The Timberyards by RTL Co.

I object to this submission on the grounds that the scale is too big and the number of units are mainly single use. The project does not have adequate parking in an area with limited car space.

The number of storeys is way too high exceeding the areas limits. This will negatively impact the suburb and surrounding homes. With limited parking and excessive storeys, and ‘boarding type’ accommodation this exceeds local planning controls and density. There are only 40 units for 3 bedroom units, we need to house families in NSW. This land could be put to good use with the right amount of mix and adequate parking for families to enjoy the area.

I am also concerned about the design which clashes with the look of the local area.

We all want this project to go ahead and to benefit all the community. It fails to provide the right type of housing and will create stress for the entire community with lack of parking and excessive out of character design and building height.

Thank you for taking consideration to the residents of the area.

The project should be limited in height to five floors. There should be at least one parking spot per unit.

This is project is proposed on the premise of providing community benefit and affordable housing. Those two aspects are reflected minimally in the proposal, the primary benefit is a return to investors and developers.

There is insufficient parking for residents or guests, which will negatively impact the already full local streets.

There is insufficient local amenities for the proposed population increase.

The proposal is much too high. It does not fit the local area and has far reaching negative impact to existing resident's natural light.

* We are in a housing crisis and this will deliver an uplift in terms of housing where people want to live - near to good and frequent public transportation and also close to the Sydney CBD in terms of employment & job opportunities
* Because of the closeness to the (~10 mins walk) to Sydenham Metro station & shops (a short walk away) - the development provides for the opportunity for those living in after completion of the project to not need to purchase a car - this has climate implications
* The proposal does not include any gas appliances or gas usage - it is great to see induction cook-tops . One minor point that I think could possibly be improved is the use of heat pump hot water which are more efficient than electric boiler systems
* The inclusion of affordable housing is great to see
* Likewise it is great to see the inclusion of retail & public space
* Consider to what degree taller buildings with a higher density yield may be suitable for the site - taking into account solar and/or other related impacts of taller buildings (e.g. shading) in the area.

More well located housing please. My rent just went up $50 and I need options that aren't "leave Sydney". I'd be happier if it were higher than 8 storeys but let's not delay things any longer.

Reasons for support:
- climate: people commuting shorter distances with more public transport means less emissions
- environment: seeing swathes of native habitat being replaced with mcmansions makes me want to blow something up, we need infill to soothe my soul and keep the Dodge owners safe
- culture: dense neighbourhoods are great for enabling social events and third places
- rank financial self interest: my landlord has me by the balls! Give me some leverage!
- brain drain: if we don't solve this shit I'll move to Melbourne I swear to god

Extremely insuffficient parking. Whilst I appreciate the intention the reality is unlikely. Coupled with a supermarket opening across the road, increased local business activity, a local school nearby, clear ways during peak hour on the main roads and then sports events at the Henson oval, there will significant strain on nearby streets particularly residential streets for parking especially since Marrickville does not have many off steet parking options for residents.
Cycling is touted as a connectivity option in their application but cycling infrastructure is woefully lacking in the surrounding areas and would be a hazard for cyclist and motor vehicles. It's challenging already.
Non compliance with solar access to some surrounding properties who will be adversely affected. Most likely attributed to height of buildings.

If the above can be remedied appropriately that would mitigate my objection.

Please see objections in attached document.

Subject: Strong Objection to the Timberyards Development in Marrickville

Dear Major Projects at NSW Government,

I am writing to object to the proposed Timberyards development in Marrickville, which threatens the integrity of our community and does not address the pressing needs of residents, particularly families and low-income households.

1. Insufficient Affordable Housing
One of my primary concerns with this development is that less than 10% of the units are set aside for affordable housing. In today's climate, where housing affordability is a growing issue, this is simply not enough. The demand for low-income housing is at an all-time high, and many people in our community are struggling to afford market-rate rents. With the cost of living rising, it is crucial that developments like this include a much higher proportion of affordable housing to help relieve the housing crisis we are facing. This proposal fails to provide the necessary support for low-income residents and does not help to reduce the housing stress that so many in our community are experiencing.

2. Overdevelopment and Impact on Surrounding Homes
The proposed height of the building along Sydenham Road is 8 storeys, which exceeds the legal maximum of 3 storeys. This overdevelopment not only violates zoning laws but also dramatically impacts the surrounding homes. The increased height will result in the loss of natural sunlight for properties on Sydenham Road, Victoria Road, and surrounding streets. In some cases, this exceeds the legal limit for shadowing, leaving many homes in darkness for much of the day. This is not just an inconvenience—it diminishes the quality of life for current residents and fundamentally alters the character of the neighborhood.

