The Timberyards by RTL Co.

To whom it may concern,
I object to SSD-76927247- The Timberyards by RTL CO. the 8 story building proposed for the Timberyards is a direct violation of the local planning controls which only permit a 3 storey development. This will result in severe overshadowing for homes on Sydenham road with some properties receiving barely any sunlight less than 30 minutes a day.

To whom it may concern,
I object to SSD-76927247 - The Timberyards by RTL Co. The new 8 story development will block out the sunlight for homes along Sydenham Road, reducing sunlight to as little as 30 minutes per day for some residents. This will create an unhealthy living environment and force us to rely more on artificial light and heating.

To Whom It May Concern,
I strongly object to the current plan for the Timberyards in Marrickville and have outlined my concerns below.

Illegal Building Height
The proposed building exceeds the current maximum of three storeys. The justification that increased height is acceptable in exchange for affordable housing is inadequate. Surrounding residents will lose their privacy, and the scale of the development is out of character with the existing area.

Overshadowing and Environmental Impact
Some houses in surrounding areas will not meet legal shadowing requirements due to the excessive height of the building. This will worsen existing problems in an area already struggling with damp issues in buildings and flooding on roads. Reduced sunlight will only exacerbate these conditions.

Lack of Genuine Affordable Housing
The proposal offers only 10% affordable housing, which is an insignificant concession compared to what the project takes away from the community. While renters may not have to worry about their apartments being sold, they will still be subjected to market rent and excessive rental increases, which have already forced many people out of the area. This project is being promoted as affordable housing, but for it to be truly accessible, rent increases would need to be capped to protect tenants from price gouging in the rental market.

Strain on Local Services
There are already long waiting lists for essential services in the area. With multiple large developments occurring at the same time, how will thousands of new residents access the services they need? For example, the local school is already at capacity—where will additional children be accommodated?

Parking and Traffic Congestion
The high market rent in the area means that most residents will have higher incomes, yet the development fails to provide sufficient parking. It is naïve to assume that people will not own cars, and parking and traffic congestion in surrounding streets are already serious issues.

Traffic Disruptions During Construction
Frampton Avenue already experiences issues with trucks double parking, leading to dangerous near-misses and head-on collisions. Despite clear signage prohibiting vehicles over three tonnes, this continues to be a problem. The addition of construction vehicles in an already high-traffic school zone will create traffic chaos.

Impact on School and Privacy
The proposed building will be so high that it will allow people to overlook children in the playground at Marrickville Public School, presenting an unacceptable child protection risk. Additionally, schoolchildren have already endured years of disruption due to noise from the Wicks Park development. How will this project ensure that students are not further disrupted in their schooling or exposed to environmental pollution from construction?

Construction Noise
Over the past four years, local streets have been subjected to extended-hours construction noise from the Wicks Park development. It is far too soon to impose yet another multi-year disruption on the local community.

Threat to Local Community and Performance Venues
The area is home to many well-established performance and dining venues. Previous developments have led to new residents making noise complaints, which in turn has forced venues to shut down, destroying the artistic and cultural identity of the area. This pattern will likely repeat with this development.

Conclusion
While this development is being presented as an affordable housing solution, it is in reality another cash grab by developers who have shown no interest in addressing community concerns. Despite community consultation, none of the raised issues have been addressed. Instead, the developers have pushed forward with a project that is entirely inappropriate for the needs of the community.

I strongly object to the project! The number of units is too many and the proposed height of the building (8-13 storeys) excessive and not in line with current planning restrictions. There has already been a very large unit complex go up on Victoria Rd (Wicks Place) in the last few years. This isn't yet full and it has impacted the traffic along Victoria Rd enormously. A new complex of the proposed size (1200 units) will further strain the current infrastructure to breaking point. Having two extremely large complexes so close to each other is too much.

Less than a quarter of the units will have parking, this doesn't mean people don't have cars, where will they park? This will be very destructive to the living conditions of surrounding streets, with many homes not having off street parking. Where will people park in surrounding streets when parking spaces are taken up by people in the new complex? There is a public school right next to the proposed complex, the parking issue will impact school drop off and pick up and there is a possibility of children being hit by cars and injured or killed when parents are unable to park to safely support their child to the school premises or in the afternoon back to the car. I believe the increased volume of traffic will result in an increase of car accidents and possible loss of life. Longer waits to move through the area, traffic congestion often results in people taking risks.

Apparently the complex is applying for an exemption with regards to Greenspaces, this is completely unacceptable! With the high density living, green spaces become more important not less. This destroys the suburb and impacts heat in summer and air quality. I have questions about water and flooding as there has been flooding in some areas of Marrickville, a big complex such as this will create blockages where water naturally flows impacting the whole area.

I believe many businesses in the area will suffer, while yes more people may mean an increase in business for some in the short term, however I believe in the long term it will be different. When I go out on a Saturday night in Marrickville, the area has become a lively welcoming community. People are coming into Marrickville and increasing the profits of business and creating an ambience that many suburbs would aspire to, however if people are unable to park or if it takes them 30 minutes or more to travel up Victoria Rd, they will stop coming and find another place to spend time.

When the other Wicks Place development was built this impacted my phone reception, I don't know how or why but I was no longer able to take calls as people couldn't hear me. I needed to change my provider to Telstra because I have health issues and wouldn't have been able to phone an ambulance if needed at that time. I feel very concerned about another very tall building interfering with phone reception, I do acknowledge I don't have expertise in this and even though I can't think of anything else that could have suddenly impacted my phone reception after 10 years of it being fine, it may not be relevant but I thought I would mention it.

I am concerned about how an Ambulance will navigate transporting emergencies to hospital in a place that doesn't have adequate roads for the increasing volume of traffic. There is an aging population in Marrickville and this is going to be something that is important. It is already often very difficult and time consuming trying to get out of Marrickville with the inadequate roads. I have concerns about older people, people with disabilities or health concerns becoming isolated in their homes due to increased traffic volume making services less accessible.

When Wicks Place complex was going up they had cranes there from 11pm through the night drilling into the bedrock. It made it difficult to sleep and at the time I made a complaint to council who told me they needed to do this due to being on the flight path and they had relevant permissions. I need to sleep so I can work, I can't afford to lose my job, and this complex/project will be closer to me and therefore the noise impact greater. This will impact everyone living close to the complex with regards to disruption to sleep. Sleep derivation is a serious health hazard. I'm assuming the same flight path restrictions will apply because the proposed project is in the same area as Wicks Place and they will drill through the night for a period of time.

Which brings me to questions about the flight path, how can the project be as tall as is proposed? What about the building restrictions with regards to height and nothing over 3 storeys?
The height in conjunction with the height of Wicks Place has a huge impact on the livability and atmosphere of the area, destroying it completely, and blocking out the skyline. I thought there were height restrictions for the area, especially Sydenham Rd., Just as the suburb is moving forward and taking off it seems there are people trying to destroy it. Other suburbs don't weather this type of congestion and stay a place where people want to live, it will be the same here. The builders will make a lot of money and leave the rest of us with properties that go down in value and a suburb that becomes undesirable and slum like. They don't live here so they don't care about the destruction of the suburb.

The affordable housing is laughable at less than 10% and just a way for wealthy builders to increase their wealth at the expense of the people who live here. I strongly oppose this project, it will be a strain on the infrastructure, downgrade the suburb, have adverse health impacts with regards to not enough green space, increased summer temperatures and decreased air quality, and an increase in car accidents due to congestion. It will negatively impact the public school, the air quality for the children while it is being built and afterwards. It will negatively impact the atmosphere/ambience of a suburb that has become a lively community. The pretense of it being a project that supplies affordable housing when the allocation is less than 10% makes it clear it's just a money grab for people who don't care about destroying living conditions for people if they can make money. It's already extremely difficult to park at the local shopping centres, this will become increasingly worse, another aspect of how this will downgrade the area.

To Whom it may concern,
I object to SSD-76927247 - The Timberyards by RTL Co. The 8 storey building being proposed will overshadow Sydenham Road, leaving homes with little to no sunlight. Some properties will receive less than 30 minutes of sunlight daily, which will negatively affect and raise energy costs.

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.

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.

ed development will abut/be adjacent to long-term, well-established single dwelling properties of one of the oldest suburbs of Sydney, which will severely adversely affect the character of this older heritage-style area. This would be the case despite there being another large development nearby ( Victoria Rd. Marrickville ), which unlike this proposal is not adjacent to or near established homes. This extremely large development will add to the already severely congested local roads adding to the frustration of local residents and create more wear and tear to local roads, which are currently in poor condition.

