The Timberyards by RTL Co.

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.

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 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.

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

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

As a local resident, I object to this project in its current form. While I appreciate the need for more housing during this housing crisis, I do not believe this development is the answer.

There are several issues, namely:
- the proposed height of the building;
- the ratio of 1 bedroom to 2-3 bedroom apartments;
- lack of affordability;
- lack of parking;
- pressure a large influx of people will have on current infrastructure.

The proposed height of 8 storeys will overshadow surrounding streets and homes, denying residents and the environment of adequate sunlight. 8 storeys is also far greater than the 3 storeys permitted.

There is an excess of 1 bedroom/studio apartments, compared to 2-3 bedroom apartments. Of the 1,188 proposed apartments, roughly 3/4 will be single occupancy and only really suitable for students or singles in temporary housing, particularly given the shared facilities (shared kitchens, laundry, etc). Only approx. 1/4 of apartments are suitable for families, couples or larger groups. We need more family homes, not studios.

Less than 10% of the apartments will be classed as Affordable Housing. Given the size of this development, this is woefully insufficient. We need more affordable housing in the Inner West for low-income residents. As someone on a low income myself, I find this especially appalling. It appears the developer is prioritising profits over people.

With the huge number of apartments, and even larger number of prospective residents, the proposed 216 parking spaces is simply inadequate. Parking is already difficult to find in the area, and the lack of parking spots in the development is only going to cause more chaos in surrounding streets for residents.

Adding an estimated 1,500+ people to the area from one development is going to put a significant strain on local services and infrastructure. Many services like GP clinics, RPA hospital, local schools and childcare centres are already under pressure due to the growing population. Developers must consider the strain they’re adding to local infrastructure when constructing such large developments.

Should the development be revised to be only 3 storeys, have an equal amount of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments (though far less than 1,188 overall), have a larger percentage of actual Affordable Housing (50% would be ideal), provide adequate parking within the development for residents, and work to lessen the negative impact to the surrounding infrastructure (keeping to 3 storeys and thus less apartments will help), I would be likely to support it. Until such changes are made, I cannot in good conscience support this development.

See attached letter.

There needs to be at least 1 car spot, per unit, incorporated into the design of the complex
The surrounding area of this proposed complex, already has major car parking issues
When a major event is on at Henson Park - the already congested area is even more congested, and car parking is out of control
The proposal has less than 300 car spaces provided for over a thousand units. The complex “rental pricing” will be at market value, and will not target students and the like without cars. The renters will be more established and will own cars!
Once the building is complete, you can't go back and say "Well we got that wrong"
The footprint of the proposed area will be more than be enough, to provide underground parking for 1000+ cars - And for the few units that don’t have cars, they could rent their car spot, to help reduce parking issues in the area
Whilst adding the necessary carpark capacity will add to the construction costs, it must be deemed a necessary requirement

I object to the project as it currently stands.
This is a great opportunity to provide social and affordable housing on an excellent site close to amenities and public transport.
As a current renting resident nearby I welcome more housing and rentals available but I know that these - like nearby new apartments - will not be affordable and will not offer a mix of housing to people from varied social and economic backgrounds.
10% affordable and no social housing is a mistake and a travesty when you had such a big site with a lot of potential. I would support the project if its was 50% social housing/50% market rate housing.

This looks like a great project in a great location.
I'm especially encouraged by all the bicycle spaces and lack of emphasis on parking. There are many of us (including with children) who don't have cars for all sorts of reasons and this site being well located near the metro makes this a great space for people to make that choice.

Sydney needs to be delivering a lot of projects like this and even at larger scales to start to tackle our states housing needs and this is a great step.
Looks like exactly the type of place I'd be happy living in with my young family.
A decent amount of housing, creative space, open space, communal space for residents - wonderful!

