The Timberyards by RTL Co.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission regarding the development proposal for the Timberyards on Victoria Road.
Years ago, when the DA for the Wicks Apartment blocks was pushed through, the area across the road (the site of the proposed Timberyards) was to be an arts and cultural precinct. While accommodation and housing is important, I object to the way that proposals are put through with very little community consultation or developer accountability.
The Inner West Council LGA is in desperate need for social and affordable housing. As far as I am aware the Wicks apartment blocks contain none - despite this being raised in response to the DA.
The Timberyards is again failing to respond to the needs of people in this area by offering for profit housing solutions. I understand less than 10% of the development will be affordable and even that term is questionable. 20% below market rate is most definitely not affordable for most. Like the SCAPE developments across the city, these are not affordable options for students. Please do some research.
I have not seen any plans in this application that deal with traffic or access to schools, hospitals and other services.
We are in the middle of a housing crisis and this development does little to help.
Regards,
Melanie

I support this proposal. We should be building much more around the metro train line, and particularly focusing on types of development that put less cars on the road. This ticks that box with less parking.

I also note Marrickville Public School is only at 50% capacity so there’s room for student population to grow, and this is also short walking distance from the shops.

As a resident of Marrickville, I object to the project on several grounds; primarily its failure to provide housing affordability or reduce housing insecurity.
With less than 10% set aside for "affordable" housing, and no guarantee of protection from future rent increases, this development will do very little to improve access to affordable housing or provide tenants with ongoing security.
With the bulk of dwelling studio or one bedroom, the development is clearly aimed at short-term renters and may increase unsafe co-living arrangements for vulnerable residents.
Only 3.5% of the dwellings are three bedroom, and less than 25% two bedroom, so this is not a family-friendly development, or one that supports ongoing tenancies for people wanting to settle in the area.
The destruction of the remaining heritage buildings along Illawarra Rd is a disturbing and unwelcome element of the plan, as is its extreme bulk and height. At more than twice the height of the regulated maximum three storeys, the development will overshadow neighbouring homes and businesses, as well as hugely increasing traffic congestion along an already very busy road system.
There is no provision or investment in local infrastructure, and the location on the Gumbramorra swamp makes flooding events in the below ground areas highly likely. This, along with a flightpath directly overhead, means Timberyards residents are unlikey to enjoy good quality of life in these buildings.
(I believe the exemption from the State Government low-and-mid-rise reforms applied to Annandale, Leichhardt, Petersham, Stanmore, KIngsford & Rockdale to minimise exposure to hazardous noise levels of 20+ ANEF (Australian Noise Exposure Forecast) should also be applied in developments like this, planned to be built in a 25-30 ANEF zone).
If the State Government is serious about tackling the housing crisis, it must properly regulate developers and require them to build property that provides access, affordability, amenity and long-term security for a range of residents. With Build to Rent schemes' impact on housing affordability in question*, developments like this must receive proper scrutiny and developers made to revise their plans to act in the public interest and not simply in the interests of their shareholders.
I trust you will take your primary responsibility to the people of NSW into account when assessing this development, as ask the developer to rework the plans so that they are fit for the purpose of providing a sustainable housing solution.
* https://australianpropertyupdate.com.au/apu/will-build-to-rent-fix-australias-rental-crisis

To Whom it May Concern
I am writing to express opposition and to object to SSD-76927247 known as The Timberyards by RTL Co. comprising multiple lots bound by Victoria Road, Sydenham Road, Farr Street and Mitchell Street, Marrickville.
This proposal represents excessive overdevelopment, will have significant adverse impacts on the local community and does not delivery any community benefit to local residents or existing community, instead prioritising profits of the applicant.
The below represent significant concerns of the application and should be reason to reject the proposal.

