36 Floss St & 118 Duntroon St, Hurlstone Park

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.

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 ?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Gobsmacked.

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.

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.

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 .

It is with deep unhappiness that I see Council has approved this development. After so much protest by the community this totally inappropriate and unwanted development will be a blot on the landscape of our Heritage Suburb.

Do not let this be a precedent to be used by other profiteering developers- this is not Canterbury Road. Another example of why Hurlstone Park is an anachronism in the Canterbury Bankstown Council amalgamation- we should never have been added on to this council and should have been attached to the Inner West. Unacceptable!

I have just discovered that the 42 room Boarding House has been approved for this site despite continued local opposition. This must be what happens when you have a Council so far removed from the people it is supposed to be serving. The parking and traffic issues seem to have been ignored by Council, not to mention that the building is not at all in keeping with the surrounding area. A very disappointing decision from a Council that should not be "looking after" Hurlstone Park!

Not a positive or negative comment but the decision was that of the land and environment court - and there were further revisions to the design during the hearing. The decision (available below) has updated plans and renders if of interest.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17a4fb89d8419544cb484c04

I am delighted to read that this development has been approved despite a local campaign to keep poor people out of Hurlstone Park.

Sydney is experiencing a severe housing crisis, with even fully employed under 40s priced out of the housing market. For people on the fringes of the economy things are even worse, with very few accommodation options available apart from boarding houses..

I lived for a decade next door to a boarding house in Marrickville without the slightest problem. Poor people should be helped, not demonised.

Floss Street is an unremarkable precinct overdue for new development and new people.

It is disappointing that the Land and Environment Court has found in favour of this development, including the excessive height. I note that the developer is also responsible a development on Floss and Dunstaffinage St which is entirely unattractive as well. It was good to see however that some parking has been created on site, which was not a consideration in the initial proposal. However, how entry and exit from the basement parking will work at that intersection will be interesting.....

Charles Pickett,
Your are wrong. This development, and community opposition to it, has not been about poor people but poor planning.
1. While a small minority of people, especially some who live close by, have displayed an unfortunate attitude towards what trouble "boarding houses" might bring to a suburb, the vast majority of objections were based on issues with design, scale and effects on local character and heritage considerations. The heritage protections in the suburb have been hard won and developers and the state government have fought hard to diminish them at every turn. The desire to preserve the heritage flavour of a suburb should not be conflated with the desire to keep poor people out. The community also rallied to conserve the heritage-listed main platform building at the railway station - this was not about stopping poor people using it. The Hurlstone Park community is interested in their suburb, its built form, their parks, the river and their community.
2. It's important to understand the context of this site - the purchase and demolition of 2 heritage-contributory homes just after the heritage assessment study of the suburb was endorsed by council, and the links to councilors later found to be corrupt by ICAC .This approval represents a win of greed at the expense of community; it is not a win for poor people over the NIMBY set.
3.The NSW State Government's affordable housing strategies, including these "new generation boarding houses" have not resulted in more affordable housing. Indeed, a study in 2018 by UNSW City Futures Research Centre found these policies were failing, especially in the Canterbury Bankstown area. The newly-erected small boarding house in Dunstaffenage Street was approved in the basis of the Affordable Housing SEPP, yet a IBR studio space there is on offer for $330/week which is about the same as any 1 bedroom place in the area ie: it has no demonstrable affordability compared to anything else around. The NSW Government has since reviewed this policy and proposed changes will introduce an affordability requirement to boarding house developments. "New generation" boarding houses and student accommodation will no longer be facilitated under broader boarding house provisions and developers will need to meet new design requirements without the same incentives.
4. Hurlstone Park is a great community and good developments, at appropriate sites by developers with integrity would be welcomed, as would dwellings which offer affordable options. To date most developments have been offered to investors and have not been affordable.
5. People should not be blamed for poor policy. Whether it's to protect parks, libraries, or public transport, or heritage homes, communities should continue to rally against poor design, poor consultation, and planning for profit.

Boarding houses in principle are meant to cater for lower socio economic though any developer is not bound to providing this. The current DAs for boarding houses are simply easy ways for greedy developers to build poorly designed easy and quick buildings that are not monitored or rent controlled. Unless it is bound to the department of housing and social welfare groups these are shocking non secure poorly built and poorly managed profit centres.

I would agree with Marie Healy - the "boarding house" development on Dunstaffenage St, currently renting studios for $330 per week is out of reach of any single person on Jobseeker - currently paying about $620.

Excuse me, did someone call Hurlstone Park “derelict”? Have you been to Duntroon St lately? There is no part of Hurlstone Park that is “dereliect” but the Council is doing its best to ensure that there will be, given what’s been approved along Canterbury Rd and now Duntroon and Floss. These buildings are our future slums.

In recent years the population of Hurlstone Park has declined in number and has also aged significantly, in stark contrast to neighbouring and nearby suburbs. At the same time, as a result of the heritage review conducted a few years back, it now has 76 heritage listed sites, more than most nearby suburbs. Most of the listed buildings are utterly generic, listed as examples of domestic styles still commonly found throughout the Inner West. .

As a result Hurlstone Park has gained a reputation both locally and internationally as a suburb notable for the use of heritage arguments and listings to thwart any development likely to attract a younger, less affluent and more diverse population. The arguments made against this development only enhance that unfortunate reputation.

Lots of Baby Boomers / Gen Xers who bought their freestanding house for $500k now commenting that approving a 3 storey apartment housing in Sydney next to a Metro Station is for "developer greed".

The sheer irony, ignorance and stupidity of this statement is had to fathom. Any mildly educated person would tell you that the law of supply and demand suggests when u have low supply and high demand - prices go up.

Thats what we are seeing in Sydney today - low demand due to border closures and 0 net migration, yet a huge lack of supply and low interest rates are pushing prices through the roof. The supply shortfall as proven numerous times by the RBA and others is due to NIMBYs.

The net result of these disastrous policies is outrageously rising house prices, rental stress and homelessness for those on low incomes.

When Boomers/Gen Xers and their political lackeys in the Greens, Liberal & Labour parties (like Ms Healy), spout off on new housing developments as "greed" really they are projecting their own greed - and desire to inflate the price of property owners, at the expense of basic societal fairness and egalitarianism.

Enough is enough. If you want peace and quiet, move to the countryside and cash up the equity u have made. You dont have a right to deny others housing choices

I thought this was a tool to comment on proposed developments - not a forum to rant against other members of the community.

This building is going to block natural and sunlight into my apartment

My understanding is that the purpose of this forum is to provide opportunity for comments on the development and that is to be done in a manner that is polite. I am concerned that some people who are in fact anonmymous, are using it for political purposes, seemingly to cast negative commentary on named individuals who actually live in the area. To me, that is not in accord with the intent or guidelines of this forum.