The Timberyards by RTL Co.

I am objecting to the proposed Timberyards development in Marrickville (bordered by Victoria Rd, Sydenham Rd, Farr and Mitchell Streets). Although development of this site is inevitable, the scale and height of the development, the potential number of residents, the increase in traffic and parking required, as well as other issues such as pressure on local infrastructure is not considerate of existing and future residents in the surrounding neighbourhood. Unlike the recently completed Wicks Park development this development has far more impact on the surrounding residential community.

Scale and Height of the Development
The large number of units - 599 BTR apartments and 589 co-living dwellings ranging from 8 to 13 stories - is excessive for an area that is adjacent to low rise residential properties to the south and west of the site.

This is particularly the case for Buildings A, F and G that will face Farr Street, which are planned to be 24 metres in height. This in excess of the LEP building height of 20 metres. The plan states that heights can be increased due to the affordable housing component, however an increase in this height seems unwarranted with only 10% of the development to be allocated to affordable housing, with the remaining 90% to be “for profit” BTR and retail.

A BTR development with a majority of apartments aimed at higher end of the rental market rather than affordable housing does not justify the provision allowed to increase the overall heights of the building

The higher apartment in these buildings have the potential to overlook existing homes, reducing privacy for residents and impacting the quality of life for people who currently enjoy private outdoor spaces in their backyards, particularly residents on the eastern side of Edward Street. These buildings will also generate substantial light pollution for the residents in adjacent streets.

An influx of approximately 1,700 residents will place significant strain on local services, particularly Marrickville Primary School and child care centres who will not be able to meet the demand from such a large increase in the number of residents.

This development would seem to be designed with excessive density to maxmise profits. There seems to be very few apartments being built to accommodate families, with the focus on 1 bedroom and studio apartments. This has the potential to impact the community with higher turnover rates in BTR developments, particularly the co-living component, leading to a transient population and less community cohesion, with less investment in the long-term welfare of the local community, potentially leading to a less stable and engaged neighborhood.

Traffic and Parking
The large number of apartments and residents will lead to increased traffic volume and congestion in what are now relatively quiet streets to the west of the development, impacting both existing and new residents.

The JMT Consulting Traffic Report states that their assessment of the impact of the traffic generated from the site is “conservative”, and also says: “the extent of traffic impacts … is likely to be greater than that experienced in reality, given the traffic modelling completed has not discounted the existing traffic movements generated by the current site use.”

The plans indicate that Farr Street is to be the parking access point for the basement carpark planned to have 278 on-site parking spaces. This increase in the number of cars accessing Farr Street, particularly at peak times of the day, will greatly impact traffic flow on the surrounding streets, many of which are too narrow to accommodate two-way traffic (Edward Street, Thompson Street, Gorman Street and Illawarra Avenue). The traffic in these local streets will also be increased by residents’ visitors and those driving to access the retail and commercial businesses on site.

Farr Street is also a main access point for staff and students at Marrickville Primary School, further increasing traffic congestion, particularly at peak times.

Victoria Street is already heavily congested, especially since the Wicks Park development was completed, and will only be further impacted when cars from this new site require to use this main access road in and out of Marrickville.

With apartments for approximately 1700 residents, 278 on-site parking that includes only 238 residential, 33 retail / commercial spaces and 7 staff car spaces is not sufficient to accommodate the number of cars that will require parking. There is also the need to consider the additional visitor parking for both residents and retail.

There is currently insufficient parking available in local streets, as the majority of existing properties do not have access to off-street parking. The close proximity to Henson Park which is frequently used for large events also currently impacts the amount of local on-street parking for existing residents. The soon to be opened Marrickville Traders will also exacerbate this situation.

The report cites that 22 drive crossovers will be removed to create additional on-street parking but this is far from sufficient to accommodate the increase in on-street parking required. Cars from the development’s residents will likely spill over onto the surrounding streets, causing further congestion and limiting parking availability for existing residents, visitors, and local businesses.

I am in favour of the development of "The Timberyards". The project will provide much needed housing, and will create jobs.
In my opinion the project does well at respecting the traditional visual character of the area.
The proposal's hight limit contraventions are exceedingly reasonable, since they are not only very small, are (in my opinion) very nice looking, but also come at the cost of height elsewhere, as explained in the `Clause 4.6 Variation Request`.