No Community Benefit - The applicants list a range of community benefits to be delivered by the project, citing items such as high quality design, however these deliver little to no benefit to the existing community who will bear the brunt of this excessive development. The Marrickville area is already well serviced by Parks such as Enmore Park, Henson Park and Marrickville Parks, Cafes, restaurants, breweries and bars. The inclusion of through site links, open and space, a park and 15 odd retail shops deliver no community benefit beyond what the community already enjoy. The reality is these areas are proposed to remain in ownership of the applicant and the entire development prioritizes profits and commercial benefits to the applicant over the impact to the local community.

Priorities Commercial Profits over Community - the application and housing types proposed (Build to Rent, Co-Living and Affordable Housing) are all designed to deliver a commercial return to the applicant. There should be no misunderstanding that this is proposed to help the housing crisis and deliver affordable housing. The reality is, this is a 'for profit' exercise and the rental structures will be set to deliver investment returns, not to solve housing affordability issues. By the applicants own independent reports Marrickville is already rated unaffordable for the average rental household in Greater Sydney and extremely unaffordable for a single income couple with children. This development will not change that metric and the end product will remain unaffordable doing nothing to contribute to solutions of housing affordability.

Unacceptable Parking Outcomes - The proposed parking arrangements for the site in the context of the local area and existing infrastructure is unacceptable and completely inadequate. To have a site with a proposed 1,188 dwelling types, serviced by only 216 parking spaces (the proposed number available for individual private use) is completely unacceptable. This is severely inadequate and will place significant strain on surrounding local residential streets deemed within acceptable walking distance. Many of these local streets (Illawarra Rd, Gorman St, Edward St, Thompson St and the like) do not have the benefit of off street parking and rely on what little street parking is currently available to access their properties. The existing local area and existing parking infrastructure needs to be considered, rather than applying broad brush parking metrics to housing types. These streets are already heavily occupied, with little available on-street parking. The reality is that occupants of the proposed Timberyards development will likely have vehicles and it there cannot be a control that prohibits these residents from owning a car. This will place burden on surrounding streets, significantly impacting existing communities and ability to park within existing streets. The development also provides zero visitor parking whilst proposing events spaces and larger activations in open areas. For a development of 1,188 dwellings, it can be reasonably anticipated that beyond its own residential traffic a large and significant volume of visitor traffic will be anticipated at the site. Without provision of visitor parking within the development, this will directly impact parking ability within local residential streets. Furthermore the application specifically states no construction worker parking will be provided on site. Despite proposed arrangements for "Tool Drop Off Zones", it can reasonably be expected that significant volumes of construction workers will be seeking parking within the vicinity during construction periods, again further impacting the community and its existing residents. Any reasonable approval authority cannot accept that this parking provision is sufficient, nor can they accept the level of impact it will have on surrounding residential streets, particularly when understanding the existing conditions and make up of housing and parking within the vicinity.

Non-compliant Height, Bulk and Scale - the proposed bulk, height and scale is excessive and unnecessary for the Western side of Victoria Rd and disproportionate to the low density residential surrounding it. The applicant seeks to redistribute height in an non-compliant manner from the central buildings to perimeter buildings to take advantage of bonus floor space, solely because the site is impacted by Sydney Airport flight paths. The redistribution means heights are proposed to be exceeded in some parts by 21.7% up to 155% of the maximum permissible height. The impact again being placed on surrounding landowners, residents and existing community. This is excessive and unacceptable.

Safety Risks - Site driveways proposed on Farr Street, along with proposed construction traffic, cause unacceptable safety risks to community, particularly young children in the vicinity. Marrickville Public School is located in close proximity (arguable adjacent) to the development and this increase in regular traffic to the site is a major safety concern. Any accessways to the site should be designed to remove traffic congestion off local residential and school streets and be relocated to Mitchell Street, which is made up of industrial properties and highly appropriate to accommodate any access into and out of the site. This could then be supplemented by signalised traffic lights at the Corner of Mitchel and Victoria Rd to manage traffic flow into and out of the site.

I urge The Department of Planning and Environment and the Minister for Planning to reject this proposed development on any or all of the above grounds and safeguard the local residents and community from the impacts of this overdevelopment.

