years ago). An independent traffic study is required.
(3) Parking: the local streets are already devoid of parking. The parking situation is exacerbated at drop-off and pick-up times for the primary school located on Thompson Street. Thompson Street and its surrounds will not be able to accommodate the significant demand for parking resulting from the development. 1,188 units and 216 parking spots will create an utter parking dystopian nightmare. We have been petitioning Council for years to introduce resident parking as the situation is already beyond capacity.
(4) Heritage: items I1281 (2 Thompson St, Marrickville) and I246 (96 Illawarra Rd, Marrickville – being the original Marrickville Town Hall which will book-end the proposed development at the other end of Thompson Street) will be significantly impacted by this gulag inspired monolith. Thompson Street is the original center of Marrickville and its character needs to be protected.
(5) Amenity: we are beyond capacity. Every high rise development continues to destroy more and more of our amenity, all to prop up a record immigration policy as the government's saving grace to stay in power.

I object to this development on the grounds of height and density which is not in keeping with the local controls and area. This development is excessive and does not have adequate parking. The area already has lack of parking this will make the situation worse and will have a detrimental effect on the entire community and environment.

The type of housing only has 40 3 bedroom units. This development is not for families and does not address the housing crisis.

The character of this development is also not in keeping with the area. The development is too big and not appropriate for families or local character.

Thank you for your consideration.