10 Calvert Street Marrickville NSW 2204

As the neighbour most impacted by the application to knockdown the freestanding Federation 4 bed house at 10 Calvert St, (& replace it with two tall, skinny 5 bed semis w/out real gardens, & one with an outside toilet to allow for the construction of a granny flat (by stealth), thus increasing occupancy potential by over 150% - 4 beds to 11 beds potential as per application. Now on top of this, the property proposed to be the new number 10 asks for a brand new car port awning & concrete driveway at the expense of a couple of 5-7 metre mature healthy, fruiting trees, a fenced flower garden, & a community “first/come-first-served” kerbside road park for all cars in the Community). What are the Community offered in return? Well, nothing but disruption, a loose of quiet, privacy, solar access, clean air, pollution control & values nature access.

I oppose the application on these grounds:

1-The area is purely low-density residential & the ask raises the potential occupancy from a 4 bed freestanding Federation that complements the heritage and character of its neighbours next door, opposite & behind, to a duplex made from basic, modern materials, while attempting to pack in a couple of 6 metre wide 5 bed semis with no proper gardens and extra outdoor toilets to appeal to those buyers looking to “bend” the 25m sq. building exemption rules to create study/backyard sleeping retreats.
2. A pair of two-story behemoths, without the setbacks that all its neighbours have, invades privacy at all times, drastically denies solar access in multiple living areas & open areas for over three hours a day (& that’s on June 21, the winter solstice, so longer in Spring, Summer & Autumn Fall. Furthermore, the applicant seeks to take that 3-hour-plus sun access from 8 & 6 & 14 Calvert St, & 5, 7 & 9 Queen St behind the current 10 lot. All of those properties (10 included) deserve privacy and unfettered solar access the applicant is in a rush to breach for a quick financial gain.
3. The applicants have allowed false claims on what trees exist presently and what exists naturally as regards potential natural canopy - a goal for Sydney to increase by 50% citywide as I understand it. There are multiple tall trees at 10 right now - present on the property as I type this - & the applicant is making the argument that two x 5-7 metre healthy mature trees must be cut down to make way for sheltered off street parking for what is flagrant overdevelopment in a purely low-density residential area.
4. The property has no rear access, so the side access leading to street parks on Calvert are cherished, treasured resources, especially given how 8’s only options on the road outside are limited by 6’s disability restrictions, and the nature verges outside 6, 8 & 10 restricting car passenger exits, with the only free spot kerbside anywhere near 8 being the one the applicant is asking for to create a crossover for its concrete driveway, car port awning and private electricity pole that will block light in the master bedroom/day study of 8, for over three hours - & that’s on June 21, the shortest day of the year.
5. The front door/rear door boundary precedents are being flagrantly disregarded in the application. The rear door/front door limits/& the same principle on Calvert St houses that have gone up in previous renovations, are what ensure privacy is a two-way street (as it were), a principle that the applicant shows no respect for.
6. The application makes false claims on its environmental impact in multiple ways, & lacks any integrity, transparency, or due diligence in pre-emptive research on what detrimental effects the knockdown/rebuild will have on; a) neighbourhood disruption, b) natural destruction, c) negative impact on waste management, d) increase in heat for neighbours from excessive use of concrete and reflective metal roofing, and loss of of nature’s significant presence, not to mention no due-diligence (so far) on verifying why the applicant believes the property to be asbestos free, termite free, lacking any hazardous materials whatsoever, & on top of all that, so confident that 80% of the property (more than 20% acknowledged as substandard, but not the main brick & tile bones), will be recycled so easily, without the backing of any kind of professional expertise on such matters.

Please ask the applicant to immediately tend to the sub-standard aspects of the property immediately and make repairs, BEFORE resubmitting adjusted plans that respect solar access rules, abide by current privacy laws, offer expertise on the true impact the overdevelopment will have on the environments in the short, medium & long term.

In addition to all of this, I genuinely hope that council respectfully, does not allow the applicant to falsely claim that:

1. There is no garden out the bank when there is evidence of multiple trees that flourished until late 2025 still out there, and two fruiting beauties in the front (unmaintained and unpicked and unhooked), but there nonetheless, despite the applicants documentation claim's.
2. The Sub-Standard laundry/outside toilet add-on made of inferior, interior, building materials, or the bathroom behind it, with its broken ‘unrepaired’ window , 8 has to see from its kitchen window, are part of the 10 house as it is now, because these clearly not-up-to-par extensions were never legal, they couldn’t have been, given the things were not only built to the boundary, but beyond, this forcing the boundary fence down, as is clear to anyone who cares to look at it, today.

With all due respect, all of the present properties in the low-density residential neighbourhood that immediately surround 10 Calvert St. (which I define for context as 1-24 Calvert St & 1-23 Queen St behind), are uniformly characterised by the following:

a. Single-level, street-facing fronts, tiled in terracotta in the main.

b. Single level rear facing back ends with small windows that are there for solar access and/or ventilation only, and are designed to respect neighbour’s right to privacy.

c. Structures all lower than the highest point of 10 Calvert Street’s existing tiled roof RIGHT NOW (the tallest peak being the centre of 10’s original tiled roof).

d. The low density residential neighbourhood is also characterised by setbacks that feature well-maintained front gardens, porches (mostly), & complementing ornate Australian-Federation-inspired features like the ‘New Dawn’ emblem on the triangular facade centre piece on 10’s front, a touch that tells its own slightly different Marrickville story, to the 100s of other Federation inspired properties in the surrounds, charming, heritage-filled properties built in the 20th Century, a crucial legacy for the community that the council must consider as grounds for preservation (at least in part, even if all that remains of 10’s original home which the applicant acknowledges as being in ‘fair condition’, is the porch front and the Calvert facing roof to its highest peak, and perhaps the hallway and front two rooms.

e. The neighbourhood is also characterised by how the neighbours that surround
10 right now, all do their part in maintaining naturally-occurring canopy that benefits the community, with a range of trees & significantly large bushes that can be seen from ten’s two gardens, including bitter orange trees, mandarin trees, lemon Myrtle’s, a wonderful giant black tea, a Japanese Maple, lemon trees, a huge avocado tree, plum trees, olive trees, poinsettias, red tip photonias, a brush box, an Australian Cheesewood, a curtain fig, a water gum & evergreen azalea’s - and so much more plant life, succulents & native ground cover galore along Calvert Street & Queen St (back & front).

f. The neighbourhood is at present characterised as a quiet one for the most time, although the rising influx of visitors who park the ‘all day parks’ for work or train travel and to shop and dine the marrickville and Victoria & Illawarra Rd stretch, are already facing a tremendous amount of strain, which will only get worse once the Calvert Street public car park is lost to developers soon. In short, the applicants overdevelopment ask looks to increase occupancy by over 100%, and to take the ‘all day’ community kerbside park that straddles the 8/10 boundary, eradicate it, to self-servingly destroy two 5-7 metre high mature healthy trees and other plant life, only to replace with concrete driveway, a car port awning, and no doubt a 7 metre high private electricity pole (based on other recent local knockdown rebuilds that the architects did on Yelveston St recently) along with a carport awning that will cast significant darkness through 8’s front windows into its most important room, for over three hours a day & that’s on June 21, the shortest dawn-to-dusk day of the year.

I respectfully ask council to reject this application on the grounds that as it stands it benefits no-one in the community, just the developers who do not live here, & could care less about the various pollutions, disruptions, chaos, and increased strain the plan puts on community parking, waste management, & the inevitable rise in heat trapping for the next door neighbours that Al that extra concrete, sheet metal, and over 100% occupancy increase will bring with it. Permanently. Not to mention the precedent to overdevelop further in the area, when the properties owned by citizens in their latter years are sold on in the next few years.

I refer to the low density residential development document DCP from 2011:

Sourced at:

https://www.innerwest.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-01/Marrickville%20DCP%202011%20-%204.1%20Low%20Density%20Residential%20Development.pdf

I’m the DCP, it states in C12 this:

‘…Notwithstanding any compliance with front, side and rear setback
controls, the applicant must demonstrate that proposed building setbacks:
i. Maintain the established street character; THEY DON’T
ii. Allow neighbours adequate access to sunlight and a share of
views; THEY DON’T
iii. Preserve established tree and vegetation corridors; THEY DON’T, (they propose their wholesale destruction, pretty much)
iv. Provide adequate separation between buildings to protect
adjoining buildings from overlooking and loss of amenity; THEY DON’T
v. Reduce the visual bulk of new building work. THEY DO NO SUCH THING (the application proposes gargantuan visual bulk and a clunky design that aligns with literally nothing in the vicinity)
NB Council may require greater setbacks to maintain any existing trees. NOT IF THE EXISTING 10 FACADE REMAINS AS IT IS, A WONDERFUL FEDERATION EXAMPLE
4.1.6.3 Site coverage
Site coverage controls in combination with floor space ratio, height and building
setbacks aims to create an acceptable bulk and scale of development that maintains a
satisfactory relationship with adjoining development and the wider street context and
ensure adequate site area is retained for uses such as outdoor recreation, footpaths
trees, other landscaping, off-street car parking, drying areas, waste, and stormwater
management. THE APPLICATION DOESN’T DO ANY OF THIS SATISFACTORILY

The site coverage controls reflect the existing pattern of housing density, IT DOES NOT…
whereby the site coverage generally decreases as allotment size increases. THE APPLICATION MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO ABIDE BY THIS RULE

On smaller sites the achievable site coverage will usually be limited by the area required
for private open space, however as sites get larger the site coverage control will limit PLEASE ENSURE THIS RULE TO CURTAIL EGREGIOUS OVERDEVELOPMENT IS FOLLOWED as per - 4.1 Low Density Residential Development
Marrickville Development Control Plan 2011 9 rules contained
PART 4: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
the spread of buildings on the ground plane and ensure additional permitted floor area
is massed on upper levels (as appropriate). THE APPLICATION ASKS ARE EXCESSIVE ON THE UPPER LEVEL IN PARTICULAR AND NOT APPROPRIATE IN CONTEXT
Objectives
O15 To ensure that new development and alterations and additions to existing
dwellings result in site coverage that is consistent with the existing character of neighbouring dwellings. AT THE RISK OF LABOURING THE POINT, THE APPLICATION DOES THE TOTAL OPPOSITE
O16 To ensure that new development and alterations and additions to existing
dwellings result in site coverage which allows adequate provision for uses such as outdoor recreation, footpaths, deep soil tree planting, other
landscaping … waste
management, clothes drying and stormwater management.’

ON THAT MATTER, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PROVISION AND NO PERCEPTIBLE SHOWING OF ANY RESPECT FOR THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOUR’S RIGHTS ON ALL THOSE MATTERS (for all of those things are disrupting, polluting, and ongoing for months and months on end while developers smash down a decent house - in ‘fair condition’, by the applicants own admission in the application documentation no less, too).

I’m generally fine with this proposal as it increases density in a location within walking distance to the upcoming metro, and we need more homes in Marrickville. However, it’s important to preserve mature trees wherever possible ans these take decades to replace, and to make sure the design (architecture) of the property is of a high quality.

I agree with ZR who supports an increase in occupancy, and only ask that it not exceed that of its neighbours all sides.

Presently, there are no more than four people per dwelling in all houses that surround 10. Incidentally, the present property at 10 holds 5 people in the existing 4 bed house, and personally, I would not oppose two x three-bedders modified from the current core structure, which would represent a 40% increase in intended occupancy of a typical family home, from 5-6 in existing dwelling (based on two adults in master bedroom & 3-4 children/grandparents sharing the other purpose-built bedrooms), to a potential occupancy of 12 residents across two x three bed houses (based on two nuclear families with four offspring, for this neighbourhood is a family oriented neighbourhood, and an uptick of high density apartment living dwellings have already gone up (and will continue to go up) between Wicks Park & the Factory Theatre, around Sydenham and Marrickville Stations (but much closer). In other words, Calvert Street represents a diminishing resource for families wanting 3 bed houses in Marrickville (to be close to the multiple local high schools, and primary schools and public transport options for parents and children alike).

Primarily providing studios, one bedders, two bedders, and five bedders that will likely be snapped up by wealthy investors who rent for maximum profit, or house families that increase occupancy by well over 100% in an instant, will contribute to the exclusion of families in the community moving forward, for typical families are targeting 3 bed houses, not 5 bed behemoths crammed into low density residential plots that are skinnier tracts of lands than all properties surrounding (properties that are already very compact and solar-light deprived, as it is.

As regards nature, it was only nine months ago when the previous owner of 10 destroyed - without neighbourhood consultation- over 60% of the natural canopy standing over two metre’s tall
on the 10 property, in preparation for hoping to sell to ‘mysterious developers’ - canopy that provided shade, privacy and oxygen to all of 10’s immediate neighbours. It has now been eight months since the non-resident owners bought 10, almost six months since settling, and over a month since the NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT quietly appeared.

With that timeline in mind, and at the front of your thoughts, I invite interested locals (and visitors to Marrickville) to walk by 10 Calvert St at your leisure.

Right now, you will see that ever since the non-resident developers snapped up 10, despite all their promises to maintain the nature that surrounds them should they get their application approved, they have in fact done nothing on that front since settlement day. As you stroll on by, take note of the low-lying invading creeper plants that reach out to the pavement, then look around and see how NO NEIGHBOUR allows this to happen through their front fences. Not one. Also, I invite you take a look at the ‘still alive’ stump of a tree that once stood eight metres proud, at the edge of the off-street driveway just behind the green bin that rests on the front boundary fence of 10. Also, take in the height of the two healthy fruit trees there, two trees that the documentation claim at one point are not even there, and at another point, are recommended by arborists, to be removed. Why? Because they’re infected? Because they’re damaging shared utilities? Because they’re blocking neighbour’s sunlight? Because the neighbours don’t love the trees? No. None of that. The arborist in the report recommends removal because the applicant simply wants to swap out the abundant nature for an unattractive roof-topped concrete driveway that takes a shared kerbside spot (the neighbours all very much rely on because the properties on the odd-numbered side of Calvert Street from 2,4,6,8,10,14,16,18,20,22,24& beyond have no rear-lane access to their homes (unlike 1,3,5,7,9 & beyond) on the other side of the street.

And if locals and other concerned, community-minded citizens and community residents or visitors do decide to stroll past 10, they will not only see how the developer-owners are still allowing the existing tall, healthy, fruiting trees at 10 to drop its overripe, mouldy, mandarins into the guttering above the next door neighbours boundaries (both 8 & 14) causing problems for its neighbours during spells of inclement weather.

At the same time, passer-bys will also see (very clearly indeed), the heavy broken gate that was made to lean on it’s neighbours fence on Auction Day, an action that made the fence buckle onto 8’s side path gate and stopping it from opening properly, instead of just responsibly fixing the rusty heavy metal gate, and also continues to allow the dangerous rusting, metal front yard fence to poke its broken spikes into the neighbour’s side path, and also carries on letting the badly painted, inferior quality, interior board panel installed over the porch and above the 8/10 boundary fence flake off board and paint chipping, and also let’s the shoddy add-on made of interior plasterboard, cheap ply and rapidly deteriorating paint and nail fixings to push the 8/10 boundary fence over into 8’s back yard and side path. And this is flaked off paint and plaster and rotten fruit mulch that the neighbours at 8 have no choice but to clear up from the side access path and rear open dining area because the anonymous developer has never once made even the vaguest attempt to reach out to the resident/owners of 8.

Not a single piece of maintenance work has been done on the trees and sub-standard add-ons ever since the non-resident developers who have made multiple misleading claims in their insufficient preparation, finally settled on the property they are in a hurry to level, but not without installing tenants to get a little extra cash that has not been reinvested in the maintenance of a house that right now, has a broken bathroom window that their neighbours cannot not see, a plasterboard laundry outdoor toilet where several plasterboard panels of just fallen off and sit with the discarded corrugated panels and plumbing pipes that are also pushing the boundary fence over into the neighbours crucial side path that they use for home, garden and roof access, not to mention 75% of all of 8’s windows (8 being a semi), and all twelve permanently open vents that allow air in and out of the kitchen, bathrooms, bedrooms, living room and home study that gets used every day, along with the exterior mounted washing lines the family of four at 8, completely rely on.

Anyone interested in getting a feel for the quality of the build and materials and efforts that the C & L architects make to ‘work in’ with the existing architectural style of its Victorian & Federation styled neighbour dwellings, I feel
compelled to invite interested locals and visitors to visit Yelveston Street in Sydenham (just off Unwins Bridge Road & close to the General Gordon pub and Sydenham rail and metro station). Go to 76 Yelveston (currently still on sale, that's how recent the build is), and note how nestled between two gorgeous Victorian style terraces - 76 and its new neighbour structure are basic two-story plain-looking replacements that are taller than both remaining neighbours, with air conditioning units on the upper decks for the passer-bys to admire and enjoy, plus, not a single plant of any significance growing within the new build boundaries. Note too, the six ugly private (electricity) poles at the boundaries of multiple brand new dwellings designed by C&L, private poles the ‘lucky residents’
in the charming old terraces left and right must encounter every time they enter and exit their front door. Opposite, two adorable Federation-style bungalows flank a pair of recent C&L builds that - once again - boast private poles pavement and boundary adjacent, and sadly dwarf and overwhelm the neighbour’s bygone-era-legacy properties. Seven metre poles that stand between mainly west facing windows will cast big shadows for ovee e r three hours a day (even in the depths of winter), and the electricity on private poles often hum when problems arise.

The cluster of overwhelming Yelveston new-builds that were designed and executed by the very same architects that want to reimagine 10 Calvert with surfmist corrugated metal roofing and basic concrete infrastructure, like what now dominates the middle of Yelveston on both sides, with half a dozen properties made of very ordinary, uninspiring materials, that it is probably fair to say will be almost certainly future-proof to late 21st Century heritage protection and preservation considerations in decades to come, which on the other hand, is a situation that I would very enthusiastically and energetically and emphatically argue is NOT the case at all, for solid examples for Federation freestanders like 10 Calvert Street is.

Please - fellow Marrickville community members - take a stroll on down to
76 Yelverston (near Sydenham Metro) and judge for yourself how well the Cracknell and Lonergan house designers nail new properties, and whether the ‘designs’ fit in well with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood, but also determine for yourself whether you think exceptional, high-quality, environmentally-friendly materials were used in the Yelveston constructions.

Also, judge for yourself the value the multiple new builds on Yelveston offer the wider inner west community, especially given there is no significant nature to speak of (but multiple air-con units on display at 76 Yelveston and the new builds next to
them too.

I also suggest you call Cracknell and Lonergan to ask them who owns 10 Calvert Street and what other work C&L have done with the 10 Calvert developers previously. If your gentle, polite enquiry goes anything like mine did, you will also be told that it’s none of my business and the developer must have his privacy protected, even when I just explain that I want quality build references to consider in the consultation period the council requires. If you experience what I experienced, C&L will point blank refuse to even answer whether C&L have ever worked with the developer of 10 Calvert St, a non-local developer who
Insists on remaining in the shadows, for reasons C&L refused to share with me when I enquired..

Fellow Marrickville inhabitants and visitors, do try and look at the Yelveston St Sydenham new-builds, then decide for yourself if you think those dominating structures are good quality, and in keeping with the architecture in then immediate vicinity. Also, determine yourself whether you what is proposed for 10 Calvert St is good for the community, or not.

Under solar access planning rules across NSW, a development must maintain at least three hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June, to at least 50% of the neighbour's principal private open space and to the windows of all of their habitable rooms (not including bathrooms and laundry).

1. Shadow diagrams should (but don’t) acknowledge how the application intends to more than double the height of 8’s front and back (at the gutter lines that exist at this very moment in time).

2. The application plans will cast many extra small shadows for over three hours a day between 9am and 3pm on July 21, across 7’s living room windows and bedroom and home study that is used daily. And the negative quality of the impact cannot be understated either, and not even the quantity of the sunlight loss that will be most devastating to the residents of 8.

3. At two specific times of day on one specific day of the year (June 21, the winter solstice), this application will catastrophically block sunlight to specific windows in 8 and particular portions of 8’s open space areas. The shadow diagrams sketched in the rough plans will bear no resemblance to the actual numbers that an independent investigator charged with carefully assessing the project’s impact, will find.

4. Given the Council isn't all about what shadows will be cast, per se, and perhaps more concerned with how much worse 8’s internal darkness will be badly impacted (compared to what is already experienced), it must be said that the overdevelopment plans on the site will be utterly devastating to all but 20% of 8’s windows because the impact of raising the height on the parts of 10 by over double will effect 8’s living rooms and rear open space used for eating and enjoying the sunset most days. A cherished thing the application shows zero respect for.

5. The residents at 8 understand that new excessive shadows will rarely halt a low desire residential development project on its own merits alone. But given the application is already stretching the envelope on floor space ratio, setbacks and overlooking - all at the same time, I respectfully request that the awful future shadow effects on 8 should be given a lot of latitude in this instance. The developers (under the veil of the C&L house design sketchers) are pushing every angle overdevelopment imaginable (except the max height and side path setbacks, two areas that may look generous on paper but offer no protections to 8’s privacy and solar access and minimized pollution rights, including noise pollution from upstairs decks and side sliding doors that no house in the neighbourhood has).

Hopefully, creating excessive shadows for immediate neighbours is a line that the council won't cross ultimately, since the project application is simply put, asking for far too much in three or four other ways as well as the literal ‘daylight robbery’ the application calls for.

This comment specifically relates to the “Statement of
Environmental Effects” document included with the application to knockdown the Federation freestander at 10 Calvert Street to make way for an overwhelming semi duplex, a document prepared by Cracknell and Lonergan, a building design entity, worked up from a commission by Nader Corp Property Limited.

Nader Corp Pty Ltd is a registered private Australian company located in Belfield, New South Wales, confirmed to have been active since December 2000, and Michael Nader is listed as the “Key Principle” property developer at Nader Corp. Pty. Ltd.

The “Statement of Environmental Effects” document actually acknowledges that “… Calvert, Greenbank and Fernbank Streets are … characterised by their single storey
dwelling forms.”

The statement also then claims that the two story development with upper stories that protrude further forward and further back than the rooms below (in the plan) are somehow in keeping with what the document has already explicitly conceded - which is: “…Calvert, Greenbank and Fernbank Streets are … characterised by … single storey dwelling forms.”

I must now refer to … 2.3 Fabric Analysis (Existing Site Condition)

In this section, “Statement of
Environmental Effects” lays claim
to: “The subject site’s current condition (being) fair, (with) the existing single storey dwelling (featuring) inter-war and federation characteristic elements and construction.”

Well, I can wholeheartedly agree with all of that because it is all true. But then the assertion that follows contradicts what was just said, and needs to be called out.

The “Statement of
Environmental Effects” asserts:

“However … (the) Calvert Street streetscape demonstrates low heritage significance
and character, as many buildings are in poor condition and have had significant alterations to the façades, reducing the visual significance.”

Where are these buildings that are in poor condition exactly? 8 or 14 next door. Or is that 1,3,5 or 7 opposite? Or 2, 4 or 6 to the east? Or 16-24 west?

This really rather rude assertion is also just simply untrue. Both next door neighbours have properties in great condition. The houses opposite 10 are in terrific condition too.

Specifically, 8 next door, as well as 22, 20, 18, 14, 6, 4, 2, 1,
3, 7 & 9 (in other words the vast majority of houses on Calvert St that surround number 10), all retain the front aesthetic of their original form, with front facades that are single story until that front facade reaches the apex of their tiled Calvert Street facing roofs.

And every single one of those properties that immediately neighbour 10 on Calvert St have all had relatively recent renovations that have absolutely NOT altered the facades in any significant way, as claimed in the “Statement of
Environmental Effects” document.

But the falsehoods in the “Statement of Environmental Effects” document don’t stop there, for in fact, they then even go on to announce that:

“ (10 Calvert Street) - The subject site - has had unsympathetic alterations to the rear of the site,
including rear secondary structures, a garage and a largely concreted
and paved rear courtyard.”

It sure has. No disagreement on that. But for clarity here, “the unsympathetic” and presumably unlawful “alterations” (already existing at 10 right now), were - without a shadow of a doubt- shoddily constructed in the first instance.

Yet here’s the thing: right now, the sub-standard add-on bathroom currently has a broken window - since 2025 - and if we face facts here, the neighbours shouldn’t have to see and hear showers taking place behind a missing pane of glass, just centimetres away (from their only external access path to the rear of their property, a path that holds the wall fixed hose, a wall fixed clothes line, the air con hub, the gas boiler, and is the path walked to put out the trash and the mulch and the recycling daily).

Also, precariously bolted on to the deficient bathroom add-on, is a dilapidated plasterboard and metal sheet covered abomination that houses loud laundry machines and an outside toilet - a falling down shack with collapsing exterior walls that drop paint, plasterboard and sharp nails into the neighbours private open spaces, delivering a dangerous mess that the neighbours must then deal with, for flaked paint, rotten bits of panelling and sharp screws and nails have all fallen into the Neighbours only rear access side path and created a dangerous situation at times, a situation that remains ongoing because the owner neglects his responsibility to attend to the deficiencies, and instead puts all energy, efforts and enthusiasm
into pushing forward with inappropriate development, at a breathlessly, breakneck pace, pushing forward knockdown/rebuild plans that are “supported” by misleading information presented in a “Statement of Environmental Effects” document - misleading information like how 10’s rear yard is “largely concreted and paved”.

Truth is, it’s not.

To be honest, well over half of 10’s open space (and I define open space as that which is not totally covered by a roof with guttering, is actually nature, (our the back it’s nature that was cut back so severely on auction day in 2025, that in the rear yard photo shown in the “Statement of
Environmental Effects” document, appears to be nothing but a small bush and a mass of lifeless soil, which in any case is not factually concrete or paving and therefore it is rather misleading to describe it as such for the benefit of the applicants plan to do way with proper significant nature contributions and commitments and obligations to the community.

The “Statement of
Environmental Effects” document goes on to claim that “… Original detailing and fixtures
have been replaced overtime, detracting the significance of the site.”

Conveniently, The “Statement of
Environmental Effects” document neglects to acknowledge how: historical, legacy, heritage-rich detailing and fixtures
have actually also been maintained overtime (then left to deteriorate since March 2026), details and fixtures that complement neighbouring dwellings and undeniably affirm the significance of the site as is, in the context of neighbouring properties sharing so many of 10’s existing architectural features, solid brick and tile materials, low fronted Federation silhouettes, and above all else Federation style - a style the applicant has made no effort to observe and understand, let alone admit.

In the “Statement of Environmental Effects”, the original part of the 10 Calvert St structure is described as being in “fair condition” meaning its original facade is in “fair condition” too, thus contradicting the assertion that original details and fixtures at 10 have been altered.

The delightful “rising sun” motif within the Federation triangle, the wonderfully ornate porch with fancy tiled flooring and elegant wooden beams, the strong, solid, tiled roof that doesn’t give off a blinding glare like pale
-painted corrugated metal roofs will when the sun’s shining. Also, the sash windows with ornate framing and panel features embedded beneath the north west facing front windows of 10, are all very much in keeping with the Federation style of the vast majority of 10’s immediate neighbours, features preserved diligently during recent renovations.

I sincerely hope the Inner West Council, proceed in investigating all of the suspect claims contained within the “Statement of Environmental Effects” document that was commissioned by the Belmore based Nader Corp. Pty. Ltd. At Nader Corp. Pty. Ltd. the developer Michael Nader is the key principle according to public records. I also respectfully request that Nader Corp Pty Ltd and Cracknell & Lonergan, the building drawers resubmit substantially scaled back development plans that not paint a more accurate picture of the context and character of the neighbourhood the developers are looking to disrupt and change beyond recognition, and apply more due diligence to researching the actual impact the development will impose on the neighbours and the community at large that use Calvert Street as a thoroughfare to Cavey St., Gladstone St. and Illawarra Road.

Lastly, I respectfully ask Michael Nader and Nader Corp Pty Ltd and C&L to show a little more class, by describing the immediate neighbourhood properties that surround 10, as what they actually are: who don’t appreciate the description of their house and the dwellings of their neighbours as:

“ … dwellings in a Calvert Street streetscape - legally described as a low density residential area, an area characterised as having houses that are overwhelmingly in a Federation style, in the main in very good condition, modified with sympathy and an eye on the heritage significance this part of Calvert St. offers, and moving forward, refrain from describing the homes from 1-24 Calvert Street as having no character worth preserving, and cease the nonsense about these buildings being in poor condition and laying false claims that many of them “have had significant alterations to the façades, reducing the visual significance of the streetscape”, because this assertion is unnecessary, rude, and above all absolutely not true.

I look at the houses around 10, and I fail to see any significant alterations to any facades of any house that neighbour 10, even 16 which has a metal roof that is blinding when looked at, still honours the silhouette, and keeps the features of the original shape of the original house built.

That said, I do see a house - every night and day- the one that Michael Nader and Nader Corp Pty. Ltd. are supposed to have kept in good condition since March 2026, with shoddy add-ons literally falling apart at the seams, and trees and weeds and creeping ground cover getting more and more overgrown, while Nader Corp Pty Ltd throws its efforts into rushing through with a grossly polluting development that will usher in “significant alterations” to 10 that are in no way in keeping with the character of a neighbourhood full of sympathetic modifications that are so subtle, they appear to have been missed by those preparing the somewhat deficient “Statement of
Environmental Effects” document that wrongly describes “ … (the) Calvert Street streetscape (as demonstrating) low heritage significance and character, as many buildings are in poor condition and have had significant alterations to the façades, reducing the visual significance.”

I hope that Nader’s development corporation & the house design firm he commissioned are not rewarded with approval to put up two semis that have second story dwellings that will sit far further forward than the ground floor rooms below, literally turning the low fronted single level facade streetscape character identified by Nader and C & L in the “Statement of
Environmental Effects” document, completely on its head, and demonstrating not a shred of respect to the precedents already set on this stretch of Calvert Street, Marrickville.

A knock down rebuild is not always as simple as it seems. There are three critical factors to consider before moving forward with a disrupting, noisy, polluting endeavour like this in a quiet low density residential neighbourhood like the one 10 is in.

1. Driveway Relocation. This is one of the most overlooked elements in a knock down rebuild, for if a new home design requires a driveway in a new spot, it’s important to understand the many challenges involved.
Redesigning the kerb where presently there is 8’s and 10’s plumbing exit lines, and gas and electricity supplies and telecoms and internet under the pavement at the 8/10 border is fraught with all manner of complex danger in waiting, and wiping out all the nature - especially the tall mature trees, will have an undeniably detrimental effect on the rise in heat and noise and petrol pollution the next door neighbours will suffer, thanks to the off-street swathe concrete linked to a pavement crossover that took the only street car park available outside 8, that doesn’t require passengers to get out onto the tree-root covered soil of the three nature verge areas outside 6,8 & 10 right now, a kerbside park that 8 needs access to so large items can be transported down the side path, the only access point for big items that 8 has because there is no rear lane access for 2-24 Calvert Street and beyond.

2. Block Gradient and Site Levels are going to be an issue at 10 too. The block might look broadly flat, on the whole, but that doesn’t mean it is that in fact. To build a slab-on-ground home, the site needs to be close to perfectly level. A gentle-looking slope (like the one 10 presents) throws up some pretty major challenges for builders. An independent survey assessment investigation will likely reveal significant fall during future site assessments involving the gauging of correct levels. Looking at how much gradient there is from 8-14 on the front boundaries, and from the 8/10 boundary front to rear, the contractors will most certainly be working with significant meterage of fall from corner to corner of the present 10 property. Retaining walls will become a pre-requisite for knockdown/rebuild work, and specific applications for operational works permits to import fill and raise the site will have to be sought, essential steps to achieve a level platform for a hugely ambitious construction project in such a crammed low density residential area with immediate neighbours sitting on houses and foundations that have weathered many a storm for over 100 years and counting, so a very carefully measured process that when undertaken properly will impact the timeframe of clearance, preparation, and construction in all of Its many phases, must happen. And that long timeframe will be a timeframe where the neighbours will somehow have to manage the surge in dust, debris and material and noise and machinery’s pollution that may or may not also include asbestos problems lurking in unsuspecting voids behind ceilings and walls and potential termite issues, for as far as it appears, a proper deep dive into those possibilities has yet to have been undertaken for 10 during this rushed period of trying to hurry development plans through council processes.

3. Fencing and Neighbouring Properties. When building contractors change the levels of a site like 10 Calvert Street, it is my understanding that the work will also be inherently and significantly changing how the neighbouring properties interact with one another. For example, if raising the ground level - especially out the back of 10 which is currently somewhat sunken compared to its immediate neighbour, this will cause the future 10 residents to overlook the existing fencing into 8’s private spaces, (the fence presently being 1.2 m high and not enough to obscure faces at the hills hoist on washing days). In other words, the levelling up and making the 10 tract a perfectly even slab will deliver even more disruption to 8’s privacy moving forward than what the 8 residents experience after all the back yard privacy canopy was removed without neighbourhood consultation just days before the 10 property hit the market in late 2025.

With all of this in mind, the updating or replacing of boundaries neighbours share with 10, what privacy protections are planned that will actually be effective in reality, these are interactions, discussions, conversations that involve engagement with neighbours about the style or height of the new fence, who foots the cost, subjects best to address early - preferably before lodging outrageous development applications - to avoid disputes down the track: a situation that Michael Nader at Nader Corp Pty. Ltd. has chosen to avoid outright, with this neighbour that relies on a dozen west-facing windows that currently do not look directly upon any of 10’s windows or private spaces (except for the rear yard 8 residents couldn’t see until October 2025 when all the nature was suddenly removed without warning. And to be clear, 8 requires the light access from all of those west facing windows for almost the entirety of its daylight solar access the applicant is looking to deny the residents of 8 without so much as a whisper of a greeting let alone a grown-up discussion about the boundary fence that continues to be broken by 10’s outdoor toilet add-on and the heavy metal side gate that’s no longer on hinges but being made to appear open (hence the leaning of it on the fence which then permanently jammed the 8 side gate from the weight load of the leaning bulk from the 10 side.

The Bottom Line is this rebuild application comes with a myriad of unique challenges. From operational permissions to the careful construction of retaining walls and with the fencing conversations the owner has so far neglectfully avoided, despite the neighbour most affected by all of this being all ears, should the developer reach out, as should have already happened many months ago now.