Regards
A concerned community member

I am a local resident who is alarmed by the excessive overdevelopment of the Timberyards precinct to the detriment of the local community. In particular the proposal delivers little, to no, actual community benefit and only seeks to benefit the commercial interests of the Applicant. The Proposal should be rejected on each or any of the following grounds:
Lack of Parking - Residential, Commercial and Visitor; Inadequate Community Benefit; Proposed Design and Housing Structure designed to Profit Developers/Investors not support community; Impact to traffic; Bulk Height and Scale out of character and excessive and profiteering of developer.
Please refer to my attached letter which will outline each of these impacts in detail.

This development is by SCAPE who provide for profit housing for students. The AFR recommends build to buy developments, not build to rent developments.

This development exceeds the permitted height for tower block on Sydenham Road which is 3 storeys however the developers are proposing to build 8 storeys. This proposal is not only excessive and illegal but will also overshadow surrounding homes, negatively impacting the community.

Out of the 1,188 units, there are only:
40 3-bedroom units.
275 2-bedroom units
This plan does not offer housing for families who desperately need it.

Less than 10% of these units are set aside for Affordable Housing and the rent for those is pegged at 20% lower than “market rate”.
This plan does not provide enough affordable housing for low-income residents. In today's climate we need more housing assistance.

This development is definitely NOT what the community needs. There are more than a thousands apartments and less that 10% will be affordable and they will only be rented at less than 20% market rents. A very large number will be co living - this means designed for temporary accomodation or for profit student housing. It's massive - far bigger than the WICKs apartments.

1,188 units are coming, with only 216 parking spaces planned.
It's going to get even harder to park in surrounding streets. I’ve lived near the proposed site for decades, traffic in this area is gridlocked on weekends, with many people living in my small complex having to park several blocks away. This development will exacerbate this problem. Proponents of this development blithely say that those who move into these apartments can ditch their cars and use public transport. While the new Metro is a walk away, many people work in areas that are only served by the bus service and the inner west bus system has been degraded by privatisation. People will need cars but where will they park?

See attached letter.

I am very concerned about the sheer scale of the TimberYards development and am against this new housing project. Not only will this giant apartment complex completely overshadow the small homes in the surrounding area but it will demolish existing housing and businesses which make up the area. There are limited spaces in local schools and preschools in the area. The local school Marrickville Public School will be negatively affected by the increased construction noise and dust polution. The increase in traffic congestion will be a nightmare for existing residents also.

I write to formally object to the proposed Timberyards development in Marrickville on legal, regulatory, and human rights grounds. This development, as currently proposed, fails to comply with planning laws, undermines community well-being, and violates fundamental principles of housing rights and environmental justice. Below, I outline the legal and policy considerations that render this proposal inappropriate for approval.

1. Right to Adequate Housing & Failure to Address Housing Affordability

The proposed development fails to meet both domestic and international obligations regarding the right to adequate housing. Less than 10% of the units are allocated for affordable housing, despite the acute housing crisis affecting low-income families in Marrickville.

As a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 11, Australia has a duty to progressively realize the right to adequate housing. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25) further affirms housing as a fundamental human right. The failure to provide sufficient affordable housing is inconsistent with these commitments and does not align with the NSW Housing Strategy, which prioritizes affordability in urban development.

Additionally, the cost of renting standard units is set at market rates, which does nothing to alleviate the housing crisis. Many residents already struggle to afford market-rate rent, and this development does not contribute to reducing housing stress. Instead of providing genuine affordability solutions, it reinforces the existing financial burdens faced by many in the community.

2. Breach of Zoning and Planning Laws

The proposed 8-storey height along Sydenham Road exceeds the legal maximum of 3 storeys under existing zoning regulations. This overdevelopment is unlawful unless a rezoning process is undertaken, which has not been demonstrated in the proposal.