As explained in the `independent transport review`, very little increase in traffic is expected.
The project also provides more people the opportunity to live without a car, considering the availability of retail in The Timberyards, and the access to reliable and frequent public transport at Sydenham station, as well as busses. Therefore, state wide, traffic will be REDUCED compared to if this housing was built elsewhere. Therefore state and local councils will have fewer expenses in the upgrading and maintining roads, while having increased income from rates/taxes.
It is my opinion that no more parking spaces should be allowed than what is in the proposal.

My only request is the long term energy usage is reconsidered. Were the buildings to comply with `PassivHaus` international standards, it would have a great reduction in energy cost and therefore environmental footprint (in the long term).

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

No thought process has gone into this planning . There is too much traffic on Sydenham rd as it is this project will only add more. Not enough car spaces are allowed for parking in this development . I think 216 parking spots Is definitely inadequate. We also object the the height of this development of 8 storeys high. Three storeys is the legal max. The current infrastructure and services can’t cope with the existing population let alone the amount of people this development will bring to the community . Thanks Jim

Dear Commissioners,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Timberyards build-to-rent development, particularly in light of its negative impact on my daughter’s primary school and the wider community. While I support responsible development that meets community needs, this project prioritises developer profit over livability, infrastructure, and safety.

1. Increased Traffic & Safety Risks for School Children

• The development will introduce 1,188 residential units but only 216 parking spaces, forcing residents to park on nearby streets.
• This will significantly increase traffic congestion around my daughter’s school, making school drop-offs and pick-ups chaotic and dangerous for young children.
• There is no clear plan for pedestrian safety measures, which are essential given the proximity to a school.

2. Overdevelopment & Non-Compliance with Local Planning Laws

• The 8-storey building on Sydenham Road exceeds the legal limit of 3 storeys, setting a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment.
• High-density developments should not be approved when they blatantly violate existing planning regulations.

3. Lack of Family-Friendly Housing & Community Infrastructure

• The proposal includes only 40-43 three-bedroom units, which is inadequate for families.
• Families need affordable, well-designed housing options—not an influx of small rental apartments that do not support long-term community growth.
• There is no significant provision for schools, childcare, or medical facilities, meaning current services will be overwhelmed.

4. Environmental & Amenity Concerns

• A development of this scale will increase noise, pollution, and strain on public transport, reducing the quality of life for existing residents.
• Green space is essential for children’s well-being, yet this plan fails to prioritise open recreational areas.

5. Lack of Genuine Community Consultation

• This project has been designed with profit in mind rather than the needs of local residents.
• Community input should be valued, and significant revisions should be made to address these concerns.

Conclusion: Development Must Be Revised or Rejected

I urge the Commission to reject the Timberyards proposal in its current form. If a development is to proceed, it must:

• Reduce height to align with zoning laws (3 storeys maximum)
• Significantly increase parking provisions to prevent school-area congestion
• Provide more family-friendly housing options
• Ensure adequate infrastructure (schools, childcare, medical facilities) before approving large-scale developments

Our community deserves a development that enhances our neighbourhood, not one that prioritises developer profits at the expense of safety, livability, and infrastructure.

I appreciate your time in considering my objection and look forward to seeing a more balanced and community-focused approach to urban planning.

With regards to the proposal of ~1200 units across 8-13 storey buildings at Sydenham and Victoria Rds.

I am concerned that this project is well over current planning restrictions.

With the addition of a significant number of apartments, why will less than a quarter of the units include parking, yet there are no additional traffic/infrastructure needs that i can see have been accounted for.
victoria road and near by axillary roads are already a chaotic mess. Will there be more and safer bike lanes added? Sydneham/marrickville is still very industrius, are there any added safety measures in place for the added foot traffic and cyclists?

RTL co will be making a significant profit from this build to rent scheme, and from what i can see will not be held accountable to provide fair market prices in good faith,the number of affordable houses planned should increase.
Affordable housing allocation barely scrapes in at 10%. With the housing crisis sydney is in, I would like to see minimun 30% affordable housing, and which continues to remain affordable housing after the initial rental contracts.

The most pressing issue facing all Australians is the housing affordability crisis. This project will create a good amount of housing supply in a great area for supporting infrastructure. Nearby public transport, schooling and shopping makes this a great spot to build.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Timberyards RTL Co. development on the grounds of significant environmental, social, and infrastructure concerns that will negatively impact the local community and surrounding areas.