As regards the recent 10 Calvert St knockdown/rebuild application, here are 50 things that must be considered:

1. Sun blocks neighbour big time
2. Violates neighbour’s privacy
3. Rise in occupancy of over 100%
4. Destroys tall tree canopy
5. Perm rise in noise pollution
6. Forever rising temp in heat trap
7. Perm rise in street park stress
8. Extending rise in waste mgmt.
9. Year + for knockdown/rebuild
10. Design does not fit in here
11. Levelling the land is complex
12. Calvert St boasts low fronts
13. Calvert St shares Fed features
14. Calvert Reno’s set a standard
15. Street height max = 10 Calvert
16. Application lacks credibility
17. Application gives false claims
18. Application contradicts itself
19. Application is a rushed WIP
20. Application shuns local styles
21. Application ignores big details
22. Application casts aspersions
23. Owner avoids maintenance
24. Owner avoids neighbour talk
25. Owner a developer here, only
26. Owner rents w/out repairing
27. Owner wants a cheap rebuild
28. Application appears in July
29. 2.4 m high sliding side doors
30. Decks over front ground level
31. Decks over back ground level
32. Private pole needs are ignored
33. Air con loc. bases ignored, too
34. H2O tanks are plants in plans
35. Rear situated toilet ask, why?
36. Rear’s concrete/pavers, why?
37. Why no repairs @10 done yet?
38. Why no answers from C&L?
39. Why has 8 not been contacted by Michael Nader or Nader Corp?
40. Why was Nader Corp Pty Ltd tipping off real estate agents to strip nature from their back yard?
41. Why was Nader Corp Pty. Ltd. approaching Calvert Street residents at the auction of 10, and offering to level their houses to do rebuilds on extra properties as well?
42. Why does Nader Corp allow 10 to fill 10’s guttering with tree fruit and leaf mulch that then pollutes the next door neighbours especially during a rain storm?
43. Why does Nader Corp not replace broken bathroom windows before letting out 10 to paying tenants?
44. Why does Nader Corp let rusty fences and gates and dilapidated out houses detrimentally affect its neighbours on all sides still?
45. Why does Nader Corp insist on remaining silent when many reasonable points of property responsibilities are raised?
46. Why does Nader Corp think it’s okay to casually expect young families next door to be happy with the disruption to HSCs so Nader Corp can overdevelop without doing due diligence?
47. Why does Nader Corp think that anyone on Calvert street or Queen Street wants to see residents upstairs lounging on their decks, front, side and rear, when no-one else in the neighbourhood is able to do any such thing?
48. Why does Nader Corp think that C&L’s offering is superior to the wonderful preservation/renovations currently on Calvert Street from 1-24, seriously?
49. Why does Nader Corp think that everyone’s health in the neighbourhood is no concern to them for months on end, especially given the neighbours are old people with respiratory problems and youngsters and professionals who are struggling with asthma and other matters of a similar vein?
50. And what’s the mad pace of knockdown rush about here? I mean … Really?

So here’s another thing the 8 owner resident takes issue with:

In the overdevelopment plans that have been put forth. The applicant has demonstrated explicitly in the architectural drawings, for whatever reason known only to themselves and their associates at Nader Corp. and C & L the firm given the opportunity to draw designs, sketched the PROPOSED “dump site” for all waste materials to be removed from the demolished site - gathered after the wrecking ball arrives and knocks down the existing “fair condition” property at 10 right now - to a front yard spot right now where nature and grass and fallen fruit share space with the 8 boundary, rather than the concrete driveway that is very much already in existence in the 10 property that is there right now, as I write this, which of course, makes not one iota of sense. Add to that, the promise offered up in the “architectural drawings” to house the dirty, dusty, toxic skip bin in the present all day kerb side outside the path that 8 uses to access its rear spaces EVERYDAY, a community park that the community competes for on a first come first served basis daily, even though the 10 lot RIGHT NOW has a long driveway that COULD EASILY accommodate waste skip bins without disrupting the neighbourhood traffic flow and parking needs from day one, ironically in the spot that NADER CORP has decided now belongs to them, despite giving nothing back to this neighbourhood in terms of parking payback or anything else for the Calvert Street community as far as has been revealed, unless I’m missing something crucial here, which I sincerely don’t believe is the case, as a matter of fact.

Does perhaps the planning diagram assigning all the toxic waste and debris and mangled and mashed-up materials to the 8 boundary maybe have something to do with trying to keep sweet the neighbours that Nader Corp offered a part in their demolition plans for not only 10 but for an additional property in the hope to make a little extra profit, and real fast? Maybe? Perhaps? Possibly? It’s worth looking into.

With regards to the Statement of
Environmental Effects
10-12 Calvert Street, Marrickville
Gadigal Country

Proposal:
Semi-Detached Houses with
Subdivision

I feel compelled to call out two specific false claims because they draw a particularly misleading picture of what’s being proposed.

In 4.0 Evaluation of Statutory Controls
Inner West Local
Environmental

Clause 4.4
Objectives / Provision Compliance I1288

(e) to increase the tree canopy and to protect the
use and enjoyment of private properties and the
public domain.

Document claims it COMPLIES

Applicant states in Response

“There are no existing trees located on the subject
site, existing street trees are retained to provide
addition solar shading to the proposal.

Truth is actually this: there are two mature fruit trees over 5 metres tall in the front yard, as well as the stump of a mature palm tree that appears to have been a healthy specimen when chopped down. Out the back is the drastically chopped down healthy remainder of an orange tree that in 2025 stood at over 5 metres in height, next to an even bigger, more mature orange tree that was cut to the trunks that still grace the plant beds that this same document describes as mainly concrete and paving. In the plant beds that line the Queen St property boundary sits the tree stump remnants of another orange tree that’s shade and privacy giving canopy was over 5 metres tall, throwing into question what exactly Nader Corp and Cracknell & Lonergan are playing at here.

In 4.4.5 Clause 6.1 Acid Sulphate Soils
The subject site is located on land classified
as Class 5.
(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that
development does not disturb, expose or drain acid
sulfate soils and cause environmental damage

Applicant states that the plan COMPLIES because:

“ the proposed development does not seek to
conduct large scale excavation that would disturb,
expose or drain acid sulphate soils into the
environment, only minor amounts of excavation
necessary for footings will be required.”

That claim is highly unlikely given how much fall there is at 10 from each corner to every other corner, and it doesn’t take an expert to see that casually, right now, from the Calver Street pavement too. Retaining walls and big swathes of excavation and levelling and filling will probably need to be done, and done very slowly and carefully so as not to disturb the six residential plots all active right now, properties with 100+ year old foundations and walls and waste management and amenities lines that are simply going to have to be disturbed. Council and the community need a second opinion on this casual claim of two 5 bed behemoths only needing a little light excavation for footings, which is rather unlikely given just how big and heavy and overwhelming a double 5 bedder duplex with multiple 2.5 metre by 3 metre aluminium sliding doors at the side and back of both dwellings are going to require . Experts will most likely reveal the claim of needing only a tiny amount of excavation to be far from accurate when more involved, carefully considered, assessments are finally conducted.

In 4.0 Evaluation of Statutory Controls
4.4 Marrickville Development Control Plan
Objective / Provision

2.1.1.9 Principle 9: Sense of place and character in
streetscapes and townscapes
Recognise, preserve and enhance the characteristics that give places a valued identity and create high quality and distinctive streetscapes and townscapes

The applicant claims the plan COMPLIES because:

“ (there is a) predominant mix of one and two storey
detached and attached dwellings. (And) The proposed
development enhances and preserves this pattern
through providing contemporary semi-detached
dwellings that compliment the neighbouring
buildings, whilst maintaining the traditional front
yard and setbacks. The dwellings present as a
singular form to Calvert Street, whilst housing
two semi-detached dwellings. This preserves the
existing single form expression of the existing site
to Calvert Street.”

This statement, plainly put, is false. Every house from 1-36 on Calvert Street (without a single exception) features a front fence, front porch, a one room ground level deep setback behind the roof apex to subtly conceal the upstairs rooms and give the impression to the passer-by, that the houses are single story and only close scrutiny and a focused eye will reveal the upper living room section. The council and community deserve to know what measurements Nader Corp and C&L adhere to in asserting their clearly incongruous design somehow fits in to the neighbourhood styles because to most eyes the design really doesn’t. The setback provisions are off too, so to brazenly announce that these designs COMPLY is basically not true in any way whatsoever.

2.1.1.10 Principle 10: Consistency and diversity
Balance design consistency and diversity to create
order and interest

COMPLIES because (so it’s claimed):

“The proposal balances the need to maintain
a sense of consistency and diversity within a
consistent low-scale residential environment. The
use of the semi-detached typology increases
the diversity of housing options and typologies in
the area. The development adopts the desirable
characteristics of scale, form and materiality within
the area and interprets them for a contemporary
residential development.”

This statement is simply put, not even close to the truth. The idea that the development demonstrates desirable characteristics in scale, form and materiality within the area, are assuming the idea that there is some sort of desire to see two -story 5-bed plus new outside toilet semis made from mainly concrete and surfmist colourblind corrugated metal sheeting and an overabundance of glass, in a design that dwarfs and overshadows and invades the privacy and denies the current views and the present solar access for over three hours a day at the height of winter. Who are these mysterious people who harbour a desire to see houses with fronts further forward than their neighbours? Who is holding the wish to view rears built far further back from all their neighbours whose rears are all perfectly aligned (as are their fronts). The counter view to Nader Corp and C&L’s outlandish claims is this: maybe the character and style of the neighbourhood would be better served by Michael Nader and Nader Corp with Cracknell & Lonergan “ adopt(ing) the desirable characteristics of scale, form and materiality within
the area and interpret them for a contemporary
residential development” … by instead, subdividing the existing fair condition building, maintaining the existing front door and porch for the new 10, then build a hallway starting at the front door line of 14, with a new front door, then beyond the apex of the tiled roof create new rooms, in line with the principles that 8 abides by, with setbacks and gradients and windows that face away from its neighbours for everyone’s privacy.

2.1.1.11 Principle 11: Continuity and change
Enhance the sense of place and time by embracing change yet respecting heritage values

Statement claims it COMPLIES because:

“… the proposed
development (honours) key characteristics of the
surrounding neighbourhood (that have) informed
the proposal and the architectural style, scale and
built form. This semi-detached design presents as
a single dwelling form, whilst adapting to provide
for contemporary housing needs whilst being
sympathetic of the history of the area which has
come before.”

First up, the design does not present as a single dwelling form at all. There are two front doors and two driveways with carports at both extremities for goodness sake, and this tendency for the document to keep repeating the idea that the plan represents the right scale and balance and sympathy with neighbourhood character and style conveniently ignores the undeniable fact there are literally no houses on Calvert Street that have decks and windows on the upper fl, let alone ones that are significantly further forward than the ground floor rooms below them, seriously. The proposed plan does not actually COMPLY with setback rules really, and does not look like any other architecture on Calvert Street or on Queen Street, where the rear of 10 adjoins.

2.1.1.12 Principle 12: Sensory pleasure

Create places that engage the senses and delight
the mind

Now surprise surprise, the document claims it COMPLIES. and the unsubstantiated and rather obfuscating worded argument that Nader Corp and C&L make is that:

“… Through the articulation of two dwellings within
one form and the interplay of juxtaposing
materials and geometric patterns, the proposed
development creates multiple opportunities for
sensory delight along Calvert and throughout
the two sites. This sets a high standard of
contemporary design for the street scape and
brings delight and visual aesthetic.”

No. The plans do not “… set a high standard of
contemporary design for the street scape that
brings delight and visual aesthetic to Calvert Street.”

The plans are in actual fact, aesthetically incongruous to the current character and present style of the Calvert street scape, one that already has the delight of seeing mature trees fruiting in a fence front garden by a charming Federation adorned ornate porch with period features that are right now - a visual delight. A visual delight that will be vanquished by an application that employs word salad to describe overdevelopment.

Only no matter what flowery language is thrown into the mix, the fact still remains, “the (attempted) articulation of two dwellings within
one form and the interplay of juxtaposing
materials and geometric patterns, (of) the proposed
development (WILL MOST DEFINITELY NOT) create multiple opportunities for
sensory delight along Calvert street.

It will do the exact opposite. This argument holds no weight, and no credibility, it’s just a jumble of adjectives designed to make the clunky design sound like it’s going to look and be wonderful and in line with the look of the neighbourhood, when it won’t be, at all.

2.6.1 Objectives
O1 To ensure new development and alterations
and additions to existing buildings provide
adequate visual and acoustic privacy for the
residents and users of surrounding buildings.

COMPLIES

“The proposal is of an appropriate scale and
bulk, providing an appropriate level of visual and
acoustic privacy between the two buildings and
neighbouring dwellings. All living spaces are
oriented to the rear of the site, away from Calvert
Street for increased acoustic privacy. 1.8m high
rear garden fencing provide visual privacy between
the two dwellings and neighbouring properties.”

Not true. Living spaces are not all oriented to the rear, and acoustic privacy will not be increased, the opposite in fact. The design calls for 2.4 metre sliding aluminium doors at the side of the front of the house. Where currently there are bricks. Increased privacy my eye. 1.8 metre fencing exists between 8 & 10 already so mentioning that is literally pointless, and besides 2.4m minus 1.8 metres equals a face and shoulders of the person opening the three panel sliding doors at the front side of the house. What is written here in these documents is creative writing at best, sheer fantasy in other cases. Appropriate scale and bulk? It’s deeper, higher, more blocky and dwarfs every building around, how is that appropriate and to scale, exactly?

The false claims continue…

“To design and orientate new residential
development and alterations and additions to
existing residential buildings in such a way to
ensure adequate acoustic and visual privacy for
occupants.

COMPLIES

“The proposed development is situated with front
and rear setbacks appropriate to the existing
forms on the site and surrounding building
setbacks. Areas with greater noise generation,
such as outdoor decks and living spaces are
orientated to the rear, away from Calvert Street
and in line with adjacent residential properties.
Bedrooms are located facing to the front, side
and rear boundaries, where window openings are
articulated in a manner to maintain acoustic and
visual privacy both from neighbours and the public
domain.”

Cough cough, brand-new off-street parking for dirty noisy cars and sliding aluminium doors to the side and open decks above 8’s porch. No acoustic and visual privacy is being maintained with any part of this application.

O3 To ensure new development does not
unreasonably impact on the amenity of residential
and other sensitive land uses by way of noise or
vibration.

COMPLIES

“The proposed development does not adversely
affect the amenity of neighbouring residential
properties. The proposed development is
consistent with the existing pattern of dwellings
in the area.”

It is not consistent in any way. A knockdown/rebuild will take well over a year, massive disruption and untold pollution and heavy vibration from excavation and the essential levelling of land, land that is extremely uneven from corner to corner, and all the unbearable noise, immeasurable dust, masses of debris and hazardous toxins that are both unearthed and used in construction in various painful stages, will be a nightmare for this quiet neighbourhood. The applicant even wants to turn the spot where the stormwater goes to the street after passing various amenity supply spots into a pavement crossover for concreted off-street parking, yet nonsensically talks about minimal excavation and negligible risk of danger to neighbourhood amenities, their interruptions, or worse still, long term catastrophic disruption.

ii. Elevated external decks for dwelling houses
must generally be less than 10m2 in area and
have a depth not greater than 1.5 metres so as to
minimise privacy and noise impacts to surrounding
dwellings;

COMPLIES

“The proposal includes small scale front and rear
balconies extending off private bedrooms.”

This contradicts the claim that only open spaces and living spaces are out the back. I must call that out.

“All
balconies do exceeding the maximum area of 3.3
sqm for each and the depths are not greater than
1.5m to minimise privacy and noise impacts to the
semi-detached buildings and adjacent dwellings.”

So what? Literally no house on calvert Street have upper story front balconies of any size because the setbacks to making the street scape a single story fronted one - the characteristics of this neighbourhood - prohibit it.

“There are no significant view loss or impacts to
the visual privacy of the adjoining lots.”

This is a pants-on-fire lie. The applicant wants to build two stories further back than where the single story rear end of 10 stops now. The build literally steals 8’s view of the sun from midday to sunset in the height of winter even.

“The existing windows facing the side boundary at
No. 8 Calvert Street do not visually align with the
proposed windows to the subject site Lot A.”

I think you’ll find that’s not quite true. Those sliding doors will be very much seen from the front ground floor sash window attached to the main home study/guest room/media room that is used day and night all year round.

“The
windows at No. 8 are located above 1.6m from
Lot A’s level one floor level
therefore the proposal
does not require screening or privacy measures to
be put in place.”

No. It should simply not be allowed because having windows higher than 8’s is a tacit admission that the build is going to block solar access to 8’s upper windows for over three hours a day all year round. The applicant’s claims have inconsistencies and holes in their arguments everywhere in this lacklustre document.

C4 Air-conditioning
i. Air-conditioning units must be appropriately
soundproofed from any habitable room of an
adjoining property;

COMPLIES

Air conditioning units are appropriately
soundproofed and located away from habitable
rooms of both the proposed and adjoining
properties.

GREAT. BUT WHERE EXACTLY? At 76 Yelveston Street Sydenham, C & L designed a house that has air con units sitting on the upper decks outside. In other words, not hidden from passers by and not soundproofed in any way. How was it that C&L and the developers were able to get away with this, given the rules? Please investigate.

ii. Where an air-conditioning unit cannot be
located within a building, it must be concealed in
a structure that has been designed or located to
minimise any visual impacts and reduce noise to
a level acceptable when heard from any habitable
room of an adjoining/adjacent dwelling

NOT
APPLICABLE Really? Why?

“The air-conditioning unit is proposed to be located
within the buildings rear courtyard space, as such
will not be visible from the external facade.”

Just the neighbours at 8 and 14 Calvert Street being made to look at them and listen to them hum then, is that the idea? Neighbours don’t want to see your air con units. Hide them elsewhere so no one sees them. I urge council to compel the applicants to do the right thing on this matter.

C1 Shadow diagrams must show the effect in
plan and elevation view of existing and proposed
overshadowing for June 21 at hourly intervals
between 9.00am and 3.00pm. Shadow diagrams
at only 9.00am, 12.00 noon and 3.00pm may be
acceptable where it can be clearly demonstrated
that any shadowing of a window, landscaped area
or private open space of an adjoining building will
receive solar access in accordance with Council
requirements. The shadow diagrams must:
i. Be drawn to an appropriate scale (generally
1:100 or 1:200);
ii. Use different colours or style to clearly
differentiate between existing and proposed
shadows;
iii. Indicate the outline of neighbouring buildings
impacted by existing and/or proposed shadowing,
including the location of any windows, skylights,
private open spaces, clothes drying areas, PV
panels and/or solar hot water systems;
iv. Specify the use of the rooms that have windows
or skylights that are impacted by the existing or
proposed shadowing; and
v. Indicate and use the true north point (not
magnetic north).
COMPLIES Shadow diagrams have been at half-hourly
intervals during March 21st and June 21st between
9am and 3pm in plan, view from the sun diagrams
are additionally provided to further clarify the
shadow effects of the proposed development.

My response to this shadow document cannot be understated. It is not telling even a fraction of the full story of how the applicant’s overdevelopment blocks 8’s solar access in key living areas for over three hours a day on June 21 (and therefore also every other day of the year too).

I ask council to make an independent assessment of the solar access impact, and to investigate thoroughly the claims about visual and acoustic privacy, and scrutinize all the misleading claims about there being no trees at 10. The applicant also need to put the location for air con units on plans, as well as private poles which would be needed for a knock down rebuild, and impact assessments on excavations, the need for retaining walls, asbestos, termites and other hazardous potentials must also be gone over by independent assessor’s with a fine tooth comb given the enormity of the undertaking that the applicant treats so casually, as regards its impact to the neighbours who will be disrupted by it, and will lose privacy and solar access and will be exposed to hazards and toxins for many many months on end.

As regards the Statement of
Environmental Effects
10-12 Calvert Street, Marrickville
Gadigal Country

Proposal:
Semi-Detached Houses with
Subdivision

2.7.3 Solar access for surrounding buildings

C2 Direct solar access to windows of principal living areas and principal areas of open space of
nearby residential accommodation must:

i. Not be reduced to less than two hours between
9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June; or
ii. Where less than two hours of sunlight is
currently available on 21 June, solar access
should not be further reduced. However, if the
development proposal results in a further decrease
in sunlight available on 21 June, Council will
consider:
a. The development potential of the site;
b. The particular circumstances of the
neighbouring site(s), for example, the proximity of
any residential accommodation to the boundary,
the resultant proximity of windows to the boundary,
and whether this makes compliance difficult;
c. Any exceptional circumstances of the subject
site such as heritage, built form or topography; and
d. Whether the sunlight available in March to
September is significantly reduced, such that it
impacts upon the functioning of principal living
areas and the principal areas of open space.
To ensure compliance with this control, separate
shadow diagrams for the March/September
period must be submitted in accordance with the
requirements of C1;
Where less than two hours of sunlight is currently
available on 21 June and the proposal is not
reducing it any further, Council will still consider
the merits of the case having regard to the above
criteria described in points a to d.

VARIATION SOUGHT

The egregious application flagrantly admits:

“The proposed development reduces the direct
solar access to windows of principal living areas of
the neighbouring 8 Calvert Street to less than 2hrs
for the ground floor of the neighbour.”

Now let’s pause on that point. 8 only has windows right next to the 8/10 boundary, 8’s windows are all there, because 8 is 100+ year old Federation semi, adjoined to 6 by a solid wall to the east. The ground floor of 8’s principle living rooms are already darker than is ideal.

But here’s the big thing. Michael Bader and Nader Corp’s plans will reduce the 8 upstairs windows solar access by over two hours on June 21 and longer on the other 364/365 days a year.

There is no good argument that 10 should be allowed the random variant Michael Nader and Nader Corp seek. It’s supremely cynical, it’s flagrantly opportunistic , and it’s also life-shattering to the resident/owners of 8, people with health problems that are exacerbated when solar access is not present.

And if what Michael Bader and Nader Corp seek with this unwarranted variant being sought is given it, it’s an injustice that will be fought tooth and nail, I promise you that.

The awful application goes on to claim:
“… the existing building (at 10) footprint already provides a similar level of overshadowing.”

Utter nonsense. This is a false claim, plain and simple. Presently, the structure at 10 roughly adheres to the silhouette of 8 as it is today, (albeit with a rogue, substandard, dilapidated outside shed with laundry machines and an outside toilet that has panels and sharp nails and flaked paint falling off the shoddy exterior, a tatty outdoor shed that cannot be classified as part of the existing main house at 10, even though Michael Nader and Nader Corp are giving it a go., The deficient out-house with a toilet and laundry inside, has guttering under 2metres in height, which is - as a matter of fact- a far cry from a double story solid concrete house structure standing over 5m high, a monstrosity the applicants claim to be “providing a similar level of overshadowing” to the sub-2m, substandard shed with toilet and laundry and no internal door to the existing house at 10, which quite frankly does not compare.

I repeat, a sub 2 metre silhouette of an illegally placed outhouse is not … “providing a similar level of overshadowing” … to two stories of five metre plus house with decks that allow the 10 residents to peer into 8’s outside entertaining area while chatting and listening to music and so on and so forth.

Important to note here, is how 8,6,4 and 2 all currently share the exact same back door line (you could get a laser out and see just how aligned the neighbouring properties are). Now this line was trespassed already at 10 thanks to the illegally placed outhouse wreck that the applicant is wrongly trying to make council believe is part of the existing house structure at 10.

The rogue shed structure that is falling apart right now, is in fact, a dilapidated outhouse that is currently pushing over the fence that 10 shares with 8, a fence that the 10 overdeveloper/owner refuses to repair even though settlement occurred many months ago now in March 2026.
A not-fit-for-purpose shed, and a badly built one at that, that has no internal door leading to the existing 10 house right now, which is surely a prerequisite for a “room” being part of a main house, definition-wise, as far as I’ve been told.

But now back to the applicant’s disgusting claims they are making in order to attempt literal daylight robbery from 8, a bad practice they seem to confidently believe they are gong to get away with.

Nader Corp and C&L go on to say:

“Despite the reduction in
solar access during mid-winter, other season of
solar access are retained and is not dramatically
reduced due to the proposed development.”

This is a nonsensical claim. I repeat, this is false, it is wrong, it has no bearing on reality, in any way imaginable. The residents at 8 deserve the solar access everyone gets July 21. I wonder how Michael Nader of Nader Corp would feel if his next door neighbour was trying to get council to make him living in a darker house so his neighbour can make like bandit and rake in big real estate overdevelopment profits at the expense of him. I imagine Micael Nader would push back.

But the casual, misleading, false claims don’t stop there. Michael Nader at Nader Corp and his associates at C&L go on to assert that:

“Measures in reducing overshadowing have been
considered in the proposed design, this includes
aligning the front and rear setbacks to the adjoining
lots and a limitation on the overall building height
despite the maximum permissible height of 9.5m,
the proposal aims to retain a reasonable height to
reduce overshadowing affects on the neighbouring
property.”

The applicant wants his flowers for not going up to 9.5 metres high, but as I’m sure the applicant realises this is irrelevant. It’s a distraction to make the applicant seem so humble and reasonable, whilst in fact, continuing to make false claims about aligning front and rear. For clarity, putting a car port structure where there is no front structure and a two story structure with open decks where currently there is a porch and only a ground level, and also putting 2.4m by 3-4m heavy sliding doors at the side in front of 8’s main home study/bedroom/media room that needs its solar access, then out the back, having two stories up way back from 8’s actual rear doors, is I’m sad to say, proof that Nader Corp and C & L are showing great economy with the truth.

But the unhinged ask for variations do the applicant can make more money quickly continues, for the document then says:

“The proposed development has been designed in consideration with overshadowing affects in mind and has provided acceptable measures to reduce overshadowing or the
diminishing of residential amenity to the
neighbouring property of 8 Calvert Street.”

These words represent a deviation from the reality of what Nader Corp and C&L are attempting here. The application actually represents:

“The proposed development has been designed with little to no consideration of overshadowing affects in mind and has absolutely not provided acceptable measures to reduce overshadowing or the
diminishing of residential amenity to the
neighbouring property of 8 Calvert Street, in any way whatsoever.”

I invite Nader Corp and C & L to walk the council through the methodology that has led to these wild assertions that quite simply don’t hold up to interrogation, scrutiny or real world, true to life challenges.

There’s more …

Objective / Provision Compliance Response/ Comment
3.2.2 Residential Torrens title subdivision and amalgamation controls
O3 To retain the prevailing cadastral character of
the street.

COMPLIES. How?

“The proposed pattern of subdivision introduces
subdivision lines running from SW to NE direction,
with both lots being 6.095 metres in width. This is
consistent with the established prevailing cadastral
pattern of narrow lots ranging from 5 to 8 metres
in width along Calvert Street and allotments within
the local area. As the site only has one street
frontage, the proposed subdivision pattern is the
most logical and practical execution of subdivision
available to the subject site.”

Totally not true. “ the
most logical and practical execution of subdivision
available to the subject site” … would be to subdivide the existing brick and tile building, create a new entrance on the existing 10 driveway, remove the shonky laundry/toilet outhouse, the garage, car port, courtyard awning, pizza oven and queen st boundary shed, align the rears of f the new 10 & 12 to 8,6,4 & 2’s so all houses can enjoy the nature at sunset at their rear doors, and extend up carefully and in line with the neighbours upper extension, and redesigning in a way that doesn’t take 8’s precious solar access, because that would be straightforward.

The applicant then goes on to state this:

“Therefore, the proposed subdivision does retain
the streets prevailing cadastral character.”

Well, if we are going with the actual definition of: “Retaining cadastral character”, it is worth remembering that in urban planning it means preserving the existing, traditional pattern of land subdivision—such as typical lot widths, depths, shapes, and street orientation—so that any new development or subdivision matches the historical layout of the neighbourhood.

The modern, hulking, overwhelming concrete/metal/glass dominated proposal is in fact, not “retaining Retaining cadastral character in urban planning means preserving the existing, traditional pattern of land subdivision—such as typical lot widths, depths, shapes, and street orientation—so that any new development or subdivision matches the historical layout of the neighborhood is in fact not “retaining Cadastral character” because it is defined as single story fronted homes, with cozy porches, Federation ornamentation, garden fencing, typically housing small families of no more than four people on 6 metre wide lots that if they go up, go up behind the roof’s high point, and are set back at the rear and given only small high windows for light and ventilation into a bathroom, to maintain all of the neighbour’s privacy rights, which they all cherish.

I ask the council to investigate, what grounds is Michael Nader and Nader Corp seeking a variant to 8’s existing solar access, for? There should be good reason that a neighbour be forced to lose light, privacy, and quality of life that is above and beyond making a lot of money quickly, surely?

Michael Nader and Nader Corp seek to place twice the number of windows that its eastern next door number 8 has installed already, an attempted fourfold increase of windows that Bader Corp want to face 8’s west facing wall that holds the vast majority of 8’s windows (because 8 is a semi with a shared eastern wall) and it’s east facing windows get solar access from morning to sunset all year round). And to put the absolutely outrageous attempt to trample on 8’s visual and audio privacy rights in perspective in this comment section, currently there are just three windows installed at 10 that face 8. One is a small, high privacy/ventilation window for the bathroom that is presently not actually private because it’s a plantation shutter style array of dappled and frosted glass that is currently broken, and missing one panel of glass entirely, something clearly viewed from 8’s kitchen sink window and only external rear access route from the kitchen to the waste bins. The second window at 10 that faces 8, is 10’s kitchen window that prior to March 25 had plantation style shutters that gave 8 and 10 privacy from one another, shutters that were removed permanently for some reason. Now, the residents at 8 are made to see straight into 10’s kitchen window (so 8 owners have installed privacy film to counter this development), for 10’s kitchen is the room where all 5 tenants generally congregate at meal times.

All of that aside, the documents in Nader Corp and C&L’s application boast that the desired new build will be more private because there’s to be a 1.8 metre fence to protect the residents of 8’s privacy. However, this statement is entirely irrelevant.

Why?

Because right now, as I write, a 1.8 metre fence already stands (precariously) at the 8/10 boundary, a 1.8 metre fence that is currently already there, actually proving that C&L and Nader Corp’s claims of increasing privacy to be preposterous nonsense, for using their own poorly presented arguments, the 1.8 metre fence should already be providing terrific levels of both audio and visual privacy, that “delights the senses”. But the thing is, right now the privacy provisions are already woefully inadequate, they are just not there. On top of that, privacy problems will be critically exacerbated to the extreme if the deluge of windows on the east side of 10 is allowed.

An important point to note is, that although the 8/10 boundary fence is ALREADY 1.8 metres high (measured from the side path surfaces either side of the 8/10 boundary), the internal height of 8’s flooring throughout the inside of that property is a touch under half a metre higher than the external path surfaces. In other words, Nader Corp and C&L’s outlandish proposal to simply replace a 1.8 metre fence with the exact same thing and present it as evidence of an improvement in audio and visual privacy to the residents of 8 - a ludicrous thing to claim of course, for the laws of physics dictate that an increase of 400% in opening windows used by a higher concentration of human occupancy will not improve privacy, audio-wise or visually or with light pollution either, because what is already seen from 8’s windows over the 1.8 metre fence that ALREADY EXISTS effectively only acts as a fence that is merely a smudge over 1.2 metres tall, so when 8 residents look through their ground floor windows they see their neighbours heads in the bathroom shower (through that broken window), and heads and shoulders and gesticulating arms through the kitchen window (a window that inexplicably had all shading removed post-settlement).

As regards the third of 10’s existing east facing windows, the small sash window is unavoidably visible from both 8’s main living room and ground floor primary home study/bedroom/media room. But at least the sash bedroom window has curtains that are used.

Nader Corp and C&L’s claim that the replacement of the sash windows which are less than 1 by 2 metres in size, for three gargantuan 2.4 metre/almost 3 metre wide heavy sliding aluminium doors, will somehow bring about an improvement to 8’s audio and visual privacy, which is pure fantasy obviously.

On top of all that C&L and Nader Corp have the gall to claim living areas are all facing the rear when the three huge doors most certainly do not, and neither does the front open deck area that allows 10 residents to peer down on the 8 residents as they exit their front door and pass their front garden and walk through the picket fence gate. Not to mention how even the rear deck which also has an open space that allows 10 residents to look down on the residents at 8 - through 8’s rear doors and straight at the family kitchen table inside as well as the kitchen island too. Hows that not an invasion of a family’s privacy, really?

In summary, this application prepared by C&L for Michael Nader and Nader Corp, appears to be to have been filled in starting with the word COMPLIES, then an argument reverse-engineered yet not cross-referenced or double-checked to actual facts or even common understandings of what audio visual privacy is or even apply actual scientific logic to how sounds and light interact with the proposed building vis-a-vis how sound and light interact between the dwellings at 8 and 10 right now, with just five residents currently living on the entire 10 lot (a number Bader Corp want to more than double). And it’s worth noting that the tenants at 10 right now, are utilising just three east facing windows that are all considerably smaller (all under 2 by 2 metres), than the plethora of big new windows set to assault the senses of 8 residents quite considerably, and in a way that most certainly not delight them.

With such outrageous claims being reverse engineered to justify somehow that the plan COMPLIES, it goes to show how utterly unreasonable the demand to block the light in all 8’s west facing windows (and the north east and south west ground floor windows of 8 too, I might add), for VARIANT SOUGHT at least shows an understanding from C&L and Nader Corp that they can’t fudge the facts and present any sort of serious legitimate case for COMPLIANCE because there simply is none. Blocking a residential dwelling ground floor light for over two hours in the depth of winter is a flagrant disregard of a citizen’s right to experience the health benefits of solar access, and Nader Corp and C & L are so blind to the egregious nature of this heinous ask they don’t actually even offer any type of reasonable argument why a home dweller should have their solar access denied in such a blatantly ruthless fashion. The self-entitlement inherent in this demand to take 8’s winter daylight is unpleasant, unwarranted and simply put, unacceptable and dare I say unAustralian.

On behalf of Michael Nader and Nader Corp., Cracknell & Lonergan are asking council and the community to essentially close off the footpath to all pedestrians for the entire duration of the proposed knockdown/level/refill/rebuild job at 10, which will realistically take over a year to do properly and safely and without causing chaos in the community, given how uneven the plot of land 10 sits on is, and how it borders 5 other residential properties with varied ground heights and 100+ year old foundations - in some cases - and amenities and supply infrastructures across all
of the boundary lines, therefore requiring more excavation and filling and retaining wall construction than is being acknowledged in the application, with a glaring absence of information about where private poles and air con units are to be located, and confusing mistakes included in documentation like placing 2000 litre water tanks where plant life is designated in other diagrams, not to mention all the nasty things that still may be discovered behind wall and ceiling concealments in such an old existing Federation structure, stuff like asbestos and termite nests, and what Nader Corp is in a rush to achieve is too unnecessarily disruptive for a whole community to do without use of their pavement (on the side of Calvert Street that has no rear access lane to the back of the even-numbered properties situated the tree) for months and months and months on end.

In reality, the existing layout of 10 would be more than adequate to house skip bins and stockpiles on the concrete driveway beyond the pavement crossover 10 already uses. Development of 10, can (and should) proceed without the closing of the public footpath ( a spot by the way, that the residents of 8 need to access for telecommunications and other amenity supply lines and waste and management infrastructure.

C & L (on behalf of Michael Nader of Nader Corp, Belmore) falsely claim that a knockdown/rebuild is the “only logical” option for development …

… The truth is, the most logical development option for subdivision into a pair of family semis that aligns with the street scape character and neighbourhood charm and will present visual aesthetic delights is to:

1. Preserve the existing brick walled, tiled roof part of the existing house at number 10 now.
2. Put skip bins on the 10 driveway in preparation for the removal of the sub-standard non-house structures including the laundry/outdoor toilet abomination pushing down the fence into 8’s backyard.
3. Proceed to carefully remove all sub-standard non-house structures on the property, starting with that dilapidated, laundry/outside toilet shed, the garage, the small metal tool storage shed, the pizza oven, the unsightly car port, the hills hoist, the enormous satellite dish, and the rear courtyard corrugated metal awning (all shoddy items I can’t believe will be recycled on the whole as is claimed in the documentation), then also dig up the front garden section where only bushes, grass and the stump of a once mature palm tree remain.
4. Once all of the substandard structures are gone and the garden patch next to the driveway is laid bear, use that old garden patch spot that is adjacent to the driveway for stockpiling, and continue using the existing concrete driveway as a skip park for removed material. The pavement crossover will make truck collection and drop off easier than assigning a spot to the kerbed pavement and denying the community a walkway it relies on.
5. Spruce up the facade and restore the porch to its former glory, and move the two mature trees further forward in the garden- if necessary - to allow for light through the porch windows, that would be fair. I’d support that.
6. Abandon the ask for another concrete driveway that would kill a shared kerbside path for the entire neighbourhood, and replace the rusty, broken front perimeter fence with something that is sympathetic to the neighbour’s fence styles, the ones that are in close proximity.
7. Build a hallway corridor with sloping roof along the east side of the house (with a new front door for the new number 12 that is no more forward than number 14’s front door is).
8. From behind the apex of 10’s existing roof (which is already the tallest roof in the immediate vicinity) build up, but no further up and no further back than 8 has been allowed. The rear of 10 must be single-story to adhere to what all neighbours around them have.
9. Add no more windows facing west so as to ACTUALLY respect 8’s audio/ visual privacy rights, and not propose to violate them while falsely claiming that the violation will happen, when of course it will. It has to, it’s inevitable thanks to the laws of logic and science and plain common sense..
10. Align the ground floor rear to the back doors of 2,4,6 and 8, so all five neighbours’ dwellings can equally experience the sun setting on nature at dusk, a view the owners and residents of 2,4,6 & 8 all treasure and cherish right now. And also align precisely the upper rear of 10 & 12 to 8’s small frosted upper ventilation/solar access bathroom window that 8 has at the rear of the property upstairs and go no further back, plus also slope 10’s upper roof away from 8’s west side so as not to block 8’s upper room solar access for over two hours on a winters day as the present plan outrageously calls for, at the moment.

The 10 points stated above, are actually the most logical development move in reality, with the added benefit of setting out to minimise disruption, pollution, and excessive demolition, digging and construction noise, dust agitation and debris creation, and will reduce the overall construction time, and crucially allow for the keeping open of the pavement during all
of the development phases, and helping alleviate stress and mitigate problems with local parking by enabling the street parks to be entirelyfree in the evenings so Calvert street residehts can park their cars overnight without the additional skip disruptions a knockdown/level/retain/rebuild project like the one C&L and Nader Corp are wrongly claiming is the only logical development option available.

And crucially, doing the 10 things suggested above, is also the most logical way to maintain and improve the current character and charm and dare I say heritage of the Calvert street scape.

To most people I know, the existing number 10 is a wonderfully attractive shaped house that already delights the senses of passers by and neighbours alike, which is not something anyone I&ve spoken to are saying about the C&L drawings presented in this application.

I urge the council and the community gatekeepers to allow the true logic of modifying an exiting building in “fair condition”, over the ruthless smash and replace proposition that C&L and Nader Corp insist is the only logical option, when of course, it just isn’t at all.

Preservation and modification and prettifcation is - in reality- the most logical and least chaotic and disruptive way to go with a sub-dividing development of 10, given the uneven land, the specific streetscape aesthetic that boasts only single story facades with one-room plus setbacks front and rear, an aesthetic C&L and Nader Corp seem to not be able to get too grips with.

I oppose the application, specifically the erection of car port awnings on the grounds that no other property on Calvert Street can be seen from the next door’s neighbours front doors, because the only two car ports in the immediate vicinity, (both on north facing Calvert lots) align to the front porch boundaries of the adjacent properties (see numbers 16 to 24 Calvert the specific stretch where the discreetly hidden car ports are situated in appropriate set backs. It is worth noting that both 14 & 16, the nearest properties to 10 with exciting driveways, neither have car port awnings creating visual impairment and solar blocking and shadowing to their neighbours front windows, an eventuality that will come to fruition if Michael Nader and the Nader Corp Pty Ltd company based out in Belmore, get the unprecedented ask that is not in keeping with the aesthetic, character and generally fenced-off, non-front-structured-entrance-yard feel of the neighbourhood as it currently stands.

I respectfully request council to compel the developers to use the existing driveway beyond the pavement as the site entrance for developments works if and when they finally get underway.

This is the logical way to go, for as the applicant has already admitted, there will be no major excavation needed to the driveway in any case - regardless of whether the proposed plan or any alternative ultimately comes to fruition. The existing driveway already has the curb-less pavement cross over to accomodate vehicles and given the tall mature palm that used to be on the garden has been removed (except the stump), the flat land that sits next to the driveway is the perfect spot for the builders to a lot supplies and concrete machines and buzz saws and such, rather than right next to 8, a house full of people who are allergic to construction pollution and tiny air borne sawn-off material particles.

Having a tip on the pavement where the 8 residents must wheel waste bins and sports equipment to and from the side path to the rear garden will flare up existing medical conditions in an unpleasant, uncomfortable Nd unhealthy way. I oppose full demolition for all these reasons also, as well as the minimization and mitigation of lengthy disruption to pavement use, parking and traffic congestion upsurge that will result from a knockdown/refill/retain perimeters/build from scratch job that will take at least double the time a subdivision and modification of the existing house at 10, if reimagined as a pair of three bedroom family homes, which would be the logical way to proceed if the community’s day to day life and activities are to be allowed to proceed without crippling disruption bought on by excessive pollution, noise, congestion, rerouting and parking pressure that’s likely to drag on well over a year.

Respectfully, the shadow diagrams claiming to have been sourced in late June, 2026 between 9am and 3pm demonstrate nothing of any substance and are found lacking in any - even cursory - attempts to attend to the 2 hour plus blocking of solar access that the following properties will be forced to endure should the VARIANT SOUGHT by the applicant, to a rule put in place to protect neighbours rights to solar access for specific stretches (especially on the coldest, darkest 24 hours of the year), be entertained.

1. Number 14 will suffer over two hours of solar blocking between 9am and 1130am from a more than twofold rise in the front facade, and the erection of a carport, and a seven metre private pole for electricity supply that C&L have conveniently neglected to point out in plans, despite the fact that multiple recent properties designed by C&L (on Yelverton Street, Sydenham - also under Inner West council domain) , were all installed with fat, seven metre high, metal poles in the front corner of each property on the boundaries with the existing older next-door-down properties, big shadow casting columns they are.

2. Number 6, 4 and 2 will all have their solar access blocked by the back of the two story behemoth the applicant wants to erect, literally killing the light that 6,4 and 2 rely on to warm and nourish their gardens and their rear living spaces that are indoor outdoor spaces mainly, while also destroying those neighbours views of the sun setting, which incidentally are all the same issues 8 will experience in front of, and behind the glass back doors the owners recently installed to take advantage of the daylight, only the negative impact inflicted on 8 will be far worse than 6, 4 and 2, who all regardless of that fact, will still lose over two hours of light in their back yards and rear facing rooms on the shortest winter day of every year moving forward, which is quite simply against the rules. I figure the variant sought is also an attempt to deny 2,4, and 6’s solar rights, only the shadow diagrams bear no imagery that even vaguely elude to this being what will happen.

But science is science, and blocky two-story concrete blocks with seven metre high roofs will unavoidably and significantly cast remarkably large shade spots, much larger and more devastating than the ones that single story structures that slope down gently to guttering that’s barely two metres, despite how the applicant flagrantly claims the plans are roughly in line with the “setbacks and scale” there at 10 already. These are words that contradict reality and are easy to disprove, I might add.

3. The properties at numbers 7, 9 & 11 will all have well over two hours of solar access devastated in the rear of their properties too, because the giant structure’s height is going to be blocking light to Queen St rears big time from 9 am to noon and beyond, all year round.

Before allowing a plan of this scale and nature to be put into action, I respectfully request that council call for a proper shadow casting investigation to be conducted on the shortest day of the year (June,21).

If that seems to long away, perhaps the applicant could scale back the development to allow for all neighbours to retain all their present solar access, their present views from their living spaces inside and out, by pulling together a design where front doors and back doors maintain privacy FOR ALL.

It is also crucial to note that the applicant is attempting to use the shoddy outdoor toilet/external laundry shed that has no door into the existing house and is made of internal-graded plaster board and cheap ply, and is illegally stepping over the 8 boundary and pushing the boundary fence over into the 8 back yard is part of the house, the precedent to blow out the setbacks beyond the neighbours’ rear door alignment, when the actual back door of the existing house structure at 10 presently, is set back further than 2,4,6, and 8 which are all perfectly aligned.

To be clear, the owner residents at 8 have no problem with the applicant developing a duplex on the current 10 lot, and will not oppose the developers bringing their rear door a little further back to align with 8’s. But to claim that shoddy laundry shed/outdoor toilet is part of the house would not be right or appropriate, and the owner/resident at 8 politely asks h to get it be removed immediately, and the one metre set back side path be maintained and the boundary fence be fixed immediately too.

Cracknell & Lonergan, on behalf of Nader Corp are arguing in their documentation for an extremely rushed demolition/rebuild that requires the total annihilation of all present structures on site, with the tenuous argument being that this type of development: “…is the only logical way” to create a duplex of family dwellings on the lot (when divided in half).

Well this statement couldn’t be further from the truth. You see, another undeniably logical way to proceed - one that minimises disruption, pollution and pain to all concerned as the phases are carefully stepped through, would be to go in logical, measured stages y to hat benefit the process immeasurably. For instance, it is logical also to proceed with:

1. The immediate removal of the dangerously decrepit outside laundry/outdoor toilet shed currently pushing the boundary fence over into 8’s back yard, and this removal can be instantly replaced by a smaller skinnier solidly constructed, purpose-built outdoor laundry/toilet shed that also respects 8’s side and rear setback rights. On the same day the new laundry/toilet outhouse readily available at various retail outlets, the new addition could be plumbed into exiting points with ease. thus minimally impacting the lives of present residents at 10 and those at 8 too. This plan could utilise the off street driveway for supplies and waste removal as well, mitigating neighbourhood disruption of the public pavement and local parking options while 10 still has paying tenants.
2. Fix the the fences at a time convenient to the 10 and 8 residents next.
3. Repair the broken bathroom window and it’s shoddy window awning for the good of the 10 tenants privacy as well as the neighbours at 8 right after the laundry/toilet and fence are fixed
4. Remove the broken gates asap.
5. Remove the carport at the convenience of the 10 and 14 residents.
6. Remove the garage at the convenience of the current 10 and 14 residents.
7. Remove the pizza oven house at the convenience of the 10 residents soon after that.
8. Remove the tool shed out-house at the residents at 10’s convenience next.
9. Remove the trunks and roots of the various trees that were destroyed in the garden, at 10 residents convenience now the shoddy add on structures are gone..
10. Now, with the worst of the external blights removed, investigate what the levels are on the 10 property grounds and what actions must be taken to create even surfaces and foundations that do not threaten the land on the surrounding five residential properties on Calvert and Queen Street. Surveys that should be comprehensive in their scrutiny and fastidious fact checking.
11. Now knowing the lay of land and what’s lurking in the rear yard and at the side boundaries much better, redesign a duplex that genuinely respects the solar access, honestly minimises both visual and audio privacy, maintains views the neighbours rely on for health, plant life and laundry needs, then resubmit a few months before the tenants at number ten give up their rental lease, so as not lose cash flow.
12. With the existing 10 house now empty, do a proper investigation into what is lurking behind concealments in the walls ceilings and floors, to be sure that hazardous pollutants are quarantined and dealt with safely, sensitively, and with great care indeed.
13. Once the land has been levelled, secured at its boundaries, all toxic materials removed, then begin whatever demolition requirements the approved plans call for, and on this note, it would be very logical and quite possibly economical and surprisingly cost effective to maintain the aesthetics and materials of the existing facade to the roof high point, and the hallway and front rooms that are already in the existing structure of 10, a building the application recognises as being in “fair condition” so why not take advantage of this acknowledged fact and literally build upon it. There’s nothing irrational about that idea.
14. Next up, build a new add on corridor (with solid, good quality materials) near the 14 boundary for a front door and for room access via a corridor/hallway.
15. Build back to the rear of 8’s single story extremity (and no further), and build up to where 8’s second story finishes with a bathroom that has small, high, obscured (frosted) glass windows that maintain ALL the neighbour’s privacy, and mirror that precedent for the new 10 and 12
dwellings by all means, as long as the fall of the roof slope and windows installed for solar access do not invade the next door neighbours existing privacy rights in any way whatsoever.
16. Finish off the build by replacing all four rear trees that were illegally cut back in late 2025, as well as the mature tree that was destroyed out the front, and move the mature fruit trees forward in the front gardens - by all means- to allow better solar access for 10’s single story front windows (as per rules and neighbourhood architectural character alignment).

That - in my humble opinion - is very much a logical way to proceed with the development of 10, a logical series of suggestions that would deliver the creation of the duplex of multi-bedded family semis the applicant is in a hurry to get completed, a series of suggestions I might add, that will be cheaper to execute than a knockdown/rebuild on ridiculously uneven ground that shares boundaries with 5 other low density residential properties, that have surfaces that do not align in any way or anywhere when you really look at what’s happening at those boundaries (and this includes the fall that passers by can easily just see themself by casually taking a look.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m actually looking forward to seeing 10 transformed into two charming semis that fit in to this wonderful neighbourhood, but that said, they will both have to genuinely adhere to the solar access, privacy and neighbourhood character rules that many properties in the vicinity were - quite rightly - given strict rules and guidelines to adhere to when conducting renovation/modifications, especially when previous plans lodged by Calvert Street owners from 1-8 appeared to encroach even the tiniest part of a neighbours rights to solar access, privacy, or appeared to risk a sudden uptick in various pollutions and disruptions from a dramatic one-off increase in occupancy potential and the pressure that puts on local amenities, and the waste and management upsurge that comes with cramming two five bed properties and a mysterious outside toilet on the rear boundary, an obvious attempt - in my opinion - to make the property have potential for a garden retreat (using an erection in the future that is exempt from building codes). A garden retreat with plumbing that can be used … maybe … perhaps … possibly… as an extra outside room to sleep and wash and eat in, to all intents and purposes making it a small studio, at least that’s what I assume the idea is there.

If I am wrong, which of course I could be, I still respectfully ask why on Earth it is that Nader Corp want a WC at the end of the garden in 12, but not 10?

If my assumption to the intention of the lonely back fence toilet is wrong, which I accept may be the case, I am still struggling to see how I would be wrong about what appears to be something quite obvious “to add value” come sell off day.

The application claims to be presenting plans that look like a unified single dwelling to the passer by, and that the ‘only logical way” to achieve this is to knock down and put up what C&L have drawn for Micheal Nader and Nader Corp.

A duplex that presents as a single dwelling on first impression, however, will have to do a few things to achieve that “first blush” illusion.

1. A duplex presenting as a single dwelling to the casual onlooker will have only one entrance door visible at the front. The expand entrance door will be concealed somehow, discreetly, at the side, logically, like with 16 & 18 Calvert St just two doors down from 10.

2. A duplex presenting as a single dwelling from the pavement path, will also only have a single driveway. No single homes have driveways to the left and right of the structure as Nader Corps plans do.

3. A duplex presenting as one freestanding delight to the senses, will also lean into differences to the facades both left and right, because single freestanding houses not only do not have side by side front doors right next to each other and driveways at the opposite next door boundaries, they also have different points of visual interest left and right that tends to breakaway from eerie symmetry to bolster the trick to the beholders eye. In other words, one semi in a duplex truly attempting to masquerade as a single structural entity that creates a convincing illusion with the overall building’s true purpose, the execution will usually lean into different features that give each semi it’s own distinct personality while retaining an overall aesthetic coherence that allows the observer to buy into the idea that the whole thing is just a single house essentially. With this in mind, one side having a front path and entrance door and porch, and the second dwelling having a side door and driveway, these are techniques employed to create the idea of single-dwelling purpose when in fact a property are dual dwelling entities joined by a solid wall in the middle of the overall structure. The applicant’s knockdown/rebuild plans bring absolutely no distinctions to the two new semis, except the addition of one mysteriously placed outdoor toilet near the back fence of the part of the block to be called number 12 after development is completed.

In summary, applying rationality and logic to how the development should proceed, an argument the applicant has enthusiastically made - but only for knocking down and rebuilding to a plan that does not present as a unified single dwelling
(that quietly houses two charming family semis).

I put it to council and the community at large, and to Nader Corp and C & L, that actually, modifying the existing freestanding Federation charmer at 10 right now, could easily be done by dividing, modifying and developing that very house into two semis that could kind of cleverly appear to still be just a freestanding big family home to Calvery St passers bye, when in fact it is the facade to two wonderful family semis that share the same solar access, privacy rights and quiet joy of sunset visions through nature that 10 and its many neighbours on the north facing side of Calvert Street all experience and cherish and treasure right now, today, as I write.

I politely plead with the council to compel the applicant to satisfactorily explain why total demolition and complete annihilation of what’s already working well on the 10 lot is really the only rational and logical thing to do, to achieve the goal of subdividing the land and creating two family dwellings with multiple bedrooms, please.

As regards the matter of what presents as a single building that actually discreetly houses two semi dwellings in the immediate vicinity to 10, right now, C&L & Nader Corp need only look at the layout and set up of numbers 20 & 22, just three doors down to g t a sense of how that works in reality in this particular, as opposed to the dubious claims made in the application about how C&L’s current design has managed to satisfactorily achieve that in its concept sketches, even though they have not been successful in capturing that aim at all, at least in my opinion and a plethora of other neighbours who’ve expressed their own adverse reactions to the jarrring illustrations.

Please note that number 20 currently has an off-street driveway with pavement crossover, and the car is kept in an area setback behind the front facade of the unifying structural entity next to a side entrance front door located in the east facing wall of the property.

22 next door, has a front gate and path and awning-sheltered porch and gated side entrance on the west side of the dwelling, but note there is no driveway. The way the aesthetic of the two seperate homes of 20 & 22 is unified to create the illusion that the structure could well be a single dwelling, is the grand federation triangle feature above the front windows that rises up into a cathedral style peak at the dividing point between the two homes.

But please do note that no windows feature above that single story frontage that 20 & 22 share, which is also exactly the same situation for 16 & 18 just two doors down from 10. And also for 38 and 40 Calvert Street about 100 or so metres towards Cavey Street west, where another set of semis is essentially unified in the one shared structure that boasts a Federation triangle to the roof peak that divides the properties, above a single story frontage that has no upper windows or open air lounging decks attached to bedrooms because no-one has anything like that in this particular low-density residential area where everyone cherishes and treasures their peace, quiet, and general audio/visual privacies, quite fiercely actually.

For those interested in what the plan for 10 Calvert Street has neglected to be transparent about, simply physically go to 76 Yelverton Street, in Sydenham (an adjacent suburb to Marrickville) to see (as advertised by the real estate agents selling the unsold 4 bed/4 bath terrace, for a guide price of $2,230,000)

Note the seven metre tall private poles supplying grid electricity in the corner - merely touching distance for passers-by on the pavement as they stroll on past.

Note also the not-hidden-at-all aircon units behind the flimsy non-concealing upper-deck fence that allows the ugly aesthetic and irritating sound of the air-con units behind it to capture public attention when in action - because they’re all right there proudly on display, folks.

Then after taking all that in locals, keep in mind, how C & L and Nader Corp have neglected to mark the eyesores that are private electricity supply poles and contemporary-styled aircon units (that are actually required by local rules to be concealed away), on 10 Calvert development plans, an architectural plan that casually - and it must be said - deficiently, ignores the need for unattractive electricity supply poles entirely, while casually tossing off the issue of aircon hubs by relegating that particular specific problem to only affect those at 8 and 14 Calvert and 7,9 & 11 Queen St. (the bordering neighbours).

Only this aircon unit placement afterthought is not an irrelevance to the five neighbouring families on Calvert and Queen Street, count them, five neighbouring gardens that will have to suffer the hum and whirring and whizzing of the air con hubs in the heat of summer when we are all trying to enjoy our open, private, back yard spaces, whether pruning the hedges or firing up the barbie, or sorting stuff in the potting shed

The oh-so-convenient neglect to mention active electricity supply poles and overbearing aircon units is an unlawful oversight in the application that should (and will) not be tolerated, encouraged or accepted as right, ultimately.

76 Yelverton Street,. “Boasts” Architect-designed build
Cracknell Lonergan design, cavity brick, concrete slabs, 10mm low-E glass. That phrase is what the estate agents try and tempt buyers with. But the sell is weak.

All I see - personally - is an uninspired white tower, with uniformly rectangular decks that are presenting no discerning charm, intriguing character, or engaging personality, and add to that a plain door, exceedingly dull fences, and no nature (let alone mature oxygen-giving plant life of any type whatsoever), just supremely unattractive aircon units, and an equally ugly private pole for electricity grid supply that has been strategically - surprise surprise - framed out of the promo photo, for obvious aesthetic preservation reasons.

Well, if that’s a Cracknell Lonergan design, “bragging about” cavity brick, concrete slabs, 10mm low-E glass, I myself, I’d prefer to see original period dwellings with a lived-in charm and character that will delight for decades to come, an established silhouette of a “fair” house, then lovingly reimagined with creativity and passion and an appreciation for attractive Federation architecture, an artefact that 76 Yelverton Street. As a matter of fact, 76 Yelverton Street is highly unlikely to be troubling heritage lists in the foreseeable decades to come if we’re being honest.

Inner West locals should judge for themself, whether C&L and Nader Corp are planning the right thing for the block that is currently housing 10 Calvert Street or whether they’re spinning wild claims to help Nader Corp achieve maximum profit, optimised by stretching the rules beyond recognition.

To prepare the 10 Calvert Street site for what is approximately an 18m × 12m × 7m duplex as per the very roughly conceived plans in the application, one that the applicants claim only a small bit of excavating will be needed for new footings and almost nothing else …

… The truth is , once the existing house is demolished, along with the concrete-slab underpinned large garage out the back, and the awning covered concreted car port and patio area and also the garden-bed adjacent backyard pathways, not to mention the space allotted to a desired new driveway and new front pathway sections, as well as the heavily concrete-footed pizza -oven house and tool shed out the back, and also the entire front yard and a not-insignificant section of the public pavement, kerb and road, a specific section that currently conceals plumbing and stormwater and electricity and telecom and internet lines and various access points and waste and management exit points and water supply link up sections, an area that will also presumably need to house two seperate seven metre electricity supply private poles that also need footings requiring excavation, something the applicant failed to address in the current application documentation.

After exacting all that concrete currently all over the 10 block - which would most certainly extend massively beyond just the simple building footings the application claims is all that needs to be considered as regards excavation needs - which is by any measure, a stretch to say that is so - the building experts, and other specialists and professionals will have to carefully undertake and also fastidiously oversee the stripping of topsoil across roughly 216m² to 300m² of the new bulky, tall, 10 bed duplex footprint, before completing bulk site-cut and levelling, and the workers and neighbours affected by the excavation work, will find the 10 contractors needing to dig detailed trenches and/or structurally sound piers for dual foundations. Exact cut-and-fill volumes will in any eventuality require site contour surveys and geotechnical reports which take time and time waiting for the development to be completed is exceedingly disruptive for next door neighbours worried about the own house foundations, footings, side paths and boundary fences.

After clearing the vast swathe of old sub-base concrete and existing structural footings for multiple erections, then extracting and moving and disposing of 100mm to 150mm of organic topsoil across the new 18m × 12m footprint (which is approx. 22m³ to 32m³ of soft material to stockpile on site and/or manage safely before hauling away to recycling entities for over 80% of the materials, allegedly, although how that is actually achieved has not been properly explained or even roughly itemised).

Excavation and Levelling (Cut and Fill). This is next, to establish an appropriate, supremely solid, and perfectly level building platform, that the specialists and experts and trustworthy professionals - who know what they’re doing with these things- will carefully shape the block to match the finely engineered Finished Floor Level (FFL). A process yhat requires great fastidiousness, care and attention to detail.

Site cut: If the block slopes, soil must be “cut" from the high side and when the surface dips down in sections and mounds up in other sections, meticulous time-consuming work must be committed to the job, so as to get everything just right.

Site fill: Low spots must be filled using engineered, compacted material laid in controlled layers.

Retaining walls: Severe slopes - like the ones at 10 Calvert Street right now, require retaining structures along boundaries to manage height differences. This is a particularly pertinent point to bear in mind because 10 presently sits at different varying heights of land surface along the 10/8 boundary, the 10/Calvert pavement and street boundaries, the 10/14 boundary, the 10/7 Queen Street boundary, the 10/9 Queen Street boundary, and the 10/11 Queen Street boundary.

Foundation Excavation will require the digging of perimeter strip footings, edge beams, or internal trenching for the duplex slab. Pier drilling too, when local reactive clay - which Calvert lots have a mighty abundance of - or poor-bearing fill is present right now (which judging by the poor state of all extensions and add-ons to the existing “fair condition” dwelling made of brick walls and tiled terracotta roof, so bore holes will possibly then maybe need to be done for the new concrete or some screw piers locked locked down to stable strata.

In short, a light excavation for new house footings only is very much merely a small fraction of what excavation work will actually need to be done to demolish and build afresh, totally from scratch. And before permissions are granted for a big disruptive polluting demolition of the entire site, I respectfully urge the council to investigate to what extent all of the jobs mentioned above will take, and I politely ask council to also look into just what ways neighbours homes will be adversely effected by excavation vibrations, the stirring and release of dormant hazardous materials in walls, ceilings and in the ground, and exactly how all the various different materials to be unearthed will be handled, in an exhaustive fastidiously itemised list that leaves no potential toxin unmentioned.

In Hurlstone Park at 24, Railway Street, a recent development there fits wonderfully into the neighbourhood character, for it honours the silhouette and character of its next door dwelling with grace, and shows great respect to the very best in Federation inspired 20th Century Australian architecture, unlike the plans for 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville under consideration at the moment.

Looking at 24 Railway Street and wondering what arguments the developers made to achieve what’s been achieved land I stumbled upon a key part of the application (from 2022).

It is the publicly available record marked:

Matters for Consideration Pursuant to Section 4.15 (79C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Amendment) Act, 1997

(a) the provisions of:
(i) any environmental planning instrument;
(ii) any draft environmental planning instrument
(iii) any planning agreement
(iv) any development control plan;
(v) any matters prescribed by the regulations
(vi) any coastal management plan
that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

If - for the sake of debate - we consider the proposed development at 10 Calvert Street, and “the only logical way” to develop being to demolish and stray from scratch again, the 10 Calvert Street property - if judged by 24 Railway St arguments - the Marrickville ask does not
comply with the objectives and standards for development contained in the Local Environmental Plans that govern 24, Railway Street. The 10 Calvert Street proposal does not satisfactorily comply with the
guidelines for Development Control Plans with particular regard to the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments and social and economic impacts in the immediate vicinity and neighbourhood locality as a whole.

In summary, it is considered that the proposed dwelling houses to replace the existing “fair condition” house that is currently standing proud despite bad maintenance, will have multiple unwarranted, unacceptable, and quite frankly unnecessary negative impacts on the environment for the following reasons:
• regarding solar access, there will no longer be adequate sunlight access to the internal
living areas of every single one of the proposed development and adjoining dwellings and neighbours a few doors down too;
• control barriers will need to be used to control uneven levels across the block and all the way out to the boundaries of the property’s five adjoining neighbourhood dwellings too, during a protracted, lengthy, disrupting construction phase that could run into all sorts of - at present - woefully underestimated and insufficiently researched areas;
• stormwater will not necessity be adequately disposed of according to Council’s
requirements as far as I understand the reassurances the developers will guarantee this to be an ironclad promise;
• the social and economic impacts of the development are considered major due
to the bulky, out-of-scale, overwhelming size of the development proposal.
(c) the suitability of the site for the development of crammed 5-bed behemoths on uneven, unlevelled ground that is already insufficiently protected at its boundaries, thanks to the ovee we all lack of modern retaining walls that protect the underpinnings of all the properties the developers of 10 Calvert Street will put at risk if not sufficiently understood, then mitigated carefully with measured expert-led action.
• the development should not be considered suitable for the site, for the reasons outlined
above especially, but for other reasons like added parking and waste and management and amenity pressure too.
(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations
(e) the public interest
• the proposed development will not make a positive contribution to residential
properties in Calvert Street Marrickville because of how it trespasses on solar access, privacy, neighbourhood health, the out of whack size, the attempt to recharacterize a Federation styled neighbourhood single story fronted dwellings with single story backed fears, no open decks and windows facing out the front sides and ba k sides of the property like 10 calvert Street developers are requesting, let alone massive sliding doors and upper story windows also being proposed at the front sides of the house, and rear sides of the dwelling, showijg flagrant disregard for all present governing rules, and because of this, the application should not be recommended for approval.

Reading the comments here, this DA sounds like a work of fiction akin to The Lord Of The Rings - a masterwork of fantasy. Can’t wait to find out council’s ruling.

Heat-bouncing pale-metal roofs and swathes of vehicle accomodating concrete surfacing and sheer metal private poles and car port awnings where currently nature flourishes and tall mature trees provide shade, privacy, life-giving oxygen and create a well needed “cooling effect” on the immediate vicinity, will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in neighbourhood heat both day and night and all year round: if the developers of 10 Calvert Street fail to recognise any of the mentioned as problematic, which appears to be what has happened in their rush to get fast approval for a quick knock down and too-fast rebuild of an overly ambitious duplex that is preposterously out of scale, ridiculously out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and quite frankly ludicrously outrageous in the spurious claims put forth in the application included in what is an application littered with shortcomings and gaps in research, due diligence and legitimate verifiable facts and claims - and should not be allowed to proceed with such shockingly unsuitable proposals.

The Calvert and Queen street neighbourhood nook is - of course - as prone to climate-related heat-trapping and temperature-rising as any other low-density residential zone in Sydney’s multitude of suburbs, a neighbourhood specifically pinned in by a swathe of high rise apartments and commercial businesses with a unified streetscape (as regards front facades) on one side (Marrickville Rd), and busy, loud, train tracks connecting Marrickville and Sydenham on the other side of our neighbourhood.

An unintended biproduct of Nader Corp ambitions (I imagine), that are nonetheless baked into the concrete/metal & glass design of the 10 Calvert Street application that will magnify the effects of year-on-year rises in heat capture, a fact that most scientists agree is down to severe climate change, although it should be acknowledged that not everyone agrees on why Sydney is experiencing more hot days year on year. That said, regardless of whether the future rise of atmospheric heat will be down to climate change or other factors, temperatures in urban zones are going to increase heavily as time wears on, and new houses that employ a large amount of material that in and of itself generate more neighbourhood heat externally and internally - concrete, corrugated metal, and abundance of exposed glass - will exacerbate the surging heat, resulting in a domino effect of all in the Calvert Street low-density residential zone using more air con and fans etc, to cool both inside and outside their homes (on rear decks and porches etc.), air con that then pumps a hell
of a lot of hot air back out into the neighbourhood’s atmosphere.

Across the country, Australia is falling behind in adapting to the baked-in impacts of the overall climate change being observed in this country. For instance … Just down the road - as it were - in western Sydney, certain spots have had the dubious honour of being the hottest place on earth recently, a situation that is expected to repeat and intensify somewhat because of how modern development has significantly contributed to a now baked-in climate-change scenario that will not turn back to how temperatures used to be, not in any meaningful manner, even if emissions fell tomorrow, all
of a sudden - which they won’t (and can’t), of course.

Emissions reduction remains enormously important because every fraction of a degree in avoiding global warming matters, but the parallel task of climate adaptation is growing ever more pressing and NSW is falling behind, especially as regards how residential areas are being overdeveloped to the detriment of the incumbent residents.

Worryingly, every design choice in the 10 Calvert Street application under consideration will make the problem of extreme heat rise in Calvert Street and beyond even worse – for the plans showcase a lack of meaningful care and attention put into this specific aspect of what in many parts of the developed world are now urban planning best practices.

Crucially, the applicant is also not seeking to provide any sort of payback to benefit the Calvert and Queen Street community, let alone any type of affordable housing to the Inner West (and Marrickville specifically). In fact, the developers choose to engage with the local community as evidenced by the fact the developer has only ever introduced himself to the next door neighbours he encouraged to get in on his demolition/rebuild scheme.