3. Insufficient Parking and Increased Congestion
With 1,188 units planned, only 216 parking spaces are included in the proposal. This creates a major concern for local residents, as parking in the area is already difficult. The added pressure on surrounding streets will result in even more congestion, making it harder for residents to park near their homes. The increased population will also strain other local services such as schools, childcare, and healthcare. Currently, there are long waiting times for services like schools and childcare, and the local medical center is already overwhelmed. The additional pressure from this development will only exacerbate these existing issues, further reducing the quality of life for the people who live here.

4. Financial Profit Over Community Well-being
It is clear that this development prioritizes financial profit over the well-being of the existing community. The plan does not offer sufficient family-sized homes or affordable housing, and it will have a negative impact on the environment and infrastructure of the area. Instead of fostering a community that serves the needs of Marrickville's diverse population, the development seems designed to cater primarily to investors, with little consideration for the residents who have lived in this area for years.

In conclusion, I urge the planning authority to reconsider this proposal. The Timberyards development, as it stands, will put immense strain on our community’s infrastructure, environment, and social fabric. It does not provide enough affordable housing, fails to accommodate families, and introduces unnecessary height and congestion that will negatively impact existing homes and services.

Thank you for your attention to these important issues. I trust you will take these concerns into account and make a decision that is truly in the best interest of Marrickville's residents.

Sincerely,
Nicole Bush

While I support the intentions of the development, I feel like there are some significant concerns for the local area and surrounding infrastructure that are either not addressed, inadequately addressed, or have been addressed disingenuously. A summary of some of these concerns are highlighted below.

Wicks Park:
Neighbouring wicks park is in poor condition and inadequate to service the surrounding neighbourhood. The ~270 apartments in the newly constructed ‘Wicks Place’ development have already placed increased strain on its facilities (bins consistently overflowing, grass being worn down, large number of dogs etc), and highlighted various issues (playground old/unsafe, tennis court lights old, some are halogen, and are pointed directly into ~100 Wicks Place apartments, lack of boundary fencing onto two busy roads, surrounding footpaths of poor quality especially leading toward Sydenham Metro Station).

The Timberyards development being of such a significant size and in such close proximity to the park will only exacerbate these issues (increase to usage, more animals, children, tennis court lights will point directly at hundreds of Victoria road facing apartments of proposed buildings B, C, D, and E).

Tennis Courts should be moved to the Sydenham Road side of Wicks park in order to; 1) create a physical barrier to Sydenham road increasing safety for children, 2) install lower more energy efficient court lighting reducing light pollution impact to hundreds of Wicks Place and Timberyards apartments, 3) Create a large amount of open and useable space fronting Wicks Place / Made Marrickville developments to allow for safer children’s play area location, increased open/green space away from Sydenham/Victoria Roads, improved pedestrian access to Harris Farm Market and apartments as well as neighbouring streets.

While this may be considered an Inner West Council issue to manage, by approving an additional ~1200 apartments without a mandate to complete a park upgrade, Wicks Park will only continue to degrade.

KEY ACTION: Consideration should be made by the Department to mandate improvements be made to Wicks Park by IWC, with or without funding support by the Developer/Department.

Traffic / Public Transport:
The traffic impact analysis has not been detailed enough, Faversham Street has not been considered. “Signalised pedestrian crossings are also provided on all legs of surrounding intersections near the site. Level travel paths are provided through Wicks Park and along the northern side of Sydenham Road to allow for practical connection with Sydenham Metro” – this is incorrect, note comments A) and B) below.

A) Since the construction of the “Wicks Place” development Faversham Street has become increasingly congested (one way directional exit from Wicks Place driveway) and has become an alternate route by general traffic when Victoria road is busy. During peak times the Faversham Street / Sydenham Road intersection becomes dangerous, 1) sight lines can be obstructed, 2) large/heavy vehicles use Faversham street as a shortcut, additionally obstructing pedestrian view of the crossing 3) two lanes exit Faversham street allowing travel in both directions, 3) Sydenham traffic enters Faversham Street in both directions 4) all of this occurring over the top of a marked pedestrian crossing. These points are particularly relevant as this is the direct path residents will travel on foot to reach Sydenham Metro Station. Traffic flow into Faversham Street will also increase again once Harris Farm Market in Wicks Place is opened to the public, and then again, when Timberyards is completed. Pedestrian foot traffic to/from the metro station across this dangerous intersection will increase when Timberyards is completed.
KEY ACTION: Consideration for an upgrade of the Faversham/Sydenham intersection is required (e.g. Signals, Roundabout, etc.).

