PlanningAlerts

13 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. I thought the limit on this development was three stories. Also, I believe it has already been approved, so what is the point of lodging this now? I am strongly against it. It will create parking issues and look ugly in a street and suburb mostly full of beautiful federation houses. Please do not allow Hurlstone Park to become the next mini-Canterbury.

2. A four level development will overshadow surrounding properties and look out of place in a street with predominately single and two level dwellings. What is the plan for parking? The position of of this site on the intersection/corner of the streets will make onsite parking entry and exit a potential traffic hazard. There seems to be no plans available on the Council website to view as yet, although the DA was lodged 21/5 ?

3. I oppose this application. A boarding house is not suited to this pro dominantly family area.

4. I agree with the comments above and also strongly oppose this application. This type of building and accommodation does not fit into this area, as previously mentioned we mainly have single and some two story dwellings in our area. What type of boarding house (42 rooms??) will this be? Dulwich Hill and Hurlstone Park are mainly populated by families and professionals. Furthermore, it will certainly create issues with parking, and the location of of this site on the intersection/corner of the streets will make onsite parking entry and exit a potential traffic hazard. I also agree that a four storey building will overshadow other properties. This boarding house must never be build please.

5. This site is marked as a potential heritage conservation conservation area in the Sydney Metro precinct plan for Hurlstone Park.

   Please do not approve any out of character development at this location. Any development here should respect the local neighbourhood and be consistent with the local village atmosphere

6. All, there is a DA that has already been approved for a three storey boarding house on this site. It was approved as per the Council minutes released a few weeks ago. Despite community opposition, Council approved it via electronic vote instead of at a public meeting.

   The developer now wants to try increasing the building from 3 to 4 stories. We can only oppose this latest DA. There is no point opposing the three stories. What’s done is done.

7. It is already concerning that Council approved a three storey dwelling at this location, despite a good deal of local opposition. There were many reasons for not approving the original DA of three storeys, so for the developer to now ask for an additional storey is ridiculous.

   1) The DA that has been approved is already for three storeys - higher than all other dwellings in a residential street with single and two storey dwellings

   2) No satisfactory parking plan provided. Not enough spaces and an unsafe entry/exit on to a road that will have blindspots with the danger of resultant accidents

   3) This is a residential family street - a boarding house is not suited to this location

   As I said it is very disappointing that Council has for some reason approved a three storey dwelling, so I trust they will not make a bad situation worse by giving in to a developer who has been told a number of times that his DA is inappropriate and badly planned

8. How did the original application get approved? There has been clear and consistent community opposition to a development of this nature at that location for some time for a number of reasons (over-shadowing, parking issues, entry/exit dangers, out of character with surrounding buildings, out of character with surrounding community, etc.).

   There is no way approval should be given for the development to be increased.

9. I don't understand how this development has been approved. I last heard that the Land and Environment Court had rejected it. I oppose for all the reasons I have listed in the past.

10. Our property adjoins, i was not notified AFAIK of anything in May, 2020...

    Only here now because of 'new'??? DA...

    Gobsmacked.

11. Dear Canterbury Bankstown Council,
    This application, shrouded in the old corrupt ways of Canterbury Council, has always been very controversial and attracted heated opposition from the many people that wish to not have Hurlstone Park 'developed' in the way that so many other heritage suburbs have been.
    There is still huge opposition to it and I see a continued fight as to what is built here.
    This application is clearly unsuitable for this site.
    No parking plan in a place already crowded, unsuitable usage, unsuitable size and height.
    I vehemently oppose it and call upon Council to NOT approve such an unsuitable development in a place where something that would be suitable could be built.

12. Dear Canterbury Bankstown Council,
    The development at Floss and Duntroon Sts in Hurlstone Park is, in my view, architecturally unsympathetic to the area.
    In regard to the social housing aspect, this is not a NIMBY statement.
    I believe that social housing has a place in all areas, social, cultural and architectural. This development however, is architecturally out of step with this heritage listed area, mainly due to its proposed height and bulk dominating the buildings around it and the local streetscape. This can be seen clearly from the view down Crinan St through the village.
    I share the concern about parking, especially as there is little street parking and only a small, time-limited carpark which is mostly used by local residents attending the village shopping strip.
    I am also aware that the original proposal, which I also disagreed with, has been modified to require extra height. To apply for an approval and then reapply for modifications is a well-known developer strategy to blur transparency, which is in my view not in the interests of this council's residents.

13. It is generally accepted that planning on a state level is both dysfunctional and corrupt. Council has consistently prided itself on being the antithesis to the state in that its planning process would be one which followed the interests and wishes of local residents instead of blindly pandering to the financial greed of developers.This development should therefore be opposed ( in its current form ) for all the reasons given by residents and the developer instructed to resubmit something more reasonable .