In summary, I politely call on council to halt the developers who presently seek to throw up - as quickly as is humanly possible - two ludicrously oversized tall, skinny, overscaled, luxury townhouses that Nader Corp Pty. Ltd. Based in Belmont, will attempt to sell for over $3 million dollars a piece to net those overdevelopers a 100% plus profit, at the permanent expense of the immediate neighbours health, comfort, convenience, privacy, views, solar access and overall quality of life. Two giant houses proposed to be built almost to the boundaries with colorbond roofs that bounce sunlight and extreme heat into the neighbours windows and open spaces and will make neighbourhood houses and the suburb overall, hotter, in what is known as the urban heat islands effect.

The increase in concreted vehicular surfacing at the expense of natural plant life presently in place, will also contribute significantly to scorching heat rises - especially across spring and summer, specifically at the 8/10 boundary.

On top of all that was mentioned already, the designs being proposed do not appear to have effective eaves to protect windows from the harsh sun meaning the new builds themselves - unlike the existing house which was built to stay cooler without the aid of electricity-draining air-con that was not a thing at the time of initial construction, yet the proposed new houses will be even hotter heat boxes, reliant on air-conditioning that will spew hot air into the neighbouring properties either side, and behind the houses and also into the three Queen Street properties behind, (a fact pointed out by the casual remark that that’s where the air con units will go but without even showing where on any document), a positioning of the units that will regardless, be felt and absorbed (by all five occupied dwellings that are just centimetres away from the 10 back yard boundaries.

Trees and greenery cool an area down: fact - but the backyards and the front yards of the application being proposed for the gargantuan duplex are tiny, and the footpaths only have room for small trees and a smattering of tiny shrubs and grasses and little plants that will never provide much shade, they oxygen or the privacy neighbours once relied on, for that matter.

Marrickville: the suburb, had a population of almost 28,000 at the 2021 census and is still growing rapidly, is also in a low-lying part of the local river catchment that is at high risk of flooding.

Sanaa Shah, a community campaigner for climate adaptation advocacy group Sweltering Cities, spoke about recent overdevelopment in Marsden Park as being an example of what happens when governments focus on the housing crisis without also tackling the climate crisis … It’s a given that we have a housing crisis right now, but it’s (also) unfair for our communities to be (subjected to) housing developments in suburbs that just aren’t built to withstand the climate future that we’ll be living in.”

This is a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with, as far as it relates to the 10 Calvert Street developer’s inappropriate plans to annihilate the existing “fair condition” house that currently stands at 10, a “fair condition house” being a fact acknowledged in the applications documentations, only to put up two behemoth buildings that will cause heat rises and bring extra pollution that could be mitigated by a massively scaled back development that maintains the existing front facade of 10 Calvert Street, and restores the proper setbacks front back and sides and on all story-levels, and regenerates the nature legacy that is being allowed to go unmaintained.

Additionally, it is important to note that the high-density duplex proposal would catastrophically shift local aesthetics and strain legacy infrastructure, yet fails to provide affordable housing options in, and to do this, the developers seek to demolish the older affordable freestanding Federation dwelling in a crazed hurry, simply obliterating the historically interesting charmer from existence just to be replaced by high-end luxury townhouses made from rather ordinary materials and will - without a solar-blocking shadow of a doubt - cause untold disruption and immeasurable pollution to Calvert Street residents of a certain age, and many with frail health, for the hotter years to come.

Please reject the application.

Looking at the “Summary of key provisions in State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (NSW), and “The Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy” which is part of the “State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021” … and specifically the section regarding two dwellings on one lot … The document clearly states:

“Dual occupancies are permitted with consent in R2 zones state-wide, with new non-discretionary development standards … The following new standards for dual occupancies apply in Low and Mid-Rise Housing areas in R1, R2, R3 and R4 zones (where permitted):

Lot size: min 450 m2”

I repeat, Lot size: min 450 m2

The 10 Calvert Street block is 379m2.

379m2 is 71m2 short of the non-discretionary development standard in this case.

In other words, 71m2 is an almost 15% shortcoming to the non-discretionary development standard stated as non-discretionary).

Application is non-compliant on those grounds alone, surely?

The 2021 rules document then goes on to state that:

“Subdivision (R1, R2, R3 only): min 225 m2 per lot”

I repeat: “Subdivision (R1, R2, R3 only): min 225 m2 per lot.”

The proposed lots are both SUB 200 m2 per lot. This is a fact.

Put another way, both lots are roughly 15% short of non-discretionary development standards requirements AS WELL.

Given this unarguable deficiency in meeting said non-discretionary development standard requirements, classified as “non-discretionary development standards” in 2021, doesn’t this legally require the owner to give up his sub-division overdevelopment ambitions?

Doesn’t this also compel the owner/developer to revert to his duty - presently being left derelict - to bring his property that exists there already to a habitable standard, a basic standard whereby broken windows, fences, and outdoor toilet/sheds that were put up without permissions and ARE categorically not - in any way - a part of the existing house/dwelling/living structure -call it what you will - because a) there is no internal access door to that toilet/laundry shack made of off-cuts of cheap, and utterly failing materials; and b) the structure is also constructed from unsuitable, dilapidated, mixed materials of an inferior quality that are presently trespassing - right now - the 8 neighbours’ boundary line, whilst simultaneously forcing the boundary fence mentioned down into 8’s back yard, in a way that is close to total collapse.

And if, as indicated, the application is not meeting the minimum non-discretionary standard for subdivision consideration in an R2 zone, as well as rejecting the application on those non-discretionary meeting of standards rule of lots being a certain size for purposes planned (as per the 2021 rules document), may I also gently urge the council to compel the owner of Q10 Calvert Street to immediately remove all of the dangerous structures, awnings, satellite dishes, gates and specific broken windows that border the 8 Calvert Street property and impose on privacy rights, and I also respectfully request the reinstatement, regeneration and restoration of privacy, shade and environmentally cooling mature height trees to both the front and rear of the property, in the spots where huge tree stumps provide the evidence of what was there until only very recently.

If the present owner is unwilling to fulfil his duties as a responsible homeowner as regards the upkeep of his property, may I suggest the developer be compelled to sell as is, asap, and sell to buyers who agree to immediately improve the property, for both the residents and the neighbours benefit. A benefit that includes privacy and safety and quality of life.

I hereby officially oppose the application on the “Clause 4.6 Overreach” provision that prevents developments seeking a greater than 10% variation to a development standard (in ten seperate aspects that include: 1) height ratios, 2) floor space ratio, 3) garden/house ratio, 4) Number of bedrooms and bathrooms increase, 5) Number of upper floor decks facing Calvert Street AND the neighbours next door and behind on Queen Street, 6) Increased pollutions (audio, visual and health related) during construction and permanently thereafter, 7) solar access blocking to up to ten seperate properties on both Calvert and Queen Streets, 8) The unwarranted destruction of more than 10% of all nature present at the moment, 9) more than 10% increase in air-conditioning needs that will pump hot air into the neighbouring properties back yard open private spots used for gardening and entertaining and enjoying meals in peace, and 10) An increase of more than 10% glass and window surface area facing not only the closest neighbours, but also the streetscape of Calvert Street where properties have no upper windows that have ent been set back by the depth of a porch and front room combined.

I respectably request that council compel the applicant to provide far more rigorous justification for these high percentage uptick in asks, and to rectify the many analytical flaws in the applicant’s written request that is making approval legally vulnerable.

Marrickville has a proud Indigenous history, so I politely call for an expert assessment of “Environmental and Cultural Overlays” with specific investigation into “Aboriginal Due Diligence”. Put another way, I urge council to instigate a formal “Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Due Diligence” assessment because the site involves earthworks that are near waterways and 100s of squares metres of undisturbed soil.

As I understand it, any Discovery of potential artefacts requires careful, measured extraction that cannot be undertaken lightly.

Calvert Street hosts many local bars too, so I politely ask council to require Micro-Bat and Flora Audits to be done. As those who know will tell you, Generic ecological reports often miss seasonal flora or micro-chiropteran bat habitats. Commissioning independent, peer-reviewed fauna or flora expert evidence in addition to the limited standard assessment pathways I see the applicants have taken in the lodged application.

As regards BCA and Fire Safety Clashes: there are ambiguities between local solar/tree preservation policies and state-mandated bushfire or structural safety compliance, T s as t I see the applicant has attempted to address by promising the installation of 2,000 litre water tanks in the small back yards of the new builds. But given all back yards have no rear access lane, and the back yard nature is shielded by generally brick and tile structured dwellings put the front, should huge water tanks really be taking space instead of lost nature canopy, a question I’d like addressed by appropriate experts, given all of the aspects of development the applicant is seeking to increase by over 10% (including water tanks), for aren’t ten points of over 10% in overreach a matter that we should all take seriously?

Under the 2022 Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Marrickville guidelines, developing a standard residential block on Calvert Street into two semi-detached dwellings or a dual occupancy generally requires a minimum site area of at least 400 square metres absolute minimum, with subsequent Torrens or strata subdivision typically requiring at least 200 square metres minimum per resulting lot and a minimum street frontage of 7 metres.

10 Calvert Street is well short in both the guidelines of having 200+ metre lots to subdivide (less than 190 m2 each dwelling if 379 m2 is divided equally in two, and also 7 metres is not possible for front facing street facades, given 10 Calvert Street right now is barely 12 m from boundary to boundary, and will almost certainly shrink below the 12 metre width all told, when proper retaining walls are installed at the boundaries and fences in between the semis are put in too.

As regards “Zoning and Land Size Rules Total Site Area”: Generally it is 400 sqared metres that is required for an attached dual occupancy/semi-detached configuration as far as I’ve been led to believe.

With regards to “Subdivision Lot Size”: Minimum of 200 squares metres per individual is required once the lot is split, as mentioned.

Minimum Frontage - until very recently - appears to have required at least 7 metres of minimum street frontage per resulting lot (14 metres grand total for a side-by-side pair), but as eluded to earlier, restrictions have softened to 6 metres absolute minimum, a number that 10 cannot split into comfortably given the need for retaining walls and dividing walls and fences between the side-by side semis eating into that allocation of frontage, so to speak.

On the matter of “Controls & Overlays”, this 2022 Inner West LEP outlines how developments mustcomply with Inner West Council's floor space ratio (FSR), height limits, and localised heritage or character constraints if applicable, which it doesn’t, except in the hypothetical area of maximum height, a height no building in the vicinity reaches, because the existing structure at 10 is currently the tallest roof apex in its right cluster of crammed neighbours, so pointing towards that as some glowing indictment of great planning and design, is a little utilisation of smoke and mirrors, to redirect the observers attention away from rules that if not being broken entirely, are being stretched beyond current understandings of the spirit of the rules and why they have been put in place - namely to protect all local interests and concerns, from overdevelopment and future problems with too much concrete, glass and metal in skinny crammed lots that have their nature canopy jettisoned, as well as the surge in pollution, amenity pressure and waste management needs, that large tall, slender houses that immediately increase occupancy by potential by over half, in a quiet spot where modest single story fronted and reared Federation styled houses (in the main), share the environment, an environment well cared for by the resident/homeowners that take care of their properties, their neighbours and the tidiness of their street-scape.

On the west side of 10 Calvert Street, the closest neighbours next door are at 14 Calvert Street, Marrickville, NSW 2204 living peacefully on a plot of land measured at 190 m².

On the east side of 10 Calvert Street, the closest neighbours next door are at 8 Calvert Street, Marrickville, NSW 2204 living quietly on a plot of land that has a front-semi facade that is well over 6m.

Now, pause for a moment, before looking at that smallest house on the street to the west of 10, and the modest, unassuming property east (number 8), and keep in mind that both neighbours of 20 right now (8&14) are enjoying life on property sitting on lots that are BOTH BIGGER than BOTH the two NEW semi proposals that the applicant is looking to dwarf with their enormous, ill-conceived, construction ambition.

Now, I mention all of this for one simple reason: and that is - an extension to create six bedrooms and two internal bathrooms on the 10 block (one up, and one downstairs) would actually be an appropriate use of the 10 Calvert Street property if the applicant were truly looking at scale that fits the locale, and not merely exploring ways to maximise and optimise and boost the occupancy and utility and profitability by over 50% - a significant bump in financial value, drawn from stretched occupancy and utility drawn to its very limits, instead of pursuing the perfect way to create THE MOST beautiful, desirable, freestanding house on the street, an honour that I believe 1 & 3 Calvert Street compete for right now, today - two properties that stand proudly just metres opposite 10 and its smaller neighbours (8 and 14) -architectural delights that delight my senses we very day, but much more than 10 does, for it is so badly maintained, currently.

To reiterate, given that number 14 is a house with 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, and 1 parking space and number 8 (on a wider lot than the applicant proposes for his new houses) is presently set up as a semi with 3 bedrooms, 2 INTERNAL toilet/bathrooms and NO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE, how really, can Michael Nader and Nader Corp justify their “overreach” that is demanding two lots of 5 bedroom dwellings, an increase of toilets and bathrooms inside and out, to a level that is more than double, as well as proceed with misleading statements that allege ignorance to the blatant evidence of methodical destruction of mature nature canopy and the unwarranted request to ELIMINATE a shared street park that the neighbours and local community and visitors who come to Marrickville to spend money rely on, I mean seriously, how?

Today it has been extremely windy here on Calvert Street, and the gusts coming through have blown parts of the inadequately plasterboard cladding on the rogue toilet, laundry, hot water chimney out house that is pushing the boundary fence into 8’s rear private open space.

But still no neighbourly check in from the out of town developer/owner as regards our shared responsibilities and concerns as they relate to tye parts of properties we share.

Application Status of 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville NSW 2204/Ref Number: DA/2026/0548 for: Proposal to Demolish existing structures, for a Torrens title subdivision into two lots, and subsequent construction of a pair of bulky, privacy invading, solar-access blocking double-storey semi-detached dwellings on each lot that is FAR SMALLER than 200m2 - which is the absolute minimum for present guidelines, currently.

Current Stage: The application is still Under review in the public notification phase (logged on July 8, 2026).

Key Factors in Council's Decision will be Zoning & Controls & Compliance with Inner West Council local environmental plans, building heights, setbacks, and density limits.

Community Feedback: The proposal has generated local attention and public comments during the notification window, which council officers must evaluate.

Site Constraints: Assessment of stormwater, parking, tree removal, and impact on neighbouring properties are just a few of the matters that need to be further looked into.

Today, I can confirm that the imminent collapse of the shoddy outdoor toilet shed at 10 Calvert Street, will be arriving sooner rather than later, by the looks, so this matter can be added to the list of concerns now being considered at this time.

10 Calvert Street is over a kilometre away from Sydenham train and Metro station and more than 600 metres away from Marrickville train station and the nearest light rail is Dulwich Hill much further away.

There are plenty of other derelict sites between 10 Calvert Street and the three rail service stations mentioned, that could do with the sort of development that the applicant is asking for, sites that are well within 50-500 metres of Marrickville train station, Sydenham metro and Dulwich Hill light rail that will not spoil the Low Density Residential character, privacy and solar access of locals trying to just live family lives.

Developers should be incentivised and encouraged and steered towards the former industrial sites and mixed commercial/residential condemned sites near those rail hubs to better help the housing crisis situation and in particular the affordable housing for family scenario which is rough on families wanting homes in Marrickville thanks to all the high density luxe townhouses and small apartments in blocks that are popping up in the 0-500m we corridor between the transport hubs and the new Marrickville higher-density accomodation options.

Typically council takes 40-60 days to make a decision before the developers take their applications to LEC to find a pathway that removes council rejection, and this timeframe is now, do concerned community citizens of Marrickville, take note and be vigilant of what is often the next phase in an aggressive developers strategy to bulldoze through inappropriate overdevelopment plans.

If anyone hears anything about the Inner West council’s decision or Nader Corp the developers planned next moves, please make public the information here on Planning Alerts, please.

Thanks in advance.

If anyone is having trouble navigating and understanding the confusing documentation that accompanies the application for the rushed 10 Calvert Street knockdown/subdivision/excavation/cut and fill/ and totally rebuild from scratch project that is being proposed by Nader Corp and C & L, you may pose questions here and I’ll endeavour to share what I’ve learned over the last month in answers if I can.

It’s best we get the right properties developed that benefit our local communities, especially when it’s developers who do not live in the neighbourhood and therefore don’t have the same level of passionate emotional investment in the Inner West and Marrickville specifically.

When I called Cracknell & Lonergan to ask who they were working with to develop 10 Calvert Street, they wouldn’t tell me. When asked why? I was brushed off with the answer: “well I can say it’s just one person”.

“How does that help me ascertain their previous work?” I asked.

“What you do with that information is up to you.” That was the staff member’s response.

When I did an AI search on Nader Corp this is what came up, verbatim :

Nader Corp (often listed as Nader Corp or Nadcorp International Pty Ltd) is a property development and project management entity with connections to the Sydney area, including an office listed at 36 Lincoln St, Belfield, NSW 2191.

Nader Corp (Nadcorp) operates in building development, construction management, and property assets.

Company Overview:

Office location- Belfield, New South Wales, AustraliaCore

Activities: Property development, project management, and construction coordination.

Associated Entities: Related family-operated building and construction groups include Nader Property Constructions (NPC), a Victoria based entity, one that handles residential and commercial building projects.

Nader Corp lists Michael Nader as the Key Principle at Nader Corp, although a man calling himself Phil Nader introduced himself to neighbours on Calvert Street on the day of the number 10 auction.

To stop unwanted overdevelopment in Sydney's Inner West while still managing growth, local communities must focus on smart, localised planning, legacy and heritage protections, and infrastructure-first policies instead of accepting blanket high-density creep and encroachment.

We must Defend our historic architectural streetscapes and areas of period detail charm from high-density, high-rising concrete/metal and glass intrusions.

A way forward is to Demand local design controls rather than broad state-mandated transport-oriented development circles that allow bureaucrats and administrators to tick boxes and argue that positive benefits are being achieved for the community.

At the same time, from here on in we should all Support sensible infill like excess council carpark areas or church land redevelopments that prioritise social housing and affordable housing over speculative developer profits.

Mobility forward, we must insist that public transport, green spaces, and parking match population increases before new builds get approved, and push for an approval system that prohibits opportunistic developers from rushing through knockdown/rebuild applications at strategic times, and by way of misleading claims about compliance, recycling plans and facts about the literal lay of the land as well as existing natural canopy and claims about not effecting solar access, privacy and pollution concerns in just a three week “consultation period” where neighbours, residents and locals in the Marrickville Community must scramble to understand implications, formulate opinions, then gather thoughts in words that the council can process easily - which is no straightforward task
It turns out.

Let’s link arms in trying to enact this type of change, and to persuade council to not even allow DAs to go up, that clearly don’t comply in all aspects, for if no-one had opposed the application the overdeveloprrs would be gifted an way rides with their outrageous ambitions to turn 10 Calvert Street into a high density eyesore on a streetscape characterised by low fronted old houses with all manner of wonderful Australian, Federation charm.

In the application, the documentation Nader Corp and C & L make out like they are being generous in how their knockdown/rebuild plans fall short of a much bigger permissible height guideline.

This is something of a sleight of hand however, because there is a context and precedents to why the “maximum permissible height” as stated, is as it is.

But before we get into that, it’s worth knowing where that height guideline comes from, before we explore why the height maximum in guidelines cannot be applied to the dwellings on the stretch of Calvert and Queen Streets where 10 resides.

The house that created the “precedent” of “maximum height” in the vicinity was most probably number 2 Fernbank Street (on the corner of Calvert Lane), a three story corner terrace with ornate period decorative shapes at the very top, a corner-set dwelling that trespasses on no other dwelling’s sunlight, privacy except -arguably - the Art Deco block of apartment flats that occupy the corner of Victoria Road and Fernbank Street, up to the corner opposite 2 Ferndale Street (on Calvert Lane).

Now the entrance to 2 Ferndale Street is almost 100 metres down a significant fall in gradient from 10 Calvert Street, with 2 Fernbank directly behind 1 Calvert Street, on a block that slopes down toward the commercial strip of Marrickville Road apartments that share space with the mixed businesses, and the gradient of the fall from Calvert Street to Fernbank Street via Calvert Lane is significant and sees a drop of a few metres.

The point is, the tallest permissible height guideline that the application makes a big deal out of never reaching is really not applicable to the houses on Calvert Street that are close to Calvert Lane (10 Calvert Street being included in this assertion), and cannot be applied to any of the odd-numbered homes on Queen Street that are close to Victoria Road, either.

The existing height extremity that does matter in the immediate vicinity however, is the roof height that 10 Calvert Street has (which is THE HIGHEST amongst all bordering dwellings and beyond, a height that the applicant may not be exceeding up, but given that height is just an apex currently, Nader Corp and C & L are looking to apply that maximum height already reached to well over 10% more of the new build roof line in the application plans as shown in the conceptual drawings. Moreover, that maximum permissible height for the immediate vicinity (and I say maximum because it has to be the maximum to protect all neighbour’s solar access, privacy and ventilation needs), is being used for what I calculate to be over 75% of the new builds, which in and of itself blows the credibility of the applicants claims that the plans are complying with EXISTING setbacks, audio/visual privacy rights, shading rules, land/build ratio guidelines and neighbouring precedents, not to mention how such a huge hulking leviathan of a duplex semi is definitely going to need more than just a light excavation to create footings for the enormous build, and is going to create rather more than the 20% non-recyclable waste the applicant claims will be created, not to mention all of the dangerous foundational works vibrations that are going to adversely affect five currently inhabited boundary properties with old foundations.

For context, there are no houses that reach anywhere near the stated “maximum height” rule presently, on the North facing side of Calvert street (the side with even numbered dwellings) or the south facing houses on Queen Street (the ones with odd numbers).

In summary, 10 Calvert Street’s roof is already higher than all of its immediate neighbours (including 8), and already overwhelms and dwarfs number 14, already. But here’s the thing. That high point right now is merely a summit, which Michael Nader and Nader Corp want to use as the precedent of height for what amounts to the entirety of the new blocks, except for a small insufficient set back on the Calvert Street front facade. And I say insufficient, because the setback is so modest, there is no hiding the fact that Nader Corp are trying to be the first semis in the neighbourhood to not have porches, or single stories, and are wanting to introduce upper windows and open upper decks that face the street and the private open space of the neighbours to the sides, as well as trespass on privacy and block sunlight with upper decks that look down on all the private rear open spaces, which is 100% not what is good for the community, and is also 100% out of character for the streetscape aesthetic the applicant is insultingly claiming will “delight the senses”.

Not mine.

I promise to help contest this development application (DA) should it ever end up in the Land and Environment Court (LEC).

I will request to join the proceedings as an 'interested party' and/or “objector”, and I’ll endeavour to pool resources with concerned neighbours to secure expert witnesses (like town planners and acoustic engineers and environmental impact experts), and I assure the reader of this that I will also submit robust evidence that will be focused strictly on valid planning grounds rather than emotional or personal grievances.

To participate in the LEC Process, I will apply for Section 87/Objector Status. I shall respectfully request the court allow me to join proceedings as a respondent or to present an objector's case, depending on whether the case in court ends up being a refusal appeal or an appeal to create modifications to existing rules, guidelines and/or precedents.

I shall also seek to Pool Community Resources to enlist the assistance of specialist environment and planning lawyers and multiple independent expert witnesses, as the LEC is - as I am very much aware - something of a technical legal arena, one that I hold no expertise in, but I’m keen to learn and I learn fast.

My objections will Focus on Land-Use Planning Merits and all arguments will be strictly based on statutory controls like the Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP).

Key Grounds for Objection will relate to Non-Compliance with Controls and my evidence will Prove breaches of building heights at the front rear and sides, and of the floor space ratio (FSR), the inadequate boundary setback provisions, and the easily proved invasion of privacy and disregard for landscaping minimums the application shows.

As regards amenity Impacts: I will Present hard evidence regarding loss of solar access (overshadowing), severe privacy loss (overlooking), loss of nature canopy (mature tree destruction), and a catalogue of examples of how negative acoustic pollution impacts will rise, where, how, and at what times too, should this application end up being put through the LEC.

On the matter of Local Character and Heritage, I shall Highlight the many negative impacts on rear garden consistency, as well as streetscape consistency, material consistency, and overall Federation bungalow aesthetic non-sympathy grounds, which I have been led to believe do carry some weight in the Inner West suburbs.

This development - as presented - is not a good thing for Calvert Street residents and the local community that use the road to walk dogs, and enjoy the sun, before frequenting the many businesses nearby.

I urge council to call for an assessment of the houses from 1-10 Calvert Street to be given some sort of level of heritage status since all of the houses in this specific catchment are crucial to the streetscape character, most of which have been given sympathetic renovations that have been fastidiously laboured over and then maintained, especially at the front facade where Federation aesthetics rule, with houses that are - in some cases - well over 100 years old.

I also politely ask council to stop the demolition of the existing "fair condition" house at 10 Calvert Street because of the structure’s outstanding character, contribution to the streetscape, and the many technical flaws that are observable in the developer’s application, as regards the disrupting and polluting impact of demolishing multiple structures on uneven concreted land adjacent to a bunch of very old house on relatively small lots that are also on sloping grounds.

Furthermore, the total destruction of the brick and tile part of the house - the section, including the frontage that is recognised as being in “Fair condition," and ultimately just needing a little tender loving care, instead of complete annihilation, a choice that will irreversibly erode the historic streetscape aesthetics of the neighbourhood.

Now "Dilapidation" Claims are only made by the applicant as regards the non brick and tile cladded add-ons, acknowledged by the Developers as “structurally unsound” and therefore beyond economic and logical repair which justifies tearing down the add-ons - but not the “fair condition” portion of the dwelling as is too.

I respectfully request an independent structural engineer or heritage consultant to offer second opinions to the developer’s commissioned heritage report documents.

I also respectfully request an investigation into whether the core structure of 10 Calvert Street is completely stable and that with regular maintenance—supported by Council Heritage Exemption Certificates (HECs)— an avoidance of demolition may be the legally preferred route to pulverising a “fair conditioned” house into uneven ground, in a neighbourhood packed together in a low-density residential zone populated by families and older people who will have their health aggravated by dust, debris and toxic pollution and hazardous airborne waste, and have their lives shaken up by the widespread street disruption a wholesale demolition - by necessity - would bring to Calvert Street.

Under NSW planning rules, historically, councils rarely approve the demolition of a character home, unless they also approve what is replacing it, as I understand it. And given the new design, the proposed replacement buildings to go up, so to speak, both have setback non-compliances, overshadowing non-compliances, and are seeking to outrageously overdevelop the two new lots, and quite significantly, as compared to all immediate neighbours in close proximity, so I now ask Council to reject the entire DA, and save 10 Calvert Street, fix it up and modify and improve the existing house, under CDC rules next time, perhaps.

The detached outhouse that sits behind the internal bathroom at the back of the existing 10 Calvert Street property, a derelict shed that currently hosts laundry machines, a hot water boiler, and a toilet, cannot simply be "claimed" on paper as existing habitable floor space. And because the derelict outbuilding is not a habitable space that sits within the internal walls of the house (unlike the bathroom within brick walls that is next to the kitchen, for the purposes of determining where 10’s back walls of the house are right now, they are where the internal bathroom ends, because after that is this inhabitable broken, outdoor shack being partly disguised as part of a unified structure thanks to some cunning roof integration that masks how the walls to this external structure have been constructed with seemingly random off cuts of ply, plasterboard and metal sheeting.

The applicants plans are using the shoddy laundry/toilet shed that is built in inferior, now derelict materials illegally against the 8/10 boundary fence which is now in danger of collapsing soon, if left unattended for much longer, as a precedent for where the new build should be able to be built back to, yet with a massive open deck and far higher roof and guttering than is presently there, a design feature that flagrantly overshadows, invades the privacy of 8 residents in there kitchen and rear open dining deck, just one among many non-compliance issues the application has going for it.

Now given the way the outbuilding was erected, and where, and what cheap mixed materials were used it is safe to say that council would never have legally classified the existing collapsing shed at 10 Calvert Street as habitable (or even non-habitable) and truth be told the erection is so dilapidated the term outbuilding or external structure or shed is quite frankly generous, and abominable shack would be a more accurate description, for sure.

Local planning rules—such as those managed under the NSW Planning Portal or local council controls—distinguish strictly between habitable rooms (bedrooms, living areas) and non-habitable or ancillary structures (outhouses, laundries, external toilets) like 10’s laundry/toilet shack.

Replacing or incorporating any outhouse into the main roofline/envelope requires formal approval via a Development Application (DA) or a Complying Development Certificate (CDC), where the footprint is officially rezoned or connected to the primary dwelling structure. To be counted as part of the main house footprint rather than a separate outbuilding, the space generally needs to be structurally integrated, only it’s not.

The toilet/laundry shack at 10 Calvert Street has merely been given the aesthetic illusion of unity (via Google Earth), by masking the separations by installing a roofline that runs down from house proper and overlaps the shack and extends to the side where it now encroaches the 8 rear yard.

And it must be noted that the laundry/toilet shack in question has no door leading into the main house internally. The shacks only door opens out into the rear yard under an exterior mounted awning next to a door to a small external storage outbuilding that also shouldn’t be considered part of the habitable space of the inside of the house, for purposes of determining where the house at the back should finish.

Also, the materials used to clad the laundry/toilet outbuilding are not brick like the rest of the house - up to the internal bathroom, and furthermore the materials are not even vaguely weather-proof where the cladding has been badly joined and rendered past where the brick walled ends.

Any new habitable rooms that replaced any part of the old outhouse footprint must also meet the Building Code of Australia (BCA) standards for ceiling heights, natural light, ventilation, and waterproofing.

Converting an external footprint that is so close to a boundary may face tighter restrictions if it transitions from an old exempt outbuilding into a primary habitable wall structure as is the case with the 10 outhouse that is immediately adjacent to the back of the house, with the cladding falling off and the paint deteriorating at an alarming rate.

For semi-detached dual occupancies in Marrickville, the Inner West Council applies the Marrickville Development Control Plan (DCP) 2011 alongside Urban Housing Volume 1 (DCP 35).

These guidelines regulate bulk, scale, setbacks, and streetscape compatibility to preserve local neighbourhood characteristics.

Designs must limit visual bulk and massing impact on neighbouring properties.

THEY JUST DONT. Limits are being blown out, big time.

Scale must match the established streetscape rhythm and period building patterns.

SCALE DOESN’T MATCH.

The calvert streetscape rhythm is low Federation themed at the front with covered porches and mainly tile-roofed frontages and setbacks of a full internal room at least before small, discrete windows appear higher up.

Setbacks Must match the dominant setback line of adjacent properties on the street.

THEY DO NOT.

Side Setback: For lots under 8 meters wide, setbacks are at council discretion; but given lots of 8 meters require 900mm for one storey, 1.5m for two storeys, and 2.5m for three storeys, it would be logical to assume council would require at least 75% of those stated setback guidelines for 10 Calvert Street, meaning setback must be at least over 1.2m from the 8 boundary, whereas it appears to be a bit smaller than that. This setback also means 10 Calvert Street interior will be barely a few centimetres wider than 4.5metres when the boundary fence and the walls facing 8 and 12 are also taken into account, and a 4.5 metre skinny house on two levels look like nothing in the locale right now.

Rear Setback: Must respect adjacent first-storey rear building lines to protect backyard open space and privacy.

APPLICANT IS NOT RESPECTING. 2,4,6 & 8 have identical rear building lines, and 10’s present one is back further where the internal bathroom brick wall finishes. The applicant wants to come out further than 2,4,6, and 8 are right now with their single story back lines, only the applicant also wants to be up another story with open decks allowing 10 residents to look down into the neighbours decks and courtyards and dining rooms.

Site Design and Amenity, Maintain deep soil soft landscaping in front and side gardens rather than paving over for parking.

NOT COMPLYING THERE

Protect existing neighbourhood solar access, private open spaces, and mature trees.

NON-COMPLIANT ON ALL COUNTS

Provide appropriate architectural articulation to prevent long, uninterrupted blank walls.

NON-COMPLIANT. Neighbours are instead being treated to large sliding doors and extra windows on the ground floor and privacy invading windows and side front and rear facing decks for the neighbours to experience. The neighbours would rather not see the new residents at 10 on open decks and through large windows whether sliding or not.

Please make the developers reset to something more appropriate now, and in the meantime, fix the place up and make the inhabitable bits habitable, too.

Maybe it is time for the Inner West Council to do their part in stopping the destruction of existing housing, perhaps?

Sydney governors’ housing focus in recent years has been to increase dwelling supplies, but there is another pressing issue: which is the destruction of existing solid houses.

The problem has been prevalent in Sydney’s inner west suburbs for a while now, with more and more investors and owner/occupiers looking to merge existing apartments back into the larger whole the building setting once was, or even redeveloping apartment buildings previously containing cheap, basic, no frills, bedsit-style apartments and transforming them into impressive detached homes or neat but modest townhouses.

A little while back, ann application was lodged with Inner West Council seeking to turn a Middleton St, Petersham terrace with four apartments into a modern single-family home. That single family home was sold for $2.6m. More existing apartments at Middleton St, Petersham were proposed to be converted into a single home too, with the applicants arguing that the great effort will thoroughly reward by way of the satisfying reinstatement of the building to its former blazing glory.

“The current state does not promote heritage significance,” the application states.

“Its current exposure is in poor condition with the first-floor balcony … illegally enclosed.

“The proposed alterations seek council approval to re-instate the front façade (so as to) promote heritage significance (in the area).”

The two-bedroom apartments in the terrace were not cheap to rent, with one leased for $650 a week. But they were at least providing housing options.

If applications like the ones mentioned go unapproved, there will be less of these options available.

As regards 10 Calvert Street, surely a modification of the existing house to two semis split to the side of the existing front entrance door, would be a faster, less disrupting renovation option to provide an uptick in occupancy, an extra 20-40% additional housing spots in fact, and far quicker than a knockdown/rebuild/sale to the wealthy will be able to deliver.

And what’s not to love about that way of thinking?