As someone eager to move to Marrickville, I strongly support this development. The 1200 new homes will improve housing availability in this highly sought-after area, while the thoughtful design balances density with livability. The project's focus on active transport (762 bike spaces) and minimal car parking (278 spaces) perfectly suits the location's proximity to Sydenham Metro and Marrickville Road shops. The inclusion of retail space, affordable housing, and public spaces will enhance community amenities. Marrickville Public School has capacity for new students, making this ideal for families. This development represents forward-thinking urban planning that creates homes where people want to live with excellent supporting infrastructure.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Timberyards development in Marrickville. While I am a strong supporter of medium density housing and increased urban development which can bring benefits to our community, this project puts corporate profit over the genuine housing needs of local residents in a unique and popular Inner West suburb. These values will be put at risk by a project that goes against so much of the character that Marrickville has that is attractive to its residents and community.
Inadequate Affordable Housing: While the development plans reveal the construction of over one thousand apartments, less than 10% of them will be earmarked as affordable housing. Even these so-called affordable units will only be rented at a rate just under 20% below market value, which does little to alleviate the growing housing crisis. A significantly higher percentage of truly affordable housing must be included to meet community needs.
No Public Housing Provision: This proposal completely excludes public housing. Given the rising rates of homelessness and housing insecurity, it is unacceptable for a development of this magnitude to exclude public housing. Dedicated public housing units are essential for providing stable, long-term homes for low-income residents and must be incorporated into the plan.
Overreliance on Co-Living and For-Profit Student Accommodation: The integrity of Marrickville as an attractive place to live will be undermined by such a project. With a significant portion of the proposed development dedicated to co-living spaces and high-cost student accommodation operated by SCAPE, it prioritizes short-term, high-turnover rentals rather than providing permanent homes for local families and workers. With Sydney and Melbourne already oversaturated with expensive student housing, Marrickville should not become another hub for profit-driven, short-stay accommodation at the expense of real community needs.
Opposition to Build-to-Rent Model: The build-to-rent approach in this project is not designed to create long-term housing security. Instead, it favors investment-driven rental models that produces never ending profits for the investor, and inflates rental prices and limit long-term stability for tenants. This model is not in the best interest of the community and should be reconsidered in favor of homeownership opportunities and permanent housing solutions.
Excessive Scale and Impact on the Area: Marrickville has its own particular charm and attraction for new home owners and renters around its diversity, arts sector and connectivity. The sheer size of this development far exceeds that of previous projects, such as the Wicks Place apartments - which is already significant by local standards, and will drastically alter the character of Marrickville. There is no clear plan to ensure that essential infrastructure and community services will be expanded to accommodate such an influx of new residents.
Lack of Transparency in the Planning Process: The issue of excessive co-living spaces has been downplayed in community consultations, limiting the public’s ability to provide informed feedback. Transparency and meaningful community engagement must be a priority in any project of this scale.
I strongly urge the NSW Planning Department to require major revisions to the Timberyards proposal, including:
• A substantial increase in genuinely affordable housing, with at least 30% of units set aside at deeply discounted rates.
• The inclusion of public housing to provide permanent homes for low-income and vulnerable residents.
• A reduction in co-living and short-term rental units, with a shift towards permanent housing designed for families and essential workers.
• The removal of the build-to-rent model in favor of sustainable, community-focused housing solutions.
• Improved transparency and greater community involvement in the planning process.

Unfortunately I only became aware that submissions are due today for the giant proposal in Marrickville that is a 'build to rent for profit' development brought to you by SCAPE (for profit organisation that provides private student housing).
I understand that there are more than a thousand for rent apartment but LESS THAN 10% will be affordable (and this means ONLY 20% below market rates, so in other words, still unaffordable for most people).
This COMPLETE LATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING in this block has not had much publicity at all. The development is called Timberyards. Of course, housing is extremely important and this is a sad example of wasting an opportunity for local housing.
It seems that our Labor government is putting this through under rapidly, yet I must voice my objection.

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed Timberyards development in Marrickville. While I acknowledge that housing developments should be a priority given the prevailing housing crisis in NSW, this proposal prioritizes profit over people and fails to meet the real housing needs of the area.

Lack of Affordable Housing
The current proposal includes over a thousand apartments, yet less than 10% will be classified as affordable housing. Additionally, the affordable units will only be rented at less than 20% below market rates, which does not provide meaningful relief for those struggling with housing costs in Marrickville. Given the scale of this development, a much larger proportion of genuinely affordable housing should be mandated - at least 30% which is in line with the peak housing not for profit organisations.

No Public Housing
The proposal completely fails to include any public housing. At a time when homelessness and housing insecurity are rising, it is completely unacceptable that a development of this scale does not allocate any units to public housing. Public housing is essential for providing long-term, stable homes for those most in need, including the growing number of older women who require long term public housing, yet this project offers nothing to address that urgent demand.

Excessive Co-Living and For-Profit Student Housing
A significant portion of the proposed development is dedicated to co-living arrangements and for-profit student housing, operated by SCAPE. These types of residences are designed for short-term accommodation rather than providing stable, long-term homes for local residents. Sydney and Melbourne are already saturated with expensive student accommodation, while our community faces a critical shortage of affordable housing for families, workers, and vulnerable residents.

Opposition to Build-to-Rent Model
The build-to-rent model in this development does not serve the long-term housing needs of the community. Instead of creating secure, owner-occupied homes, it prioritizes investment-driven rental properties, which will lead to higher rents and reduced housing stability. This model benefits developers and corporate landlords at the expense of local residents seeking permanent, affordable housing options.

Oversized and Inappropriate for the Area
The scale of this development is far larger than previous projects, including the Wicks Place apartments, and will significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. Infrastructure and community services must be carefully planned to support such a large influx of residents, yet the proposal does not adequately address these needs.

Lack of Transparency on Key Issues
The issue of excessive co-living spaces appears to have been downplayed in public consultations, limiting the ability of the community to engage meaningfully with the planning process. Transparency and proper community consultation are essential for a project of this magnitude.

I urge the NSW Planning Department to require substantial revisions to the Timberyards proposal, including:
• A significantly increased proportion of genuinely affordable housing, ensuring that at least 30% of units are available at deeply discounted rates.
• The inclusion of 30% dedicated public housing units to provide permanent homes for low-income and vulnerable residents.
• Removal of co-living and short-term accommodation units in favor of permanent, long-term affordable rental or private housing suitable for families and essential workers.
• The removal of the build-to-rent model in favor of a more balanced approach that supports owner-occupiers in affordable ways such as shared equity plans to achieve long-term community stability.
• Greater transparency in community consultations and planning processes to ensure that local voices are heard and respected.

Please see attachment for submission

This project has changed from the orginal proposal presented to council and rejected and yet somehow remains yet bigger! Previously this enormous development planned for 5 storeys on the area on Farr St, this has now increased to 8 storeys and now 7 buildings!
I live on Edward St which is parallel to Farr St with our tiny backyard adjacent to the factories on the western side of Farr St. Our street is predominantly small one to two level (mostly one level) semi-detached houses with no garaages and only a couple of driveways in the entire street. There is generall yno available parking on any given evening as we only have street parking. Our only sky is the small amount of blue we get above the factories on farr St. This proposal does not even mention Edward St in its impacts yet it stands to affect our street the most. We will lose our one tiny bit of sky (that we pay an enormous mortgage to enjoy) from these 8-13 storeys planned in the adjacent street. We will also likely lose our already impaired ability to park outside our house both suring the constrcution phase with all the workers in the adjacent street looking for somwehere to park and then when the many apartments are built- with its woefully inadequate 238 carspaces for 1100 apartments (?) - they will also likely park in our street! The traffic in this area of Marrickville is one of the worst with the ability to drive onto Sydenham Rd from Edward St already very difficult at most times of the day and the build up around Victoria St and Sydneham Rd is terrible. There does not seem to be any sort of admission of this or how top improve this for residents - imagine how much worsethis will be with all these extra apartments and the only main exit road being Sydneham rd. What an urban gridlock nightmare!! Let aloe the 41 months you proprse this building will take to construct with 6 months (!!!) of the worst for the basement drilling. My husband works from home as do many in our street - how are they expected to concentrate through these MANY years of construction noise, dust, and debris. Let alone the extended hours of construction those who go to work must deal with when they return to their small sanctuary they have paid a fortune to live in! How is 7am to 7pm reasonable and then all day Saturday 7am to 6pm??!! So we have one day per week to onyl dealw ith the usual flight and urban living noise. These are unreasonably long hours for any family to endure. My daughterwil be doing the HSC during theis time- study concentration will be seriously impaired by endless noise. I'm extremely disappointed that this development that was ooposed by local residents and our council has been pushed through to meet state development requirements without a thought to those who ahve to then live with it. There does not seem to be any scope for improved traffic, parking, the visual impact of these huge buildinsg in a low density small residential area and otherinfarstructure such as more scholls and green space to deal with all these extra residents. Is Wicks park anough to deal with danias other development and this?!

I support the project in general but it can't go ahead as it is. You haven't allocated enough parking spaces per apartment and it's not fair as it discriminates against social workers being able to live in the area. As it is, a lot of these apartments are going up around the area with limited car spaces and it's becoming impossible to find parking generally and social workers have written into their contracts at work that they need access to their own vehicle to work in their workplaces. I'm sure social workers aren't the only ones who have this stipulation as well. If you want to continue to have a diverse community that holds a space for essential workers, you can't force everyone onto public transport because there are still those in the community that are forced to own cars even when they don't want to. Not everyone works in office spaces in the city and just commutes twice a day to their workplace. We definitely need more highrise high density living but you need to provide parking spaces for each of the apartments or at least 3/4 of them.

I am concerned the development application as it stands will lead to overcrowding of our local Marrickville Public School and result in substandard education outcomes for our children.

