14 Rich Street Marrickville NSW 2204

I am very concerned that the DA submission grossly under estimates the impact this business will have on the residents, surrounding businesses and three schools /preschools opposite.

The submission states: Whilst a specific limit on patronage numbers is not sought it is anticipated that a maximum patron capacity of 250 patrons would be the reasonable operational limit of the premises at any one time.
While a certain percentage of these members may walk to the gym from the surrounding area, the facility is bordered by light industrial & education facilities that do not house residents, so their catchment of walking memberships is considerably less than other One Playground facilities. The plans allow for 43 off site parking spaces, with 4-16 staff, leaves just 27 car spaces for up to 250 patrons over peak hours of 6am-9am, which coincides with the school drop of timings. I am extremely concerned with student safety as this many cars navigate the narrow Chapel St, and surrounding area.
Car parking issues have already been highlighted several times to council by the Marrickville Public School P&C, as two business on Chapel Street both permanently parking multiple vehicles on Chapel street (the smash repair and Adventure Merchants and Outfitters, last week I counted 10 vehicles that have been parked long-term on the street between these businesses).
At the current One Playground Marrickville gym & wellness centre, above and adjacent to Woolworths, Illawarra road, members fill both the roof top carpark (over 70 spots) and the Calvert Street Parking lot (34 spaces). These carparks are filled all day long, not just at “peak gym user hours”.
The One Playground founder boasted in an interview published on their website, more than 3 years ago, they had over 15,000 members (https://oneplayground.com.au/blog/7-years-of-fitness-playground/). These members are entitled to use any of their facilities and with 2 others already located in the Inner West, the cross over of members will increase further people accessing the new Marrickville gym. Given these membership numbers across the group, it could be expected that this gym will have a membership level of 2000-3000 members, and I’m sure One Playground sales team would be targeting these membership numbers, to cover the cost of their estimated $850,000+ fit out.
Additionally the weekend members visiting compete with the Two Chaps cafe patrons that visit and park, filling up the streets Saturday and Sunday during mornings and lunch peak’s.
In summary, there is grossly insufficient parking onsite for the gym users, and pressure of patrons trying to visit the gym will put pressure on an area that is already extremely difficult to park in.

My other concern is this heritage listed building (with recently replaced roof) does not appear to have any noise insulation. I have attempted to read the acoustic assessment report, but much of this is too technical to understand. I witnessed the roof being replaced over some weeks as I walked to /from work (Marrickville Public School) and I did not observe insulation being installed.

I live in this area, and four years ago undertook a rebuild myself. As part of that rebuild we went above minimum requirements for the insulation in both the roof and walls, so as to reduce the noise of the aeroplanes flying overhead.

I attend another local gym, which is very noisy as you walk past, but that gym is not located adjacent to residences or an autism school playground. The noise that will be heard during classes will be very disruptive to the neighbouring properties.

An article in the Daily Mail from March 2023 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/fitness/article-11809681/Sydney-gym-Fitness-Playground-rebrands-One-Playground.html) describes the newly refurbished Newtown One Playground as having a “DJ boost perched over the gym floor and syncs to a lighting grid that pulses to the beat of each song, giving off a nightclub vibe”.
This is not appropriate for a business located this close to houses and schools, to be emitting this “nightclub” style noise and vibration beats from 6am – 10pm.

The carparking allowance of only 43 spaces is woefully inadequate, considering the size of the gym and patronage of other comparable gyms. There are already a number of fitness studios in the area that require temporary parking (KX, 137 Health Club, Crossfit 168) - and with the additional apartment blocks going up on Cook Road/Addison Road, additional cafe on Addison Rd/Philpot St the entire area is already quite stretched for parking only to be placed under even more pressure by a much larger gym.

Hi there,

I am writing to express my strong support for the Development Application DA/2024/0655.

The establishment of this gym will bring numerous benefits to our community:

1. Promotion of Health and Wellness: The gym will provide a much-needed facility for local residents to engage in physical activity, promoting overall health and wellness within the community. This is particularly important in today's society, where leading a healthy lifestyle is increasingly recognised as vital.

2. Community Engagement: The gym will serve as a hub for community engagement, bringing together people from various walks of life. It will create opportunities for social interaction and foster a sense of community.

3. Economic Benefits: The gym will also have a positive economic impact. It will generate employment opportunities and attract additional foot traffic to the area, benefiting nearby businesses such as cafés.

4. Enhanced Utilisation of Space: Transforming the premises into an indoor recreation facility makes efficient use of the space, providing a modern and practical addition to our neighbourhood.

The parking provisions, including 43 off-site parking spaces, are adequate for the anticipated use of the gym. Many patrons are likely to walk, cycle, or use public transport, aligning with contemporary urban living trends. The notion that parking will be significantly problematic overlooks these realities and the likely staggered attendance patterns of gym users.

