The Timberyards by RTL Co.

I object on the following basis:

- building heights, density and development footprint over the site. The proposal is grossly over developed and not in keeping with the character, design and community place-making scale of development that should be proposed at this site. Building heights should be capped at 8 storeys to provide a village community feel similar to that created in the erskinville master planned neighbourhood or the new surry hills shopping village development at redfern - that should be the design quality and outcomes sought here. Not creation of another green square or mascot!

- a strategic site such as this one, close to the city and public transport should deliver 30% affordable housing managed in perpetuity by a CHP. Marrickville is and will continue to vastly unaffordable for the majority of Sydneysiders. 2 bedroom apartments have broken sales records hitting as much as $1.4M!! The only way to deliver affordable housing for the community, for key workers, for anyone on a low income is to ensure the housing is affordable in perpetuity. Building more homes won’t solve affordability in a location like the inner west. Discounted market and build to rent will not provide the community with the affordable housing product it so greatly needs. Inner West Council and the NSW State Government needs to demand better outcomes to truly provide transformative development and meet the needs of the community.

- car parking is an issue today and will be into the future under these plans. This is both a council and state government issue - the suburb is used as a dumping ground for point to point taxi services. Cars are dumped on public roads all over the surrounding area for weeks and sometimes months on end by point to point taxi drivers. This removes short stay parking for residents and local community wishing to utilise the services of local businesses - shops, cafes, restaurants, breweries, community sports facilities of which there is an abundance! This is a fantastic place to live particularly for families, and brownfield well located sites can provide much needed additional housing in the area however the current status quo for access, traffic management and parking needs addressing. And it needs addressing now by both TfNSW and council even in the absence of this new development.

- an urgent review of early childhood daycare facilities and availability is required to support such a large influx of new homes. I waited 3 years for a council daycare place, and that was after pulling my child out of a private Guardian facility that had falling safety, wellbeing and education standards. Social infrastructure MUST keep pace with these developments. If you cannot provide these social services then the number of homes must be reduced or be phased to be delivered alongside the social infrastructure requirements. Childcare is a particular problem across the inner west council area, but so too is access to GP services - developments of this scale cannot be considered in isolation. Available commercial floor space must have mandated uses to support community service needs.

Concerns Regarding Proposed Development:
Excessive Scale:
The proposed development's size and height drastically exceed the existing 1-2 story residential character of the local areas (Thompson, Edward, and Gorman Streets). This will negatively impact local amenity, create shadowing issues, and set a harmful precedent. Recommend reducing the height to a maximum of four stories, with upper levels set back.
Traffic Overload:
Local streets are already congested, particularly during school hours. Adding 1,188 units will severely worsen traffic flow. The provided traffic study is inadequate; an independent study is necessary. Victoria Road is already experiencing extreme traffic congestion.
Parking Crisis:
Existing street parking is insufficient, especially near the school. 216 parking spots for 1,188 units will create a severe parking shortage. Resident parking is already well over capacity.
Heritage Impact:
The development will negatively impact the character of Thompson Street, the original Marrickville center, and nearby heritage items.
Overdevelopment:
The area is already overdeveloped. Further high-rise development negatively impacts resident amenity.

Submission Regarding Proposed Housing Development on Sydenham Road (The Timberyards)

Dear who it may concern,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing development at Sydenham Road. This plan raises a number of significant concerns, both for the immediate local community and for the broader housing landscape of our area. I believe this development fails to address the housing needs of the community in a way that is sustainable, equitable, and considerate of existing residents.

1. Lack of Family Housing: The proposed development includes 1,188 units, but shockingly, only 40 of these are 3-bedroom units and 275 are 2-bedroom units. This means that a vast majority of these units will be unsuitable for families. Given the high demand for family-friendly housing, this plan does not address the critical need for larger units that can accommodate families who are struggling to find appropriate housing.

2. Inadequate Affordable Housing: Less than 10% of the proposed units are allocated as affordable housing, which is a deeply concerning figure given the current housing crisis. With rising costs and more families and individuals finding it difficult to access secure, affordable housing, this development does not provide enough support for low-income or vulnerable residents. The cost of the standard units is set at market rates, which many in our community cannot afford, further exacerbating the housing stress we are already experiencing.

