354 Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park, NSW 2193


External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 year ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Inner West Council (Ashfield), reference 010.2019.00000107.001)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Laura commented

    This DA is for an above-height shop-top housing development whose size and bulk overwhelm all surrounding buildings. It directly adjoins an R2 low density housing zone but does not have any transitional height adjustment, or adequate setbacks, to meet requirements and prevent a building of greatly disproportionate scale and mass dominating the surrounding houses and streets.

    The DA describes this building as "3-storey". This is deceptive as it does not account for the communal rooftop area, which includes tall permanent structures such as shade cloths, or the more than one metre of "Underground" car park that will be visible from Watkin Street and the rear. Given the pronounced downward slope of Watkin St from Canterbury Rd, this building will appear as a 5-storey building (which it is when the two levels of basement car parking are included) from Watkin Street.

    This DA includes a poorly-positioned driveway located less than 20 metres from the intersection of Watkin Street and Canterbury Rd. In morning peak vehicle queues in Watkin Street most often stetch past this driveway. Serious safety issues are created when you add the 37 projected vehicle movements per hour, in and out of the proposed development, to this already congested situation.

    Hurlstone Park is a suburb with recognised heritage value. Residents have been fighting for at least 3 years to retain this heritage and village feel. In 2016 Greater Sydney Commissioner Morris Iemma described the unique character of Hurlstone Park as unsuitable for any but the most limited development. This DA does not even remotely meet that standard.

    Overdevelopment, beyond both business and residential needs, has dominated this area for too long. It is time to prioritise community amenity and sympathetic, suitably-sized development to restore some balance.

  2. Chloe commented

    I would like to second Laura's comments about the unsuitable nature of this development for all the reasons she has given.

  3. Nicola Brown commented

    The height of this proposed development is not in keeping with the streetscape for the area. There are already too many new dwellings in the area without any further infrastructure development (for example, no increase in the capacity of local schools). In addition, there are already empty retail outlets in new and existing developments nearby. There seems to be an oversupply already.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts