Fairer Future submission guide

Below is a guide for submissions to the Inner West Council development plans.

Submissions can be made here before midnight on Sunday, 7 July.

Lack of open space

Inner West Council’s 2018 Recreational Needs Study found that Dulwich Hill had the 5th lowest open space level on a per person basis out of 21 Inner West areas. The study said Dulwich Hill had open space provision of 4.5 sq/m per person, less than the Inner West’s average (and benchmark) 13.3 sq/m of open space per person.

The plans propose just 3,720 sq/m of new open space in Dulwich Hill, of which 2,000 sq/m will be a public plaza.

If an average of 2.2 per people per dwelling is used, this will create an additional 0.40 sq/m in open space per person - representing just 63cm by 63cm per person (or the size of a typical carpet tile or cardboard box).

It is also concerning that the plan could reduce the amenity of our few existing open space areas, by placing buildings to the north of Johnson Park and Arlington Reserve, and therefore potentially overshadowing these areas.

Council needs to work to deliver greater open space improvements and protect the existing limited open space areas we currently do have.

Affordable housing

Under the plan, developers only have to provide a very low rate of affordable housing - just 2% of gross floor area.

This is far lower than the rate in the neighbouring City of Sydney, and is likely to result in a net loss of affordable housing when sites containing existing affordable housing are developed. It will also not deliver any vision of a diverse community.

The exhibition process has been inhibited by the fact that the council has refused to release its feasibility analysis in relation to the affordable housing rate.

The plans are not accompanied by any overall affordable housing plan, or vision, for the LGA or suburb

Council should lift the affordable housing contribution rate, release its feasibility analysis and work harder to protect existing affordable housing to really deliver a vision of a diverse community.

Biodiversity

Dulwich Hill benefits from an existing statutory biodiversity corridor, which covers both public and private land. This corridor is an important consideration when assessing development applications and helps implement the vision of a GreenWay which covers both land alongside the light rail line, and in the surrounding suburban area.

A consultant’s report accompanying the exhibition identifies 31 threatened flora species, and 101 threatened fauna species, occurring within 5km of the Dulwich Hill and Marrickville housing investigation area.

This corridor is being targeted for the most intensive development, most likely undermining the corridor vision and outcomes. The council has not committed to retaining the corridor.

The building of 8-14 storey development in streets such as Hercules Street, Keith St, Keith Lane, and parts of Blackwood Ave and Macarthur Parade will mean more stray light, noise and overshadowing of the GreenWay and other dwellings and schools, and impacts on private gardens which are biodiversity hubs.

Council needs to retain the statutory biodiversity corridor and re-examine whether intense development and the corridor are compatible

Interface issues

Council’s natural desire to deliver financially feasible development controls, and the intensity of development in our suburb, has led to significant likely interface issues between high and low density areas.

Development of up to 10 storeys (34m) is proposed on the other side of roads from retained low-density areas. Streets which are particularly affected include:

Hercules St (between Dulwich Grove station and the Loftus St carpark); and
Riverside Crescent (between Ewart St and Wardell Rd).
Marrickville Rd (particularly on the south side where high-rise buildings will overshadow and cause privacy impacts for homes in Canonbury Grove and Macarthur Parade)
Loftus St, by the proposed high-rise development on the carpark site directly to the north of these homes.
Wilga Ave Southern side of the street is zoned R4 while the north side R2

This is in stark contrast to the NSW Government’s Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal strategies, which had the policy that an interface building height difference between higher and low density areas should be no more than four storeys.

Council should reduce the very significant interface impacts in this plan, wherever possible, by aiming for a height difference of no greater than four storeys between areas of different density.

It should also consider whether cumulative use of Council and NSW Government incentives could exacerbate interface issues.

Carparks

Dulwich Hill’s businesses are concerned that the exhibited plans committed to introducing planning controls to developing the carpark sites, but made no commitment to retaining existing retail parking. Businesses also complained about the lack of consultation.

These carparks were purchased, in the 1970s, by the former Marrickville Council for the express reason to support the Dulwich Hill retail centre, in the face of the development of new hardtop shopping centres (such as Roselands). They continue to play this important role.

Council should defer the introduction of planning controls on the Seaview St and Loftus St carpark sites, to investigate potential land acquisitions to create public good development, including greater affordable housing and full retention of existing public parking

If the above step does not happen, Council ensures that all existing public parking is retained in the development of both carpark sites, and that this is expressed in planning controls.

Heritage

Council is, without any justification, proposing to remove the southern side of Wilga Avenue as a heritage conservation area (HCA).

Save Dully also finds it disappointing that no new heritage items have been identified as part of this major development plan, and the council seems to have only sought out properties where heritage protection can be reduced (in the case of Gladstone Hall) or removed (in the case of 61 Garnet St and south Wilga St).

Council should retain Wilga Avenue as a HCA and examine potential new heritage items in all areas proposed for upzoning.

Infrastructure

The infrastructure analysis to support this growth is thin. There is no analysis of the current capacity of school and health facilities to accommodate this growth, nor any analysis of traffic impacts on key intersections.

What’s needed is a clear, comprehensive and exhibited infrastructure plan.

Overall impact

Under the council plans, some 21,983 new homes are earmarked for Dulwich Hill, Ashfield, Croydon and Marrickville, and 8,975 in Leichhardt, Petersham, Lewisham, Marrickville, St Peters and Sydenham.

The report to the Council meeting in May 2025 noted that the council, under these plans, will be exceeding its NSW Government dwelling target.

Many suburbs in the LGA which are well serviced by bus, light rail, train or ferry services are either not receiving a single new dwelling, or only receiving a nominal number of dwellings. To this extent, this is not a LGA-wide plan.

Most development is concentrated in the south-west corner of the LGA, and in particular Ashfield Ward. Dulwich Hill has been allocated 4,245 homes.

This is double the amount allocated to the suburb in the two Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Strategies (around 2,000) - these strategies were roundly rejected and opposed by the previous Marrickville Council, and Inner West Council.

It is also well above the 571-631 dwellings proposed by Council in its 2022 plans.

The fact the council is exceeding its dwelling target gives it flexibility to reduce the worst impacts of the plan.

Given Council is likely to be exceeding its housing targets, and given the very significant interface, heritage, biodiversity, open space, infrastructure and affordable housing impacts of the plan, Council should look at reducing development impacts, which may involve reducing dwelling numbers in Dulwich Hill.

Plan positives

The plan has some positives, particularly compared to the NSW Government’s Transport Oriented Development plan:

Retention of most existing heritage areas
Avoiding dividing blocks into different zoning levels, and by doing so protecting some residents from high-density development on adjoining sites.
Delivering additional much-needed housing, while at the same time preserving a number of streets in the suburb for low-density development
Revitalising New Canterbury Rd