For a 379m² property such as 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville in Sydney’s Inner West, developing and subdividing into a pair of two-story semi-detached dwellings faces major hurdles because the site is below the general 450m² minimum lot size requirement for standard state-code dual occupancies.

Approval requires checking specific local provisions under the Inner West Council controls.

Front Setbacks must match the predominant building line or the average of the two nearest adjacent neighbours within 40 meters, but in the case of the 10 Calvert Street application they don’t. There is massive overreach and simply put the application is NON-COMPLIANT in these areas.
Setbacks typically range from 4 to 6 meters from the primary street boundary to align with the existing streetscape.

Side boundary setback minimum is generally set at 900mm (0.9m) for the ground level. Upper-level portions (second story) usually require increased setbacks or stepping back to reduce bulk, maintain privacy, and prevent overshadowing on neighbouring properties. Another area of outrageous NON-COMPLIANCE

Zero-lot-line allowances may apply specifically to the shared central party/common wall between the two semis, subject to strict masonry and fire-rating rules. I don’t see any expert testimony to how this aspect of the guidelines will be addressed in the documentation. Zero lot line zoning or building code provisions sometimes permit a structure to be built directly on or within a few centimetres of the property boundary line, eliminating the typical side yard setback requirement, yet council rules typically restrict the maximum height (to often single-story elements) and continuous length of a boundary wall. The application wants to take the height of the existing dilapidated outbuilding shack that is currently pushing over the 8/10 boundary fence and use the structure as a precedent to go up another story and put windows and openings for a lounging deck which is both NON-COMPLIANT and out of character with all 10 back yards on Calvert and Queen Streets, that the applicant is seeking provision for its semi occupants to be staring down into. OVERREACH and EGREGIOUS NON-COMPLIANCE

Maintenance easements: Regulations often require a small operational clearance (like 200 to 400 millimetres) or a legal maintenance easement over the neighbouring property so builders or owners can access the exterior wall for upkeep. Since there is none, I call for council to compel the 10 owner/developer to immediately take down the derelict outbuilding shack, and rewall the toilet and hot water tank and laundry machines behind a structure that meets current building standards and adheres to the guidelines set for rear set backs (specifically the ones about not going back further than the immediate neighbour, and the ones related to not going over the boundary and endangering the fence to imminent collapse.

Further to the issues surrounding Rear Setbacks in the application, ground floor components typically require a minimum 3 to 4-meter rear setback. Upper-level (two-story) sections usually mandate a larger rear setback of at least 6 meters to preserve backyard amenity and neighbouring solar access. Application is clearly NON-COMPLIANT in these regards too.

With measuring tape, I recorded the exact width from the 10/8 boundary fence to the 10/14 boundary fence to be 11.94 metres, and as I understand it, an 11.9-metre wide fronted lot narrowly falls short of the general 12-metre minimum lot width standard required under the NSW Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy for new dual occupancies.

Apparently, local controls may present further hurdles depending on other zoning constraints.

Lot Dimensions & Key Constraints. Total Area: land size of 379 square metres, is below the standard 450-square-metre minimum total site area threshold typically required before splitting into two separate Torrens-titled lots that are usually expected to be 225 squared metres a piece. This represents well over 10% of OVERREACH, and even if council use the more lenient guideline of 200 squared metres per semi lot as the guide, the ask is still NON-COMPLIANT

Frontage Requirement. Until not long ago State-wide low-density standards called for 14-metres minimum lot width (frontage) for dual-occupancy and semi-detached developments, and only very recently did the guidelines move to considering , a 12-metre minimum, meaning a 11.9-metre frontage is 100mm short of a non-discretionary pathway.

In any case, Inner West Local Controls: Under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022, specific subdivision exceptions down to a 200m² lot size and 7m frontage only apply if designated on particular maps (like Area 1) and if other constraints - like privacy respect, overshadowing, a rise in pollution and adherence to streetscape aesthetics with regards to style, materials, shape, size and other aspects of form - do not apply.

The application is the wrong side of COMPLIANCE in almost every ask on this application and for these technical reasons the demolition and rebuild should not be allowed to proceed in its presented form.

The Marrickville Residential Development Control Plan (DCP) encourages new development to respect neighbourhood character.

This application does not respect neighbourhood character.

Front setbacks are generally expected to align reasonably with the average of the two adjoining properties to maintain a consistent rhythm on the street, which can influence how a frontage is perceived.

This application does NOT adhere to existing setback precedents and does NOT maintain the streetscape frontage rhythms, as it were.

Contextual Harmony: While different materials (e.g., modern render, concrete, or alternative cladding) are allowed, the council’s design controls assess whether the chosen palette overwhelms or starkly clashes with existing properties in the immediate vicinity, and those assessments will find the application overwhelmingly lacking in any contextual harmony, as the concept is described in legalese.

Development plans for 10 Calvert Street must be scaled back to reflect the density of occupancy, and mirror the general silhouettes and positions that its neighbours front, back, side and upper lines share, and the new concrete driveway and unattractive car port awning that destroys existing nature and mature trees in particular should be nixed, as should the upper decks and 2.4 metre high sliding doors and big side facing windows that seek to increase the side facing window allotment by 250% when calculating the surface area of glass that would face to the side when compared with what windows exist at 10 Calvert Street now on just the single-story dwelling that is there.

Presently, there are only three windows facing east from 10 Calvert Street at this present moment in time, one being a broken, vented privacy window with obscured material (except for the privacy denying absence of one vent panel and a shonky, not fit-for-purpose window awning, the second being a kitchen window (that until March 2026 directly looked into 8’s window until the 8 owners moved the window in a footprint abiding renovation - a window relocation established for everyone’s privacy at 8 and 10, and the third window is a skinny sash bedroom window that is always curtained, which the neighbours at 8 are grateful for, because the window can be seen from 8’s living room and study sash windows that have blackout privacy blinds the 8 residents already have to regularly use for privacy purposes when they know that the neighbours at 10 are home.

This application outrageously stamps and trespasses all over common understandings of what privacy and overshadowing and building setback guidelines are put in place for. The application must not be allowed to proceed in its present form that demonstrates overstated claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny, and display exceptional overreach and excessive overdevelopment, for that matter too.

I respectfully request council act robustly on applying the rules to ensure the applicant return to the drawing board, and come up with a development that actually works within the rules that have been established to PROTECT everyone’s right to privacy, solar access, nature benefits, and controls to waste, management, amenities and occupancy levels to ensure a low density residential zone doesn’t become - via creep - a higher density zone that holds precedents that encourage the future development of apartment blocks in two streets (Calvert and Queen), that are both currently overwhelmingly characterised by single dwelling properties with single story fronts that are set back by at least the depth of the porch and one full room behind the porch, at least.

A freestanding Sydney heritage Federation house (built roughly 1890–1915) features a prominent tuck-pointed red-brick exterior, an asymmetrical facade, a steep terracotta-tiled roof with decorative gables, a wide timber verandah, and intricate stained-glass lead light windows often displaying native Australian floral and fauna motifs. Although not officially “heritage” artefacts right now (for various reasons), 10, 8&6 as a structural entity, and 5&7 and 9&11 Queen Street are Federation-Styled dwellings from around that era even though not yet granted “heritage” privileges just yet, and all of these properties just mentioned are bordering properties that adjoin 10 Calvert Street to the east and south.

When defining the aesthetic of the Calvert Streetscape between Calvert Lane and Cavey Street specifically, the observer will be able to clearly see the abundance of the aforementioned Exterior & Structural Features that define the Australian Federation stylings. The tuck-pointed brickwork: Deep red bricks paired with contrasting fine white mortar lines, the Prominent rooflines: Steeply pitched, multi-gabled roofs usually clad in red or orange terracotta tiles. Also, the Ornate gables: Front-facing timber-framed gables often displaying a "rising sun" motif (which is exactly what is on 10 Calvert Street incidentally).

Then there’s the half-timbering, and/or carved wooden brackets. Tall chimneys too: Prominent, slender brick chimneys featuring decorative corbelled brick caps more often than not. Don’t forget the Verandahs either: Spacious, sweeping front or return verandahs featuring turned timber posts, brackets, and sometimes cast-iron lace and wonderfully intricate floor tiling like what 10 Calvert Street has.

Window Details are telling too. An abundance of lead light panels and Stained-glass windows depicting native flora like Waratahs or fauna like kangaroos. Bay windows also: Angular or curved projecting front windows designed to capture natural light. Suburban fencing is a character feature of this section of Calvert Street and Queen Street as well: Low timber picket fences, sometimes paired with low brick piers.

As regards Interior Elements, there are the intricate pressed metal ceilings too: Ornate fibrous plaster and/or stamped metal sheets featuring geometric or floral patterns. There’s the Rich woodwork to be noted also: Deep cedar or Baltic pine skirting boards, picture rails, and architraves. The Fireplaces, whether Functional or decorative hearths feature wonderfully ornate timber mantelpieces and spectacularly tiled inserts that when preserved really add to the future heritage value of Federation era dwellings that are all now well over 100 years old.

The Federation streetscape style is there at 10 Calvert right now, in “fair condition” too, and a restoration of many of the aforementioned features is surely a “logical” thing to consider when mulling over whether it is really prudent to totally annihilate all that history, to put up two semis on land that is too small (according to NSW rules) and a tad too slim at the front too, especially given the concept drawings do not abide by the aesthetic details described when referring to the Federation style of architecture that overwhelmingly dominates the streetscape from 1-24 Calvert Street and 1-24 Queen Street too.

In the application documentation that anyone can see in Sydney’s Inner West Development Portal, Nader Corp and C & L claim the proposed semis are presenting as a singular unified structure that is in keeping with its neighbours.

However, this is not true, because the nearest structures that present as large freestanding houses - in most cases, but not all - are semis that present as ASYMMETRICAL (a Federation style feature across the board) - as displayed prominently and clearly with the 6 & 8 Calvert Street super-structure, and 16 & 18 Calvert Street together also, and with 3 Calvert Street (an ASYMMETRICAL freestanding single household dwelling that anyone could imagine as a semi with a few minimal external tweaks).

What the applicants claim fits into the Calvert streetscape - as regards conceptual drawings - fails the test, because the sketches show a bulky superstructure with big upper decks and windows that is PERFECTLY symmetrical left and right from the middle, with one semi actually being the eerily precise, exact, spitting image of the other to a jarring degree. Identical side by side houses is 100% incongruent to the character, style and feel of this section of the Calvert Street neighbourhood.

This SYMMETRICAL design presented by C&L - on behalf of michael Nader and Nader Corp Pyy Ltd - as being in keeping with the streetscape character within the immediate vicinity is an assertion that holds no weight when viewed through the lens of what the actual existing semi-detached house architecture looks like within the 40 or so metres surrounding 10 Calvert Streets four boundary lines.

This application should not be approved on this streetscape character destroying flaw alone.

In 2020, journalist Jon Ruwolt wrote about the steadfast allure of Sydney’s Federation homes in Domain.com.au on March 27.

He wrote:

“As the name suggests, Federation architecture was conceived in the decades before and after Australia’s Federation in 1901 as a departure from British designs.

“Timber verandahs, leadlight windows and pitched rooflines are all hallmarks buyers love in Federation homes.

“Breezy timber lattice verandahs were built for enjoying our warmer weather, and Waratahs and kookaburras featured in stained-glass windows celebrated our native flora and fauna.

“More than 100 years later and much to the delight of buyers, Federation houses still remain in Sydney due to diligent heritage protection.

“Tim Smith, director of heritage operations at Heritage NSW, says: ‘history-rich homes are vital to our community, and it’s no surprise that they remain popular with buyers’.”

How about we not destroy yet another one at 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville, Sydney, NSW 2204

The writer of the article, goes on to state:

“Federation homes in Sydney are considered imperative in shaping suburbs and communities, and enticing buyers. ‘People like heritage character and are drawn to suburbs that have those fabulous design details, materials and craftsmanship that add so much to a place and its feel,’ Smith says.

“Appian Way in Burwood has some of the best preserved Federation homes in the city.

“On the North Shore of Sydney, Kuring-gai Avenue in Turramurra ranks alongside pockets of Wahroonga and Killara, that they proudly sport some of the best Federation heritage homes on the upper north shore, while on the lower north shore there are Federation homes of a grand scale in Mosman and Neutral Bay.

“Smith says: ‘studies of community attitudes to heritage-protected Federation homes suggest the homes do retain their value over time and investing in their restoration only increases their market appeal.’ He says:’… home owners often assume owning and maintaining an older house requires more effort, but those who are drawn to the charm of living inside an original Federation home will find it’s not the case.’

“If you’re aware of the council’s guidelines and don’t have dramatic renovation plans, the experience of owning a part of Australian history is only a pleasure.

“If you look at them as an asset not as a difficulty, I think it changes people’s perspective on the opportunity.

Let’s make Marrickville a shiny example of Federation architecture heritage too, by carefully considering what is best for 10 calvert Street in terms of future development in this ever modernizing world we all live in.

Sydney is steadily losing its freestanding Federation-era homes (built roughly between 1890 and 1915) to demolition.

Developers frequently knock down these character-filled properties—known for their red brick, ornate timber verandahs, and pitched terracotta tile roofs—to build modern duplexes, townhouses, or large contemporary "cookie-cutter" houses.

Why Federation Homes Are Disappearing is mainly down to the woeful lack of Legal Protection and apathy, unfortunately.

Most individual Federation houses do not hold local individual heritage listings and sit outside strict Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs).

On top of that, high land values in middle and inner-ring Sydney suburbs make the land worth vastly more than the older home sitting on the sites currently.

Additionally, State housing targets and planning reforms incentivise higher-density infill or larger single-lot rebuilds, accelerating single-house demolitions.

Suburbs across the Inner West, North Shore, and southern/eastern rings are losing the familial architectural charm that defined 20th-century Sydney development.

While conservationists and architectural purists argue that unlisted character homes tell the collective social history of Sydney, developers and some landowners argue that strict preservation curbs housing supply and forces owners to retain functionally obsolete, expensive buildings, but that would categorically not be the case for 10 Calvert Streets which has been acknowledged by C&L and Nader Corp as being a structure (the original house that is) to be in “fair condition”.

With this in mind, can we not consider saving the facade of the existing property on 10 Calvert Street and modify the rear sympathetically and with respect to neighbours rights, to increase occupancy and therefore housing options - by 20-40% which is a significant number considering it’s coming from an existing 379 squared metre block that is too small to really be subdivided into two-story semis that overwhelm the neighbouring wider lots at 8 and 14 and 7, 9 & 11 Queen Street behind them?

Saving Sydney's old houses - like the one at 10 Calvert Street today - saves money, protects the environment, and keeps local character alive.

Tearing down a Federation home or terrace uses more energy and loses the unique history of suburbs like Marrickville.

Old buildings often use better materials than modern ones and require less fossil-fuel energy output.

Reusing a house uses less carbon than building a new one.

Reusing a house reduces waste because Demolitions send vast amounts of good material to the landfill tip.

Reusing a house keeps green value better too. Older homes often sit near trees and gardens that new builds destroy.

Reusing a house lowers overall costs: Fixing up an old home can cost less than a full rebuild, especially on uneven, clay dominated Marrickville land.

Reusing a house boosts value because buyers will pay more for historic charm and original details.

Reusing a house utilises strong - already proven - solid materials: Old timber and brick last longer than cheap modern alternatives.

Reusing a house Maintains a community’s history for it keeps Sydney's unique Inner West look and story alive.

Reusing a house supports local aesthetics and style by maintaining the established look and feel of old streets.

Reusing a house enhances the “lived in” feel, because established houses have a warmth that new corrugated metal and drywall and swathes of concrete cannot ever match.

Let’s seriously consider this: Reusing the house that already exists at 10 Calvert Street.

The properties currently right next door to 10 Calvert Street right now, have frontages that are actually wider than the subdivision the application calls for.

For context, Number 8 has a frontage of over 6 metres (plus 10%), as does 14 (but with a slightly smaller overage in percentage terms), whereas 10 is presently a sliver under 12 m and that’s without proper retaining walls and proper, solid, structured boundary fences being put in place.

That said, the applicant wants to cram two story behemoths with five beds plus upper decks and multiple tall sliding doors on multiple angles onto two skinny lots, at an occupancy level that exceeds both neighbours by two bedrooms each (which represents a 40% increase in bedrooms built on even more slender subdivisions and to a much larger scale that the split block cannot sustain without severe trespassing on privacy, solar access and nature views of many neighbours, that those neighbours have come to value, cherish and treasure.

This application needs to be wrangled into a much smaller, more appropriate footprint, that respects all neighbours’ rights on two-stories, as outlined in local governance documents, and via protocols and guidelines and rules that are in place for everyone’s benefit.

Developers that are rushing a Development Application (DA) often submit incomplete document packages, use inconsistent plans, or ignore local zoning and overlay rules (such as heritage street character adherence or privacy and solar access controls), which triggers formal Requests for Information (RFIs), or outright refusal and immediate council rejection.

Common DA Submission Errors include incomplete documentation: Forgetting mandatory specialist reports (like traffic, acoustics, or stormwater management) or submitting partial file sets.

Plan Inconsistencies can be a downfall too: Providing architectural drawings where site dimensions, boundary setbacks, or heights mismatch across different sheet numbers.

Ignoring Local Controls can be of serious concerns also: Relying on general state rules while missing specific local council requirements found in the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) or Development Control Plan (DCP).

Generic Statements of Environmental Effects (SEE): This document green finds the reusing of boilerplate text that fails to address specific site constraints, neighbourhood privacy, or shadow impacts.

Skipping Pre-Lodgement Consultation is often an issue also. Failing to meet with council planners early to flag red flags before formal online submission.

Portal Upload Errors: Making basic digital administrative or naming mistakes when lodging through portals like the NSW Planning Portal can pose problems as well.

The developers of 10 Calvert Street have fallen into many of the traps mentioned above, and for this reason their application needs to be scrutinised and made right.

Impatient developers who are wanting a fast knockdown and rebuild, will often skip formal checks and attempt to move forward with a demolition without proper council development consent (DA) or a certified complying development certificate (CDC).

Although this shortcut approach triggers heavy fines, stop-work notices, or legal orders to rebuild or restore the demolished structure still it will happen more often than one might expect.

Common Rushed Mistakes include the skipping of Overlay Checks and Ignoring local streetscape character guidelines, environmental, or tree-protection overlays before bringing in machinery.

Demolishing Early: Tearing down the existing house or structure before the building contract or utility disconnections are finalised can often occur too.

Ignoring Easements
and Building over hidden infrastructure like council sewage or stormwater lines often happens too.

Forgoing a courteous Neighbour Notice is a big issue as well: for failing to manage boundary, traffic, or structural impacts, leads to immediate neighbour complaints and in some rare cases, court injunctions.

The impatient developers of 10 Calvert Street need to pull back on their rush to go full steam ahead, and provide needed maintenance to the property that stands, and to formulate a design that aligns with the actual rules that govern development in this particular part of Marrickville in the Inner West of Sydney, which is a low residential area with mainly single story fronted and reader Federation style properties in a low-density residential zone with a long history.

On the matter of what specific buildings that are near 10 Calvert Street are clearly demonstrating how two unified semi-detached dwellings present as a one freestanding structure to the casual passer by in this particular residential nook of Marrickville, I give you exhibit A: 8 and 6 Calvert Street and Exhibit B, number three Calvert Street on the direct opposite side of Calvert Street.

The front door of 8 aligns precisely with number 3’s, and when standing at the front of 6 (looking over the road) it is easy for a person to imagine how a door could be created directly in front of 6’s should the owners of 3 ever choose to create subdivisions and call the new semis 3A & 3B.

In terms of aesthetics, the shared structure of 6 & 8 mimics the style of 3 insofar as the triangle front facade feature that creates the interesting asymmetry sits to the right of the property (when facing the building), thus providing a superb, real life example of what the applicant claimed the rebuild plan would offer, only won’t because the applicants conceptual drawings offer perfect symmetry in a tall deck muddied, glass littered front facade that jars with every last one of its neighbours’ homes.

I invite council to come and stand at the front doors of 3,6 and 8 to immediately get a sense of the alignment of streetscape character attributions that are shared in the properties that stand next to and opposite 10 Calvert Street, right now, today!

The plan presented in the application falls short, and must be stopped and redone before considering next steps in 20 Calvert Street’s future development, surely?

Apparently, the Sydney Inner West Council takes winter solar access and overshadowing seriously for private open space and living rooms on June 21.

As regards the matter of Solar Access, private Open Space & Windows: The Development Control Plan (DCP) mandates that neighbouring properties maintain at least 3 hours of direct sunlight to a portion of their private open space and main living area windows between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM on June 21.

If access is already below that standard as it is at 8 Calvert Street on June 21 through multiple windows and private open space areas within the number 8 Calvert Street property, this situation cannot be reduced further, but the applicant is requesting they be given the right without offering any sort of sensible reason for such a self-serving sun-denying ask be considered.

The residents of 8 are currently, right now, finding themselves in a holding pattern with regards to what nature they plant in their back yard and whether to invest in solar energy panels to be installed on the single story back roof of the property, because the applicants plans will so significantly block light to the rear of 8’s property for over two hours on June 21, and longer for every other day of the year and for this and other reasons we urge the council to make swift decisions on an application that presents failings and deficiencies across the board.

A knockdown rebuild in Sydney’s Inner West will sometimes be blocked by hyper-specific rules, such as a backyard spot hosting a protected bat habitat found after an investigation is triggered, or accidental heritage roofline match rules are not adhered to, or subterranean stormwater overland flow paths that turn blocks into unbuildable zones are not identified in the application. As a matter of fact, finding a single hollow-bearing garden nook or an old roof slated for demolition that harbours protected bats or endangered owls will trigger an immediate halt under local biodiversity protection laws, and both bats and owls and all sorts of other animal life come and go from the many huge trees that line the streets and gardens of both Calvert and Queen Streets, in the Inner West Sydney suburb of Marrickville. And even if a block does not flood from a river, if council stormwater maps show heavy rain funnels a specific "overland flow path" across the exact middle yard of a property in what is called “The Overland Flow Torrent” rule, building a slab-on-ground footprint like what the 10 developers will probably need to create may be completely barred, sonthis should be something investigated before considering the 10 Calvert Street plan to do away with the existing “fair condition” house on the block right now.

The Forbidden Shadow Vector is a concept to be aware of too. For rules fail if a new single-inch-taller roofline casts a shadow over a neighbour's specific solar panel array configuration during the winter solstice as 10 Calvert Street plans to build high two story semis may well cast forbidden shadow vectors over the solar panel array on the single story section of the rear of 9 Queen Street to the south of 10 Calvert Street, an area the applicant neglected to test in the June solar shadowing tests they claimed to have conducted in June 2026 - that only seem to have looked (weakly) at the impacts of solar blocking on number 8 Calvert Street alone.

The prevailing cadastral character of Calvert Street, Marrickville, is a fine-grained, regular subdivision pattern consisting predominantly of small, rectangular Torrens title allotments of up to 260m². These individual parcels support traditional single-storey and low-scale residential dwelling forms.

Most individual land parcels exhibit single story frontages with verandahs and uniform rectangular depths typical of historic working-class Sydney Federation-era layouts.

Local planning controls (governed by the Inner West Council) emphasize retaining this historic fine-grained cadastral layout and avoiding unsympathetic lot amalgamations.

Dominated by single-storey and low-rise residential structures with low end backs and significant setbacks for upper floor boundaries at the rear, and size, aesthetic and structural silhouettes that respect the existing historic streetscape rhythm.

The house designs on the application do not align to the prevailing Cadastral character of the streetscape and do not respect or show sympathy to existing historic streetscape rhythm.

Subdivision and building density controls on Calvert Street in Marrickville are governed by Inner West Council standards under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the Marrickville Development Control Plan (DCP).

Low-density residential (R2) blocks generally enforce an FSR mapped specifically in the local environmental plan, usually capping total gross floor area to maintain neighbourhood scale.

Front setbacks must align with adjacent existing buildings or the dominant setback pattern of Calvert Street.

In the case of 10 Calvert Street 8,6,4 and 2 - the neighbouring dwellings to the east of the proposed demolition all have front verandahs that align and provide privacy views to front yards - all of which feature picketed front yards that showcase plant life and hedging and/or other natural features. The next door neighbour to the west has a frontage set back even further than 10’s present front door who’s sunlight would be blocked between 7am and after 11am - every day of the year, if the application went ahead as prepared.

Side boundaries typically require minimum setbacks of 1.5m for double-storey massing on standard lots. Subdivision design also requires new lot layouts to maintain a depth-to-width ratio of no greater than 4:1.

With these numbers in mind, the width of the semis should be 4.5 metre wide max if the frontage is a true 6 metres, and therefore no more than 18 metres long on the ground floor, then with verandah plus one room set backs at the front and setbacks that respect the upper structural lines, privacy requirements and solar access rights at the back of the property, the upper floor would be eight metres (8m) max by my estimation.

The reason I make this assertion is because the upper floor at 8 is setback by more than seven metres (7m+) from the verandah front. At the rear of the 8 dwelling, the upper floor extremity (one that only has a small frosted glass ventilation and solar access window) is setback over three metres (3m) from the rear brick wall extremity and the back door opening to the property. To clarify further, the depth of the upper floor is under 10 metres in length in total from front to back).

Even the most cursory of glances at the proposed applications conceptual drawings for the new semis proposed reveal with staggering clarity, how the applicant’s plans are not adhering to the precedents of FSR, bulk, and setback rules that have been applied to number 8 in its modifications (over the years).

When thought about in context of the compact single-story size that stands short at number 14, (the smallest house in the immediate vicinity), just one flashing glimpse of the C&L sketches of what Nader Corp wishes to develop gives the impression of something akin to seeing a towering double-deckered London bus parked next to a tiny classic Austin Mini Cooper, despite the applicants preposterous claims that the design is honouring and complementing and enhancing even, the Calvert streetscape that exists right now.

The application as is will quite literally destroy the prevailing Cadastral streetscape character - and its natural landscape for that matter - then create troubling precedents that will eventually lead to Calvert Street becoming a hodge-podge neighbourhood of skinny lots filled with what will ultimately amount to cramped apartment style dwellings if what is sought is allowed to proceed.

While early consultation is strongly encouraged by the NSW Government to smooth out what will be a disruptive process for neighbours who are being asked to endure a knockdown, excavation, creation of new foundations, then long build of two tall skinny structures that overwhelm all surrounding neighbours windows, doors, and open spaces, developers are not legally required to talk to neighbours before submitting a Development Application (DA).

That being said, doing so can prevent costly design conflicts, especially for high-impact projects like dual-occupancy rebuilds in dense urban pockets that are categorised as low-density residential zones. It’s a shame Nader Corp decided to not go this way.

Obviously, developers do not have to consult or share plans with neighbours before lodging a formal application (although as I understand it, Nader Corp did just that with a select number of neighbours in the vicinity that they were trying to persuade to join them in extending the knockdown/rebuild plans, but tellingly made sure to keep the residents of 8 completely in the dark).

A Practical Benefit of Early Talking is the process helps identify structural risks and early talks will also allow for sharing a dilapidation report or arranging protective measures for shared walls and fences and sub-standard structures that are close to collapse into the neighbour’s back yard - a pathway not yet trodden by Nader Corp in the ten months since Nader Corp bought 10 Calvert Street (and five months since the transaction “settled” and the house was rented to five professional tenants with a broken window and broken gates and a collapsing outbuilding and 25 plus metres of boundary fence that needs to be fixed sooner rather than later.

It will come as a surprise to exactly no-one that shell-shocked neighbours who are flagrantly ignored and blatantly cold-shouldered and simply given the silent-treatment are far more likely to knuckle down and launch formal objections, and dispute structural damage, and report boundary and noise breaches to the council as will be happening every step of the way during every single phase of whatever development occurs on the 10 Calvert Street block.

Do the right thing Nader Corp, and reach out to the neighbours you seek to deny solar access, both audio and visual privacy, and a charm-filled streetscape that is low fronted and Federation themed and characterful and packed with an abundance of natural features you casually want to rip out and replace with a concrete driveway that requires the tearing up of the public pavement to create a crossover that only benefits 10, and requires the confiscation of a kerbside parking spot that the community all share at this present moment in time, once again for the benefit of the 10 developer and precisely nobody else whatsoever.

To compel action against further overreach or unapproved conditions for the dual-dwelling/subdivision development at 10 Calvert Street Marrickville, I plan to log formal compliance complaints with the Inner West Council Development Compliance team to trigger site inspections and stop-work orders if and when rules are not being adhered to, action I anticipate to be likely given the inconsistencies and misleading claims and general failings to show due diligence recorded in the DA application that is currently under consideration.

I shall be vigilant in sharing details about Unauthorised Works and I plan to file immediate online reports via Inner West Council Online Services if builders breach approved hours, boundaries, or structural plans with whatever development ends up eventuating on the 10 Calvert Street block.

I will also be hyper vigilant in my calculations of loss of privacy, setback violations, and character mismatch details and will make sure that the contractors do not stray from agreements by even a millimetre and/or to within 0.1% of agreed measurements (whether they be related to solar access, audio/visual privacy rights, setback rules, materials that are at odds with what were approved, or plant life of a certain size and species), and will be sure to meticulously scrutinise what was registered on the application tracking page.

I will also collaborate with resident advocacy networks like Save Marrickville to pool community evidence and lobby local councillors for more transparent oversight.

If necessary, I shall also escalate matters to the Ombudsman if the council fails to act on reported breaches in good time, and specifically that would mean escalating any of the administrative failures I observe to the Internal Ombudsman Shared Service (IOSS).

I mention this only because it has now been well over a month since Cracknell & Lonergan and Nader Corp and Sydney’s Inner West Council posted notice of the DA, yet have heard not a single thing about whether the current owners of 10 are to be compelled to downscale and reformat their application while also bringing overdue repairs and removals to dangerous sub-standard structures and broken fences and gates and windows that have been totally neglected since settlement occurred in March 2026, the same month tenants moved in and started paying rent to the applicant, money that has not been used to fix up the unacceptable aspects of the current property, be that cutting back the overgrown fruit trees or replacing the missing window glass, or rehousing the laundry and hot water and outside toilet behind more structurally sound walls that do not encroach both the rear line and boundary fence of number 8.

Thank you Zoe - representative for Sydney’s Inner West Council - for reaching out and letting me know the process of council assessment and setting expectations on timelines for decisions to be made.

Appreciated.

Modifying small Federation-era worker cottages and bungalows in Sydney requires balancing heritage streetscapes with light-filled, open-plan family living.

Inspired architects achieve this - more often than not - by preserving the original front rooms while adding discreet, contemporary rear pavilions.

Key Design Strategies often include the "House in Two Halves" Layout concept: whereby Retaining original structural room sequencing at the front for Cadastral streetscape maintenance compliance, then opening up via a central light-well or high-ceilinged (often Cathedral-style) modern rear extension.

Contrast in Materiality: Pairing dark, ornate heritage Baltic pine floorboards or restored tuckpointed brickwork with sleek herringbone tiled floors, steel or aluminium framed glass doors, and light timber cladding and shaker-style joinery in the new, more contemporary styled zones.

Discreet Additions: Keeping second-storey or pavilion expansions set back so they remain hidden from the streetscape in low-density residential zones.

Tactile Transition: Using custom joinery, window seats, and deep timber reveals to bridge the historical aesthetic of the cottage with functional modern storage.

A Notable Sydney example that showcases these transitions is a project by Studio Prineas called “Hideaway House” on the architects website:

https://studioprineas.com.au/project/hideaway-house/

The blurb states:

Hideaway House
Willoughby
Cammeraygal Country

The brief …

Transform a 1920s (era) … bungalow into an airy retreat inspired by the homeowners’ shared love of music, wine and their garden.

The result …

Existing circular motifs, monochromatic finishes and the deep steel window reveal of the home’s previous ensuite renovation, inspired an analogous approach to the reinvention of the home in its entirety.

The living volume expands into the lofty ceiling height, opening it up within the original roof envelope, while carefully placed skylights illuminate the interior.

The monochromatic kitchen becomes the central gathering place.

Visual connections to the much loved garden are framed through circular portals and the window seat aperture – the perfect place to appreciate the view, listen to music and wind down with a glass of wine.

The feeling …

A moody garden hideaway animated by deep contrasts of monochromatic materialality.

Across Sydney, there are countless other early twentieth century architectural residential transformations that are inspiring, many of which are featured in “Homes To Love” a platform highlighting finely finessed Sydney revivals that genuinely fit in to, and enhance the streetscape.

Let’s try and steer Nader Corp and Cracknell & Lonergan into a property transformation that is easier to love than the opposite, which is what the present application is proposing right now.

Many modern Sydney Federation homes pair preserved period front rooms and verandah returns with light-filled contemporary additions to the rear, something Cracknell & Lonergan and Nader Corp would be smart to consider when conjuring up designs to redevelop the 10 Calvert Street block.

Behind the front door of many Federation homes (on Calvert Street already as it happens) visual feasts await – with unexpected, detail restoration, colour drenching and stunning light-filled additions galore creating striking effects for visitors to behold.

Many lucky families living in Federation double-brick dwellings in Sydney’s Inner West have what amounts to a wonderful journey in time whenever they walk into their stained-glass light-filled hallways and turn into the front rooms that bask in Immersive colours accentuated by the sunlight streaming in from the front, features that invariably highlight the Federation homes’ charming period features, while the light-soaked backs are often uncompromisingly modern, but still boasting subtle nods and tips of the hat to twentieth Century traditions and aesthetics.

With Federation homes there is plenty to love about the enchanting multi-bedroom dwellings, that often start with unassuming, well maintained, picket fences and gates.

“The original character drew us in,” says Caitlin a property buyer who fell in love with a modernised Federation single-story family home that had been given a full sympathetic makeover. “The proportions of the front rooms, the ceiling heights and the period detailing gave (our home) a special presence.

Caitlin’s inner west home boasts ornate cornices, ceiling rose
Details, stained-glass windows and architraves that have been kept largely intact. But after that, the floor-plan had been fragmented before renovation, with a visual disconnect between the heritage front and a basic 1950s addition at the back. So the couple called in architects Potter&Wilson.

“We wanted a highly functional family home that would work effortlessly day to day, with clear views to our kids playing outdoors, a strong indoor-outdoor connection, generous storage and considered joinery,” she says. “And distinct zones, with a quiet sense of retreat at the front and expansive shared living at the rear.” Caitlin said.

The brief was to honour the original front while allowing the rear to feel “crisp and contemporary, (yet) with a refined, but relaxed, ambience”.

“It had to feel warm, with layered colour, natural materials and (lots of) space.”

Imogene Potter and Simon Wilson of Potter&Wilson demolished the back and replaced it with a spectacular pitched volume (cathedral style) introducing scale and space that takes advantage of all available natural light.

The back of Caitlin’s Sydney Inner west house now opens to the garden through svelte-framed steel glazing that offers visual continuity and sleek flow between both the indoors and outdoors. And the brick exterior with tiled roof echoes the front. “The pitched ceiling at the rear is transformative – it elevates what could have been a standard extension into something spatial …,” says Caitlin.

10 Calvert Street can be a proudly presented property like Caitlins is, if Cracknell & Lonergan were to lean in to the actual Calvert streetscape character and charm that exists right now, rather than introduce visual and structural and material elements that are overwhelmingly incongruous to the Cadastral nature of the Calvert Street, Marrickville environment.

The above information borrowed snippets and quotes from an Australian “Homes To Love” article published a few years ago.

lol at:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaBzeSXvkI&t=23

In this short video, Peter Lonergan, Director of Cracknell & Lonergan Architects in Sydney, Australia shares his thoughts on why adaptation of existing buildings helps to maintain the vocabulary of architecture which exists and helps to support a city dialogue which speaks of its past, present and future.

The Interview took place on 4 June 2018 at the Cracknell & Lonergan Architects Newtown HQ, in Sydney, Australia.

For context, Cracknell & Lonergan’s recent design at 76 Yelverton Street in Sydenham (a house currently on sale and looking for its first new-build residents) and the conceptual drawings for the bulky new builds planned for the 10 Calvert Street Marrickville knockdown/rebuild do not include any aspects of the “adaptive reuse” that in this very video Peter Lonergan states very clearly how “adaptive reuse of existing buildings” is “a little easier” than just knocking down “fair condition” buildings and starting from scratch, a claim Cracknell & Lonergan contradict in their application documentation, insofar as the completed paperwork states that a knockdown is “the only logical way to proceed” (or words to that effect, throwing up the question, why is that not kind of thinking and processing and evaluating going into the redevelopment of the 10 Calvert Street site y to hat could easily benefit from Peter Lonergan’s “adaptive reuse” theories he seems so passionate about, in the video?

For a succinct, well-produced, video explanation of the principle of architectural “adaptive reuse” - a principle that could EASILY APPLY to the 10 Calvert St, Marrickville development, as proudly espoused by Peter Lonergan, a principle at Cracknell & Lonergan (speaking in 2018),

For context, C&L are the business entity contracted to design a new development for 10 Calvert Street, (and FYI - Peter Lonergan gives well-articulated short sound bites on his backing of the “adaptive reuse” principles in the video link you can cut and paste from below).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=okkheYt5jK8

After watching this interesting piece, I hope C & L are able to better justify the jettisoning of “adaptive reuse” principles for a building that has been acknowledged in the application as being in “fair condition, in a better fashion than C&L manage to muster in the application documentation for the knockdown/rebuild desire for10 Calvert Street, Marrickville, if asked for new sound bites regarding C&L’s current stand on “adaptive reuse” commitments - and on camera - especially given that C&L’s architectural development philosophies seem to have changed in the 2020s (vis-a-vis what we see from 2018, when Peter Lonergan spoke about his strong belief in “adaptive reuse”.

And despite the world being even more starved of resources than it was in 2018 and far more worried about climate change from unnecessarily creating larger carbon footprints than necessary, for environmental concerns have only escalated, to far greater heights of concern than those society laboured under back in 2018.

On the application drawings, lot 10 is written as being 1.92.14 metres squared

… and lot 12 is written as being 1.92.96 metres squared.

1.92.14 +
1.92.96
=
385.1 metres squared

… this is over 6 metres squared more than the 379 metre block actually is

… and in any case the number still falls significantly short of the 450 (225 + 225) metres squared usually required to pass muster for subdivision, as I understand it, and shorter still if taking the more generous 200 metres squared minimum allotment for a Torrens divide.

Under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2022, the minimum lot size for subdividing land into semi-detached dwellings (where identified as "Area 1" on the Lot Size Map outside heritage areas) is 200m² per resulting lot, provided each lot features a minimum street frontage of 7 meters.

Key Requirements for Subdivision
Lot Area:

Minimum of 200m² for each new Torrens title lot.Street Frontage: Minimum of 7 meters of frontage per lot.

The 10 calvert Street application does not meet this council threshold.

According to NSW State guidelines:

“ The following new standards for dual occupancies apply in Low and Mid-Rise Housing areas in R1, R2, R3 and R4 zones (where permitted):

Lot size: min 450 m2
Lot width: min 12 m

Subdivision (R1, R2, R3 only):
min 225 m2 per lot / 6 m width minimum

Non-discretionary development standards, also (sometimes) known as non-refusal standards have the effect of prevailing over an equivalent standard set out in a local environmental plan (LEP) or development control plan (DCP) that is more onerous.

If the proposed development complies with the non-discretionary standard, a consent authority cannot refuse the application on the grounds that the development does not comply with the standard.

But again, the application doesn’t comply with NSW State thresholds either, so whether the block is in fact 379 metres squared, or 385.1 metres squared (6.m2 bigger as claimed in the application) in both instances the applicant falls short of both the 450 m2 and 400m2 threshold that is needed to build a semi where a single-story free-stander exists at the moment.

Under the local and state planning rules managed by Inner West Council (governed by the Inner West LEP), low-density R2 residential zoned properties in Marrickville typically carry a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1, meaning the total allowable gross floor area is half of total land size.

For 10 Calvert Street (approx. 379 m² of land looking to be divided into two 189.5 m2 subdivisions) a 0.5:1 ratio translates to a maximum building floor space of the approximately 189.5 m² properties zoned R2 Low Density Residential in Marrickville under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022.

In some cases, permissions to go to a ratio that is a little higher (for example 0.6:1 - which is a bit under two-thirds floor to available land ratio).

Application plans for 10 Calvert Street are trying to build north of 0.75:1 ratio of floor to land (and on two-stories) that take the high point of 10’s existing building and applying that height over a high percentage of the house from above the front doors and back.

Concerned locals should be aware of this overreach.

Even though local non-discretionary guidelines indicate that subdivision of 10 Calvert St is a minimum of 450m2 (225m2 per new lot) and NWS State rules offer 400m2 (200m2 per new lot), with about half of the land size only to be floor space (100-113m2 internal living area as per sanctions, number 8 and number 14 set precedents that may be followed in their decision about whether to grant subdivision permissions and how much maximum floor space size is allowed.

8 calvert St has land size that is 6.5 metres (the width of its front from boundary to boundary for context) with floor space of 133m2.

14 Calvert Street that is a few centimetres larger than the proposed subdivisions with floor space of 135metres.

If the precedents of 8 and 10 are upheld to justify 10 subdivision it would be logical and fair given the data available to cap the new subdivision floor space at 126 m2 for the new 10, and 134m2 for the new 12.

These days, there is a lot of talk about the urgency to create more housing options within a few hundred metres of significant transport hubs like Sydenham Station (a hub that is 1.2 kilometres away from 10 Calvert Street - the “fair condition” property earmarked for total demolition in this application.

Only the thing is, 76 Yelverton Street - Cracknell & Lonergan designed 3-tier terrace that is just 400m from Sydenham station sits unoccupied, unsold, despite the unfurling housing crisis Sydney faces.

Here’s a link to the property for sale right now:

https://www.realestate.com.au/property/70-yelverton-st-sydenham-nsw-2044/

Part of the reason that 76 Yelverton St remains unoccupied and unsold for the time being, is perhaps linked to affordability (the owners are asking for two and a quarter million dollars for a property with a no-frills stark white front facade with a visible aircon unit, which is not to council guidelines as I understand the rules). So maybe desirability plays a part here too, and a lack -possibly - of understanding what gives a historic streetscape its appeal to those in the market for big 5-bedroom terraced single occupancy non-freestanding dwellings.

You see, up until only a handful of years ago, 72, 74 and 76 were just single story freestanding bungalows. The nearest 3-level terrace was 70 Yelverton Street, an absolute charmer of the Victorian era, with the original building being originally built in 1895, well before Federation.

72 was then modified but without the same attention to detail needed to truly pay homage to the legacy of Victorian period character, then after that Cracknell and Lonergan cram two more three-story terraces alongside, only with the design this time, pretty much all tips of the hat to what make Victorian era terraces so wonderful, have been completely ignored in the external design considerations, unfortunately.

I use 76 Yelverton Street as a reference for what is likely to happen in the future should 10 Calvert Street be allowed to cram tall, skinny five bed behemoths next to small single story bungalows like 15 Calvert Street (as Cracknell & Lonergan and whomever developed 76 Yelverton Street did when they built right up to the walls of 78 Yelverton Street - the single story bungalow that stands next door).

Interestingly. Google Earth shows the small single story freestanding properties that were at 74 & 76 until only very recently, when you put the addresses in the search engine and check out the street view.

I am very concerned about the precedent set by the cluster of Cracknell & Lonergan buildings on Yelverton Street, because - as can clearly be seen in the real estate agents promotional photographs for the number 76 sale - the Inner West council allowed this 3-tier terrace to not only dwarf its immediate neighbour with its hulking size, but it also allowed the property to display an air-con unit to the public on the street facing front of the house, and council allowed the installation of an unattractive and unhidden private electricity pole at the street and 78 boundaries too. And going through the images on real estate dot com for au, one can see the way nature is handled in the Cracknell and Lonergan home, with small young trees and just a scattering of plants and grasses and such, but then also the presence of an overwhelmingly industrial looking water tank, just like the ones Cracknell & Lonergan propose to install in the subdivided properties on the 10 Calvert Street block. And on top of that, the Cracknell & Lonergan design at 76 Yelverton (as it does also in the plans for 10 Calvert Street) the photographic images show without a shadow of a doubt what side facing living areas will do in terms of visual and audio privacy to the neighbours, for open areas to the side reveal people moving about and bright lights going on and off and the loud sounds of chattering and laughing and music among other disruptions. And I mention this here in this context, because the application documentation for 10 Calvert Street plans, specifically claim that the installation of three huge two and a half metre high and three metre wide heavy sliding aluminium doors will enhance and improve and optimise audio and visual privacy, when in the real world the double brick wall that is standing there right now, provides maximum privacy by any measure.

Calvert Street could do without buildings like 76 Yelverton Street - that cause disruption in the knockdown rebuilds that take much longer than “adaptive reusing” the existing “fair condition” structure (a principle Peter Lonergan of Cracknell & Lonergan once stood by), going in and causing a year’s plus worth of description, only to stand empty, and unoccupied, because the asking price for the 5 bedroom semi that is very much not affordable housing by any definition is so high, after erasing a lovely example of Federation freestanding charm in the home that exists at 10 Calvert Street right now.

Upon further investigation, it appears that Cracknell & Lonergan have taken - at least in part - some design inspiration from the Cadastral streetscape character of properties that are ALL over 50 metres walk away from 10 Calvert Street boundaries.

The semi-detached properties C&L seem to have absorbed and reimagined, can be found on Meeks Road, Victoria Road and Queen Street, all nearby neighbourhood nooks THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE CALVERT STREETSCAPE that number 10 sits within.

On Meeks Road, I refer - as an example - to the properties between 135 & 141, which are four semi-dwellings that feature a Federation triangular feature that is cut in the middle at the precise boundary line between the adjoining semis, with the front doors left and right of the triangle’s apex. Only it is important to note that there are no side driveways and carports or upper situated, side and front-facing decks, or upper story front facing windows on the shared structure (for all these examples present as single story fronted properties.

We see similar shared triangle apex’s in semis that are just around the corner from Meeks (and opposite Queen Street) at 344 & 342 Victoria Road (a property currently seeking approval for a DA from the Inner West Sydney council right now). But again, 344 & 342 Victoria Road have a conspicuous absence of upper open decks and high-set forward facing windows and a distinct lack in carports over concrete driveways and the absolute presence of sun-shading verandahs, as all properties I will mention have.

The closest we get to Calvert Street, for any street-facing frontage facade where the semi-dwelling’s Federation triangle is shared by both semi-dwellings (and therefore arguably - at least in part - represents much of the defining of that particular streetscape’s Cadastral architectural character), are the properties of 1-7 Queen Street, the homes that back on to 3,4,6 & 8 Calvert Street. Once again though, the frontage contributes to the Queen Street Cadastral character, not Calvert Street, and specifically not the area that surrounds 10 Calvert Street for 50 metres east, west and north of 10 Calvert Street, the site being proposed to be demolished for new buildings with a style that simply doesn’t fit in to the neighbourhood, even if it may have arguably be more in keeping with sections of Meeks Road, Victoria Road and Queen St., all streetscapes with their own unique aesthetics to offer.

In summary, the design inspiration for the application (that over reaches with its disregard for deep setbacks, its ask for open upper decks, and a wide array of high-level front and side facing windows, and new driveways and carports and the jettisoning of traditional verandahs, that all - by the way - are present in the Meeks Rd, Victoria Rd, and Queen St properties appear to be a starting point for the styling influence that Cracknell &
Lonergan seem to be selling in as indicative of the Calvert St Cadastral streetscape character when the design is actually at odds with the dominant aesthetics of this section of the Calvert streetscape.

For the purposes of edification on the matter, the nearest semi-detached dwellings on Calvert Street that do share the Federation triangle above both properties and use side-by-side front doors flanking the property boundary (and thus demonstrate the symmetry that Cracknell & Lonergan have pulled together in their conceptual drawings), can be seen at 30
& 32 Calvert Street (over 50 metres walk away from 10’s front door), which is further away from 10’s front door in fact, than the front doors of both 335 & 337 Victoria Road - the closest shared structures that bear the symmetrical style motifs that Cracknell & Lonergan lean into - Cadastral streetscape character patterns that are nowhere to be seen between 1 - 30 Calvert Street, and definitely not with all of the overbearing extras and disruptive architectural additions C&L have thrown in to the mix, like the overstated upper story forward thrust, the privacy-trespassing open decks that face both the street and both next door neighbours, and the upper and lower level increase in windows galore (some two and a half metres high and three metres wide and essentially sliding side doors that also trample on neighbour’s various privacy rights), all at the expense of traditional front facing lower-level Sun-shade verandahs.

Just to reiterate, the Cadastral streetscape that 10 Calvert Street falls into, is one where the front-facing low-lying structural facades are ASYMMETRICAL, with a triangle over to just one side, as with numbers 2 & 4 and 6 & 8 to the east of 10, and 3 and 7 & 9 to the north and verandahs on the other side to the triangle, at least.

Should the applicant argue that their design takes its lead from the 16 & 18 adjoining properties it’s worth noting that the ASYMMETRY is on display with 16 & 18 having one property that has a side driveway and a side-facing front door but no verandah, and the other dwelling has no driveway, but a partly enclosed verandah, and a street facing gated and pathed front entrance to the public pavement sidewalk.

Surely, in deciding what new buildings are suitable as new builds in a low-density residential zone, councils must require at least a little architectural sympathy to what already exists in the immediate vicinity, by taking inspiration from the legacy, history and heritage that’s right there around the development, not from streetscapes from adjoining neighbourhoods that have a seperate context?

And surely council will compel developers to apply the dominant street character stylings that buildings next to the development site and opposite the development site -on the other side of the road?

For bear this in mind, every Calvert Street house that can be considered close (and we’re talking over 50 metres here) are - without exception, low fronted, with upper section setbacks of great depth that also don’t display any types of windows for a full ten metres or so from the Calvert Street public pavement.

It was put to me that my constant nit-picking may dilute the framing of what is most important to me, as regards this application.

So here are the ten most important things to me:

1. That the preservation of 10’s existing facade - spruced up of course - be seriously considered.

2. That the subdivision of two lots be considered in the context of - using Peter Lonergan
Of Cracknell & Lonergan’s own parlance - the “adaptive reuse” of existing “fair condition” structures. In other words, reinvigorate the front tiled porch, retain the terracotta tiled roof to the highest point forward-facing, and use the front hallway and first two front rooms internally in some fashion, including perhaps the floorboards, ceilings and fireplace hearths and other interesting period features.

3. Require the developers to not exceed 130m2 floor space for either new lot given both lots are over six metres smaller than the next door neighbours is (and their floor space is 133m2.

4. Require the developers to follow the “dominant rear line” of the houses that follow the even-numbered side of the street, from 2-8 and then 14’s original brick walled, tile-roofed structure that stands beyond the other boundary side of the 10 Calvert St block.

5. Require the developers to follow the upper floor front wall set back rule that required (quite rightly) for number 8’s top level set back to be a good ten metres from the public pavement.

6. Require the developers to follow the upper floor set back at the rear that sees number 8’s upper floor wall, (quite rightly), setback over three metres from 8’s ground floor rear door position.

7. Require the developers to put in no more east facing windows than the ones that exist now, and that any new upper floor windows be facing northerly and westerly for they are they are the only directions that will capture the mid morning and afternoon sunlight, plus also maintain 8’s privacy rights at the very same time.

8. Require the developers to preserve the front and rear gardens that have been cut back illegally but still tellingly maintain the evidence of significant natural high-standing canopy that should still be around providing shade, privacy and oxygen for the neighbourhood, if only the things hadn’t been torn out in late 2025.

9. Require the developers to present a design that shows clearly where and how they plan to hideaway items that neighbours should not endure, like aircon units, water heaters, and private poles for electricity supply (if this ends up being necessary).

10. And lastly, require the developers to use materials that fit in with the nearest neighbours, which means the frontage be brick and tiled in the main, with perhaps metallic awnings over the porch if seeking a touch of difference.

These are the ten points I shall be talking most about at the LEP meeting when it finally arrives.

In researching this matter meticulously, I have discovered that developers are not automatically going to guarantee permission to remove a public kerbside parking spot for new driveway crossovers.

Local authorities (such as the Inner West Council) assess applications under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 on a merit basis, heavily prioritising the retention of on-street parking, pedestrian safety, and existing street assets.

Key Factors that Councils Consider are loss of On-Street Parking with Councils generally rejecting new crossovers if they eliminate vital kerbside parking spaces, unless the local area has exceptionally low parking demand which is empirically not the case for Calvert Street, given it sits less than 100 metres back from the busy commercial business district of Marrickville Road, near the intersection of Victoria road and runs all the way down to Illawarra Road, another busy commercial stretch.

Access and Spacing Rules apply too. Apparently, Driveways must maintain strict minimum side boundary clearances (often 500mm) and required safety separation distances from other crossovers, trees, utility poles and underground amenities. Water, sewage, run off, telecommunications, internet, and other easy-to-disrupt service resources and supply points track along the 8/10 border where the spacing section and proposed development area is.

Number of Access Points is a serious consideration too. Residential policies typically limit properties or re-developed lots to a single vehicular crossing, meaning secondary or redundant crossovers are usually routinely refused.

The Approval Process must be accounted for as well, requiring Seperate Consent. Planning consent for subdivisions split into new dwellings does not grant permission to alter the public kerb or shared public footpaths.

The developer or owner must separately apply for a Specialised Application - a formal public domain or roadworks permit (such as a two-step Design Approval and Permit to Construct) - supported by engineered drawings.

Sydney's Inner West Council require new driveways to avoid encroaching on public trees on nature verges (there are two, one either side of the proposed pavement crossover development), with the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and Structural Root Zone (SRZ) defined by Australian Standard AS 4970, typically requiring an arborist assessment if within several metres - which as mentioned is the case here (but only a few short metres actually), with public trees directly in front of 10’s existing front door, and less than 6 metres along, another mature lemon Myrtle tree just to the west of 8’s front door.

Council Assessment Rules on the Rentention-First Policy will apply here too. From what I have been led to believe, Inner West Council prioritises the health and retention of public street trees over new vehicle access points which makes sense given the property’s privileged access to so many public transport hubs within a short walking distance.

Root Zone Protection: Excavation of hard paving for a new crossover must be proven that it cannot and will not damage a tree's structural roots or significantly disrupt its TPZ.

Case-by-Case Evaluation: Crossovers proposed near existing trees require a detailed site plan and often a professional arborist report submitted with a Development Application (DA) or vehicle crossing permit.

No such report was submitted, as far as can be seen, although an arborist did mysteriously recommend the removal of two mature healthy trees on site, for the sole purpose of filling in the land with concrete for a vehicular driveway and car port awning that will overshadow 8’s ground floor front windows.

When I Googled the question: “Does Sydney's Inner West Council allow subdivision when a freestanding house with setbacks under 400m2 is demolished?” - the internet said:

“The Inner West Council does not inherently grant a blanket permission to subdivide simply because a small freestanding house is demolished. Instead, zero-lot line or boundary subdivisions on sub-400m² sites are evaluated under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and local Development Control Plans (DCPs) based on historic subdivision patterns, existing streetscapes, and side-wall design rules.

Planning Context and Controls are employed, especially regarding existing Character. Many parts of the inner west feature historic, narrow, or zero-boundary subdivision patterns (like semi-detached or row dwellings).

If a lot's context matches that pattern, council provisions may allow zero setbacks.

Minimum Lot Sizes: While R2 low-density zones typically prefer larger footprints, existing undersized or non-compliant lots can sometimes be reconfigured if the resulting envelope satisfies design criteria for light and privacy.

Merit-Based Assessment: Setbacks under 400m² are often assessed on a case-by-case basis. Factors include solar access to neighbours, boundary wall structural compliance, and unified streetscape presentation rather than strict numerical minimums.

That said, 10 calvert Street exists presently with a side setback at the 8/10 boundary of just 60 centimetres, which is wider than the red, yellow and green waste and management wheeled-bins issued by the Inner West Council.

So one of their things must happen: 1), if the developer is allowed to demolish and rebuild with a side setback that is presumably similar to 8’s (which is over were a metre wide), a design must show where exactly those bins are to be housed (away from public and neighbouring sight); or 2 - in the eventuality that the current side wall of the existing house at 10 be preserved, where exactly are the red, yellow and green bins to be hidden, given they won’t fit within a 600mm side setback.

These assets, along with aircon units, water heaters, solar panels, and private poles for electricity supply need to be shown on designs, else the community are essentially unable to respond to any facts for they are ultimately being withheld, and the Calvert Street neighbourhood risks being forced to endure air-con units and private poles that are clearly visible and audible from the public pavements by every random passer by, as is the case with 76 Yelverton St in Sydenham, a recent knockdown rebuild
Approved by the Inner West Council, designed by Cracknell & Lonergan (the same firm that came up with the 10 Calvert Street design) - a property )76 Yelverton Street that is, which still remains unsold during this “recognised housing crisis” the Inner West faces.

Calvert Street in Marrickville developed primarily during the early 20th-century suburban boom in Sydney's Inner West.

The neighbourhood’s historical context mirrors the broader transformation of Marrickville from 19th-century colonial estates into a dense working-class and tradesperson residential hub.

The land encompassing modern-day Marrickville originated from early 19th-century land grants to figures like Thomas Moore and Robert Wardell.

Following subsequent subdivisions of the Marrick Estate (named by Thomas Calder), smaller residential allotments emerged as market gardens and residential demand expanded alongside early tramway and public transport hubs.

Surviving residential stock on Calvert Street includes single-storey brick cottages and semi-detached homes predominantly built from around 1910 (over 115 years ago now).

A tremendous example of what has survived exists with 1 Calvert Street, a freestanding two level single occupancy dwelling featuring 2 bedrooms on the ground floor and a large attic on the upper level, sitting on about 200m2 and with just half of the area given over to floor space - a 0.50:1 ratio for what it’s worth. And what is wonderful about 1 Calvert Street (just an hop skip and a jump across the asphalt from the existing Federation house standing at 10 Calvert Street right now) is that the property (1 Calvert Street that is) has been painstakingly renovated to honour the heritage, history and legacy of this significant slice of Sydney’s architectural story.

In terms of overall significances, Calvert Street itself reflects an interesting shift from initial speculative housing for early 20th Century industrial employees and railway workers to modern gentrification and heritage-conscious inner-city residential refurbishments that preserve the charm of the low-lying structural frontage facades, but at the same time those same recent newcomers have worked hard to do their part in preserving the Cadastral streetscape character of this altogether rather special nook in the Marrickville suburb of a Sydney now last to the past (except what is left in its local architectural narrative).

When I asked the internet: can you keep an existing facade and create a bigger side set back in Sydney's inner west and what might that look like? - this is the answer I got …

“… Yes, you can absolutely keep an existing facade and create a bigger side setback in Sydney’s Inner West.

“This technique is highly common in renovations across suburbs like Marrickville, where local Cadastral streetscape rules protect the front exterior but allow changes behind the building line.

“Because Inner West blocks are famously narrow and often have existing structures built right to the boundary line, deliberately pushing the new addition further inward (increasing the side setback) is a strategic move.

“It is often used to bring in natural light, create a useful walkway, or meet strict council solar access requirements for neighbors.

“Council & Heritage Rules apply too. Altering a footprint behind a preserved facade requires navigating specific planning rules via a Development Application (DA) with the Inner West Council.

“A new facade must be visually subordinate to the original preserved structure. It should not overwhelm the character of the streetscape.

“The there’s also the "Heritage Sightline". If a developer wishes to add a second story or widen a gap, the additions must typically be stepped back far enough behind the original roof ridge so they cannot be easily seen by someone standing on the footpath that passes the front of the house.

“Solar & Amenity Access: Pushing the side setback wider is a major plus for council approval because it drastically reduces overshadowing on a neighbour's property and allows for "deep soil" landscape zones.

“What Do These Designs Look Like? Architects use specific design typologies to bridge the gap between a historic front facade and a newly recessed back addition.

“They generally fall into three visual styles …

“1). The "Glebe Gap" / Architectural Break (The Shadow Line). Rather than trying to blend the old wall seamlessly into the new, recessed wall, designers purposefully leave an architectural "break.

"The Look: The historic front facade stands independently as a freestanding masonry wall or a classic cottage front. Right where the new, larger side setback begins, a vertical recessed strip (often using dark cladding, a glass floor-to-ceiling window slot, or a literal gap) separates the old from the new.

“Visual Effect: This makes it explicitly clear where the original heritage fabric ends and the modern addition begins, which is a core preference of inner-city councils.

“2). The Pavilion Link (Old Meets New)If you have enough block length, you can preserve the original front building completely intact and drop the new, highly recessed addition further down the block.

“The Look: The classic facade and front two rooms are fully restored. Pushing past those rooms, you walk through a narrow, single-story glass or lightweight "bridge" corridor.

“This corridor leads into a wider, modern open-plan pavilion that is pushed far back from the boundary line.

“Visual Effect: From the side boundary view, you see a striking split. The front has the dense, traditional brick or weatherboard profile, while the rear steps deep into the property to create space for a side courtyard, a plunge pool, or an outdoor walkway.

“3). The Cantilevered / Stepped Inward Addition. If an existing facade is built directly on the boundary line, but developers wants to introduce a first-floor addition with a compliant side setback, you step the upper level inward.

“The Look: The ground floor remains flush on the boundary wall to preserve the historic street profile. The second story, however, is pushed inward by 900mm or more.

“Visual Effect: This creates a stepped silhouette. Designers often use lightweight materials for the stepped-in top floor (like dark zinc cladding, timber batten screens, or rendered finishes) to contrast against the heavy brick or sandstone of the preserved facade below.

“ Key Technical Challenges … Structural Bracing: Retaining just the front facade or front rooms while demolishing behind them requires extensive temporary structural steel propping during excavation and construction.

“Waterproofing the Junction: Flashing and waterproofing the exact point where a new, recessed wall meets the back of an old, boundary-line masonry wall requires meticulous detailing to prevent leaks.

“Site Access: A larger side setback will ultimately give you better side paths once built, but during construction, Inner West laneways are famously tight. Ensure a trusted, capable builder has a clear plan for material delivery and staging to execute this tricky part of the business land.”

The point of that last comment was this: the “logical way” to architecturally deal with subdivision of an existing structure and a not - as the applicant claims - only “logically” restricted to total demolition or nothing, for when “adaptive reuse” (a term that Peter Lonergan of Cracknell & Lonergan used to employ to define his architectural philosophy - as it were) is applied, it becomes blatantly obvious that 10 Calvert Street could execute all manner of terrific architectural creativity, in at least the preservation of the front facade and interior details of the existing property standing on the proposed demolition site that the applicants acknowledge to be in “fair condition”.

For some time now, Marrickville’s housing has become more expensive. As locals, residents, and community-minded citizens, we want to protect the physical character and charm of our suburb, and support the people who live in the area.

Marrickville is made up of people on a range of different incomes and a variety of occupations, and which is a major part - as facts would suggest - of the existing Marrickville character.

If all local housing becomes too expensive, too gentrified, too luxe even, Marrickville will lose many people who call the suburb home right now.

Developers will say they are all about creating affordable housing, but new developments usually knock down far cheaper rentals (like 10 Calvert Street is right now), much more than they provide any sort of significant uptick in affordable housing options, as new luxury housings are so much more expensive, of course.

Many Marrickville locals support the affordable housing initiatives, but are against bulldozing wonderful, historic, buildings with immense character and a story to tell, for destroying the local architectural legacy is simply not the best or only way to address the current housing crisis - a critically important issue.

Federal and State governments have the greatest opportunity to provide affordable housing. Winding back investor tax breaks that inflate house prices, investigating an empty house tax (like in Vancouver, Canada for instance) and providing more social housing, could and would make a genuine difference.

Sydney’s Inner West Council can also play a role through their Affordable Housing Revised Scheme.

The idea that merely upping housing supply will improve housing affordability is a mistake. Developers tend to go with that angle to persuade the public, government and multi-media platforms to let them to go big and overdevelop, often building high rise apartments in lower density residential areas.

Expert housing economists have shown that the housing market works in strange ways though:?being an ‘asset market’, for bolstering supply through major new developments does not automatically equate to lower (more affordable) property prices.

In many cases actually, an increase in supply will fuel price rises as investor interest increases, translating into price rises that, in something of a circular fashion, draw more investors and more speculative interest and ultimately higher property prices, essentially.

During Sydney’s apartment boom from 2012-2017, new approvals were at record highs, and yet prices did not come down. They skyrocketed.

Increased supply does not equate to lower prices. It means the housing market acts unlike the markets for ‘ordinary’ goods or services. Market actors - i.e. developers - cannot be trusted to solve affordable housing problems.

It is not in the best interest of a profit-oriented developer because they only profit when real estate values go up, not down.

Affordable housing can only be realised in reality through much more substantive provision of public housing, non-profit community housing, and/or mandating higher proportions of privately-developed housing that is compelled to be made to be genuinely affordable (through mechanisms like rent controls, and/or linking property prices to low income thresholds, say).

Federation homes stand as timeless reminders of architectural elegance, embodying the charm and character of a street’s storied history. Built during Australia’s Federation period (around 1890 to 1915), Fed-era houses boast distinctive features such as ornate detailing, high ceilings, and spacious verandas. Renovating or extending these historic properties requires a delicate balance between preserving their quintessential character and unique historical significance and what makes the structure so special, while incorporating modern technology and comforts.

A Federation home refers to a style of residential architecture that was prominent in Australia during the Federation period, which lasted roughly from 1890 to 1915. This era coincided with the federation of the Australian colonies into the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, hence the name “Federation.”

Characterised by distinctive design features and ornate detailing, Federation homes are a testament to the architectural trends of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Here are some key characteristics of Federation homes:

Architectural Style

Federation homes typically exhibit a blend of architectural styles, drawing inspiration from various design movements of the Victorian and Edwardian eras, and Queen Anne styles. As a result, Federation homes often feature asymmetrical facades, decorative elements, and a combination of brick, timber, and stone construction.

Decorative Detailing

One of the hallmarks of Federation architecture is its intricate decorative detailing, both inside and out.

This includes features such as elaborate fretwork, ornate verandas, stained glass windows, gables, bay windows, and decorative brickwork. These decorative elements add character and charm to Federation homes, by reflecting the craftsmanship of the period the houses were originally built.

High Ceilings and Spacious Interiors

Federation homes are known for their generous proportions, with high ceilings and spacious interiors that provide a sense of grandeur and elegance. Large rooms, wide hallways, and expansive verandas are common features, creating an airy and light-filled living environment.

Traditional Materials

Federation homes are typically constructed using traditional building materials such as brick, timber, and sandstone, which lend a sense of solidity and permanence to the structures. These materials were chosen for their durability and aesthetic appeal, and they contribute to the timeless quality of Federation architecture.

Period Features

In addition to decorative detailing, Federation homes often feature period-specific architectural elements such as leadlight windows, pressed metal ceilings, decorative cornices, picture rails, and polished timber floorboards. These features add to the historical authenticity and charm of Federation homes, evoking a sense of nostalgia for a bygone era.

Verandas and Outdoor Spaces

Verandas are a prominent feature of Federation homes, providing shaded outdoor living spaces that are ideal for relaxing and entertaining. These verandas often wrap around the front or sides of the house, offering panoramic views of the surrounding landscape and enhancing the visual appeal of the property.

10 Calvert Street is a solid example of a Federation home that aesthetically fits in nicely in the locale, and deserves to stick around - at least the facade, verandah, windows, entrance hallway and front-facing roof adornments.

The humble Federation house is one of Australia’s most sought-after property-types for schoolchildren-age family homebuyers and 10 Calvert Street is a wonderful example of Federation Era architecture, one that fundamentally contributes to the existing Cadastral street scape character of Calvert between numbers 1 to 24 in particular.

10 Calvert Street’s existing contribution is already undeniable, for the aesthetic it brings to the streetscape is one that also offers subtle variety in Federation era visuals and optics - architecturally speaking - with its striking asymmetrical “Rising Sun” feature, the double sash-window arrays, the ornate, extravagantly tiled verandah, the wooden decorative fascia and panels and columns, and the steps up to a centrally positioned front entrance door framed by the traditional Federation porch details, that then opens out to a long impressive hallway corridor boasting an interestingly detailed ceiling and a classic old hard floor surface.