B) The physical spacing of traffic lights on Victoria road currently encourages a high volume of jaywalking. There are currently traffic lights allowing for pedestrian crossing of Victoria Road at Victoria Rd/Sydenham Rd intersection, and the Victoria Rd/Chapel St intersection, these intersections are approximately 380m apart. A large number of pedestrians commonly jaywalk across Victoria road in-between these two sets of lights. This will increase significantly as Timberyards and Wicks Place residents will take the shortest path of travel to access retail areas in each development (particularly the Wicks Place Harris Farm Supermarket).
KEY ACTION: While the developer has indicated “preference for a new safe crossing of Victoria Road by way of mid-block pedestrian signals located about 90 metres north of Sydenham Road.” TfNSW should be mandated to ensure safe crossing between the two developments is implemented.

Public Transport is touted as a significant driver of the location of the Timberyards development. While the new Sydney Metro will cope with additional patronage, the Victoria road bus routes will not. Busses arriving at the most proximal bus stops on Victoria road to the development during peak periods (particularly morning peak) are currently commonly standing room only and rarely run to schedule. The introduction of ~1200 apartments with only 238 residential car spaces will significantly impact these bus routes. From personal experience it is often currently faster to walk in afternoon peak from Newtown station to the Victoria Road/Sydenham Road intersection than it is to wait for a bus that isn’t at capacity and is available to take on more passengers.
KEY ACTION: An upgrade to bus scheduling should be re-considered.

The reported low impact created by car volumes is disingenuous. “Proposal results in a net increase to on-street parking”, “A detailed assessment of the on-street parking environment across the frontage streets has been completed and confirms a net increase of about six spaces.” “The retail [15 tenancies] proposed is to service the local area, rather than being destinational”. While commendable, the aspirational assumption that 1000 apartments will not own a car is not plausible. While there may be a net increase of 6 spaces to on-street parking due to removal of driveways, there will also be ~1000 additional apartments without a car space – it is misleading to assert the local area will retain net-increase in spaces. It is also highly unlikely that a retail precinct containing 15 tenancies cannot be considered destinational, the development will attract visitors who arrive by car. “there is opportunity to modify the on-street parking restrictions in Precinct 47 to better accommodate the change in land use in to enable turnover of parking through signposted restrictions and to rectify the all-day parking issues that have plagued the area in recent years.” By also removing all day parking from the area, both existing owned vehicles who currently park during the day and overnight, and new Timberyards resident owned vehicles will move into surrounding neighbourhood streets increasing congestion and removing parking availability for the broader local area. There doesn’t appear to be any consideration for knock on impacts in the broader area further increasing local traffic congestion.
KEY ACTION: Consideration of the knock on impacts on car parking in broader neighbouring areas caused by limited parking and changes to all day / overnight parking availability.

Physical Impact of the site on the streetscape, neighbouring residents, shadowing:
I understand that while the site benefits from increases to floor heights due to composition of apartment types referencing the Housing SEPP, it is restricted in overall building heights due to the Sydney Airport Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS). The developer has constructed the argument that this should allow them to redistribute the overall allowable floorspace on to other areas of the site far exceeding maximum building heights; 20.7% on Victoria Road, and up to an inconceivable 107.6% on Farr St and 155% on Sydenham road.

Proposed buildings C and D will also impose in their current form, significant shadowing on existing buildings A and B of the neighbouring Wicks Place development. Of the current 30 apartments that face Victoria road only 13 will maintain the minimum 2 hours direct sunlight, with the worst impacted apartment receiving less that 45 minutes.

KEY ACTION: If the height limits are to be this far exceeded, building setbacks at higher levels should be increased beyond the
typical minimum setbacks as to most impactfully reduce the shadowing and visual imposition on surrounding streets and properties.

As a local of the area with children attending Marrickville Public School I strongly object to this development proposal. This does not serve the local community, in fact I believe would negatively impact the community. The local area already has major issues with infrastructure including traffic congestion, over density, parking issues, not enough services in area such as daycares, schools, doctors, parking, this is a every day struggle we as a local young family face. The proposal shows the Sydenham Road block to be excessive 8 storeys high, noting the legal maximum is 3 storeys, this increased height significantly impacts the existing homes on surrounding roads. Houses on Sydenham Road, Victoria Road and others lose a massive amount of their sun, due to the illegal 8 storey block proposal, noting for some homes this is over the legal limit of shadowing allowed. It already is a issue to find parking in local streets and with 1,188 units proposed, there only 216 parking spaces planned. 10% of the proposed units are set aside for Affordable Housing, this plan does not provide enough housing for low-income residents, there is also only 40 3 bedroom units proposed, this does not help young growing young families in the local area.