The gym will operate under strict regulatory standards, including noise management protocols that will ensure minimal disruption to the surrounding area. Modern fitness facilities are equipped with advanced soundproofing technologies, ensuring that noise levels remain within acceptable limits.

The proposed gym will be a valuable addition to our community, providing substantial health, social, and economic benefits.

I urge the Council to approve the Development Application DA/2024/0655 and allow our community to reap the benefits of this beneficial project.

Thank you for considering my submission.

The 43-car parking requirement is for the whole 8000 sq meter building.
Which proves the gyms parking is grossly inadequate, given that the gym alone occupies third of this space (1,300 sq meters) and boost to bring in excess of 250 members and up to 16 staff.
This insufficiency does not account for the additional retail shops planned for the remainder of the premises, including delivery drivers, customers and staff.
Anyone supporting this plan clearly lacks an understanding of the existing parking and congestion issues, which are already problematic to residents and businesses. Council rangers are frequently called due to these issues, and adding a large gym would only exacerbate the chaos.
The proposed 'Precinct 45' style shopping centre is ill-suited for this location, which is already burdened by traffic from nearby businesses, childcare centres and schools.
It's crucial for the council to thoroughly assess the impact on local businesses, residents, and educational institutions before moving forward.

To Whom It May Concern:

I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing to express my deep concerns about the proposed opening of a new gym in our area, which will significantly impact our community. The gym, which plans to accommodate 250 members plus, is set to open on 14 Rich Street, Marrickville, DA/2024/0655, directly across from Marrickville Public School and Pre-school, corner of Shepherd Street and Chapel Street.

My primary concerns are as follows:

1. Parking Issues: The Development Application (DA) specifies only 20 car parking spaces for the entire building, which is also intended to house multiple shops and entertainment areas (as per there advertising on line https://marrickvilletraders.com.au/spaces/)

This arrangement is inadequate because the gym alone will likely generate considerable traffic. The street already suffers from severe parking congestion, exacerbated by its proximity to the school, where parents drop off their children, adding to the traffic load during peak times.

2. Impact on Local Traffic: The gym's opening will further strain our busy streets. The additional cars associated with 250 gym members (and the added shops yet to go in the huge building), combined with deliveries and visitors to the other businesses in the building, will likely result in even greater traffic congestion and safety concerns. This issue is particularly pressing given that the location is near a school with high foot traffic during drop-off and pick-up times.

3. Oversaturation of Gyms: Marrickville already hosts six gyms within a 500-meter radius of the proposed site. Additionally, the company behind the new gym, One Playground, already operates One Playground on Illawarra Road, which is in very close proximity. The introduction of another large gym could contribute to market saturation, and it's unclear whether this new facility will meet a genuine community need or add to the existing surplus.

Further to my car parking concerns. I am also aware that the proposal in under E3 Productivity Support Zone, which has a limitation of 1,000sq meters for indoor recreational facilities and this gym is stating 1,375sq meters, which is over the space allowance for that zoning.

I respectfully request that the council re-evaluate the proposed development plans in light of these concerns. Conducting a comprehensive traffic and parking impact assessment may be beneficial to ensure that the infrastructure can accommodate the proposed increase in activity. Additionally, considering the concentration of gyms in the area, it may be worth assessing the necessity and potential impact of yet another facility.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and hope appropriate measures will be taken to address these concerns.

Best regards,

Others seem concerned about car parking, but seem to have it exactly backwards: adding car parking would simply add to the traffic in the area. Limiting car parking ensures that fewer people will drive there, regardless of demand, so there will be increased patronage from walking, biking, scooters, public transport, etc.

One should be mindful of induced demand, the increased traffic etc that some seem to fear would be only worsened by any increased parking requirements.

I do not think over 250 members and up to 16 staff are going to use public transport or walk … and the DA application states “ The site is well located, serviced by public transport, and within proximity to the Marrickville and Stanmore railway station” which proves they know NOTHING about the area. It’s SYDENHAM station not Stanmore and they are over 2k’s away, so not exactly close proximity.

Also Rich Street accommodates a huge Messina Gelato store and production warehouse, that claims most if not all the street parking around there, creating a lot of illegal and dangerous parking/ stopping conditions already.

If this goes ahead there will be huge backlash of I told you so’s, public outrage and constant complaints to council and other outlets.

Claiming parking will not be an issue is just nonsensical, and only true residents and businesses would know that.

This is an industrial area, serviced well by public transport, so it is the ideal place for a business such as a gym. I am a local resident and dropped my child at school at Marrickville Public for many years. I know exactly what the area is like and wholeheartedly support a gym in this street.