Next door at number 8 is another Federation dwelling, but unique again, still asymmetrical, but with subtle differences to the triangular fascia-feature, and the window that looks out onto a sandstone verandah, path, and traditional picket fence.

Directly opposite 8’s front door and partially in front of 10 Calvert Street is yet another marvellous Federation era property, number 3, which boasts yet another fine unique take on asymmetrical Federation free-standing architecture - still with its multiple original chimneys, plus ornate timber fascia details, a decoratively tile-floored ornately-covered front verandah, and attractive wide eaves and columns and carved timber additions to the tiled roof frontage.

It is also worth noting that the 3 Calvert Street block sits on land that is 401m2, which is 49m2 (over 12% short) of Inner West rules from on a non-discretionary path to subdivision approval, and still just a sliver more than the 400m2 that NSW State rules would allow. So, although 3 Calvert Street may fit the criteria (but only just) for a non-refusal of a subdivision request, 10 Calvert Street (with land size of merely 379m2 which falls short of Inner West general g you guidelines by 71m2 - in other words well over 15%, and still falls short of NSW State’s more forgiving standards of 400m2 minimum in land size for automatic approval consideration, which is still well over 5% of that minimum threshold for allowing subdivisions to go ahead without council’s right to put special, extenuating conditions on any generous allowance of any subdivision on what is deemed below the common standard usually applied to developers looking to turn sub-400m2 blocks into a pair of sub-200m2 semis on lots that have well under the 7 metres required for Inner West Council rules regarding the granting of automatic approvals to developers looking to stretch each and every guideline and rule that has been put in place for the good of everyone who plays a part in the Marrickville Community and is therefore invested in the suburb, and its future heritage, thus also the precedents that developers attempt to manipulate for their own aims which are primarily driven by profit gains, which is not a contentious thing to say given commercial real estate development businesses like Nader Corp, are in the business of trying to make as much profit as possible. And unfortunately, some business models work to make more profit, by demolishing historic houses that are in “fair condition” despite the fact that their Cadastral streetscape character, and asymmetrical Federation aesthetic are already contributing magnificently to the visually thematic coherence of the specific examples of well maintained Federation style properties that 10 Calvert Street sits amongst.

The refurbishing and restoring at least the front section of 10 Calvert Street, is - I would argue - “the most logical” way to allow for a subdivision on a block that falls short of both inner west and NSW state guidelines on land-size minimums. I say this because the existing house has scope to be extended across the existing driveway and still maintain a minimum 90 centimetre boundary set back to the west, and with rear wall alignment that mirrors all four neighbours to the east (2,4,6 & 8) there would still comfortably be enough room to create a pair of 3-bed semis that would not trespass on neighbouring solar access, trample all over the neighbours’ audio and visual privacy rights, and would not bring the disruption of a dangerous total demolition and subsequent overdevelopment and establishment of bulky, narrow, overwhelmingly imposing multi-storied dwellings that jar with its next door neighbours’ small home, as 76 Yelverton Street, Sydenham - a Cracknell & Lonergan redevelopment that was ultimately approved by the Inner West Council recently - does with 78 Yelverton Street, a 3 bed property now dwarfed by the Cracknell & Lonergan three-tiered terrace that is right there, nudging its boundary walls.

And doing even just a superficial front-facing facade preservation job on 8 Calvert Street, will yield win-win results for everyone (the community and homebuyers alike), because Australian Federation homes provide unique opportunities to bring historic abodes, filled with character and charm, into the 21st century and set new style standards for decades and perhaps even centuries to come, if executed with great care.

Federation style homes were the predominant architectural style in Australia around 1890 to 1951, often characterised by a red brick exterior, stained glass, verandahs, tessellated tiles, and decorative pressed-metal ceilings. And Federation free-standers often feature bay windows, finials, turned-timber posts and fretwork, long central corridors, and roofs finished in either slate or terracotta tiles.

Modern Federation homes that receive respectful renovations and updates see the architectural style retain their design credentials by honouring their traditional details that make them unique, while increasing their liveability and moreover, being new era-specific architectural quality to bear on future cherished gems of architectural beauty and heritage after elegant restoration has transformed the existing bones of Federation houses into something that will be enjoyed for a very long time.

Amazing Federation house renovations in 2026 often feature a "modern heritage" approach, where the classic red brick exterior and intricate detailing gets preserved, while the rear is opened up with light-filled, contemporary pavilions. Top trends this year involve integrating sustainable materials, such as textured brick and stone, with sleek, modern elements like floor-to-ceiling glass and black timber cladding to create a seamless indoor-outdoor lifestyle.

The developers could be on-trend for a pair of 3-bed semis that could apply these principles without doing away with the lion’s share of the existing “fair condition” house that is currently being rented out to five professionals right now, five professionals who say “they are all very much enjoying what the place has to offer”.

Here’s what AI says about this proposal after searching the internet first thing today:

“Architectural plans submitted for the duplex development at 10-12 Calvert Street propose a total knockdown and replacement with a high-density modern design that has drawn community scrutiny over its scale, various privacy impacts, and loss of streetscape character and not insignificant local heritage. The proposed layout increases side-facing window allotments and seeks to install side, front and rear facing open upper decks and completely removes all existing period-specific features and mature vegetation contrary to local canopy guidelines.”

I look forward to seeing how council acts on this contentious application.

Nader Corp - the property developers rushing to develop 10 Calvert Street - are publicly registered to the following Address:

36 Lincoln St Belfield, NEW SOUTH WALES, 2191 Australia

A quick Maps “street view” search of 36 Lincoln St Belfield, NEW SOUTH WALES, 2191 Australia, reveals that this very property: a rather substantially-proportioned, three-tiered, modern home, sits between a modest, attractive Federation-inspired property and an even smaller, more discreetly presented property that is significantly setback behind a lot of natural canopy facing the public pavements.

It is interesting to wonder how Michael Nader, the key principle of Nader Corp would view the quick purchase and fast application to level either next door Neighbours to 36 Lincoln St Belfield, NEW SOUTH WALES, 2191, desperate to destroy the entire structural arrays on either block in order to put up a pair of tall, skinny, new build semis that encroach and overwhelm 36 Lincoln St Belfield, NEW SOUTH WALES, 2191.

This is surely a fair question given Nader Corp - the registered HQ of this real estate development firm - seeks to impose that very imposition on the immediate boundary neighbours of number 10 Calvert Street.

R2 Low Density Residential zones like the one 10 Calvert Street is in, used to strictly restrict development approval primarily to detached dwelling houses and somewhat limited dual occupancy builds.

However, the February 2025 reforms created significant new opportunities in R2 zones located within identified Low and Mid-Rise Housing areas.

Under the new provisions, R2 zones within 800 metres of nominated transport stations (like Marrickville Train
Station in the case of 10 Calvert Street) now permit:

Dual occupancy: Minimum 450m² lot size, 12-metre width, FSR 0.65:1

Subdivision potential: Dual occupancy lots of 450m2 can be subdivided to 225m²

But 10 Calvert Street does not - I repeat - NOT meet this clear criteria.

If the Inner West should be generous enough to grant the 10 Calvert Street applicant a subdivision status, it would be doing so at its careful and quite measured discretion, given the 10 Calvert Block is 379m2 (or put another way: 189.5m2 x two).

Floor space in this case, if general
Guidelines were then applied, would amount to a sliver over 125m2 (based on an FSR of 0.65:1 land-size to floor space ratio on strips of land barely 6m wide, and in any case smaller than the neighbours land size at 8 and 14 Calvert Street.

Given that all Non-refusal pathways to gaining permission for subdivision into a pair of single occupancy dwellings that can increase the number of homes available on the lot by 100% - and occupancy by at least 100% too, (if two 3-bed family dwellings are created, since 5 people live at 10 Calvert Street now, but two sets of parents with three kids each my in the future move into the pair of 3-bed houses) serving my claim on a factual basis.

So, given that council have the discretion to determine what type of development is best for 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville moving forward (with no non-refusal pathway available at NSW state level either given subdivision requires 400m2 lots minimum for subdivision, and therefore 200m2 minimum for that too), wouldn’t it be “logical” to compel the 10 Calvert Street developers to subdivide the existing “fair condition” structure now at 10, which positively speaking would yield a number of significant win-win outcomes as a result, including:

1. A more cost-effective development solution for a developer, given the actual scale of limitations local rules and guidelines dictate.

2. A subdivision that is guaranteed to meet Cadastral streetscape character requirements, given the silhouette of that existing “fair condition” house is inarguably part of the streetscape character, right about now.

3. A Significantly truncated timeline of construction from well over a year of street disruption and pollution and chaos, to realistically what can be achieved within a six month or so scaled-back renovation, as it were.

4. Incalculably reduce the amount of non-recyclables waste, dangerous pollution, toxin disturbance, the weakening of neighbours’ foundations, and the negative impact on the carbon footprint, by simply employing the “adaptive reuse” architectural
Principles that Lonergan (of Cracknell & Lonergan) has espoused as fundamental and paramount to his modus operandi, within the last decade.

5. The maintenance and valuable preservation of existing soft soil landscaping and mature tree canopy abundance the neighbourhood would be at a loss to do without.

I’ll leave the reader with those five strong reasons the council may want to seriously consider, in the process of determining whether knocking down a decent structure that is acknowledged as being in “fair condition”, and perfectly matches the present Cadastral streetscape character, is better than removing all the dire, derelict, dross - around the “fair-conditioned-structure” - restoring a few simple key details relating to the frontage facade, then going big with modifications at the back of the properties, while showing due respect to neighbours’ health, solar access, privacy, and the right to not have to have to be made to look at new-build residential afterthoughts, like where do the bins and the aircon units and solar panels and potential (utility) private piles, hideaway (or not hideaway, as is the situation with 76 Yelverton Street, Sydenham - another Cracknell & Lonergan build.

Please council, do the right thing here.

Now let’s just say two buyers were looking to secure 10 Calvert Street at auction, one being a homebuyer looking for a family home for two adults and four kids to live in, with a maximum budget of $2.5 million, and the other a potential buyer with an eye for opportunity, armed with the knowledge that the local council is open to subdivision of a lot under 400m2 because of new 2025 rules that now incentivise the production of extra dwellings within 800 metres of ‘Marrickville Train Station, and motivate opportunistic a certain type of developer to go in with a $2.7 million plus offer, simply to take the proposition off the table, and essentially seal the deal, so to speak.

Well, the motivations are very different when scrutinising what drives homeowner/residents vis-a-vis commercial developers, of course.

The homeowner armed with a 2.5 million maximum budget may just be simply looking for the right place to house their family, the correct dwelling they can all call home.

The developer on the other hand, has a business plan, one he wages will pay big dividends if his development tactics and strategies are played well.

So, the developer goes in with a 2.7 mill plus bid to snag the property prize, then asks for a four month settlement so he can be sure to get all his ducks in a row.

The goal: to get council thankful for that cash donation the subdivision developer is required to pay as contributions to increased services for added occupants in the new dwellings the commercial developer proposes to build.

Plans are quietly drawn up by, architects, surveyors hired and arborists enlisted, and a development application with all manner of dubious claims quickly goes to a three week “community consultation” phase that just so happens to coincide with the quietest time of year for local residents (early July), with many marrickville families out of town this time of year.

Just 3 weeks to navigate the confusing documents, process all implications, and formulate opinions on whether the complete and utter destruction of a “fair condition” Federation freestanding house with charm and undeniable streetscape character should be allowed to be totally destroyed - as if without a trace of ever existing — just so the “out-of-town” based developer(s) can then simply put up two bulky, over imposing semis that they (the developers that is) reckon they’ll be able to sell for $3.5 million-plus a piece, maybe netting the developer a cool $million plus in pure profit, after the two unwieldy, skinny, adjoined, two-story behemoths go up and council’s “increased occupancy tax” is handed over in what is a required transaction.

Meanwhile, the homebuyer with the 2.5 million dollar budget ends up seriously considering the purchase of 76 Yelverton St, Sydenham, not because they’re in love with the place, but because the three-tier terrace is still for sale and within the designated price range to boot, an irony of the pursuit of increasing occupancy for only those who can afford it. In other words, it’s a bi-product of overdevelopment and unchecked gentrification that doesn’t do anything positive for average people who need affordable housing options, but aren’t getting too many, really.

Ultimately, what the applicants propose for 10 Calvert Street are not “affordable housing” options for families in need of modest 3-bedroom homes, but 5-bed terraces that tower over all of the immediate neighbours, and can only be afforded by the wealthy, who often leave these types of properties empty for much of they year anyway.

Let’s be encouraging an uptick in the occupancy of smaller 3-bed home-owning/resident families in Marrickville, not what this application is attempting to pull off with its egregious ask.

I am writing to formally lodge an objection to the development application submitted for 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville (DA/2026/0548). As a local resident/neighbor directly invested in the character, amenity, and environment of our neighborhood, I strongly urge the Inner West Council to refuse this application in its current form.

The proposed demolition and overdevelopment of the site conflict with local planning controls and will cause unreasonable and permanent negative impacts on the surrounding community. My key grounds for objection are detailed below:
Planning Alerts

1. Incompatibility with Local Streetscape and Neighborhood Character
The prevailing character of Calvert Street and its immediate surrounds is defined by low-density residential housing, maintaining consistent architectural styles, front setbacks, and landscaped gardens.
Planning Alerts
Replacing a traditional, contextually appropriate single-dwelling footprint with two tall, high-density semi-detached structures represents an overdevelopment of the 379m² parcel.
The proposal fails to respect the rhythm, scale, and built form of neighboring properties, setting an undesirable precedent for piecemeal overdevelopment in the area.
Planning Alerts
2. Severe Loss of Solar Access and Overshadowing
The construction of two double-storey dwellings stretching across the subdivided lots will create unacceptable boundary-to-boundary bulk and scale.
The height and massing of the proposed structures will drastically reduce natural sunlight and solar access to the habitable rooms and private open spaces of neighboring properties (particularly properties on Calvert Street and Queen Street to the rear).
Planning Alerts
This breach of solar planning standards will severely compromise winter daylight access and diminish the everyday living standards of long-term residents.
Planning Alerts
3. Privacy Invasion and Acoustic Impacts
The upper-level windows, balconies, or living areas of the proposed dual occupancy will directly overlook the private backyards and interior windows of adjacent homes, leading to an immediate and severe loss of visual privacy.
Doubling the residential capacity on this single block will exponentially increase domestic noise, activity levels, and general disruption in a quiet, low-density pocket of Marrickville.
4. Loss of Urban Canopy and Environmental Degradation
The proposal necessitates the removal of mature, healthy canopy trees and established vegetation on the site.
Planning Alerts
This directly contradicts Council and broader Sydney objectives to protect, grow, and maintain urban tree canopy, urban cooling, and local biodiversity. The replacement of green garden space with extensive concrete driveways and building footprints will also exacerbate local stormwater runoff and urban heat island effects.
5. Exacerbation of Local Parking and Traffic Pressures
Calvert Street already experiences high demand for kerbside parking.
Introducing two separate dwellings—with potential multi-car occupancy—will place an unsustainable strain on on-street parking availability and vehicular access, impacting existing residents, visitors, and waste management services.
Planning Alerts
Conclusion
The current proposal prioritizes high-density developer yield over community amenity, environmental health, and neighbourhood integrity. It fails to balance development rights with the reasonable expectations of privacy, solar access, and environmental preservation owed to neighboring residents.
Planning Alerts
+ 1

For these reasons, I request that the Inner West Council reject DA/2026/0548 in its entirety.

R2 Low Density Residential zoning imposes strict numerical and structural limits on 379 square metre lots in Marrickville, through guidelines governed tightly by the Inner West Local Environmental Plan 2022.

Because 379 sqm is split into roughly 189.5 sqm per semi-detached dwelling, a standard knockdown and complete greenfield "re-subdivision" into two independent, Torrens-titled lots is (and so it should be) virtually impossible via standard pathways.

Core Restrictions and Planning Hurdles that come with such severe Minimum Lot Size Shortfalls. Under the Inner West Council framework and statewide low-rise housing reforms, the baseline minimum lot size required to approve new dual-occupancies and/or semi-detached development on R2 land is 450 square metres minimum.

At 379 sqm, 10 Calvert Street falls significantly short by 71 square metres (almost 20%).

Local town planners frequently recommend executing a substantial alteration and addition rather than a total knockdown. Retaining a significant fraction of the street facing front-facade often allows developers to bypass 450 sqm minimum lot restrictions for subdivisions, letting developers build a modern, second-storey rear extension within the existing footprint as long as the upper level rear setbacks uniformly comply with the immediate neighbours’ back yard facing extremities and only feature small, private, high obscured-glass windows for ventilation and solar access only to ensure privacy for all in the rear garden environment that is shared by about a dozen different dwellings.

Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Constraints will have to be closely adhered to - as well. For low-density R2 allotments in Marrickville, the maximum FSR is typically capped strictly at 0.5:1. On a 379 sqm total footprint, this mathematically restricts the entire buildable gross floor area across both sides of the semi-detached layout to a maximum of 189.5 square metres per dwelling when averaged (meaning if one property is 190 sqm, the other shrinks to 189 sqm, numbers the applicant misrepresent in the documentation for the numbers quoted per lot surpass the 379 sqm block size which is of course, not mathematically possible.

Even if a slight local exception or a 0.6:1 FSR clause was to be applied, guidelines limit each individual semi's total internal living space from 94.75-113 sqm FSR under operating control rules.

Mandatory Private Open Space requirements also dictate that at least 24 square metres of open, unroofed, uncovered, yard area per dwelling is required too (almost 50 sqm total for both dwellings.

Front/Rear Setbacks must mathematically average the setbacks of immediate neighbours to maintain the localised streetscape too.

I certainly hope that in the case of this application, Local town planners recommend executing a substantial alteration and addition rather than a total knockdown.

As regards what kind of semis 10 Calvert Street could accomodate while staying within current council guidelines that are publicly available for all to peruse at their leisure, it is entirely possible and highly common for there to be 3-bedroom semi-detached houses on two floors that have 113 square metres of floor space on a 189 square metre lot that is almost 6 metres wide.

This setup describes a very standard, comfortable layout for inner-city semi-detached or townhouse-style living.

189 m² lots that are 6-metres wide have a total (averaged) depth of 31.5 metres (\(189 \div 6 = 31.5\)).

Splitting 113 m² across two floors in a fashion that is sympathetic to the immediate neighbours would give a ground-floor footprint of about 75m2 and 38m2 for the upper floor that would by necessity be beholden to some significant setbacks at the front, at the side, and at the rear of the home on both the ground and second floor back lines.

With a house length of 15 metres and a width of 5 metres (for there is no rear access lane so a side access path is essential even if only enough to fit half metre wide waste bins behind a gate and boundary fence), there’d still be 15 metres of depth remaining on the new subdivided 189sqm lots to divide between the existing front fenced soft-soil garden, and newly regenerated, privacy-giving, shade-offering, oxygen-giving, climate-cooling canopy restored in the rear garden to the extent the neighbours do their duty in contributing significant nature to the local neighbourhood that is in the immediate vicinity of 10 Calvert Street.

A total internal area of 113 m² offers plenty of space to distribute a standard 3-bedroom iteration comfortably, with one bedroom, an open-plan living room and dining and kitchen space, a hallway and staircase, and a WC and laundry nook and storage room on the ground level.

On the First Floor, there could be two more bedrooms with another shared family bathroom, study anrea and small storage room.

From pure spatial and geometric standpoints, the aforementioned dimensions fit comfortably with reasonable room left over for alfresco outdoor living and soft-soil natural canopy contributions in the open spaces.

Air con units and water tanks and solar panels, bin hideaways and amenity poles could be integrated at the conceptual drawing stage so no neighbour has to see to these unattractive items from either the private open space of the back gardens, the front yards, or from the Calvert Street public pavement.

Regulations for Duplex Developments in NSW

In recent years, there has been increasing demand for dual occupancy or duplex developments, especially in urban areas.

NSW legislation provides clear guidance for these types of dwellings to facilitate housing diversity and make better use of existing land.

Duplex developments are now generally permissible in low-density residential zones (R2).

Key Regulations for creating new Duplexes

Minimum Lot Size:

Most councils require a minimum lot size of 450 square metres for duplex developments.

Calvert Street is 71 square metres short of this (over 16% of a shortfall in fact).

Floor Space and Site Coverage: Duplexes are subject to similar FSR and site coverage limits as standard homes. However, due to the dual occupancy, additional considerations apply to ensure privacy and solar access rights and to reduce potential overcrowding and pollution and onerous waste management and amenity disruption.

Access Requirements:

Duplex developments must provide direct street access where possible.

Landscaping Requirements:

Councils often require a significant percentage of the lot to be landscaped to mitigate the effects of urban heat and provide a more pleasant environment for everyone.

Let’s hope these rules are all applied vigorously to the application lodged.

For those interested in what is likely to happen next with the current development application (DA/2026/0548) at 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville, the proposal for bulky semi-detached dual occupancy structures faces -as a matter of plain fact - major public objections over privacy rights, severe overshadowing, and non-compliance which is likely to trigger a formal request for design amendments or a refusal by the Inner West Council.

The application has concluded its initial community feedback window where over ten unique objections to the application were logged, so I’m told.

The assigned urban planners are almost certainly now reviewing the design against the Marrickville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 and Residential Development Control Plan (DCP) 2011 regarding solar access, minimum lot sizes, and boundary setbacks.

Because the solar impacts (over two hours of overshadowing in various crucial neighbouring locations on July 21 and therefore every day of the year thereafter) and privacy violations from elevated decks and too many large intrusive side-facing windows that breach standard amenity rules, the council will likely issue an RFI forcing the developer to scale back plans - especially as regards the upper decks that do not fit the local streetscape, significantly pull back on setbacks and house length, and overall height and add appropriate solar access maintaining sloping to reduce the massing of two semis sitting on smaller lots than the immediate neighbours the plan is seeking to overwhelm with the overimposing, overdeveloped application.

If the developer refuses to alter the non-compliant footprint, the application apparently then faces a recommendation for refusal or referral to the Inner West Local Planning Panel for a final determination.

That’s all the available public information that’s been gathered so far.

From what can be ascertained in the application documentation, the applicant is seeking to develop two dwellings that BOTH have floor space allotments that EXCEED the actual land space itself, and with both of the proposed subdivisions. I’m not making this up.

The 10 Calvert Street block in its complete totality, is just 379m2

Non-refusal pathways to semi-detached dwelling creations from previous single occupancy structures traditionally require a 450m2 minimum for an easy pathway to realisation.

It is worth being aware that the NSW State minimum land space is slightly lower, HOWEVER, at 400m2 10 Calvert Street still comes in over 5% short of the state’s slightly smaller minimum number yet interestingly the NSW Stare guidelines call for frontages of more than 6 metres for the subdivided lots, which adds another layer of complexity to what the applicant should be allowed to get away with, it seems.

So anyway, 225m2 (or 200m2 if NSW State measures are applied), for minimum land size to subdivide into semis, still stands in contrast to 10 Calvert Streets size, as a whole, and when carved up, because both lots in the application come in well short of the council and state’s guideline minimums given the plots of land will be under 189.5m2 to be exact, if the block were being divided precisely in half as they appear to be.

The designs - run through a calculator - reveal an FSR ratio with the applicants two new dwellings of over 1:1.

Put in plain terms, that means the applicant wants more floor space than the land space that floor space sits on, and with both semi-detached houses, I kid you not.

This fact was discovered by multiplying the internal depth of the two new builds (around 20 metres) multiplied by the width of the habitable structure (which can be no more than 5.1 metres on the ground floor, if a standard 90 centimetre side-path setback (which is smaller than 8’s by the way) is established.

So we’re clear, 5.1x20=102 square metres for ground floor internal space, as per the calculator’s calculations.

The upper floor needing a bigger set back from its neighbours it seeks to tower over, would probably require 1.5 metres, meaning the upper floor space is 4.5x20=90 square metres.

90 square metres (upstairs inside), plus 102 square metres (downstairs inside) equals 192 square metres, which is in excess of the land size the homes are on.

Land space 189.5m2 and floor space 192m2, blows all known guidelines of FSR to oblivion.

Put another way, the applicant demands over 2 and a half square metres more space than the actual land the house has to sit on. Incredibly audacious wouldn’t you say?

The applicant should a either inferring ignorance and revealing a shocking lack of research and doing due diligence, or knows the deal and is choosing to go so big whatever shakes out after that will benefit the applicant more than had they come in with something that only just stretched the rules modestly, which is hardly an honest way to go about things. Either way, the application found lacking and the failure cannot be rewarded with anything but greater scrutiny than the applicant has chosen to give the ask before hastily lodging the application.

Now bear this in mind, the front, side and rear open upper decks are not even being included in this outrageous floor space allotment ask, nor the alfresco courtyard out the back, or the desired indoor/outdoor situation the applicant wants to create by installing 3 enormous sliding kitchen doors in front of 8’s two ground floor sashed, single-glazed windows that must remain open most evenings in spring, summer and autumn to cool the house down and provide essential ventilation, and because right now only three modest windows are on the east side of the existing house standing at 10 right now, 8’s windows - at the moment - can be opened without being subject to audio pollution and privacy interference issues, in the main.

It strikes me that the applicant’s strategy with this proposal is to be so preposterously over the top in its asks perhaps, that if council choose to mediate the issues by “meeting the applicant half way” the developer’s neighbours and the Marrickville community at large will lose far more than the out-of-town developer will gain, for if council seeks to make compromises that deviate from sticking strictly to existing guidelines and the precedents set by the existing neighbouring properties and the Cadastral streetscape characteristics that totally surround 10 and ought to govern what happens as regards the development of number 10 too, for all properties (including 8 and 14 and multiple on Queen Street that adjoin 10’s back boundaries) they are ALL BIGGER IN LAND SIZE than the lots the applicant is proposing to create and then cram on far too much bulky over-occupied house at the expense of nature and the neighbours solar access and their privacy and current pollution mitigation measures too.

I urge council to stand firm and not fall into a “negotiation trap” that the applicant appears to be attempting to draw the decision makers into here - an obvious tactic to go so big with initial asks, that whatever they then can claw out of arguing from the inevitable scale back may just have more of a chance of eventuating than if the application was originally lodged in a manner that demonstrated due diligence, careful research and above all, good faith.

Applications like this must not be rewarded with special privileges and outlying dispensations, and instead, they should be made to follow the guidelines to the letter and to the millimetre and with total transparency and fastidious oversight as well.

This application smacks of strategies and tactics that -whether unknowingly or not they were consciously applied - definitely appear to be a demonstration of some pretty bad faith actions, especially as regards the many concerns and not insignificant impact the development will unleash on the immediate neighbours who will be disrupted by the construction work whatever complexion it takes, in the end.

The application calls for the confiscation of a kerbside public park, the repurposing of public pavement to create a hard concrete crossover to a newly laid concrete driveway where currently there is a private fence, a soft soil garden and two mature fruit trees that are both over five metres tall.

The presence of multiple service mains, dual telecommunication pits, and high-impact private landscaping elevates this project from moderately complex to highly difficult. The developer is committing to dealing with shared infrastructure conflicts that cross multiple external authorities.

The developer cannot simply concrete over the garden or drop a crossover over the pits without triggering a series of asset protection, utility deviation, and environmental permits.

1. The Footpath Utility Bottleneck (Telstra/NBN, Sewer, Water, Stormwater, gas, etc.)

Building a vehicular crossover directly over a telecom personal access point and an NBN personnel access point is heavily restricted.

Because the crossover requires high-strength concrete to support vehicle weights, it creates a permanent access barrier for utility workers.

The developer will need to contact the asset owners (Telstra and NBN) to apply for network modifications. If the pits cannot be relocated away from the driveway path, Council will only allow the driveway to proceed if the developer replaces the standard concrete pit lids with Class B or Class D heavy-duty lockable cast-iron traffic-able lids flush with the new concrete level.

Sydney Water Assets (Sewer & Water): Because sewer and water lines run along the property boundary where excavation will occur, you must lodge a Sydney Water Tap in application - and the taps are located in the road itself - way beyond the kerb.

The developer will also likely need Building Plan Approvals to ensure the driveway concrete does not place structural load or vibration stress on the underground pipes servicing the entire neighbourhood.

If the pipes are shallow, they may need to be concrete-encased or structurally protected before any driveway slab is poured.

Stormwater: The crossover cannot block or interfere with the existing street gutter drainage. If the stormwater pipes exit the kerb right where the crossover is planned (which in the case of the application, they do), the developer will need to redesign the internal site drainage or pipe connections to Council's satisfaction under the Inner West Council Roadworks Design Approval framework.

2. Private Tree Removal & Soil Challenges: concreting over the existing fenced garden and soft soil creates immediate engineering and environmental hurdles too. Tree Removal Permits must be sought too. At six metres tall, the two mature fruit trees comfortably exceed Inner West Council's tree preservation thresholds (which generally protect trees over 3–5 metres depending on trunk size).
Pouring concrete directly onto soft garden soil is a recipe for a soon-to-become cracked driveway if ever there was one. The contractor will have to excavate all the organic topsoil, remove any remaining fruit tree roots (which rot away and create voids under the slab), and import heavily compacted road base to create a stable sub-grade. H e re are also two nature verges with tall mature Lemon Myrtle trees flanking the proposed sight which in and of itself may prove to be a problem given how close all of this to those lemon Myrtle tree roots.

Today’s internet search to define the cadastral streetscape character of 1–24 Calvert Street, Marrickville, describe the neighbourhood as being “…defined by a fine-grained, regular subdivision pattern featuring small, rectangular historic allotments supporting low-scale, (mainly) single-storey period housing layouts.

“Subdivision and Lot Pattern:

“Fine-grained layout: Regular, narrow rectangular Torrens title allotments (typically around 198m² to 202m²).Historical division: Established via late 19th- and early 20th-century land estates (such as early-to-mid 1880s/1890s deposited plans).

“Frontages:

“Consistent, narrow single-fronted property lines with noticeable setbacks to the street.

“Built Form and Scale:

“Low-scale profile - Dominated by single-storey and low-rise residential structures, predominantly early Federation cottages and semi-detached dwellings that present as single unified Asymmetrically-featured freestanding structures.

“Setbacks:

“Shallow front setbacks that keep front porches, verandas, and traditional entryways closely engaged with the public sidewalk.

“Architectural rhythm:

“Repetitive, uniform building widths and massing that preserve a cohesive historic working-class Federation-era streetscape rhythm.”

I urge council to uphold the streetscape character as described in its dealing with the application.

Under the Marrickville Development Control Plan (DCP) 2011, the Inner West Council enforces contextual streetscape rules.

The official rules and how they apply directly to the properties on Calvert Street mandate specific design constraints which are - but not limited to - as follows:

1. The Adjoining Alignment Rule aka (The Principal Control)

The Rule: For new dwelling houses, dual occupancies, or expansions, the front setback must be consistent with the setback of adjoining developments and/or the dominant setback found along the street.

Application to Calvert Street: The DCP explicitly identifies Calvert Street as an intact precinct characterized by mainly single-storey dwelling forms with highly consistent front building lines.

The houses on the even-numbered side of Calvert Street from 1-14, ALL stand on a uniform setback of 5 metres plus (from pavement to the front door. Put another way, that’s over five metres walk from the entrance of each individual dwelling on the even-numbered side of Calvert Street from 1-14, without exception.

Properties to the front boundary line for 2,4,6,8,10 and 14 Calvert Street also have no overshadowing structures - not a single one - be it a car port or a private pole for electricity supply like the one that stands opposite the 10 Calvert Street property today).

Apparently, a developer cannot push a new building forward or back from the established line, meaning 10 can only come forward for the new 10 subdivision by no more than two metres (a bigger covered verandah could be quite impressive actually), and the new number 12’s front door must seemingly be installed a couple of metres further back so as not to encroach on number 14’s front door privacy entitlements, as I understand it (for surely this will also almost certainly be necessary to adhere to strict overshadowing rules and guidelines unless I’m missing something here).

2. Projections and Verandahs, and specifically the Verandah Line:

The neighbours immediately to the east (numbers 2, 4, 6, and 8) feature original front verandahs that structurally align to establish a common streetscape profile.

Council Constraints:

Council controls prohibit new structural walls from stepping forward into these verandah zones. Any expansion or rebuild at number 10 is assessed against how well its porch, portico, or facade mirrors the alignment of these neighbouring properties to prevent blockages of sight-lines and street character.

3. Impact on Neighbors (Solar & Amenity)

The West Obstruction Limit:

The neighbour immediately to the west sits even further back from the street boundary than the current front door of number 10 as mentioned prior.

The Rule: Because of this variance, if a developer tries to extend the building footprint or add a double-storey massing forward, council objectives for privacy, solar access, and air circulation immediately trigger strict pushbacks, from what can be gathered on the matter.

Pushing a new build forward on a newly created 12 plot would cause severe early morning overshadowing to the western neighbour's front yard and windows, which violates the DCP's amenity protections.

4. Front Landscaping and Permeability

The Pervious Requirement:

A developer cannot simply pave over a front setback zone.

The DCP requires the entire front setback area to be a pervious, soft-landscaped zone (gardens, lawn, hedges), excluding only the direct pedestrian path or driveway should one exist already.

This rule protects the uniform look of the picketed front yards and natural hedging that defines the street.

With regards to what is being proposed for a new number 10, the applicant is looking to do away with 35 square metres of pervious, soft-landscaped zone (5 metres by 7 metre of soft soiled nature and mature canopy JUST AT THE FRONT of the property, and then also a further 24 square metres of pervious, soft-landscaped zone (8 metres depth along the 8/10 boundary fence that measures on average (via the median) roughly a three-metre width from the edge of the derelict laundry shed to the Queen Street property back fence, which gives us a grand total of 59 or so square metres of pervious, soft-landscaped zone IN THE REAR of the proposed new 10 semi dwelling, based on what currently is there at 10 Calvert Street along the 8/10 border as of right now, a pervious soft-landscaped zone that is denied, ignored and goes totally I acknowledged in the application documentation. A a pervious soft-landscaped zone I might add, that is currently being entirely neglected in its maintenance, let alone any steps being made towards regeneration and restoration of plant life and canopy, since being severely cut back to be more appealing to developers who the previous owners seemed to be aware were interested in the opportunity, in late 2025, providing all the large trees and bushes and so on were all removed before being advertised as “for sale”.