3. Impact on Surrounding Infrastructure: This development, particularly with its proposed height of 8 storeys, will create numerous additional burdens on our already stretched infrastructure. The legal height limit for the area is 3 storeys, and exceeding this by such a large margin will significantly overshadow homes on Sydenham Road, Victoria Road, and surrounding streets. Many of these homes will lose a majority of their sunlight, which is not just a quality-of-life issue but also violates legal limits on shadowing.

4. Road Congestion and Traffic Impact: Sydenham Road and Victoria Road already experience severe traffic congestion, especially on weekends. The addition of 1,188 units to the area will only worsen the situation. These roads are critical corridors for local travel, and the extra volume of cars and potential bottlenecks caused by inadequate infrastructure will significantly impact the daily lives of local residents. Trying to turn right from Victoria Rd or Fitzroy St is a nightmare after swim school or grocery shopping as it is right now. Given the existing issues with traffic, this development should not move forward without a comprehensive traffic management plan to address the overwhelming congestion.

5. Strain on Local Services: Local schools and childcare services in Marrickville are already at capacity, with long waiting times for enrolment. Similarly, our local medical facilities are often overwhelmed, and this development will only increase the demand on already overburdened services. We need to ensure that any new development includes adequate provision for local infrastructure, including schools, healthcare services, and public transport.

6. Financial Profit Over Community Welfare: While this development is being promoted as a solution to the housing crisis, it is clear that the primary motivation is financial profit, rather than meeting the real needs of the community. The proposed units, many of which will be unaffordable to local residents, seem to prioritize profit over the well-being of our community. We need more than just new developments; we need housing that serves the people who already live here and contributes to the long-term sustainability of our area.

Conclusion I urge you to reconsider the current proposal and ensure that any future development is done in a way that truly benefits the community. We need more family housing, green spaces for the public, more affordable options, and thoughtful development that takes into account the existing infrastructure and the impact on current residents. I strongly encourage the council to address these concerns before moving forward with this development.

Thank you for considering my submission. I trust that you will carefully weigh the impacts of this development and make decisions that prioritize the long-term well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Paul Drummond
149 Sydenham RD Marrickville 2204 NSW

I would like to object to a few key elements with the preposed development
1. Greenspace - the complex is going to apply for an exemption to the Biodiversity Conservation Act on the grounds that it will not generate significant impacts on biodiversity values given the site at present is currently devoid of significant vegetation. This makes sense in its current use, however such a large housing development requires green spaces for the residents to use - especially those with children and animals.
2. Parking for residents - for a complex with 1200 residences, the planned 350 car spaces is insufficient and unrealistic. This will lead to more cars being parked in the surrounding residential area where parking is already at a premium.
3. Traffic of surrounding areas (Sydenham Road, Farr Street and Victoria Road) - the current roads are very busy without this development, further analysis of the impact of additional housing needs to be taken into account and planned for accordingly (even if the residents dont have cars, there will be deliveries and visitors to consider).
4. Building height - the preposed buildings will be extremely close the flight path, which currently go directly over the school next to the development.

Concerned on volume of apartments and extremely insufficient parking allocation.
The size of the buildings light impact on surrounding exisiting residential properties.
Overcrowding of local facilities and green spaces as not enough planned as part of development given number of apartments.

Sydney has a crisis of housing affordability due to a shortage of housing.
This project will proved 1200 units in walking distance of Sydenham Metro station. It is exactly the kind of housing we need to make housing more affordable. We need much more of this.

As someone who lives in the vicinity, from my experience the proposed project is much too high density for the area and what its current infrastructure can handle. The traffic on Victoria Rd, Sydenham Rd & surrounds is already regularly at a standstill. Adding 1,188 apartments and therefore a large amount of vehicles to the immediate vicinity is going to be catastrophic and result in a a permanent gridlock situation.

As well as the effect on car traffic this development would have on the Marrickville area, the extremely high density nature of the project bears a huge risk of creating an urban slum. As the area is still predominately light industry, injecting an unprecedented amount of apartments and thousands of people into a part of the Marrickville area that is lacking infrastructure in would be problematic to say the least.

Whilst I acknowledge there is a need to build housing quickly, the current scale of this project has the potential to permanently damage the cultural integrity of Marrickville and the wider area.

