127 New Canterbury Road Lewisham NSW 2049

The Marrickville Heritage Society requests that Council not approved this proposed development.

Huntsbury Hotel, formerly the Masonic Hotel, was constructed in 1884 with substantial alterations made to the building in 1926. It is listed as a local heritage item under the Marrickville LEP. The listing notes that the building "is of historical significance as an original late Victorian period hotel developed on the 1882 "Lewisham Estate" subdivision, substantially altered in 1926 by Tooth & Co architect's office after its purchase by Tooth & Co. The hotel is evocative of changing hotel requirements in the early 20th century as hotels were acquired by major breweries. The Huntsbury Hotel is of aesthetic significance as a Victorian period hotel with substantial 1926 alterations and a representative example of the Inter-war Free Classical style. "
The listing further notes that "There may be only two hotels in the greater Sydney region that are older and larger than the Huntsbury Hotel; (the Palace Hotel Complex at 730-742 George Street, Haymarket; and the Carrington Hotel, Katoomba Street, Katoomba)."

The Hotel is a landmark on New Canterbury Road, and is close to two important Conservation Areas (the Lewisham Estate and the Petersham Retail Precinct) and any alteration to the building should respect the scale and character of the surrounding heritage streetscapes and neighbourhoods. 

Unfortunately, the building is apparently in poor structural condition, and retains no original or early hotel fittings on the Ground Floor. On the upper floors,  original Victorian fittings remain, including floors, walls, skirting, doors and architraves and original plaster work (arch consoles and decorative profiles, cornices, ceiling roses, and some lath and plaster ceilings). The timber stair and balustrade between the first and second floors are original, though in only fair condition. There are several original hearths and mantelpieces (using carved timber and different colours of marble) with original hearth tiles and cast iron fire boxes. 

Unfortunately, the proposed development of the site  requires the demolition of the existing building interiors (retaining the facades only), and extending and converting it  into a 5 to 6 storey mixed use development consisting of a hotel use on the ground floor level and 34 dwellings on the upper floors with basement car parking.

The proposal does not comply with many of Council's planning codes, most particularly in the overall building height and floor space ratio, which provide for the large number of units that are squeezed onto the site. The developer attempts to justify this non-compliant over-developement by claiming that it is required to retain the viability of the hotel and repair the facades of the heritage building. However, the proposed additional floors are overbearing and out of character to the original facades, and out of scale with the surrounding heritage precincts.

The Society does not believe that such a non-compliant over-development is appropriate for this significant building, and Council should not approve it in its current form.

The height of this proposal is inconsistent with the height restrictions adhered to by all other recent developments along New Canterbury road in recent years, the proposal is roughly twice the height of the next highest building in the area.

Access to internal parkings is restrictive and has insufficient resident and residential guest parking. With 36 apartments and only 26 parking spots (the first 8 spots being reserved for the hotel patrons, and 2 for visitors). There is a high likelihood that guests and tenants, including those with 'inconvenient' parking spots at the lowermost level, spots 22-36, will be forced to seek parking in the surrounding neighborhood at street level, already exacerbating an already difficult situation.

The bar layout on the ground floor looks like a substantial improvement from existing. In particular the inclusion of a non-smoking outdoor beer garden (in addition to the designated smoking areas) is welcome.

The existing three stories should continue to be the limit for this site. The existing ground level is elevated with respect to the surroundings and the building is already conspicuous at its existing height.

Floors 3 & 4 should be omitted from the design, to comply with the existing height. This would reduce the number of units to 24 (under the existing floor plan) and would create a more reasonable ratio between apartments and parking spaces.

I 100% support Scott MacArthur's - President, Marrickville Heritage Society - comment to preserve the historical significance of this building. Council and the DA approving bodies need to do more to protect the heritage of our suburbs, rather than replacing these important and significant buildings with cheap and ugly buildings that line developer's pockets.

The Marrickville Heritage Society makes very important points and the heritage issues must be addressed and the proposal should not be be approved. The impact on the removal of the heritage features of the inner west are leading to a overdeveloped high density area environment and once gone they can not be brought back.

I oppose this development proposal because of the height of the construction and parking situation within the area.
6 stories is much too tall for the area and would not fit the streetscape within the area.
6 stories to be built North on Hunter street towards double story houses is bullish.
123 New Canterbury Rd is 5 stories with a much flatter tiering towards residential buildings. Plus it has a driveway as buffer from the main building.
138 New Canterbury Rd (Santa Maria) is 4 stories.
The most recent DA sent through for 147 New Canterbury Rd is 5 stories, and even then the fifth story is a predominantly a roof terrace, with 2 x 2 Bedroom units.
At most the development should be 4 stories, tiered so that the northern end is 2 stories (not 3) tiered towards the residential area north on Hunter St.
The parking provided is nowhere enough to service the apartments being built.
To have only 28 residential spots, servicing 34 units (14 x studios, 8 x 1 Bedroom, 8 x 2 Bedroom and 4 x 3 Bedroom apartments) is just comical and ridiculous.
Its naive to think people living in studio apartments don’t have cars. And people in 1, 2, or 3 bedroom units only have 1 car? Another way to look at it is how many units should there be for 28 spots (some of which should be visitor spots). 20 units at best?
Plus there are only 3 visitor spots (?!) and 8 spots for the Pub/Hotel? You’d be looking at at least a spill over of 20 cars onto the nearby streets.
The parking situation on Wardell Rd, Hunter Street, Allans Ave, Ducros St, Maria St is beyond capacity. Building this quantity of units, with nowhere near enough car spots is short-sighted.
Overall, the units need to be cut down to 20, 4 stories maximum with adequate parking for the units, visitors and patrons of the hotel.