Additionally, the enormous number of new residences in this large development will exacerbate the existing shortage of local parking
In and around the development area. In particular, given that the development is also reasonably close to the Marrickville shopping and central business district, an area, which, has historically suffered from a shortage of parking, the added pressure of such a large development will only make matters worse. Increased foot traffic in the local precinct, especially in the Marrickville CBD will also add a burden for local residents, impact the quality of life and adversely affect the enjoyment of those living nearby or even visiting Marrickville.

The development is also proposed to be quite a large number of levels higher than most developments previously constructed and will
not only create an eyesore as a monstrosity set amongst the neighbouring, single dwelling precinct homes. Again, this would differ from the nearby smaller apartment development which is set in an area where only commercial/industrial and warehouse buildings exist. Such a large development near smaller single dwelling homes will also create a significant problem of overshadowing. Moreover, local and nearby amenities will be substantially affected by the large volume of users/residents of this extremely large residential development, causing rail and bus lines to be overwhelmed by the severe congestion.

Furthermore, such a large development, with the proposed significant height will also present an added risk to air traffic in what is the area of the flight path for the international airport. Therefore, a lower level, smaller, more compact development should be preferred, given the potential risk.

Such a large development will most certainly place additional, substantial strain on the local council's ability to provide services. Services, which are already the subject of great concern, frustration and anger to local residents who have existing complaints regarding degraded council services.

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.

Please find attached my concerns to this development proposal.

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.

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.

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

This development is an excellent opportunity to provide more housing choice and improve affordability for so many people in Marrickville and those that would love to call Marrickville home! The scale of the development is great, maximising the housing capacity on the lot size, and only being a 10-12 minute walk to the high capacity Sydenham Metro station is a huge plus. The large bike storage capacity of the development will also encourage more residents to get around sustainably, cheaply, and healthily. The affordable housing component and green space associated with this development are also very positive. Overall, this is an excellent opportunity to allow more people to live in a highly desirable suburb and I fully support this development proposal.

The Timberyards by RTL Co. (SSD-76927247)
I am writing to express my objection to the proposed development in its current form due to the insufficient parking provisions outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). While the proposal includes 278 on-site parking spaces for residential, retail, and commercial use, this allocation appears inadequate given the scale of the project and its potential impact on the surrounding area.
Key Issues with Parking Provisions
1. Limited On-Site Parking Availability
o The proposal includes only 238 spaces for residents and 33 spaces for retail/commercial use. Given the expected population increase due to the introduction of 1,188 residential dwellings, the ratio of parking to residences is low and will not adequately serve residents, employees, and visitors.
o The inclusion of 22 car share spaces does not fully compensate for the lack of private parking, particularly for families or individuals who rely on private vehicles.
2. Impact on Surrounding Streets and On-Street Parking
o The EIS suggests that the removal of existing driveways will result in a net increase in on-street parking. However, this does not account for the additional demand created by the significant rise in local population.
o Nearby streets already experience parking congestion, and the development will likely exacerbate this issue, leading to competition for limited public parking spaces.
3. Traffic and Accessibility Concerns
o Increased demand for parking may lead to illegal or unsafe parking practices, such as vehicles blocking driveways or pedestrian pathways.
o The development’s reliance on a Green Travel Plan assumes that residents will shift towards public transport, cycling, or walking. However, as the proposed incentives / infrastructure improvements are insufficient, private vehicle use is still likely to be significant.
4. Construction-Related Parking Impacts
o The EIS acknowledges that construction activities will lead to reduced on-street parking and increased traffic. However, no clear mitigation strategies are provided to address temporary parking shortages for residents and businesses during the construction phase.
I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Industry to rigorously assess the parking provisions for this development to ensure that it adequately meets the needs of the community and prevents undue strain on local infrastructure.

While I understand and support hte need for more housing in the Marrickville area, this project lacks thought for the surrounding areas and is too large in scale.
The heights of the proposed buildings are above the recommended height limit and will overshadow the surrounding areas. There is not enough parking allocated for the number of apartments and the type of apartments proposed do not take into account the need for more housing for FAMILIES.

Please see objections in attached document.

Please refer to my objection in relation to SSD-76927247 in the attached document.
Kind regards,
Victor Macri

To whom it may concern,
I object to SSD-76927247 - The Timberyards by RTL Co.
If approved, the 8-storey development will overshadow homes on Sydenham Road, drastically reducing natural light. Some properties will only receive a small fraction of sunlight, less than 30 minutes a day, which will make living conditions less desirable and increase energy costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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