Additionally, the excessive building height and density violate NSW’s Apartment Design Guide (ADG) solar access requirements, as they result in overshadowing that significantly diminishes the quality of life for surrounding residents. In some instances, the overshadowing exceeds legal limits, leaving homes in prolonged darkness. Such a breach of planning controls renders the development susceptible to legal challenge.

3. Right to Community Consultation and Procedural Fairness

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), public consultation is a fundamental requirement for major developments. Community opposition to this project is substantial, yet it remains unclear whether the developers have meaningfully engaged with local residents and stakeholders in a manner that meets statutory obligations.

If community concerns are not properly considered, the planning process may be legally flawed due to a failure to meet procedural fairness standards. Any approval granted without due process may be challenged on these grounds.

4. Overburdening of Public Services and Infrastructure

The proposal’s lack of adequate infrastructure planning directly contravenes NSW’s strategic planning principles, which require that developments provide for sufficient community resources. With 1,188 units but only 216 parking spaces, this project will inevitably exacerbate parking shortages and increase traffic congestion.

Furthermore, the local schools, childcare centres, and medical facilities are already experiencing excessive wait times and service shortages. Finding spots in schools and childcare for Marrickville's children is already challenging, and there are lengthy wait times at the medical centre. This development fails to account for the additional strain on these essential services, thereby violating best-practice planning requirements under NSW’s Infrastructure Contributions Framework.

5. Environmental and Social Impact Non-Compliance

Under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)is required for major developments. This proposal appears to have inadequately assessed its environmental impact, particularly in relation to congestion, pollution, and loss of sunlight to surrounding properties.

Additionally, if this project contributes to housing displacement or exacerbates inequality, it could be subject to legal challenge under anti-discrimination and social justice frameworks. Developments that prioritize investor returns over community well-being fail to meet the ethical and social obligations inherent in urban planning laws.

6. Inadequate Provision of Family-Sized Housing

The proposed unit breakdown demonstrates a failure to provide adequate housing for families. Of the 1,188 units, only 40 are 3-bedroom units, and only 275 are 2-bedroom units, making up a small fraction of the total development. This significantly limits housing options for families, despite the urgent need for family orientated housing options in the Marrickville area.

The lack of family-friendly housing options contradicts NSW’s housing policies, which emphasize the importance of diverse housing types to meet the needs of different household structures. This failure further underscores the inadequacy of the proposal in addressing the real housing needs of the community.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly urge the planning authority to reject the Timberyards development in its current form. The project breaches zoning regulations, violates housing rights principles, inadequately consults the community, overburdens public infrastructure, and fails to meet environmental compliance requirements.

Should this development proceed without addressing these concerns, affected residents and community stakeholders would have every reason and right to explore further legal avenues to challenge the approval. I trust that the responsible authorities will uphold legal and ethical planning standards to ensure that Marrickville’s urban development aligns with the needs of its residents rather than private financial interests.

Most sincerely,
Jono Hirt

It’s an illegal height on Sydenham road side of 8 stories rather then the legal 3.
There is already not enough parking on the street so 216 spaces for a 1188 units is not acceptable.
It’s laughable that this is supposed the assist with housing in the area when there are only 40 3 bed units.

