The Timberyards by RTL Co.

I strongly oppose the proposed development due to its significant and detrimental impact on the existing community. Please read supporting document for detailed information.

Plan is based not suitable for the area, too tall, not enough off street parking, not enough larger apartments made for families . The surrounding streets are already unable to cope with the current traffic how will this impact this further and what plans are in place to accommodate this?

I rent in Marrickville and I am really excited for the prospect of 1,200 new units in my suburb. I live with the anxiety of knowing that if my landlord ends my lease, I will be squeezed out of my community — partly due to price, partly due to plain lack of homes.

The location is super convenient for travel, less than 1km from Sydenham station. The new Metro is a game-changer, and will give more people the opportunity to live car-free by choice (as I do, living near Marrickville station).

The addition of new residents will also be a boost for local businesses, as well as special interest groups in the area — variety can only exist where there is density.

The artwork for the Timberyards development looks pretty nice, too.

It is disappointing that only 35 of 57 trees are set to be preserved. Every tree is an ecosystem; consideration should be given to transplanting healthy, mature trees so they can continue to provide shade and habitat. Replacement planting should be regarded as the bare minimum requirement, but individual trees are not interchangeable from the perspective of the wildlife that live in them.

Thank you for reading my submission in strong support of this project.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at the Timberyards site in Marrickville. While I support sustainable and well-planned development, this proposal raises significant concerns regarding its compliance, impact on the community, and misleading representations.

Key Objections:
1. Non-Compliant Building Height
• The proposed development is eight stories high, far exceeding the three-story height limit for the area.
• This blatant disregard for planning regulations sets a dangerous precedent and undermines local planning controls.
• The visual impact images presented by the developer are misleading and deceptive, making the building appear smaller than it actually will be.
2. Severe Parking Deficiency
• The proposal includes insufficient parking for the number of units planned.
• Increased demand for on-street parking will negatively impact local families, particularly those living on Edward and Gorman Streets, where parking is already scarce.
• Traffic congestion and safety concerns will rise due to inadequate parking infrastructure.
3. Lack of Supporting Local Services
• Local services, particularly schools, are already struggling to accommodate current demand.
• There is no clear plan to address the additional pressure this high-density development will place on schools, childcare, medical services, and public transport.
4. Not Family-Friendly or Community-Oriented
• The development fails to provide adequate family housing, with fewer than 40 three-bedroom units despite the increasing demand for family-friendly accommodation in the area.
5. Inconsistent with Marrickville’s Character
• The scale, design, and aesthetic of the proposal are not in keeping with Marrickville’s existing streetscape and heritage character.
• The proposed development is excessive in scale and does not respect the low-rise, community-focused nature of the suburb.
6. Developer Prioritising Profit Over Community Benefit
• The developer is framing this project as beneficial to the community, but the reality is a profit-driven proposal with little regard for local residents’ needs.

• The developer has engaged in a PR campaign designed to obscure the true scale and impact of the project, making it harder for residents to raise concerns.
• The lack of compliance with local planning regulations and the misleading visual representations highlight a disregard for transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

This development, as proposed, is inappropriate for Marrickville. It disregards local planning rules, negatively impacts residents, and prioritises profit over community wellbeing. I see zero local community benefit to this project. I urge the council and relevant authorities to reject this application and demand a more responsible, compliant, and community-focused proposal.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Subject: Objection to SSD-76927247 - Timberyards RTL Co., Marrickville

To the Planning Department,

As a resident of 40 Edward Street, Marrickville, I strongly object to SSD-76927247 (Timberyards RTL Co.).

The proposed development around Farr St, Sydenham Rd, and Victoria Rd is of excessive scale and density, incompatible with our neighborhood. These a high density apartments, with very limited parking, and are pushing rented / affordable accommodation - single rooms with shared facilities etc which in an area which has been working hard to improve its neighbourhood and community appeal will push it backwards not forwards.

Key Concerns:

1) The building heights will block sunlight, create wind tunnels, and are disproportionate to existing low-medium density housing in the Marrickville area. This is also being built right on top of a new development recently completed on Victoria Road.

2) Increased traffic, noise, and loss of privacy are inevitable. Children’s safety walking to school is a major concern. The roads around the area are small and narrow and often only one way and will not cope with the significant increase. Both Farr Street and Edward St only really allow 1 way traffic and blocks easily if another car is coming in oppposite direction.

3) Most concerning is insufficient parking as most houses in area only have street parking and there is already a challenge to find parking. This development will severely impact existing and new residents as the proposed parking cannot support the increased population.

Overall there has been a lack of consultation and communication on this project. While I understand apartments to be built in Marrickville - this is not the type of building that will help the suburb flourish. It is high density, low cost and low socioeconomic.

I urge the Planning Department to reject this application.

Sincerely,
Megan Rhodes

See attached

I am an owner-resident at 136 Sydenham Road, Marrickville. I object to this proposal at it stands.