Opposers of this DA keep mentioning the 250 members, staff and parking. Please keep in mind the 250 members and all of the staff won’t ever be there at the same time. Not even half or even a quarter.

The Illawarra road One Playground manages with the *shared* Woolies rooftop parking space & that very tight *shared* Calvert parking lot across the road. In fact, the Illawarra rd gym grew recently to take over what was the video shop & discount store that was there years ago. No extra parking was provided when it grew & the sky hasn’t fallen down as a result.

I use One Playground on Illawarra road (I walk and ride there) and wholeheartedly support this application. I’ll likely use my membership and ride to Rich St too. Over the years, as a member, I’ve noticed a very low turn over of staff at the Illawarra rd branch so it’s obviously a decent place to work.

Don’t worry… 250 people won’t be turning up all at once. Illawarra Rd can handle a growing gym with limited parking, so can Rich St

I wonder how many people have actually read the DA completely? 250 members is exactly what they are saying. This is a $1million fit out, with a 1,300sq meter commercial rent and staff wages. They need thousands of memberships to be viable, so yes 250 members is exactly what they are saying..

The DA actually states;

“Whilst a specific limit on patronage numbers is not sought it is anticipated that a maximum patron capacity of 250 patrons would be the reasonable operational limit of the premises at any one time”

Also ‘used’ to go to Marrickville Public school, I have lived here and worked here over 15 year’s now and, Chapel Street, Shepherd Street and Rich Street have significantly become a congestion and parking nightmare. Exasperated over the last year or two with the Ute and smash repairs. Just ask the council rangers that have been called out many times.

This will be my last comment on this matter I hope the council listens to residents and locals.

I oppose the DA is this location. With a street frontage on Chapel St this will impact on the already insane parking and traffic situation outside a childcare centre, primary school and busy cafe and pub.

I object to this location being developed for a gym as the limited access entry to this street with an already incredibly busy and chaotic traffic on Victoria Street is unsustainable.

This needs to be relocated in a street that is less impactful and will not cause road congestion on existing main streets in the area.

A very wrongly placed proposal and definitely not suitable for a dead end street off one of the main roads in the inner west.

Please do not proceed with this.

Thank you.

There is no parking applied for, one of the entrances to the public school is on Farr street and this area is already congested. There should be more care taken for development in congested areas and as such it should not proceed until a better location is found. This will cause much more congestion and reduce amenity for locals and school children alike.

Happy to support this application, for a health-oriented business to support the rapidly growing number of residents within walking distance. One might argue that providing more such options reduces the likelihood of residents having to drive to a gym further away. The smash repair locations are rapidly closing down in this area, and I suspect their land will be soon converted to further in-fill housing.

Rich Street neither faces or shares a street with a local school. It is less accessible to school children than multiple breweries or sellers of sweet goods already established in the area and on the same street.

I do support better traffic parking controls in the wider area given the introduction of multiple special entertainment areas but after 25 years of un-answered resident petitions for such, and the practice of council taking 4 months or more to respond to a parking complaint, I don't see the local council taking action in my lifetime. However anyone signing up to join or work at this gym who might have needed a car to get there would immediately see the futility of trying to park nearby.

I’ve been a member of One Playground and it’s a fantastic gym - the best I’ve been to! Having a new gym in this location would be super convenient for me however I can’t in good conscience support this application knowing the traffic and parking chaos that it will bring. The DA is registered for Rich St but we all know that Chapel St will be bearing the brunt of the car and foot traffic. The current issues on Chapel St are:
- Cars parking long term from local smash repairers and 4WDs from the Adventure Warehouse.
- Narrow road requiring cars to go single file between Chalder Lane and Shepherd St.
- Drop off/Pick up traffic to the daycare and primary school.
- Increased traffic and parking difficulties particularly on the weekends for Two Chaps, Messina, Jets games and the Sunday Markets.
- lack of parking on Chapel St pushes traffic and parking to nearby streets that already have difficulty with parking.
There simply is not enough street spaces to accommodate a large gym that will no doubt be very popular. At the very LEAST, Chapel St needs to have an introduction of timed parking spaces - 15mins outside the school and all day spaces on the other side to reduce the long term parked vehicles. The current 15 min no parking spaces are not helpful for parents dropping off children at daycare or younger children off at the school as we need to get out of the car to do this.
If this large gym goes ahead it will negatively affect the daycare and public school and may lead to accidents due to people frantically trying to fit into parking spots. I do not support this DA.

This area is already incredibly busy with traffic and arguably dangerous with how narrow Chapel St is and the young children from the schools and day care on that street. Cars already ignore the 40km limit - More traffic would increase the risk. Additionally throughout the day, the parking is almost non-existent. Especially during school pickup and drop off times. This gym (based off its existing locations) will be very popular. Without sufficient dedicated parking approving this proposal would be irresponsible and wrong of the council.