1. Traffic and Parking Congestion

The proposed development will generate a substantial increase in traffic flow along [insert local roads], which are already experiencing congestion. Additional vehicle movements, particularly heavy transport vehicles, will exacerbate delays, increase accident risks, and create safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, the development lacks sufficient parking provisions, which will push overflow parking into nearby residential streets.

2. Impact on Local Infrastructure

The existing road network, public transport options, and essential services are not equipped to handle the added strain this development will bring. There has been no clear proposal for upgrading infrastructure, which raises concerns about long-term sustainability and livability.

3. Environmental and Heritage Concerns

This area is home to [mention any known endangered species, green spaces, or heritage-listed buildings if applicable]. The large-scale nature of the proposal threatens local biodiversity, increases noise and air pollution, and may lead to the destruction of important cultural or heritage sites.

4. Community Amenity and Liveability

The scale and design of the project are incompatible with the character of the surrounding community. The excessive height, density, and industrial operations will impact local residents’ quality of life, increasing noise pollution and reducing access to natural sunlight and ventilation.

5. Lack of Sufficient Community Consultation

There has been limited engagement with local residents and stakeholders regarding the potential impacts of this development. Meaningful consultation should be conducted before proceeding further, ensuring that community concerns are adequately addressed.

Conclusion

Given these significant concerns, I urge the planning authorities to reject the current proposal or require substantial amendments to mitigate its adverse impacts. I also request an extended public consultation period to allow for greater community input.

I think the proposal is generally good but needs adjustments - I believe the extent of overshadowing of Wicks Park is both unacceptable and easily avoidable, particularly given the limited amount of public parkland in Marrickville, and that the traffic submissions pay too little attention to the likely impact on traffic to Victoria St and Sydenham roads on weekends - the traffic reports (original and peer) appear to play it down but without clearways and parking restrictions both roads are choked most of Saturday, and despite the new Metro station (many living in the area drive past the site to get to the metro station, and metro shopping centre), over 1000 new units plus shops and F&B will undoubtedly have a significant worsening effect that needs to be addressed.

I object to SSD-76927247 – the Timberyards by RTL Co.
As a resident of 14 years on Farr Street, adjacent and it appears to be totally overshadowed by the proposed development, I object on the following grounds.
Traffic Density and Particularly Parking - I am mystified at how anyone who has any experience of living and travelling in the are of the proposed development can view the proposed number of parking space ratio to apartments as in anyway feasible. This morning, Friday 21/3 March I drove around the surrounding streets close to my home for 15 minutes looking for a park. The proposal to introduce close to 1200 residential units with only just over 200 car park spaces will push car park spaces and traffic to beyond breaking point. with 85% of households in NSW having at least one car (regardless of public transport infrastructure) the development is going to introduce presumably about 800 hundred new cars needing parking to the immediate neighbourhood, drastically impacting on the quality of life for current residents and anyone moving into the proposed development. Obvious questions of 'How?' 'Where?' and 'Why?' apply. Everyone has the right to have these questions answered thoroughly and meaningfully before this gets any go ahead.
Height of buildings - we are informed that building very close to our and other houses are going to be 6 storeys high. we are also told that this is in breach of the local loom over Farr Street. I’ve read that the heights proposed breaches the Local Environment Plan. is this the case? Why is it therefore allowed? What are the reasons that the needs of this development over ride the rights of current residents? it appears therefore that on top of the traffic/parking chaos inflicted on all, hundreds of homes are being robbed of current access to sunlight/view etc. This is also not only about vista but also about older homes being denied required warmth/sunlight etc and the impact on those houses themselves as well as the people who call them homes. In short where does the justification for breaching existing plans come from?
Building - the overbearing scale of this proposal of course will mean disruption during the construction for a prolonged period of time. Residents in this area will therefore not only have to live with the significant negative impacts of this development once finalised long term but for the next how many years live adjacent to (withing if you count road disruption) a building site. There is a primary school here, children walk up and down this area every day to go to and from school. The noise, pollution, disruption and risks associated with this size of project next to residential/school areas do not seem to have been considered.
No one can I think of development as a principle but it has to be in scale and compliment to the current environment and existing community that we call home. Instead this seems to risk that very thing not only for those who currently live and any future residents of this proposal.
As stated above, Marrickville's current infrastructure is already at breaking point and this proposal as it stands is likely to tip current challenges over the edge.
I look forward to having the concerns above addressed in detail.
Peter Middleton