The sheer size and nature of the development will be the nail in the coffin for the cultural identity that Marrickville is famous for, the essence of that place. The over size towers, sitting opposite the other massive wicks park development will provide the greenlight to turn Victoria Rd into a faceless wind tunnel, like the awful planning in green square. If anything is to be saved prioritise the experiemce of place, not lineing developers pockets. Look at spot rezoning and a mix of warehouse conversion, favour social housing, not "affordable" (which actually isn't), or at the least have 30% affordable, not the measly 115 out of 1200 luxury apartments amd look through a regenerative design lense considering how the development can contribute positively to the broader community and place, beyond the veil of gentrification, could come of the profits go to supporting local arts and community spaces, rather than pushing them out.

We do not have the infrastructure in place to support this amount of units. Our roads can barely cope now it will put pressure on schools transport and we are already getting to overcrowded as is.

I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed development and its potential impact on my property at 203 Victoria Road, Marrickville. Please find below the relevant context and questions for your consideration.

Context:
1) I am the owner of the property located at 203 Victoria Road, Marrickville.
2) When the precinct was initially proposed (circa 2018), the plans did not indicate any adverse impact on my property.
3) Subsequent to the initial proposal, the Department of Planning placed an SP2 road reservation across approximately 50% of my property to accommodate road widening, purportedly required to support increased traffic arising from the development.
4) When I raised this matter with the Council, I was advised that the decision was made by the Department of Planning. Upon contacting the Department and the Minister, I was informed that compensation would be provided under the “just terms” provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 through the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA 2018/9539).
5) The VPA remains in place, and the proposed development, which includes over 300 residential lots, would appear to trigger compulsory acquisition of my property.

In more recent discussions, I have been approached by the new proponent, who indicated that preliminary traffic analysis suggests that road widening may no longer be required. However, the SP2 road reservation and VPA remain in effect.

Questions for Consideration:
1. How can it be reasonable that the addition of well over 300 residential lots will not result in increased traffic in an already congested area?
2. If road widening is deemed unnecessary, how will I be compensated for the SP2 reservation on my property? The only offer made by the proponent was significantly below market value. When questioned, I was informed that the SP2 zoning had devalued the property, which has left me materially disadvantaged.
3. In the event that the development proceeds without necessitating increased road capacity, the VPA and SP2 reservation must be removed. How will this be incorporated into the development approval process?

Please let me know if this is not clear or you have any questions.

Regards
Robert

1: Living within close proximity of the proposed Timberyards development, there are a number of issues that greatly concern me.
We are used to, having bought 20 years ago, having limited parking in our street ( due to it being zoned light industrial and having a primary school in street). This massive proposed development of 1,188 units has only allocated parking spaces for 216 cars.
Unbelievable. Where are the other 1000 plus cars going to park? Victoria Road is already a nightmare. Farr and Thompson Streets will have the spill-over. So dangerous for the pedestrians, including the school children.
2: The very small community focused Marrickville Public school will be overshadowed and 'swallowed' by this huge development.
The traffic created by the number of residents cars will be enormous and potentially very dangerous for the small children walking along Sydenham Road and Farr Streets each morning and afternoon.
3: I have concerns regarding the project selling itself as (part) affordable housing. Only 115 of the 1,188 units will be considered so.
Sydney has a housing crisis and we are desperate for MANY more than 115 units to be made affordable in a project this large.
Additionally only 40 of these units will be 'family friendly'.
The developers recent projects have been for suited to student accommodation and these 589 co-living dwellings proposed here are not needed. We do not live near a university.
4: The proposed 8 storeys will be the tallest buildings in a community neighbourhood. We are zoned, legally for 3 storeys.

The building height in this project is 8 stories high. That is significantly higher than the legal requirement for this area.
There will be over 1000 dwellings built in this project but only 216 parking spaces provided. So there's a probability that the many cars that won't have a parking space will look to park on already overcrowded streets. Where are they going to go?
Only a fraction of the dwellings are 3 bedroom ones so these dwellings are not aimed at attracting families.
The addition of so many dwellings into the area will bring in approx 3000 people. This is added pressure on local services, whose expansion has been very limited in recent years and does not match this development.

The scope of this proposed development will severely change the lifestyle of the local area. It will impact not only our parking availability which is already severely under supplied but also traffic congestion.