I hope council see fit to ensure that the developers maintain at least a quarter of the 189.5 square metre land size (44.75 square metres of pervious, soft-landscaped zone with multiple mature trees that stand over two metres high in both the front and back pervious, soft-landscaped zones), should a subdivision happen and the new 10 semi go ahead.

In an article titled “The steadfast allure of Sydney’s Federation homes” in Domain.com.au on March 27, 2020, the journalist writes:

“As the name suggests, Federation architecture was conceived in the decades before and after Australia’s Federation in 1901 as a departure from British designs.

Timber verandahs, leadlight windows and pitched rooflines are all hallmarks buyers love in Federation homes.

Breezy timber lattice verandahs were built for enjoying our warmer weather, and waratahs and kookaburras featured in stained-glass windows that celebrated our nation’s native flora and fauna.

More than 100 years later and much to the delight of buyers, Federation houses still remain in Sydney.

“Tim Smith, director of heritage operations at Heritage NSW, says: ‘history-rich homes are vital to our community, and it’s no surprise that they remain popular with buyers. Federation homes in Sydney are considered imperative in shaping suburbs and communities, and enticing buyers.

“People like heritage character and are drawn to suburbs that have those fabulous design details, materials and craftsmanship that add so much to a place and its feel,” Smith says.

“Smith says: ‘… studies of community attitudes to (well-preserved, nicely maintained) Federation homes suggest the homes do retain their value over time and investing in their restoration only increases their market appeal’.

“He says home owners often assume owning and maintaining an older house requires more effort, but those who are drawn to the charm of an original Federation home will find it’s not the case (and will enjoy the pleasure of) the experience of owning a part of Australian history.

“If you look at (Federation builds) as an asset not as a difficulty, I think it changes people’s perspective on the opportunity.”

Retaining the front-facade, the street-facing section of the existing roof, and the original entrance door and hallway and front two rooms of the existing house that is standing at 10 Calvert Street now, but spruced up (with mod cons and so on and so forth), would also be a more “cost effective” path for the developers in the pursuit of a more modestly sized and scaled and limited pair of subdivisions that adhere to all the local governing rules, than to stubbornly attempt to press on with what would become a fraught, prolonged, problematic, disruptive, overly polluting knockdown/rebuild-from-scratch endeavour, which calls for the total destruction of what is acknowledged by the applicants themselves, as a solid house “in fair condition, within the actual application documentation that were lodged just over three months after the 10 sale settled in March 2026.

Michael Bloch, a journalist wrote:

“Sydney’s Inner West Council is aiming to increase solar installations on residential, commercial, industrial and community buildings within its boundaries in a very big way.

“The Inner West Council area covers the inner western region of Sydney. There were 182,043 people in the region in Census 2016, which includes suburbs such as Leichhardt, Marrickville and Balmain.

“Council says the population is committed to environmental responsibility, but uptake of solar power on private properties is very low.

“Information from the Australian Photovoltaic Institute (APVI) indicates that as at the end of September last year, approximately 9.5% of residential dwellings in the local government area (LGA) had solar panels installed. Council puts the figure much lower at just 4%. For New South Wales as a whole, it’s 20% (APVI).

“Among the reasons given for low uptake are the LGA’s high proportion of renters (43.6% – Census 2016), strata units (39.7%) and low daytime household electricity consumption.

“As a step towards addressing the issue, Inner West Council is inviting organisations to design a system to turn things around.

“We want to establish Council as a broker to facilitate the large-scale installation of solar on buildings and homes across the Inner West,” said Mayor Darcy Byrne. “There are thousands of rooftops, large and small, that should be generating renewable energy and making a return for property owners.”

“Acting as a broker, it intends to source capital from superannuation funds, banks and other investors under what’s been called the “Go Solar Program”.

“In doing so we can create a profit for property owners and investors while massively reducing carbon emissions,” states Mayor Byrne.

“Mayor Byrne says Council is aiming for a 1,000% increase in solar energy generation across the Inner West over the next decade. As at the end of September, 19.963 megawatts of solar capacity was installed in the LGA (APVI), with 12.88 megawatts of that total being installations under 10kW.

“Assuming Council can reach its target, that be would around 219.5MW installed by 2030/31 based on the September figure. Mayor Byrne says this can be achieved by “covering every factory, apartment block and shopping centre in solar panels”, along with a strong focus on other residential installations.

“Expressions of interest for designing a system to achieve the goal have been invited from commercial and not for profit entities. The EOI period closes on March 18, 2020.

“As for solar power and emissions reduction related to its own operations, Inner West Council has a target for achieving carbon neutrality by 2023 and attaining 100% renewables (electricity use) by 2025.

“Council has PV installed on some of its buildings and in July last year, a contract to purchase power from the Moree Solar Farm came into effect, which will cover approximately 25% of all Council’s electricity usage.

“Last June, Inner West became the first council in the state to be totally divested from fossil fuels.”

It would be good if council - who it seems have discretion on whether they allow subdivision given 10 Calvert Street stands on land that doesn’t meet, in fact, falls remarkably short of local guidelines - compel the applicant to install solar arrays to service both subdivisions as part of any deal, solar arrays that are hidden behind the street facing facades, just as the Queen Street property directly behind 10 Calvert Street has.

In tandem with increasing dwelling numbers and occupancy in the area, it seems that this application also offers an opportunity to nudge developers to do their part in reducing the over heating effects of increased FSR, expulsion of heat generated by water heaters and climate control and air-conditioning machines, and barbecues, and hedge trimmers and lawn cutters and ovens and refrigerators, mod cons that are going to be doubled in usage by turning one single dwelling into two, just like that.

The more this contentious matter is researched, the more it appears likely that Sydney’s Inner West Council may possibly reject a total knockdown of 10
Calvert Street if they deem
the existing structure, officially acknowledged as being in “fair condition” property by the applicants, should Council deem the 10 Calvert Street block as is now, is contributing positively to a highly intact period streetscape, which it clearly is if looking at the frontage facades of all existing properties from 1-22, at least in the main.

Rather than completely demolishing what is an attractively shaped, nicely appointed character home (at the front, and a little shabby for lack of maintenance and neglect of attention) Council planners might look to enforce standard controls that require the applicant to retain and extend that existing structure thus minimising disruption, mitigating excessive pollution and waste issues, and also mustering more local support.

However, Council will not be framing their recommendation around mitigating the applicant's construction or demolition costs, even though they will ultimately be lower for more modest subdivisions in this scenario, because the knockdown rebuild in a smaller more appropriate footprint will almost certainly become somewhat cost prohibitive, once the correct precedents and rules and rights and entitlements to privacy, solar access and climate-control and waste management are followed in the development plan (which is going to require a remarkably large amount of adjustment, downscaling, and redrawing to accommodate.

But the fact that retaining and extending may end up being beneficial to the developer’s bottom line in the final analysis, Councils only assess applications strictly against environmental and planning regulations and merit, meaning their justification will focus on the public interest and streetscape preservation rather than the developer’s profit margins.

Why Council Could Well Demand a "Retain and Extend" Approach:

1. Protection of Streetscape and Character and Heritage Integrity

Under the Marrickville Development Control Plan (DCP), the overarching objective for streetscapes dominated by 100+ year-old Federation properties is to preserve the established rhythm, scale, and materials of the street.

Character Overlays: Even if a property is not individually heritage-listed, its inclusion in a character streetscape means that the street-facing facade, roof pitch, verandah features, and original building envelope are likely to be reasonably heavily protected.

Partial Demolition Only:

Council are of course, well within their purview to dictate that only the rear sections of the home be altered.

Council may require the original Federation facade and front rooms to remain structurally intact, keeping the street-facing presence unchanged.

2. Enforcement of Cadastral and Setback Patterns

A primary goal of the local planning controls is maintaining the uniform front building line and side setback positions.

Preventing "Aesthetic Distortion" is a strong consideration too.

If the applicant proposes a bulky replacement structure (such as two modern semi-detached dwellings) where the upper storeys cantilever or push closer to the street than the established ground-floor line, Council should probably strongly object.

Maintaining Setback Integrity:

Demolishing a building that sits perfectly within a historic cadastral streetscape boundary (acknowledged as officially heritage or not), usually results in strict new compliance triggers, with Council then possibly asserting that keeping the existing shell is the most effective way to guarantee the development conforms to prevailing front and side setback patterns already that have already been established.

3. Minimising Environmental and Amenity Impact is accounted for, as well. The front portion of the 10 Calvert Street building as it is now, aligns with Council's strict landscape and soft-soil targets.

Total demolition usually requires extensive excavation, heavy machinery access, and a wider footprint that completely obliterates the root zones of mature trees and existing deep-soil zones.

By forcing a "rear-only" extension, Council can mathematically protect front setback vegetation and minimise site disruption. Apparently, council could well formalise this stance through a Request for Information (RFI) / Deferral Letter or an ultimate Assessment Report recommending refusal unless the plans are altered.

Council may also direct the designer to submit an alternative scheme that leaves the front Federation structure structurally supported and untouched, pushing any added floor space strictly to the rear in a subdominant pavilion and/or hidden first-floor additions, that adhere to the dominant back wall line of the neighbouring properties (2,4,6, & 8 to the east with respect to the new semi at 10), and the neighbouring property at 15, to the west.

This would be a proposition that would probably get much more local support, too.

The newly built 4-bed/4-bath house at 76 Yelverton Street (still for sale), sits on just 146m2 of land in the Marrickville-adjacent suburb of Sydenham and stands as a cautionary tale for recent “overdevelopment-creep” concerns and worries in the Inner West suburbs now the residents face mounting pressure to help create extra homes that can be classified as “affordable-housing”.

Firstly, it is worth noting that 76 Yelverton secured Council approval, meaning the new build seemingly legally satisfied the necessary planning rules.

That said, public local planning submissions reveal the three-tier terrace pushed to the very outer limits of standard R2 residential envelopes, drawing community criticism regarding its execution in its wake.

Designed by Cracknell & Lonergan as part of a contemporary knockdown-rebuild project alongside number 74, the 4-bedroom, 4-bathroom dwelling maximised the tight 146m² footprint in every imaginable way and on every conceivable front.

Now bear in mind that standard FSR limits for standard R2 lots under the Inner West Council LEP is 0.6:1.

That said, the Inner West Council implements sliding-scale exceptions for small lots between 100m² and 150m², allowing much higher permissible density (often up to 1.1:1). And here we find our answer to the question of how this new build at 76 Yelverton came into being.

Now at this point, it is worth being aware that the 10 Calvert Street subdivision looks to create two semis out of 379m2, (189.5m2 if equally divided), but of course this is almost 40m2 (or over 25% in excess of the rules applied to the 76 Yelverton Street 146m² parcel), a new build development that was able to get away with such a high-density build because it legally utilised the small-lot allowance provisions to pack four bedrooms and four bathrooms into a remarkably narrow three level terrace footprint.

While the design cleared formal Development Application (DA) assessment pathways, there is archive of local community opposition flagging the building as a rather contentious example of dense infill. Neighbours pointed out that the aggressive multi-level structure impacted the visual privacy of adjacent properties and disrupted the traditional streetscape of the area.

Design & Execution Grievances:

Public local feedback notes that despite meeting building codes, the build caused lengthy disruption to the street as well.
Other local critique focused on visually prominent compromises made to fit services onto the tight lot, such as un-concealed air conditioning units placed directly behind a low upper-deck fence, and massive seven-metre private power poles erected right at the pavement edge.

Ultimately, the new build did meet the strict legal thresholds required for an Inner West approval (just) but remains a prominent example of how heavily modern architectural designs can strain the traditional setbacks, open spaces, and aesthetic norms of an older R2 neighbourhood now facing pressure to allow for more dwellings to help quell the acknowledged “affordable housing crisis” the city faces.

Thank goodness the Inner West 0.6:1 FSR rule for lots that fall between the 150 square metre rule and the more standard 200-225 square metre subdivisions that are generally automatically approved, should keep the subdivided 10 and 12 Calvert Street lots to a maximum ceiling of 60% FSR on the two 189.5 square metre parcels, which is floor space of 113.7 square metres per lot.

I urge council to hold the applicants to that rule and compel the developers to achieve it within the existing shell of the “fair condition” house now standing on the 10 block today.

A full knockdown and rebuild project typically takes up to 18 months from planning to completion, with physical occupation of the front footpath/pavement area for loading, fencing, and civil works generally intermittent across up to 6 months of active, heavy, highly disruptive construction works.

Demolition Phase:
Up to a month to clear the site.

Pavement / Zone Impact:

Complete or partial front footpath/verge obstruction occurs during demolition, foundation pouring, and framing delivery (up to 3 months), followed by intermittent restrictions.

Condition and Neighbourhood Context that takes into account “Fair Condition” and the predominant streetscape Style:

Demolishing a structurally sound house that fits the local streetscape style will not necessarily shorten the time it takes a project to finish but it does drastically reduce the time needed for heavy demolition machines and severely-polluting rebuild equipment and toxic building materials, as well as less skips and dumpsters to remove the demolished and excavated waste.

Having said that, it’s fair to say that Councils and/or private certifiers assess compliance via standard planning rules regardless of an old house's quality of build.

Managing Public Pavement Space:

Occupying an entire public footpath or verge requires local public-space or work zone permits (such as those managed via the City of Sydney Road Permits or equivalent metropolitan councils).

Duration Limits:

Permits are rarely granted to block a public pedestrian footpath entirely for months on end; so builders must maintain pedestrian clearance or safe gantries, restricting full heavy-machinery pavement takeover to specific critical phases.

10 Calvert Street, Marrickville, falls under the jurisdiction of the Sydney Inner West Council. Below is how the Inner West Council rules impact the duration and occupation of the public pavement:

Pavement Occupation & Hoarding Limits:

The builder cannot legally block or absorb the entire front pavement for the entire duration of a big, 12-to-18-month build.

The Inner West Council Hoarding Policy mandates strict constraints like Clearance Requirements.

Permit Duration:

Hoarding and footpath occupation permits are granted dynamically based on specified milestones. While a builder can apply for extensions, council will not permit a complete pedestrian shutdown of the Calvert Street pavement just for convenience. Full-width blocks are strictly limited to single-day crane operations or brief utility connections via a separate Road and Footpath Occupancy Permit.

Work Zones:

Instead of taking over the pavement, builders are generally pushed to apply for an on-street Works Zone (parking bay allocation) to handle loading and deliveries, keeping the footpath open.

Any temporary fencing, scaffolding, or Type A/B hoarding erected on the footpath must leave a minimum of 600mm clearance between the face of the hoarding and the face of the road kerb to ensure a dedicated, safe pedestrian thoroughfare remains functional.

The Impact of "Fair Condition" and Neighbourhood Character - aka the Streetscape Character Hurdle:

Because the existing house at 10 Calvert Street holds structural value and aesthetic appeal and more importantly it closely aligns with the observable visual style of the house next door (to the east), and number 9 (across the road), and in the vast majority of the many and varied house frontage facades from 1-48 Calvert street, and council planning panels are obligated to formally assess community submissions regarding streetscape matters.

Public tracking shows that neighbourhood pushback often demands the preservation of at least the front facade, hallway, original roofline and soft soil-landscaping.

Timeline Reality:

Navigating this specific architectural contention with the Inner West Council may stretch the pre-construction approval phase by 6 to 12 months alone, before a single piece of heavy machinery ever touches the front footpath of 10, so perhaps it’s in everyone’s interest for the developer and council to find ways to make a Torrens title subdivision (into two semis) from the existing house at 10, to make sure the long, arduous process of development can be minimally disruptive a timeframe build, as is humanly possible, maybe, perhaps?

I just answered the door to a stranger, who instead of introducing himself, asked to be let in to back yard.

“Sorry, who are you? Are you from council?” I asked.

“No I’m Michael!” He replied.

Then silence.

“Michael who owns 10?” I asked.

“Aha!” His reply.

I took him to the derelict, dangerous, dilapidated shed pushing over the boundary fence, and I pointed out how the structure is literally falling apart at the seams and has rusty metal roofing over my deck at an eye level that could accidentally blind a person.

“It’s a piece of sh**!” He declared.

I didn’t disagree.

“Well that’s gonna come down when we demolish?” He said.

“But that won’t be for a while”, I replied.

“So Whaddya want me to do?” Michael asked.

“Fix the problem now, please.”

Michael then did his best to explain how fixing it now was too tricky, and given the fact “the whole house will be smashed down soon”, he implied that he wouldn’t be doing anything about fixing the problem.

Michael then claimed that he in fact does not own 10 Calvert Street, it is actually the corporate body of Nader Corp (whoever they are he certainly didn’t make clear), then Michael proceeded to tell me that everything planned will be good for me so “what’s the problem?”

“The problem is the collapsing outbuilding is posing a clear and present danger to me and my family, right now.”

Michael then shrugged that off and reiterated that I “should be glad for the demolition he’s about to oversee”.

I indicated that I was not.

Micheal then proceeded to feign ignorance of all DA details and finer points and went as far as to say that Cracknell & Lonergan do all that and he has no oversight on any of that, and then he hung around at my front gate nonchalantly, repeating over and over that “the council will do what they do”, until finally i closed out the exchange with the words, “please fix that dangerous abomination at the boundary Michael”.

Michael said nothing and walked off at that point.

So in summary, what I got from that visit was Michael Nader is not the owner of 10 Calvert Street, because the Nader Corp executives are apparently the owners in fact, and that Michael Nader is not even across any of the finer details of the application even, because Cracknell & Lonergan do all of that hard work independently, apparently, without his close supervision (at least this was what was implied to me).

And no joy whatsoever with committing to making the derelict shed safe any time soon, either - except the vague promise it’ll go with the entire site demolition he assumes will go ahead as he sees fit.

Interesting first exchange with the closest neighbour to your business investment almost 6 months after settlement, a strange exchange I’m not likely to forget any time soon.

Not long after Michael Nader turned up at 8 Calvert Street unannounced, one of the owners of 8 received a text from the agents who are letting out 10 Calvert Street (with dangerous broken sheds, broken windows, broken window awning, broken collapsing timber boundary fencing and sharp, dangerous, rusting, public pavement facing fencing posts with jagged edges, and unkempt, overgrown, landscaping in the existing front and rear soft-soil garden beds).

Someone called Alex from Brellatrac texts me from out of the blue wanting information.

I enquired what Alex wanted the information requested for.

Alex neglected to reply. 14 hours have now passed with no follow up from Alex.

The radio silence as it were got me intrigued about learning more about Brellatrac.

Delving into Brellatrac’s listings it was interesting to discover that 72, 72a, 73, 74, 75 & 76 Yelverton Street, Sydenham are (or were until sale was settled), with representation of either (or both) the new build property sales process (still ongoing with 73 & 76 unless I’m mistaken), and letting the previous single-story homes to tenants in the years prior to the demolition of the buildings (72, 72a, 73, 74, 75, and 76) that stood (all one-level bungalows or cottages with soft-soil landscaping front and rear (until relatively recently I might add).

It appears that 72, 72a, 73, 74, 75, and 76 found a pathway to council approval by being on lots that are sub 150 square metres in land size.

Lots that are sub 150 square metres in land size can benefit from a sliding scale loophole in rules that provides council discretion to allow properties on blocks of land that are LESS than 150 square metres to have higher FSR ratios than those restricting lots OVER 150 metres squared being beholden to strict 60% of land size internal floor space allocations MAXIMUM, and strict boundary setback rules that are predicated on the dominant front and rear line thrusts of the immediate neighbour’s properties.

Thankfully, 10 Calvert Street will not benefit from any sliding-scale Floor Space Ratio (FSR) provisions unless I’m missing something here), because low-density residential properties in this particular area are governed by fixed FSR development standards mapped directly under the local planning framework rather than a sliding lot-size scale.

Put in simple terms, new build Properties in standard low-density zones like the one 10 Calvert Street’s block sits within, rely on a set maximum FSR cap rather than sliding increases tied explicitly to smaller or larger lot thresholds, apparently.

At least that’s what I’ve been led to believe.

During yesterday’s unannounced and on reflection, rather unhelpful and somewhat uncomfortable visitation that Michael Nader took upon himself to rush into without calling the owner first, or perhaps more appropriately might have thought to have allowed Alex from Brellatrac to handle more respectfully and sensitively, given the fact that it is the neglect of the owners of 10 Calvert Street (whether the owner is Nader himself, or some mysterious anonymous body corporate collective as he implied while pulling at the broken guttering on the offending broken shed - and making the danger now even more pronounced)

On top of all this, it is worth noting that the derelict, always-has-been sub-standard non-house outhouse structure that sits behind the back wall of the house proper, has been consistently and without let up, pushing the 10/8 boundary fence over into 8’s side path access private space and has been since the day Nader’s associates bought the place - at auction - in November 2025, ten months ago.

Yep! Ten months ago that very same dilapidated outbuilding that is literally falling apart at the seams, was obviously pushing the fence over dangerously, but not a single thing has been done to rectify that situation in the many many months since Nader Corp took ownership of 10 Calvert Street.

Nader Corp modus operandi is clumsy to say the very least, and also demonstrates a distinct lack of interest and care in how Nader Corp’s way of dealing with the immediate neighbours of large demolition rebuild asks is rather insensitive and somewhat rude, given that most people would take offence at being told that an imposing, overwhelmingly tall, two-story behemoth that overshadows all neighbouring windows bar one for over two hours a day, every day of the year, and violates privacy and pollution rights in multiple ways, and also calls for 18 months of polluting, street-closing disruption and foundation-shattering excavation work not only from boundary to boundary but also over the pavement and onto the road itself, “good for the owners and residents of number eight Calvert Street.

I repeat, despite all of the obviously disturbing aspects to the 10 Calvert Street DA as is, Michael Nader stands in a strangers home and tells that person that his egregious plans “will be good for you.”

What sensitive, respectful human being would think that was an okay thing to do?

Michael Nader it seems.

Here’s something new I just learned regarding this application: Inner West Council cannot legally compel the developer to change bedroom counts to bypass parking rules, but at 379m², a Torrens-title subdivision into two separate lots fails the baseline 450m² state minimum lot size for standard dual-occupancy subdivisions, making the increase in dwelling numbers unapproved by default.

Subdivision and Lot Size Barriers

Minimum Lot Size:

The land area of 379m² sits below the standard 450m² minimum requirement per new lot for general dual-occupancy subdivisions under NSW planning rules, and below the 400m² attached dual occupancy minimum under the Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2022.

Subdivision Prohibition:

Because the site size falls short of local and state thresholds for multi-dwelling splits, Council or a private certifier will typically prohibit dividing the single block into separate titles.

Bedroom Counts and Parking controls:

Council does not dictate specific internal layouts (like forcing 3-bed vs. 2-bed splits) as a mechanism to waive or design around off-street parking minimums.

Parking Requirements:

Parking demands are tied to the overall development application and transit-oriented concessions (within 800 metres of Marrickville Station), rather than an arbitrary architectural mandate on room distribution.

The developers can - however - reconfigure plans with a secondary dwelling (granny flat) configuration to fit the 379m² site instead of full subdivision, which also increases dwelling options for Marrickville, and occupancy levels too.

Interesting.

Here’s another thing I learned about how Inner West planners views derelict sheds that were made to look like they are part of the house but are in fact not part of a house for various classification reasons.

The Inner West Council treats a detached, unintegrated structure like a derelict shed as a non-habitable outbuilding rather than part of the main building's envelope - a sort of architectural anomaly add-on that stands apart from a true footprint of internal habitable floor space.

Those who scrutinise the floor plans to establish the true rear building line, will generally judge the real back building line to be the structural rear wall of the main house (in the case of 10 Calvert Street, that true rear building line is the double-brick bathroom wall across to the steps down from the buildings back exit/entrance door),

From what I am able to ascertain, Council looks for the primary, habitable, and structurally integrated portion of the dwelling to anchor the building footprint.

Outbuilding Disregard” seems to be a classification to be aware of, because apparently a structure made of corrugated metal, plywood, MDF and plasterboard that has no internal access to the main house is classified as a minor Class 10 outbuilding, not a legal extension of the conditioned living area.

Precedent Assessment is important to, seemingly. The established rear building line is mapped from adjacent neighbouring properties along the block rather than a makeshift or dilapidated boundary structure on the subject site.

Merit and Amenity will almost certainly be taken into account too.

With Merit and Amenity in mind, since the flimsy, dilapidated shed sits flush against the solid brick bathroom wall in the main house proper, it appears that Council will most likely view that double brick wall running from the rear door to the bath room as the true transition point to the private open garden space.

This line would mean that the residents of numbers 2,4,6,8, ( new 10 & new 12 if the subdivision comes to pass), would all share the same western sunset view, which is fair and to the benefit of every residents personal privacy desires and rights.

Now from what I’ve been able to gather from even more extensive research, the developer of 10 Calvert Street feels confident about turning the 379m² block into a pair of subdivided 5-bedroom semis plus an outside toilet near the back fence, by his reliance on aggressive interpretations of design rules, modern state planning incentives, and by exploiting loopholes in local guidelines and governing principles to maximise density over neighbourhood concerns about perceived bulk, architectural character and over occupancy levels and high-density indicators that categorise overdevelopment on new super-skinny lots.

Developers are getting more and more savvy to designing dwellings on narrower footprints (on 5-7 meter-wide property widths) by utilising cunning layouts to stealthily squeeze five bedrooms into each compact two-storey structure they carved up.

Developers Optimism comes from banking on neighbouring approvals or assuming local consent authorities will favour increased housing supply over severely negative localised privacy trespassing and solar access blocking and all the various different environmental concerns and considerations that must be taken into account.

While state-level housing policies in NSW encourage new creations of dual occupancies and faster approvals in residential zones near transport hubs like Marrickville Train Station, a 379m² site is very much below standard baseline area minimums for traditional detached dual-occupancy subdivisions, (which typically ask for 450m² or higher depending on the local environmental plans).

This mismatch has led to community friction and neighbour objections for the 10 Calvert Street DA, and a series of rigorous merit assessments by local planning panels is likely to be triggered, which in time may result in the application stalling or being rejected or even approved but with stringent conditions and caveats, if and when the over-scaled proposal plans are scaled back somewhat

The development application at 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville (DA/2026/0548), demonstrates that the developer’s confidence is heavily tied to exploiting a combination of site geometry, state-level zoning overrides, and aggressive space-maximisation strategies.

The obviously deliberate, hyper-aggressive space-maximisation strategies may also be looking to bypass local council judgements ultimately, in a longer game plan, that involves the expectations of state court action make the aggressive space-maximisation strategies come to fruition.

The reality is though, that even on such a remarkably compact 379m² block, a Torrens title split down the middle that allows both proposed dwellings to have direct street presence, independent utility connections, and individual street-facing entryways— meeting a primary architectural hurdle for semi-detached approvals - will be seen as not a bad thing by a council supporting an uptick in the creation of additional small family dwellings in Marrickville suggesting that the subdivision ask will probably be given the go ahead in some form or another of scaled back iteration.

The long-game playing developer may also be banking on “NSW State Planning Reforms” exceptions (“SEPP Overrides”), with a specific eye on the Low & Mid-Rise Housing Reforms that have been Implemented by the NSW Government to combat the housing crisis in this state, by heavily incentivising "gentle density" that encourages the splitting of residential land blocks into dual occupancies and in particular semi-detached homes in R2 Low-Density zones rather than the many other alternative expansion concepts like maintenance of a single dwelling that is then optimised through rear and/or upper modifications and allowing a single “garden retreat” style dwelling near the back fence at the end of the existing driveway (another form of development that adds both an extra dwelling to add to the local suburb’s housing inventory and also increases occupancy potential in both the extended existing single dwelling as well as the “studio-retreat” style addition.

But unavoidably, an architectural design must still meticulously check the state-mandated boxes for floor space ratio (FSR) and fastidiously attend to various other criterion, in order to create the rarefied situation where the local council has only very limited grounds indeed, for an outright justifiable refusal.

Squeezing 5 bedrooms onto a sub-200m² parcel of land requires building directly to the envelope limits, of course though.

Pushy developers achieve this through “aggressive design” - utilising two-storey layouts and designing multi-use rooms. Spaces like attics, home offices, or study nooks are often designated on blueprints as "habitable rooms" to reach the highly desirable 5-bedroom marketing threshold, even if the physical footprint of a building is in fact, incredibly cramped, narrow and bulky in the neighbouring environment.

While neighbours may rightly argue that the original freestanding Federation character should be preserved, the absence of a strict Heritage Conservation Area overlay means the developer is legally permitted to at least propose a full demolition, yet still be compelled to retain the original facade in the end.

The Developer's Calculated Risk here though, is that although that developer is fully aware that proposals of such scale and a disruptive nature generate community pushback regarding building bulk, overshadowing, loss of privacies and loss of local street parking, the over-developers confidence rests on the assumption that if the council rejects the DA, the (the developer) has the right and the appetite to appeal the decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court.

In court, commissioners strictly evaluate the application against state planning laws and housing targets, which in some cases leans towards “gentle density” over neighbourhood sentiment even if it is overwhelming and coming from multiple fronts.

The development application for 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville (DA/2026/0548) is actively pushing the boundaries of the Inner West Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2022 controls.

The base development standards for standard low-density residential zoning (R2) in this pocket of Marrickville dictate strict limits, against which the developer's proposal forms a notable divergence.

Under the standard Inner West LEP 2022 Maps, the baseline maximum FSR for a site like this is 0.5:1. For a 379m² parcel of land, the total internal floor area across the entire site should not exceed 189.5m². To fit two houses—each containing 5 bedrooms—the builder would normally require roughly 150m² to 200m² per house (300m²+ total).

The developer is trying to justify a massive breach of the local FSR limit by squeezing deep, narrow double-storey footprints into the block.

Because 379m² divided by two leaves just 189.5m² per semi-detached dwelling, the application inherently violates the council’s core subdivision targets.

The developer is relying on Clause 4.6 (Exceptions to Development Standards) within the Inner West LEP 2022. This clause allows Council or the Planning Panel to wave aside strict numerical caps (like the 225m2 lot minimum or the 0.5:1 FSR) if the builder can legally demonstrate that compliance is "unreasonable or unnecessary" in this case, and that the development still achieves urban density objectives.

Implemented by the NSW Government to combat the housing crisis, the state-wide planning policies (SEPPs) are heavily incentivising "gentle density" like dual occupancies and semi-detached homes in R2 Low-Developers and frequently use these state provisions to override strict local council minimum lot sizes (such as the traditional 225m2 or higher minimums per lot required by the Inner West Council).

The developer's high confidence for 10 Calvert Street, Marrickville (DA/2026/0548) is built on navigating the strict "non-refusal standards" of the NSW Low and Mid-Rise Housing Reforms.

However, because the property's land area sits at a tight 379m², an outright state-level override is not a guaranteed loophole.

Instead, the developer is being forced to play a highly precise regulatory numbers game.

An automatic State SEPP Override is unlikely for lot size, but possible for use.

The NSW Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy (Housing SEPP) introduced "non-refusal" clauses— meaning if a developer hits specific state metrics, Council cannot legally use those metrics as a reason to reject.

However, the state-mandated non-refusal baseline for a dual occupancy or semi-detached subdivision requires a minimum lot size of 450m².

Because 10 Calvert Street is only 379m² the developer cannot claim an automatic state-mandated override on lot size.

Instead, they will be relying on Clause 4.6 of the Inner West LEP 2022 to ask for a formal variation to breach the council's local baseline subdivision rules.

Where the override does happen, the State SEPP makes semi-detached housing permitted with consent in all R2 zones state-wide.

Inner West Council cannot refuse the application simply on the grounds that they prefer freestanding homes over semis for example.

To justify a Clause 4.6 variation, the developer's design must clear a rigid matrix of state-specified environmental controls however.

The state standard sets a maximum FSR of 0.65:1 for low-rise housing types, so for a 379m² lot, this means a total building area allowance of up to 123.18 m2 246.35m² per new dwelling.

The developer must prove they have budgeted their 5-bedroom layouts strictly within this box without spilling into a local FSR breach.

The state reform requires a minimum resulting Torrens-title lot size of 225m² per lot for standard state protection. But 10 Calvert Street fails the lot size target (yielding ~189.5m² per lot).

The Parking & Deep Soil Box is a challenge too. The SEPP mandates 1 car parking space per dwelling and strict deep-soil quotas to protect the tree canopy.

If the developer sacrifices backyard soil or parking spaces just to fit the 5 bedrooms, the council can immediately fail the application on amenity grounds.

Strict Adherence to Building Envelopes is the key to developers getting non-refusal from council. In. Other words, if new buildings strictly comply with the 0.65:1 FSR cap, and vigorously abide by all of yhe local setback controls, Council cannot refuse the DA based on abstract complaints about "bulk and scale".

.The "Objectively Achieved" Test is the Major Hurdle though. Under NSW planning law, if a developer can prove that their sub-200m² lots still achieve the underlying objectives of the R2 low-density zone (i.e., providing functional, high-amenity family housing near transit), the council cannot deny it just because it doesn't meet the arbitrary 200m² numerical threshold.

The Land and Environment Court Threat: If Inner West Council bows to community pushback and refuses a numerically compliant or justifiable design, the developer will instantly lodge an appeal with the Land and Environment Court.

Because court commissioners are bound to follow the state's aggressive mandates to unlock "gentle density", councils routinely avoid expensive legal battles they are statistically likely to lose.

Ultimately, the developer is confident because the permissibility of a build is protected by the state.

They (the developers of 10 Calvert Street) are betting that their architectural plans are legally tight enough to force Council to accept a lower lot size via a variation, rather than risking a losing battle in court.

Development applications seeking minor lot size variations under Clause 4.6 in NSW face moderate prospects at the local council level but historically higher success rates upon appeal to the NSW Land and Environment Court.

Legal precedents establish that such numerical variations do not require proof of a superior environmental outcome, provided the design satisfies zone objectives which they will do in a vague sense.

I support this development.

It will replace a single dwelling with two family homes, increasing housing density in the Inner West where it's needed most. The site is well located, walking distance to Marrickville Station, the new Metro, and the Village shops, so these new residents won't rely on cars. This is exactly the kind of development that should be welcomed in a walkable, well-served location.

I support this development. I would’ve liked to see a larger increase in homes here in fact.