The Timberyards by RTL Co.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

We object to this proposal, as outlined in the attachment

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

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.

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