The Timberyards by RTL Co.

I object to the building heights of over 7 storeys. This is totally out of character for the Marrickville area. It will also set a precedent to change building heights throughout Marrickville. At present there is a cap of 7 storeys.

I also think the government should be part owner in this development. Build to rent developments, put rental accommodation into the hands of the private sector and surely allows these owners to treat the development how they see fit in regard to rents and maintenance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

I object to the Timberyards project for the following reasons:
1. This project does not provide a true affordable housing option for low-income people and is not family-friendly.
Less than 10% of these units are set aside for Affordable Housing.
Out of the 1188 units, there will only be 40 three-bedroom apartments. That is not enough apartments for families. Clearly, this development is for housing wealthy people. One look at Scape's( the company behind this development) building projects shows the true aim of this project and the costs of the rental. A studio of 15 square metres is advertised at $789 a week per person in Darlington. Another studio is advertised at $760 a week per person in Glebe. This is not truly affordable housing for the people of NSW.
2. Lack of infrastructure, parking space and traffic congestion
I understand that the government wants people to stop using cars and instead get on bikes or walk to nearest public transport. However, this is not working well. I have watched young people riding recklessly without helmets and experience. Bikes have become street litter everywhere. Even though public transport is good in Marrickville, it is no where near as good as London, Paris or Tokyo to support 1188 extra apartments. Public transport in NSW is expensive. If we are serious about being environmentally conscious we need to REDUCE the human population in the community and not increase it , as this Build-to-Rent project aims to do. The community is better off building a nature reserve for the environment or building a creative entertainment/arts precinct.
The development will increase the traffic congestion that Marrickville residents have to deal with every day as a consequence of the suburb's proximity to the airport, the city and Princes Highway. 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. Allowing to build 1188 apartments will exacerbate the problem we have with traffic congestion and parking space.
3. The development is too close to Marrickville Public School. Increased traffic congestion will be unsafe for everyone near the area.
4. 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. I believe the proposed height of 8 floors and above is illegal, aesthetically displeasing and it will cause overshadowing around Farr Street, the streets off Sydenham Road, including houses on Sydenham Road and Victoria Road.

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 have serious concerns about how this development will impact on the local area.
8 storey frontage to Sydenham Road exceeds the current massing in the urban planning.
The amount of resident parking is woefully inadequate for the number of units.
The traffic impact report is at best ingenuous if not completely fanciful.
There is no way the streets around the area will cope with the increased traffic and parking during construction and after completion.
I support more medium density development in the local area but not a scheme that ignores the amenity of the existing local residents and the incoming residents

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.

As a concerned community member, I would like to express my concerns in relation to The Timberyards by RTL Co SSDA currently on exhibition.

Every single building proposed in this development is in excess of the approved LEP + 20% AHB.
For the tallest building (Building E), architectural drawings and elevations demonstrate an overall height of RL50.8m, which is blantantly over the maximum height as permitted by the LEP+AHB (RL50m). There is absolutely no tolerance for any variances in construction and considering the proposal is almost 1m over the approved height in the LEP, the design of this particular building should be revised for compliance. In other buildings, maximum heights have been exceeded by 155%, with some accommodating an additional 4 stories.

Wicks Place overshawing studies have been conducted comparing the approved LEP massing (+20% AHB) and the proposed development, which exceeds the LEP approved massing and 20% AHB bonus. In the proposed design, a reduced number of existing Wicks Place apartments achieve a compliant 2hr solar access. The justification for this is the inclusion of architecturally significant sawtooth roofing structure. I would argue, that whilst significant, that council approved planning limits and any architectural details should be considered within the bounds of the design. A sawtooth roof is still possible to achieve whilst within the bounds of the approved height limit, especially when considering that a 20% affordable housing bonus limit has been granted. It is also stated within the Environmental Impact Statement on page 123 "As a result of the proposed development, 62.5% of Wicks Place apartments achieve direct sunlight access for a minimum of 2 hours on 21 June from 9am to 3pm. Given the substantial quantum of affordable housing proposed on the site, and in light of the flexibility envisaged in the Affordable Housing Practice Note, the minor overall reduction of 7.5% below the 70% ADG design criteria is acceptable."
As outlined in my feedback relating to building heights, the overall development is well in excess of the approved LEP. The approved bonus height of 20% is specific to creation of affordable housing. What this development is asking for is over and above the provision, and the justification for shadowing an entire existing residential lot is opinion based and misleading. If the development were designed in compliance with the LEP and 20% AHB bonus, a substantial quantum of affordable housing would still be achieved and shadowing impacts on Wicks Place would be reduced. The true benefit for the developer is increased NLA for their business model, which is being marketed as a desire to increase affordable housing.