Firstly, the addition of new residences will significantly increase the population within the school’s catchment area. The influx of new students will likely stretch the school's already limited resources.

Research consistently shows that overcrowded classrooms negatively impact students' ability to learn effectively. Teachers are overburdened, and students may not receive the necessary guidance and support they need to succeed. This is particularly concerning for younger children, who require more personalized attention to develop foundational skills.

Secondly, the physical infrastructure of the school is not equipped to handle a sudden increase in student numbers. Limited classroom space, outdated facilities, and insufficient recreational areas will inevitably lead to a compromised educational environment. The quality of education will deteriorate as the school struggles to accommodate the growing student body.

Furthermore, an overcrowded school can lead to increased stress and anxiety among students. A congested learning environment is not conducive to a positive educational experience and can hinder students' social and emotional development.

I would like the developers to amend plans to address the inevitable overcrowding of the local public school to ensure no student receives a compromised education.

Strongly support this proposal for more housing, especially the social and affordable housing, at the timberyards. I personally pass here after over an hour of commuting, its a disgrace that high income earners like me cannot afford to live anywhere near work in the city, thousands more like this proposal. The design looks great. It makes sense to prioritise active transport and having high bike parking and low car parking, because its 10 minutes from the metro and 10 minutes from Marrickville shops. If anything it would be more appropriate for this to be taller and more dwellings to address the housing crisis and attract more families to the area - especially since the school is 300 students below capacity.

I am writing to object to the current Timberyards proposal for the following reasons:

1. Traffic and Parking Issues
Traffic assessments provided are unrealistic and wholly insufficient. Victoria Rd is already highly congested by current traffic levels. The traffic assessment suggests that the removal of 33 driveways and closure of the existing largely unpatronised businesses/vacant premises will mean that there will be a net zero impact of the addition of 1188 additional residences (900 without parking).

Even if proximity to public transport halves car ownership in the development relative to the population, this will still leave 100s of cars without off street parking, on streets where 24hr clearways would become a necessity to open additional lane flow. A reliance on weekday peak hour survey data also does not reflect the actual use of the roads which, from experience, peak on weekends.

2. Disregard of height controls, resulting in overdevelopment and excessive overshadowing
Submission reflects a request to waive height limitations on the basis that this is required to allow for inclusion of affordable housing. There is nothing to stop developer from reducing overall unit numbers and including affordable housing within height limits. The current limitations do not undermine the State Government’s efforts to increase affordable housing supply, but rather limit the developer’s desire to overdevelop the land and maximise profit. WItb two of the street frontages largely single-storey dwellings, this will also cause unacceptable levels of overshadowing to a large number of existing Marrickville residences.

3. Affordable housing
The proposal does not allow for a sufficient allocation to affordable housing, in either total volume or type (i.e. minimal non-studio or 1-bed apartments). The proposal also only includes an in-principle agreement from an affordable housing management company for 15 years, with no explanation as to how this will be allocated, managed or what assurances are included that these premises would remain ‘affordable housing’ in perpetuity beyond this period.

4. Spirit of plan
The proposal claims to be acting in accordance with a number of planning documents, but is in fact at complete odds with them. Namely:

A. National Housing Accord 2022: The proposal notes that the NSW government response to this sought to prioritise more diverse homes, yet this proposal contains a suggested 876 1-bed, studio or bedsit spaces (some 74%) which provides no diversity or space for families. It also prioritises locations where infrastructure can support new housing. As above, the concentrated volume of dwellings cannot be supported by local roads. Family-based infrastructure (schools, childcare) is also likely to be stretched even by the minority inclusion of larger dwelling sizes.

B. Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities: Bus services with current traffic volumes do not allow travel of more than a few kilometres in less than 30 minutes. This will not improve with 1188 additional dwellings placed on a small block along bordering two arterial roads. As above, this proposal also provides no diversity as claimed and will stretch existing infrastructure beyond its limits.

C. Eastern City District Plan: Dictates suitable road infrastructure which, again, does not exist. This also states that proposals should maintain local character, which is of 1-2-storey dwellings and industrial space, not remotely reflected in 8-13 storey towers.

D. Inner West Local Strategic Planning Statement: identifies affordable housing as a priority, whereas this proposal treats it as an afterthought which is used to justify applications to disregard existing size limitations. This planning statement also again highlights the need for supporting infrastructure (not met, as above) and respect for local character (not met, as above).

To be clear, I do not oppose the site being developed for the provision of housing but the size, insufficient allocation to affordable housing, and lack of regard for local infrastructure and character means this should certainly not progress in its current form.