My family and I have lived in this area for 33 years.
I would like to raise the following issues as being of concern.
• Construction: 3 years of construction will result in noise pollution, dust pollution, increased heavy vehicles in the neighbourhood and potential damage to buildings through drilling. My young grandchildren could be negatively impacted by a dramatic increase in dust and dirt. The house will become very dirty, inside and out. I do not work so I am at home most of the day. Increased and constant noise can lead to stress and anxiety.
• Lack of parking on Farr Street is already an issue. This will only increase with the proposed addition of 1188 apartments (and only 216 residential parking spots). An increase in the number of cars trying to find parking will also be dangerous for my young grandchildren.
• More cars will lead to more traffic. Sydenham Road is a major thoroughfare and already very busy even on the weekends. Victoria Road is always very busy as well. Even with the completion of the Metro, traffic is bad during peak hours – buses are slow – there aren’t enough bus services.
• Sunlight and overshadowing: if the proposal proceeds with Building A being six storeys high, that will seriously affect the amount of daily sunshine we receive. A lot of houses in Marrickville are built on clay which makes them susceptible to damp and therefore mould. The morning sunshine goes some way to alleviate this, and I can’t imagine how many hours of direct sunlight we will lose with a six -storey building directly across the road (and a 13-storey building on Victoria Road).
• Apartment buildings usually attract a more transient population. This will alter the community significantly. Long-term residents are invested in the neighbourhood and community and look after each other. I don’t want to lose that in the area.

Thank you for reading my concerns.

I object to the project for the following reasons:
1. The proposed height of 8 floors to 13 floors of the buildings, the architecture and design are not sympathetic to the character of the local neighbourhood. The proposed height of 8 floors and above is aesthetically displeasing and out of character with the existing local community as it is too close to low density R2 zoned residential areas and to Marrickville Public School. As there is no buffer, the development not only looks out of place but it will cause overshadowing around Farr Street, the streets off Sydenham Road, including houses on Sydenham Road and Victoria Road.
2.The development will result in an increase in the number of dwellings or people affected by aircraft noise as these tall buildings are proposed to be build right under the flight path.
3.The development has not accounted for the traffic congestion and lack of parking space. This area is already heavily congested as people drive through Marrickville to get to the Airport, Princes Highway and the City. People park here from all over Sydney and then take an uber to the airport. It is cheaper to park in a Marrickville street and catch an uber to the airport than using public transport or the airport parking facilities. People drive here from everywhere to park and catch the Sydenham metro/ trains. There is not enough space for even placing bikes anywhere. At Farr Street, Woolworths/ Coles/ Australian Post trucks cannot physically get through the street without creating creating chaos and making it unsafe for the people in the area. Allowing to build 1188 apartments will exacerbate the existing problem of the traffic congestion and lack of parking space.
4. The development is not family-friendly and the rents will be expensive. There are only 40 units proposed with three bedrooms out of 1188 units. The company behind this development has advertised rents in other buildings around Sydney at an average of $800 a week for a studio less than 20square metres! That is not affordable housing. This Build-to-Rent development is more like "Build a hotel/AirBNB establishment to make money at the expense of the local community". Even though the project has the 2% minimum affordable housing requirement, that is not enough to make a true difference to housing affordability.
5. There is no benefit to the community. This is just an example of greed.

Dear to whom it may concern,
I understand the need to build more housing, be it, build to sell, build to rent social and affordable housing however, I am strongly opposed to the density and height of this development. The traffic on Victoria Road is already often grid locked and the plan submitted with well over 1000 apartments plus the retail is excessive for the neighborhood. The density and heights of the buildings are not in keeping with the adjacent properties which are low rise residential or light commercial/industrial, with the exception of the Wicks by Toga. The overshadowing to adjacent properties, the increase in traffic and the number of apartments are am completely against. I think the development needs to be redesigned to be in keeping with the area, rather than the current design which maximizes the yield for the developer to generate as much profit from the site as possible. The development proposed reflects money grabbing from the land owners and developer and I think it such a shame if it were to go ahead as planned.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my objection.