As a marrickville resident i strongly oppose this. 8 stories high is illegal . The inner west is already overpopulated and congested. It is difficult to park and access local services and this will make it worse. Why not build a public hospital that we desperately need.
if this goes ahead where will all these people go when they are sick? to rpa? we can’t even get a bed now let alone when you sell over an additional 1000 apartments.

the over development of the inner west needs to stop! make affordable housing out west where there’s plenty of room.

we have too much traffic and lack of accessibility already. that location will also look
into the local
public school which is a huge concern.

We have reviewed the DA material available via the NSW Planning Portal and have concluded that as the owners of 119 Sydenham Road Marrickville, we object to this proposal. We believe this development has a massive negative impact to our property during its construction and operation, and that including the properties on Sydenham Road currently not part of the development is the only way to mitigate this.

We are in support of submission reference number 22258A.2KM_SUB and its objection to this development proposal.

We believe that the proposed height and proximity of the development is against a number of codes and that proper planning and impact analysis has not been conducted.

The impact during construction includes traffic, noise, vibration, dust, privacy, and disruption to essential service to our house such as but not limited to sewer services and power. Our property adjoins the construction zone in two sides of property boundaries out of four, and will be impacted the most by the construction with no significant proposal to review, consider, and implement any protective or mitigative strategies for all four years of construction period. With construction taking place directly on half of our building envelopes, we believe that the impact is immeasurable and unacceptable. There will be physical construction hazards at all times, structural impact to our building, massive privacy concerns, excessive noise light and dust. There is no appropriate, sufficient, and acceptable setback between our property (no 119) and Building G, and there will never be acceptable exclusion zone far enough to exclude our property from direct harmful impact and hazard during the construction.

The impact during building operation includes solar access and privacy. Based on the proposal, Building E will completely block sun to our home (No. 119) between 9am and 2pm at midwinter and almost completely block direct solar access to any building on the Corner Site. Almost all of our windows (No. 119) will be directly blocked by Building G and E, and this will not allow habitable living condition for us. Furthermore, all of the windows impacted above will also have privacy issues as Building G and E will have direct view into our bathroom, kitchen, dining room, upper corridor, and main bedroom. This privacy issues can only be alleviated by installing blinds, further worsening the lack of solar access to our living areas. These will not be acceptable.

As per the proposed scheme, our northwest and north side of property will be open to public at all times. This easily invites vandalism, security, noise, light pollution and unforeseen hazards to our property, which have not been assessed, understood, resolved or mitigated. This is a massive oversight in the development submission and based on the current proposed scheme, this simply would not allow an acceptable living condition for us in our home.

Based on all reasonings outlined above as well as the ones outlined in submission 22258A.2KM_SUB, our objection on this development construction is strong and clear in position.

In addition to above, we are including the detail below to highlight our experience of this process.

In September 2024, we were approached by Jonathan Combley from Scape to discuss proposal to acquire our property. After 3 months of negotiation, we reached an agreement with the terms written in the Intent to Purchase letter. We signed, returned it and wait. However as weeks went by and the terms in the letter lapsed, the Developer would not sign our contract to exchange. The reason was that another property owner was not ready to sell, which was not part of the terms outlined in the agreed letter. We then understood that the property owner who was the 'reason for our delay' was indeed ready to sell. This, however, never progressed the purchase of our property. Upon understanding the exclusion of our property along with others in the Corner Site from assessing the SSD Application, we believe we have to outline our reasoning and position through this letter.

We strongly encourage the Developers to engage with a genuine intent to purchase our property at a reasonable value and to be transparent in their approach with no delay tactics and mixed information. This will allow the Developers to use the whole land and maximise its value, and that us as owners can confidently plan for our future.

Kind Regards,
The owner of 119 Sydenham Road Marrickville.
Brian Novanto and Timothy Field.

To Whom it may concern,
I object to SSD-76927247 - The Timberyards by RTLCo. The excessive height of the proposed building will lead to severe overshadowing of Sydenham Road. For some homes, this means getting less than half an hour of sunlight each day, which goes against the local planning controls and severely impacts the quality of life for residents. I have lived in my house for 60 years and I would hate to live the rest of my life in darkness in the shade of a monstrosity.

To whom it may concern
I object to SSD-76927247 - the Timberyards by RTL Co.
The 8 storey building would overshadow homes on sydenham road, especially in the afternoons and evenings. This would reduce the natural light residents currently enjoy, with some homes receiving only about 30 minutes of sunlight per day, which will make our homes much darker and less welcoming. It is avoidable and unessasary for a development proposed of this scale .

It’s too high.
There aren’t enough social or affordable apartments.
There need to be more 3+ bedroom apartments to cater for families.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.