I am a resident of 25 years in Silver Street Marrickville. I object to this submission for a number of reasons. They are:
* Parking: Although they say having less car spaces encourages public transport use - people still own cars. There's no guarantee that people will not have a car and with over 1000 units - that is a lot of cars even if 30% of residents don't have cars! It makes life in Marrickville more unliveable, especially for the many elderly Greek residents that have lived here for 40+ years. It also impacts the parking for primary school pick ups with the main pick up point being Thompson and Farr Street. PUT IN MORE CAR SPACES. ONE PER UNIT. People can use them for storage if they don't have a car!
*Height: It's an overbearing structure. Imposing. Three stories should be the maximum. It is too close to small residential houses on Farr Street and Sydenham Road.
*Shadowing: It will cast a huge shadow over residents houses. It should not be higher than one storey on Farr Street especially.
*Safety: It overlooks a primary school playground. This is a very poor planning decision. Students may see people in various states of undress or worse! Also the construction phase will be dangerous for school children walking to school as Farr Street is their main thoroughfare with the lights on Sydenham Rd at Farr St. Both my children went to Marrickville Public School.
*Traffic: Marrickville is a very hard suburb to get out of. The streets are small. There are traffic jams constantly at every exit point - to get on to Princes Highway, to go up to Newtown via Enmore Rd, to go via Livingstone Rd, and on Edinburgh Rd near Marrickville Metro. Buses get stuck in long queues going up to the universities.
*Amenity: Marrickville does not have the school amenities to cope with the influx of people. The school hall at Marrickville Public School is tiny. They have limited classrooms. Same with the high school. There's not enough out door space or sporting ovals - with both the Newtown Jets and the AFLW now at Henson Park there's less amenity for community sports teams up this end of Marrickville.
All in all it is too large, too imposing, and not enough parking spaces. It is too close to the old residential areas in Marrickville. If you want this type of structure - build it closer to Sydenham station in the industrial area.

Dear Council Officers,

I write to formally object to the proposed high-rise development on Sydenham Rd, Marrickville. This project raises grave concerns regarding planning compliance, infrastructure capacity, housing affordability, and community welfare, and I urge its rejection in its current form.

The development’s proposed 8-storey height flagrantly breaches the law, which mandates a 3-storey maximum for this precinct. Such overreach will irreversibly damage the suburb’s low-to-medium density character, casting excessive shadows over neighbouring homes and public spaces while setting a dangerous precedent for further non-compliant projects. Compliance with zoning laws is essential to maintaining planning integrity and community trust, yet this proposal disregards both.

Equally alarming is the inadequate planning for traffic and parking. With over 1,200 new residents, the development will overwhelm Sydenham Rd and surrounding streets, which already suffer peak-hour gridlock. Increased congestion near schools, pedestrian zones, and local transit routes such as Victoria Road will heighten safety risks, while insufficient parking provisions will displace vehicles into residential areas, burdening existing households and businesses. The absence of commitments to road upgrades, public transport expansion, or cycling infrastructure further underscores the proposal’s lack of foresight.

The exclusion of affordable housing exacerbates Marrickville’s escalating rental and ownership crisis. By prioritising single-person units, the development ignores Council and state targets for inclusive housing, accelerating the displacement of low-income families, essential workers, and vulnerable residents. This neglect deepens inequality and contradicts principles of equitable urban growth.

Moreover, the project will accelerate harmful gentrification, eroding the suburb’s cultural identity. Skyrocketing property values and rents will displace long-term residents and small businesses, replacing Marrickville’s multicultural vibrancy with homogenised high-end developments. The loss of community spaces and heritage assets will further diminish the area’s unique character.

Finally, the cumulative strain on infrastructure is untenable. Schools, medical services, and green spaces are already overstretched, yet the proposal adds 1,200+ residents without proportional investment in amenities. Environmental impacts, including reduced green space, heightened urban heat, and increased emissions, further conflict with sustainability goals.

I implore those with authority to reject this proposal, enforce development height restrictions, mandate affordable housing quotas, require rigorous traffic studies, and prioritise community consultation. Responsible development must balance growth with preservation, ensuring Marrickville remains a liveable, inclusive, and vibrant suburb.

Kind regards, Patrick.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally express my objection to the proposed Timberyards development in its current form. While I acknowledge the potential for new housing, I believe the development as currently planned fails to meet the needs of our community and will result in significant negative impacts.

Excessive Building Height: The developers are proposing an 8-storey tower on Sydenham Road, which exceeds the legal limit of 3 storeys. This would overshadow surrounding homes, significantly reducing sunlight and privacy for existing residents.

Lack of Affordable and Family Housing: Of the 1,188 units proposed, only a small percentage (less than 10%) are designated as affordable housing. Furthermore, there is a severe lack of larger family units, with only 40 three-bedroom apartments out of the total. This development does not adequately address the growing need for affordable family housing in the area.