It is my request and recommendation that LEP building heights be enforced and any increase over this range be within the 20% Affordable Housing Bonus.

As a local that lives in the immediate adjacency of the proposed development, I can anecdotally attest that current road infrastructure and traffic arrangements on Victoria Road / Sydenham Road are not sufficient to support the proposed development. The traffic report & peer review is based on current traffic flow and doesn't seem to account that a potential 3000 extra inhabitants are going to be taking up residence in what is currently a commercial lot. I strongly suggest that addressing this increase through traffic management alone will be insufficient for this volume of people & their associated vehicles. I would suggest that additonal clearways would eventually have to be added on both main roads (which would be of great detriment to the existing local and future local community). It is idealistic to think the future congestion can be managed through clearways & management alone, good public transport infrastructure does not alleviate the need for appropriate road infrastructure & management. In terms of traffic management alone, I specifically suggest that green turning arrows for turning right from Sydenham Road to Victoria Road be installed, as a lack of turning opportunity already causes a great deal of congestion currently.

Lastly, the current plans provide insufficient focus on essential community infrastructure such as early childhood care facilities. With the development of such a large residential precinct, there should be a corresponding increase in accessible educational and childcare facilities for local families. As it stands, the proposed plans overlook this pressing need, which will force families to seek services in already overburdened areas. The lack of these essential amenities further highlights the gap in planning and the neglect of community well-being in the proposed development.

I urge planners to reconsider these aspects, ensuring a more sustainable and community-focused approach to development that balances growth with quality of life for existing residents.

I am all for encouraging density in our inner suburbs through well thought out, sensible and sustainable developments. The Timberyards development is none of these.

Poor mix of units for families: I am disappointed in the lack of thought put into the mix of apartments which are suitable for families. These new developments are an opportunity to challenge the status quo of rotten “investor grade” shoebox 1 & 2 bedroom apartments. Having only 40 3-bedroom apartments out of 1,188 is not acceptable. I would expect this to be at least 25% of these apartments to give families a chance at living here. The Building Australia’s Future plan calls for more density. We know we need it, however it needs to be done right rather than doing more of the same. This development is more of the same in mix and lack of family-suitable units which is incredibly disappointing.

Congestion and density: With Wicks place over the road already adding 272 apartments, an additional 1,188 units takes this to almost 1,500 in a very small, condensed area, with 1 lane each way. Victoria Road and Sydenham Road already suffer from significant congestion. I struggle to see how traffic will even move with the addition of nearly 1,200 extra units. Assuming everyone will catch the metro is ridiculous.

Amenities and Infrastructure: All these residents will not schools, childcare and medical practices. I already had to wait over a year to get my son into a local daycare. The additional population without the infrastructure means these will burst at the seams. This puts undue pressure on our critical services in the area.

Parking: The fact that there are 1,188 units and only 216 parking places is laughable. Where do the developers expect all these new residents to park? To think that less than 20% of the the units will drive makes no sense. The City of Sydney, where the least amount of residents own a car is 60%, compared to 90% in broader Sydney (https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/guides/city-at-a-glance). Even if we assume 60% of units own a car, which is generous as in reality it will be more), this will lead to an additional almost 500 cars in the surrounding streets. This assumes that every unit only owns one car, the rate in greater Sydney is 1.5 per household. The streets around the Sydenham Road/Victoria Road area are already crowded. Adding this number of cars to the pool is not feasible.

I object to the project in its current form and would encourage Build-to-rent Co to come back with a reasonable development which contributes positively to the Marrickville and broader Inner West community. The current development as it stands is untenable and clearly seeks to squeeze every cent of profit out of this development without any consideration for the community and it's long term impacts.

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.

My concerns: Footpaths can’t manage the foot traffic currently, so your development is wanting the residents to walk so are the paths going to be widen & improved especially the Sydenham Rd going to the station
Road traffic the intersection of Victoria & Sydenham Road is dangerous so including a right turn arrow would be helpful
Green space as you increase the resident the local parks need to be improved including play area for children, fenced dog off lead area
Bike/ scooter pathway so that you don’t have pedestrians & bikes on a shared path
The plans include a lot of 1 bedroom units , this might mean regular turnover of tenants so the kerbside rubbish would increase

I am a grandmother and teacher and visit my family regularly to look after our grandchild who has just commenced school in Marrickville directly behind and close to the proposed site. There has been recently a few years worth of building noise close by and now there will be even more building noise – years and years worth, traffic congestion and traffic delays and difficulties parking in the area.
I have major concerns from a teacher’s perspective and a Mandatory reporter that the buildings are so high and easily overlook the school of my grandchild and all of the children attending the small community public school … It means all residents in those buildings will be able to view the children playing in the school grounds – to me this a child protection concern for all children. This gives them absolutely no privacy or proper protection whilst at school, a right of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and our child protection laws.
The buildings will also overshadow much of the housing in the area leaving no sunlight which will impact the health of residents through the increase of mould in people’s homes and inability to dry washing. Without natural sunlight in Winter it also means an increase in the cost of heating, drying clothes and sheets, towels etc and electricity pushing up the everyday prices of the residents affected.
It also means no sunlight for the children and adults in these streets affected by lack of sunlight –ie: increasing vit D deficiencies and poor immune and bone and dental health, amongst many other risks to health.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2427138/

The noise impacts on the school for children trying to learn and teachers trying to teach will also create barriers to learning – without proper soundproofing children will be at risk of distractions, an overly noisy stressful environment and an unhealthy learning environment impacting heavily on the educational outcomes for students. The additional traffic makes it very unsafe for children walking to and from school. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670723000811#:~:text=Construction%20noise%20as%20unpleasant%20auditory,Berntson%20%26%20Cacioppo%2C%202004).


This mammoth residential building is also completely out of character from the family type housing that exists in the area. In addition it does not provide more housing for families which is really what is needed. I object strongly to this development for the above reasons. I cannot see the benefits of this type of housing at all. Lynette Stagg -

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.

Submission Objection: Parking and Safety for Children

I object to the proposed development due to concerns about parking and child safety, not to mention the illegal height of the development and the overshadowing it will have on the school and surrounding neighbours .

The increased traffic and demand for parking will exacerbate congestion in the area, making it more difficult for residents and visitors to find safe and accessible parking. This could lead to unsafe parking practices, including illegal or obstructive parking, increasing risks for pedestrians.

Additionally, the development raises serious safety concerns for children. With more vehicles navigating the area, the likelihood of accidents near parks, playgrounds, and footpaths increases. Children walking, riding bikes, or playing nearby will be at greater risk due to higher traffic volumes and reduced visibility caused by additional parked cars.

I urge you to reconsider this proposal and prioritise the safety of local families and the accessibility of our community.

I strongly object to the proposed Timber Yards development in Marrickville due to its excessive scale, lack of community benefit, and negative impact on local infrastructure.
    •    The proposed eight-story height far exceeds the three-story limit, making it completely inappropriate for the area.
    •    The project fails to deliver meaningful community benefits and is clearly profit-driven, rather than designed to serve local residents.
    •    Insufficient parking will lead to increased congestion on surrounding streets like Edward and Gorman, negatively impacting local families.
    •    Local schools and services are already struggling, and no clear plan has been provided to accommodate the extra demand this development will create.
    •    The lack of family-friendly housing—with very few three-bedroom units—means it does not meet the needs of the existing community.

This is not responsible urban planning. I urge the council to reject this proposal and demand a development that respects Marrickville’s character, infrastructure, and residents.

See attached