All recent comments on applications from Inner West Council, NSW

I support this application. It’ll help the local community increase density and fight the housing crisis.

I support this proposal - it will be great to see this space used for events that the inner west community can attend

As a local resident (Foucart st Rozelle) with several young children. I support the increase use to create family housing! Our family have lost several families that have been forced to relocate to more affordable suburbs (beach front suburbs are now more affordable than the innerwest) because of local councils lack of awareness and foresight to increase density in this area. This will only become a problem when the people currently in control are long retired and our children will be the ones that have to relocate. We are currently in arguably the worst places on the planet for housing affordability this type of adaptive repurposing of existing land and infracture should be encouraged. There is a very large building on multiple lots directly next door to this land that could be utilised for multiple families but is greadily used to house a fraction of what the rest of area has to deal with. Housing affordability can only be solved by increasing supply not consolidating lots for eyesore mansions sitting like a sore thumb amongst the traditional working class cottages this area is known and loved for. I see streetscape consistency, convenient off street parking and an existing previously derelict building being Utilized for families. It’s a win-win for future generations of the area. Locals are being forced out to make way for greedy land grabbers wanting to hoard as much land for themselves as possible. My block is way under 200m2 and my family easily manages to live very comfortably. Like most others in this council area.

We object to this overdevelopment of 7 Sunnyside Ave Lilyfield 2040 to become 7 and 7A Sunnyside Ave for the following reasons:
Breach of minimum lot size by over 23%!
Visual bulk, solar access and privacy to adjoining property
Increased stress on street parking due to 2 separate occupant parties
Poor visual amenity - not in keeping with the area
Minimal provision for open recreational/green space detrimental to the environment and occupants
Flood/stormwater/drainage potential issues for the property and neighbours

I object to the subdivision of this lot, and I strongly object to the construction of a dwelling and associated garages on the site of their current garden. The proposal to build a detached dwelling on this small garden is absurd. It would be a major overdevelopment of the site. It doesn’t fulfil the requirements of the ratio of green space to building size, and it blocks the ground floor and top floor windows of 42 Alberto St. This proposed subdivision means that both the existing house and the proposed new dwelling would have no gardens for recreational space at all for either property. At a time when everyone else wishes they had a garden for their children to play in, this proposal seeks to get rid of theirs entirely.
Do not approve this application.

I support DA/2024/1103.

This development is a sensible step towards increasing housing density in Stanmore, which has long been restricted by heritage zoning. By making better use of the property, this proposal provides much-needed diversity and modernity in local housing stock without overextending the scale of the area.

This type of thoughtful development helps address housing needs in a constrained suburb and should be supported. I encourage Council to approve the application.

I object to this trend where trees are simply cleared as part of a DA.
Most “development” applications these days include “desecration” (IE “removal”) of existing trees with not even a requirement to “replace”.
Our peninsula tree canopy is shrinking alarmingly.
Please change DA to “change dwelling plan to enable retention of all trees. No occupation certificate will be awarded if existing trees are removed or not in a healthy condition”.

I support this application. Fantastic to see additional affordable housing that local residents care so deeply about.

I object to the demolition of this beautiful and historically significant home. This charming cottage should be protected as it epitomises the character of Rozelle and Lilyfield.
Shocking that someone wants to replace it with a three storey monstrosity.

This looks absolutely sublime. What a massive improvement to the street while providing much needed new housing and community infrastructure.

Approve it tomorrow

I support this application. We need to build more housing in Sydney. This is a perfectly acceptable design.

What a great proposal, the location is excellent for this kind of density. The inclusion of affordable units as well as being majority 2 bedroom is nice. The renders look great, hope this goes ahead.

This is an excellent DA! Its proximity to Petersham Station and local shops makes it incredibly convenient, while the addition of health services will greatly benefit the community. I wholeheartedly support this proposal.

My concerns about this development are around the quality of the amenities with the rooms being listed as double but are about the size of of a small motel room with a hot plate and bathroom. This seems to be a very mean response to the need for affordable "housing" where people are housed but not homed. There is very little privacy and the shared areas show seating for maybe 10 people but there are 40 rooms. There is also a history of these sorts of housing developments saying they are affordable but the rents are still considerably more than anyone on a welfare or disability income could afford. Will they just be populated by overseas students?

Such a fantastic addition so near the train station! This development will provide homes for so many people in such a wonderful area, allowing folks to ditch the car and make use of our wonderful public transport system and get to live and grow within the community. 4 storeys is very modest in height, if anything taller would be better near such critical public transport links, but it's a good start for providing more homes for Sydney families.

This proposal is great, adding desperately needed housing in a mindful manner to an area with great amenities, I strongly support it.

The people saying it's inappropriately sized have not considered the existing surroundings which it's in proportion to. Further, the aesthetic improvement this gives with it's tasteful brick facade will be welcome, compared to the existing dilapidated structure.

I live in Summer Hill and love it but am facing being priced out if I ever have a family. The reality is its really hard to build new housing in this amazing area. It would be unjust to block such a rare and small scale development.

It looks like this development will provide much-needed housing near a station, green space and shops.

Visually, it would make more sense for the top floor to be in line with the rest of the front of the building (and I understand this is better for thermal efficiency and structural integrity). That said, there is a case for open space on the roof, as our cities are getting hotter.

I'm certainly not going to oppose housing 30 people for these reasons — this proposal should be supported.

Looks quite pretty next to the old post office building, fits in well with the style of the street (not that it should matter). I looked at moving to Summer Hill but there were...two?...places there within my price range and both got snapped up before I could inspect them. More housing is good!

This proposal looks great, and should be supported.

Some things worth looking at:

1. There’s no good reason to require the upper levels to be setback. It’s on the south side of the street and having more windows directly abutting the street would improve passive surveillance without causing issues for anyone except those who experience megalophobia (fear of large buildings). Upper level setbacks also cause waterproofing, construction and thermal efficiency issues due to the additional seams and surface area.
2. The interface with the street would be better if a basement carpark and accompanying garage door were not required. Studies show the vast, vast majority of co-living and boarding house residents don't have a car so council's guideline of 0.5 spaces per dwelling is over the top. This site is in close proximity to trains, schools, childcares, light rail, buses, full size supermarket, doctors, and countless other amenities.

This looks like a sensitive addition to the HCA, it provides a modern design in dialogue with other buildings on this strip, as compared to the current building which is frankly an eyesore.

Totally inappropriate and massively ugly. the ugly bit is the worst. It's next to a heritage listed Post Office. It will not provide low cost housing at all. This should be rejected. The owners sold the PO and now want to cash in.

This is a great development for Summer Hill, what a lovely place to live. Walking distance to trains, IGA and coffee shops - what more could you ask for? We really need to add more density around the Inner West, as there's plenty of transport and people want to live here. This is a good start.

This would be a lovely addition to Summer Hill, especially around the train station. The Inner West really needs to have more transport oriented development and this is a great start.

I support this proposal, it looks like a clean modern design that will provide some proper housing. It would be great if more of these get approved to set a precedence so the neighbouring cold, mould infested heritage buildings can one day follow suite. Need a lot more quality housing with modern standards, like this proposal, to replace the terrible existing stock.

Looks pretty good. More housing near available transit allows more people to catch the train and ditch the car. Very much in favour of this.

This proposal is a beautiful addition to the streetscape while providing much needed housing.

It should be approved as quickly as possible.