I object to this proposal for two reasons:
1. The negative impact to parking availability in the area.
As a parent of two children under four, I have to regularly use my car for daycare drop-offs and pick-ups, and other obligations. The documentation suggests that there will be about 1,200 new residences, but only about 200 car spaces allotted to the project. Short of any content in the documentation projecting likely car ownership among new residents, I think it is fair to assume that most residences will own at least one vehicle. I worry that residents will regularly be forced to find car parks several hundred metres away due to parking competition caused by the addition of several hundred vehicles to the area. Parking scarcity will acutely impact parents of young children.
2. The shadowing effect the buildings will have on existing properties on Sydenham Road.
The submission documents appear to demonstrate a worse-than-guidelines impact to sunlight blocking/shadowing on existing properties on Sydenham Road. I don't believe it is healthy or fair for new builds to block sunlight in this manner given the known physical and mental health benefits to ordinary exposure to sunlight.

I expressed these concerns to a community feedback session held by the proposed developer. They have not been incorporated into the developer's proposal.

Sincerely,
Anthony Mason - owner and resident at 136 Sydenham Road, Marrickville

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.

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

This is an outrageous plan to construct a building with an illegal height, especially for so many units with a disproportionate amount of parking spaces.

Objections to the Timberyards Development Proposal

1. Breaking the Height Limit (Clearly a Legal Issue)
The proposed 8-storey block on Sydenham Road is more than double the legal limit of 3 storeys. This isn’t just a small oversight—it’s a major breach of planning rules that will overshadow homes, reduce privacy, and create wind tunnels!

2. Nowhere to Park (Traffic Nightmare)
With only 216 parking spaces for 1,188 units, residents will be forced to park in surrounding streets, making parking even harder for everyone. Parking in my street is already an issue, leaving me to walk further and further with grocery shopping bags and small children.

3. Schools, Childcare & Healthcare Already Overloaded
The area’s schools, childcare centres, and medical services are already stretched. Adding this many new residents without extra infrastructure will make it even worse, leaving families struggling to access basic services.

4. Not Family-Friendly Housing
This development doesn’t support diverse households—only 40 of 1,188 units are three-bedroom homes. This means fewer families will be able to live here, pushing them out in favour of short-term renters.

5. More Cars, More Congestion, No Transport Upgrades
With so many new residents, roads will be more congested, and public transport will be overcrowded. Yet, the development doesn’t include any investment in better transport options like buses, cycling infrastructure, or road upgrades.

6. Not Enough Green Spaces or Parks
High-density housing needs parks and outdoor spaces so people can have a decent quality of life. This plan doesn’t provide enough, making the area more cramped and less liveable.

7. Overdevelopment & Risk of Pushing Out Locals
This development is built for profit, not people. More high-density housing without affordable options means higher rents and property prices, making it harder for long-term residents and lower-income families to stay in the area.

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.

I strongly oppose the Timberyards development because it is too large for Marrickville and will have a negative impact on the community, making it harder for families like ours to stay connected.
    •    At eight stories, it is completely out of scale for the area and does not respect Marrickville’s unique character.
    •    I visit often to help with my grandchildren, and the lack of parking will make it much harder to do that.
    •    More traffic and congestion will waste time, add stress, and make streets less safe for families.
    •    Marrickville is a welcoming, family-friendly community, but this kind of overdevelopment threatens what makes it special.
    •    It’s not just us—other grandparents, carers, and visitors will struggle to park and get around too.

This project does not serve the best interests of the community. I urge the government to reject it in its current form.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Timberyards development on Sydenham Road. As a local resident living on a nearby street with a young family, I have serious concerns about the impact this development will have on traffic congestion, parking availability, and essential infrastructure.

One of my primary concerns is the influx of cars this development will bring. With 1,188 units planned but only 216 parking spaces, there will be significant overflow onto surrounding streets. Sydenham Road is already heavily congested, and as someone who commutes daily, I have firsthand experience of the long travel times caused by current traffic conditions. Adding potentially hundreds of additional vehicles to the area will make it even more difficult for residents to get to work, school, and other essential destinations.

Moreover, the development fails to provide sufficient infrastructure to support the increase in residents. There is already a shortage of school, childcare, and medical facilities in the area. Without proper planning to address these needs, the quality of life for both existing and new residents will decline.

I urge the council to reconsider this proposal and ensure that any development in our community prioritises sustainable growth, adequate parking, and necessary infrastructure.

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.

I object to the project as presently planned. Not to the building of homes on the specific land identified for development. The proposed height of 8 storeys is not only beyond the legal maximum of 3 storeys but it will have the effect of dominating the area and its light and airspace as well as dramatically reducing the amenity. Only around 10% of units will have parking spaces which will place unsustainable pressure on Marrickville streets with potentially 1000 to 2000 additional cars. There is no evidence that already stretched infrastructure such as child care, health and transport will be upgraded in any way to support a rapid population surge. To the extent it is said to be affordable housing, that is contradicted by the lack of family units of which only 40 3 beds are proposed. The project has not been designed to complement and adapt to its community but to dominate it with no consideration given to how it will coexist with the community. The plan should be recast to something more like the original 650 units planned for that site. Please consider this before enabling irreparable harm to the local area with no corresponding rise in affordable housing.

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.

Please find attached my concerns to this development proposal.

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.

we are in dire need of affordable rental housing and this scheme looks to contribute a lot towards this. Giving 1700 people an affordable and liveable place to call home should be applauded