I strongly oppose this submission due to the overwhelming strain it would place on local infrastructure. The increased population density in the area bounded by Victoria Rd, Sydenham Rd, Farr, and Mitchell Street would severely burden already overstretched roads, such as Victoria and Sydenham Roads. These routes are already plagued by heavy traffic during peak times, exacerbated by recent high-rise developments like the one at Wick Park. As a result, bus travel along Victoria Rd now takes two to three times longer than before. This additional strain on the area’s infrastructure would be unsustainable.

As a resident of over twenty years, I have witnessed firsthand the significant impact of recent developments in Wick Park and the approval of night venues and alcohol-serving breweries in our area. These changes have severely affected our quality of life. We now face a lack of parking near our home, constant crowds of visitors to these venues, and unpleasant issues such as people relieving themselves behind our property. Additionally, we are dealing with increased rubbish, noise, and traffic. The proposed development of the Timberyards by RTL would further exacerbate the density in the area, making it increasingly difficult for our family to continue living here.

The continued overdevelopment of this area is untenable and eroding residents’ liveability. If the Timberyards development proceeds, it will push an already strained environment beyond its breaking point. Our community deserves to maintain a reasonable quality of life, and this proposal, along with the ongoing developments, threatens to permanently disrupt the stability and wellbeing of local families like mine. There is little regard for long-term residents like us in the area by State and Local Government bodies. I urge decision-makers to carefully consider the long-term consequences of such developments before approving any further changes.

There are not enough parking spaces. The ratio is entirely problematic and based on fallacy around number of people currently visiting as well as proximity to the Metro. People have cars regardless of this situation. Locals still drive to this location to access the local establishments.

People will use these cars paces as commuter parking as well.

You need more parking.

Much more parking.

This proposed development will have a large negative impact in the ways below
- changing the character of the area. Many homes in the area are heritage and the frontages must be retained to protect the character of this area. Whilst the homes that will be demolished may not themselves have a heritage layer, to demo such a huge area to build a big white cube of apartments changes the area that many move here for
- the height of the apartments. Building this many storeys makes it a total eyesore in the area and has overshadowing impacts for surrounding properties
- environmental impacts - changing such a huge block of houses with backyards to all be one big concrete block means it's all concrete for runoff and removes a whole lot of trees. There's been talk in the west of being concrete and what it does for heat as well and now
- this number of apartments will have an impact on roads and services that are already straining. There has been development after development even within a couple of hundred metres of this proposed development, and the area can't cope. There isn't enough use of Contributions money that would buy properties to use as facilities and services for the community. Everything from parks to pools to libraries are already at fever pitch in terms of numbers.
- the proposed height contravenes with council's own policy
- it's not clear or proven as to how this wil address housing affordability. In theory it may, however it doesn't address it for people already struggling and there's a chance at least some will be boltholes or will be on the likes of air bnb, in turn driving up prices.
So much of Sydney and its old buildings have been demolished over the years. It would be a shame to continue to do so

Hi,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of The Timberyards by RTL co. As a resident of the area, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impact this development may have on my family, particularly on the health and well-being of my 2 children (newborn child and a 5 years old MPS kindergarten)
My primary concern is the impact the construction, increased traffic, and any associated environmental changes could have on my children’s health. Newborns are especially vulnerable to air and noise pollution, dust, and other environmental hazards that often accompany large-scale developments. The noise from construction equipment and increased traffic can disturb the essential sleep cycles of young children, potentially leading to stress and developmental issues. Additionally, exposure to dust and pollutants from construction sites could exacerbate respiratory issues or lead to long-term health problems for my baby.
I respectfully request that these health implications be considered in the planning and approval process for this project. I would also appreciate if an environmental impact assessment specifically addressing the risks to vulnerable populations, such as infants, be conducted and made publicly available.
I urge the NSW Project planning team-to either reconsider or modify the development proposal to minimize its impact on families in the surrounding areas. This could include limiting construction hours, implementing dust control measures, and conducting more thorough assessments on the potential health risks to infants and young children.
Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to your response and hope that the health of my newborn and others in the neighborhood will be prioritized in any decisions regarding this development.

Thank you

Please see attached written submission.

This proposal should not be approved as it fails to meet the demographic needs of the community and is a gross overdevelopment of the site. The proposed design, fails to acknowledge the Victorian heritage of the surrounding residential areas.

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).