I oppose this proposed development on the following grounds:

The proposed height of 21.87 metres (six storeys) is excessive and non compliant to required standards. The height is well above surrounding buildings and approved and anticipated developments.There is no building of more than four storeys on New Canterbury Road, and this proposed development is particularly inappropriate for Hunter Street, a residential street.

The floor space ratio 3.38:1 is not compliant with the statutory floor space ratio of 2.1:1

Astonishingly, the developers acknowledge that not all of the two and three bedroom apartments comply with size criteria I.e. they are smaller than minimum requirements, and they justify this by claiming that the high level of light and ventilation amenity makes up for this. This amounts to a proposal to build sub-standard housing in Lewisham, a profoundly inappropriate proposal which cannot be permitted.

The proposal to provide 28 parking spaces for 34 apartments with 46 bedrooms which could house potentially more than 60 residents is remarkably inadequate. Residents in local streets (Hunter Street, West Street, Allans Ave, Ducros Street and Wardell Road) already experience major difficulty finding street parking near their own residences, and will find it close to impossible if there is such an increase in the number of local residents without the provision of off-street parking. The issue of parking has a major impact, and when hotel patrons, visitors to the apartments and the new residents whose cars exceed the number of parking places provided all park in these small residential streets, local residents will lose that amenity.

Given the heritage value of the current building, the proposed development is woefully unaesthetic, and its heritage character will be lost. It will look out of place in the neighbourhood and have a negative effect on the Lewisham-Petersham streetscape. The plan to demolish the interior of the hotel and not retain the Victorian features also ignores the heritage value and significance of this building.

Great work Scott, I admire your detailed expertise on this proposal .

Good on you . I can't add any much more to those who have already done so but i will put in a
objection to council .

Paul McCafferty

I oppose this development application due to the following reasons -

Proposed height of the building (5 & 6 storeys) does not fit with current streetscape and should be limited to 3 & 4 storey max.

Insufficent parking (28 spots for 34 apartments) is not adequate given the amount of extra residents and visitors this development will bring. Parking in surrounding streets is already difficult for current residents and new developments with inadequate parking provisions are making it impossible.

The lack of heritage features being kept in proposed development as detailed above by Marrickville Hertiage Society is also concerning.

The development should be restricted to max 20 apartments given the size of land and a max of 3 & 4 storey and prominent heritage feature should be restored and retained.

I object to this development mainly on the grounds of the heritage loss of demolishing the entire building except the facade.
The Marrickville Review of Potential Heritage Items conducted by Paul Davies Architect and Hertiage Consultants in 2009 as commissioned by the council (https://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Marrickville%20Assets/heritageitemsreport.pdf) recommends and outlines the heritage status of this building noting the unchanged Victorian facade. This proposed development will see the removal of this buildings unique heritage status by changing the building and site to a level where it is no longer considered a heritage item. The reports methodology examined external building features such as the roof line, windows, building materials etc, the demolision would remove most of these features, along with the internal features not listed in that report but outlined by others in previous comments above.
This would be huge loss to the cultural fabric of Lewishham and the Inner West which is already undergoing a face lift at an astonishing pace with buildings being bulldozed to make way for these unslightly concrete monstrosity apartment blocks all over. These buildings need to be preserved and council needs to protect them by rejecting these proposals. Once buildings like these are lost they are gone forever. The building and development boom of the 1970s saw the loss of many unique heritage buildings around Sydney, let's not repeat past mistakes and use these examples to make educated decisions about our present heritage buildings.
This entire proposal is unfeasible because the plans are relying on the demolision of the entire site bar the street exterior. To go ahead this proposal should consider the buildings interior spaces which could be re-worked to suit the proposal of a pub with apartments above. No doubt this kind of development would be more costly, and I imagine defeat the point of the development in the first place as it is clear by the lack of car spaces, high unit to floor space ratio (a few of the other issues with this proposal) that the only intention here is to make the greatest amount of money possible.
Please consider my opinions and those of the rest of the community by not approving this proposal.

I agree with the above objections to the proposed development of the Huntsbury Hotel site at 127 New Canterbury Rd.

As outlined by Marrickville Heritage Society, this is an over-development of the site, not complying with height and space ratio requirements for the area. It is also an unsympathetic rendering of this historic hotel site, with plans to demolish all original interior features.