1. To whom it may concern,
I object to SSD-76927247 - The Timberyards by RTL Co.
The plan to build the 8-storey building located on Sydenham Rd exceeds the allowed 3-storey height limit by a considerable amount. As a result, it will cause major shading of the homes on Sydenham Road, and many of us will get less than 30 minutes of sunlight daily—an issue that could have a detrimental effect on our health and quality of life and affect residents existing minimal parking availability.

. To whom it may concern,
I object to SSD-76927247 - The Timberyards by RTL Co.
The developer's proposal for the building located on Sydenham Rd, an 8-storey structure, goes well beyond the 3-storey height restriction. This will create significant overshadowing for the homes along Sydenham Road, leaving many residents with less than half an hour of sunlight each day, which could pose serious risks to our health and overall well-being.

I am a very nearby resident living on Sydenham Road, with two young children. I am concerned about an influx of parked vehicles driving competition for parking in the area. I note that there are proposed to be almost 1,000 more apartments at the new development than there will be parking spaces. I use my car to get to daycare, supermarkets and child activities, and so I worry about regularly being forced to park my car hundreds of metres away.

If this development goes ahead without major adjustments to the parking deficit, I would ask government to provide parking security to the existing residents of Sydenham Road and other streets with a permit system, similar to what currently exists for residents of Frampton Street and Garners Avenue.

This submission supports the proposed Marrickville Timberyards development. The development would provide 1,200 new residential units in a high-demand area. Marrickville is experiencing significant housing demand, and this additional supply would contribute to addressing housing affordability challenges in the region. Increasing housing supply in areas of high demand is consistent with established economic principles for improving affordability.

The development is located approximately 10 minutes walking distance from Sydenham Metro station and approximately 7 minutes from shops on Marrickville Road. The development also includes a substantial number of bicycle parking spaces, providing residents with options that prioritise active and public transport. The emphasis on non-car transport options would contribute to reduced car emissions, supporting climate change mitigation objectives and improving air quality.

Marrickville Public School is presently below its capacity. The proposed development would help increase enrolments, ensuring efficient use of existing public infrastructure.

The development includes retail space, affordable housing and public space contributions. These elements would deliver additional economic and social benefits to the local community beyond the direct housing supply benefits. Furthermore, the development features high-quality design elements that would be visually appealing and integrate effectively with the surrounding area.

The Marrickville Timberyards development would deliver significant economic and social benefits through increased housing supply, appropriate transport connections, utilisation of existing educational infrastructure, community contributions, and quality design. For these reasons, the development warrants support.

While it's unlikely that I personally won't be able to live in this exact region given that it is currently more financially feasible as a student to continue living with my parents, since I'm still a resident of Sydney I would like to see and encourage the proliferation of healthy urban developments such as this in shaping the character and liveliness of my city as a whole.

The planned development is well-located and the increased density will benefit the surrounding area and beyond. In addition to allowing for new integrated retail and commercial spaces, nearby existing businesses will see increased patronage. Proximity to these shops and services, as well as Sydenham and Marrickville station will encourage forms of transport other than driving, including cycling, walking, and public transit which will result in lower emissions that would result from having potential residents live far from services and amenities by which the only reasonable means of transport would be by private vehicle. These are the features of accessibility that make this area an excellent location for development and urban densification.

In comparison to traditionally detached housing, this form of residence makes for a much more efficient use of land space. If the corresponding number of detached houses were to be built on new land, it would result in a footprint many times greater than the space taken up by the development. Swathes of land would have to be cleared, infrastructure would have to stretch further, and again, potential residents would likely find themselves having only the option of driving in order to get anywhere.

Love the project

location will encourage people to catch all of the convenient nearby public transport rather than jumping in their cars

Good for environment
Good for housing crisis

Bike spots will encourage people to get on bikes and try active transport

Housing crisis is so bad right now, and everyone wants a detached house, but that's probbaly because the alternative (high density apartments) is so tragic in sydney.

This will be a good example of high density done right, and help to shift the preference

Marrickville is in high demand, and this will add to housing supply and improve affordability. The location is ripe for renewal and is in close proximity to both public transport and shops. The project also adds affordable housing and a diverse mix of housing options, which is perfect for young people. It is an excellent project for a rather bleak part of Marrickville.