Insufficient Parking: The development includes only 216 parking spaces for 1,188 units, exacerbating existing parking issues in the surrounding streets and putting further strain on local infrastructure.

Impact on Local Services: Local schools, childcare centers, and medical facilities are already under pressure. The influx of new residents without corresponding upgrades to these essential services will only increase these strains.

Shadowing Issues: The 8-storey tower would cast significant shadow over homes on Sydenham Road, Victoria Road, and surrounding streets, violating legal limits for overshadowing and diminishing the quality of life for current residents.

Given these concerns, I strongly urge the NSW government to reconsider the current development proposal and make significant amendments. The focus should be on ensuring affordable housing, respecting legal height limits, and providing adequate infrastructure to support the increased population.

Thank you for considering my views. I hope you will take the necessary steps to protect the well-being of our community.

Dear Planning Committee,

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed planning development for the Timberlands project. As a resident of Marrickville, I believe that our community does not need any more apartment blocks.

Firstly, I would like to point out that Wicks Park went up just last year, and there are already several new developments on Addison Road. Our roads are already congested, especially on weekends, making access to shopping center car parks extremely difficult. Parking in our streets is also quite limited and adding more apartment blocks will only exacerbate this issue.
Furthermore, the proposed development will not increase affordable housing in our area. On the contrary, it is likely to devalue our existing properties due to overcrowding. The additional pressure on our schools is another major concern. With insufficient space to accommodate extra children, class sizes will inevitably increase, impacting our children's ability to learn as teachers struggle to give them individual attention.
Access to medical practices is already challenging, and an increase in population will only worsen this situation. Our community's infrastructure is not equipped to handle the additional demand that the Timberlands project will bring.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to reconsider the planning development for the Timberlands project. Our community's well-being and quality of life should be prioritized over further development.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of The Timberyards by RTL Co. as a resident living directly across the road at 2/116 Sydenham Road, Marrickville.

1. Breach of Height Limits and Overshadowing Impact
The proposed development grossly exceeds the local planning controls, which clearly state a maximum of three storeys. The proposed height is not only non-compliant but will have a significant, irreversible impact on neighbouring properties—including my own—by blocking out sunlight for large portions of the day.
This overshadowing affects our ability to generate solar energy, increases our energy costs, and compromises our investment in renewable technologies. It also devalues our property and deprives us of natural light—something that’s not just a luxury, but a necessity for wellbeing. They are stealing sunshine and money directly from our pockets - noone has said anything about why they are allowed to break the laws on zoning and shadowing.

2. Negative Impact on Local Traffic and Liveability
The scale and design of the building will create substantial traffic congestion on Sydenham Road and surrounding streets, which are already under pressure. The proposal does not appear to account for the increased load on local infrastructure, especially given the limited parking allocation and high-density layout. The impact on existing families, cyclists, and pedestrians has not been adequately addressed.

3. Unclear Tenant Profile – A De Facto Hotel
I was informed directly by representatives of RTL Co. that the majority of tenants will be international business travellers on 3–6 month stays. This makes the development more akin to a short-stay hotel or extended Airbnb model than residential housing. This undermines the social fabric of the Marrickville community, which is built on long-term residents, families, and active community participation. This development will not contribute to that—it will detract from it.

4. Lack of Affordable Housing and Community Benefit
Only 10% of the units are allocated to affordable housing, with the rest expected to be sold or leased at premium rates. This is a missed opportunity to address local housing needs. The Timberyards could have been transformed into a vibrant, community-centric mixed-use hub with accessible retail, dining, and a meaningful portion of genuinely affordable homes. Instead, it’s being used as a high-yield asset for a billion-dollar developer, prioritising profit over people.

5. Visual Impact and Poor Fit for Marrickville
The bulk, scale and design of the building are completely out of character for the area. It will tower over nearby homes and heritage buildings, creating a visual and social eyesore. It is a monolithic structure with no real integration into the local streetscape or community needs.

In summary, this proposal does not comply with the zoning regulations, brings no meaningful benefit to the Marrickville community, increases strain on infrastructure, and prioritises short-term rental profits over long-term liveability. I respectfully urge the Planning Panel and Council to reject the proposal in its current form and call for a more balanced, community-aligned redevelopment of the Timberyards site.

As a regular visitor to this area I can’t believe a project of this size is being contemplated. Not only it’s illegal height, but with no concern for the requirements of tenants of such a huge development. Parking in the area is already over subscribed yet such a small amount is envisaged, access to schools, health centres, and recreational facilities is already stretched, and there is no consideration for the asthetics of the area, or the shadow such a monolith will cast over nearby properties, and the subsequent loss of value and lifestyle amenity of these properties. It should be noted the current traffic flow is excessive and will only become worse with this development.

The size and scale of this project is far too big for an already extremely busy area in terms of traffic and density. With the permitted height on Sydenham Road at 3 storeys this project is going to be more than double that.
This proposal will also overshadow surrounding homes.
The fact that only 10% will be "affordable" at 20% below market rate is also concerning given the problem of limited affordable rents already in Marrickville.
The project needs to be redesigned with reduced heights and more affordable rental options.

In principle I support the project but object to the height of the buildings.
Height should be limited to the 7 floors on the original IW approved 10 year plan. Anything above this will be severely detrimental to the quality of life of the surrounding area.

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development at The Timberyards by RTL Co. This development raises serious concerns regarding its impact on the local community and I urge the council to reject this proposal for the following reasons:

Non-Compliant Height & Overshadowing:
The proposed development exceeds the legal height restrictions, resulting in extensive overshadowing of neighbouring homes. This would greatly reduce natural light and negatively affect the quality of life for local residents, violating established planning regulations.

Safety Concerns for School Children:
The proposed residential and delivery driveways are located on Farr Street, a critical pedestrian route for children attending the nearby primary school. Increased traffic, including delivery trucks, poses an unacceptable risk to child and pedestrian safety.

Lack of Consideration for Local Character:
The scale and design of the development do not align with the established character of the area. There is an inadequate buffer between the development and existing homes, leading to privacy issues and disrupting the community's residential feel.

Traffic & Parking Issues:
Adding 1,188 apartments will significantly worsen traffic congestion in the area. The allocation of only 240 car spaces for over 1,000 apartments is insufficient, forcing more vehicles onto surrounding streets where parking is already in high demand. This will make daily commutes and local travel increasingly difficult for residents.

Inadequate Infrastructure to Support High-Density Housing:
Our area does not have the necessary transport and infrastructure to support high-density residential developments. Without major upgrades to public transport, roads and essential services, this proposal will place excessive pressure on already strained community resources.

Given these concerns, I strongly urge the council to reject this development in its current form. The needs and safety of the existing community, particularly school children and local residents, must take priority over an unsuitable high-density project.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Scott Beveridge (Local resident)

While I am supportive of development in the local area, the size, height and scale of the Timberyards development is inappropriate for the location. The development will have a material adverse impact on the community, school safety, traffic and parking.
Currently their is insufficient street parking in area, due to the majority of homes having no off-street parking or garages. The proposal provides that only ~20% of the units will have an 1 off-street parking spot which is fanciful. This will mean 80% of the units will be forced on to the local streets to compete with residents and workers who currently find parking near their residences and work places difficult - will particularly negatively impact Marrickville Public School students and parents school drop off and pick-up.
The scale and height will add significant shading, no green space and added risk from the flight path which the site sits under.
The proposed development also lead to change of character in area, with limited offerings to families (only 3% of the development is targeted to families needing 3 bedroom apartments) with the majority of the proposal targeting small studio spaces, bedsit and university accommodation size rooms.
I request that the development be materially reduced in height, scale and that additional off street parking be introduced, so that each unit has at least 1 car space available to reduce the adverse impact on the local Marrickville community.