176 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049

Partial demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 storey multi-dwelling housing development comprising 4 dwellings with associated car parking

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: Inner West Council, reference DA/2023/0985)

18 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Benjamin Cullen commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I am writing to express my support for the proposed development at 176 New Canterbury Road, Petersham (DA/2023/0985).

    Key points of support:

    Increased Housing Options: The addition of four new dwellings in a four-storey development responds effectively to the growing demand for housing in Petersham.

    Optimised Use of Space: The design maximises the use of the site, providing high-quality housing without overextending the area's existing infrastructure.

    Urban Renewal: The development represents an upgrade to the current site, contributing to urban renewal efforts in the area.

    Economic Boost: The construction phase and the influx of new residents will have a positive impact on local businesses and services, stimulating economic activity.

    Sustainable Development Approach: By focusing on increased density in existing urban areas, the project supports sustainable development principles, making efficient use of land and resources.

    I urge the Inner West Council to approve this development, recognising its potential to enhance the quality of living in Petersham and contribute to addressing the housing needs in Sydney.

    Sincerely,
    Benjamin

  2. Daniel Harrison commented

    To whom it may concern,

    - Loss of commercial/retail diversity

    The proposed development removes the commercial frontage situated on Old South Head Rd. The new development is offering no retail or commercial opportunities and is solely for residential.

    The provision of a home office does not appreciably readdress that

    - Urban design principles and appropriateness

    Ingress/egress is being proposed via the Allans Ave side of the property - for all intents and purposes the new dwelling is a residence on Allans Ave and should adhere to the development requirements in place for that avenue.

    I suspect the building height controls have been assessed from Old South head Rd rather than Allans ave. Where as Allans Ave would be more applicable in this case.

    Buildings on Allans avenue are 1-2 stories (only), with most houses being only a single story, or have a second story with a setback from the street, to provide an appearance of a single story from the street view.

    The proposed development is four stories - at least twice the height of any existing dwelling in Allans Ave, or adjoining properties. To remain in keeping with the urban design of the location the building should consist of no more than two stories, with setbacks for above ground level.

    The BASIX claims that all existing setbacks are preserved (4.2.2/2) - this is not the case, as the existing courtyard is with direct street frontage. Whereas the proposed design replaces this with a multi-story building facade.

    The BASIX claims the proposal is has an appropriate scale for the site (4.2.2/3). I disagree, the proposal seems well outside the bounds of an appropriate development when one considers the design in the context of the existing Allans Ave dwellings.

    - Soft Surfaces and Drainage

    The existing property has approx 61 square meters of open courtyard area to provide soft surfaces and drainage. The new development proposal removes all open and soft surface areas. With the property being developed all the way to boundary on all sides (4.2.4/C8 - In violation of Inner West LEP 2022, 40% space ratio). The application argues that this is in keeping with the design principles of Old Canterbury Rd - that may be true but it is not in keeping with the design principles of Allans Ave, where the majority of the property frontage is located.

    It should be noted that the Allans ave has no under street storm water drainage and any additional discharge onto the street will increase flooding risk for all other houses on this street.

    - Waste servicing

    The development proposal greatly increases the required garbage bins for waste removal. Waste pickup solely occurs on Allans Ave and the new development provides no provision for that - no area, or setback, for these bins. Although the proposal states there is convenient access (BASIX 2.21) this is not reflected on the plan? Presumably the proposal is for these bins to congest the avenue itself, or replace on-street parking spots?

    - Dwelling Access

    All dwellings in the street have direct street access. The proposed development has no direct access for three of the four dwellings (4.2.2/O4) and is at odds with the urban design of the neighborhood.

    - Communal Space

    At present the property has 61m of communal space. The development (4.2.2/12) claims that the property is not of sufficient size to provide such space. I would argue that the property is of sufficient size and completely removing the communal space will adversely impact the inhabitants.

    - Visual Privacy

    The proposed development exposes occupants to passing traffic of Allans Ave, with balconies having no setback from the street. The provision of screening timbers will obscure but not remove the loss of privacy for both dwelling inhabitants and passing foot traffic. I question if the privacy requirements of 2.6 have been adequately met by this proposal?

  3. Daniel Harrison commented

    For some inexplicable reason I mistakenly referred to 'New Canterbury Rd' as 'Old South Head Rd'.

    Please substitute 'New Canterbury Rd' for all references to 'Old South Head Rd' in my prior submission.

    Thanks
    -Daniel

  4. Georgina Harvey commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I am writing to formally object to the development application for the proposed four-story building at 176 New Canterbury Rd (corner of Allans Ave). While the application's address is on New Canterbury Rd, the development's primary impact will be on Allans Avenue, where its entire facade and entry points are located. Therefore, I urge you to consider the proposal in the context of Allans Avenue's development regulations and character.

    Arguments against the DA:
    1. Incongruous with Allans Avenue's character:
    Allans Avenue is comprised of low-rise residential houses, with most buildings being either one or two stories. Introducing a four-story building would be visually dominating and out of scale with the existing streetscape. The proposal contradicts the established urban design of Allans Avenue, which values single-story or set-back second-story dwellings to maintain a low-rise character. Such a significant shift in building height would set a harmful precedent for future development, potentially eroding the unique and historic charm of the avenue.

    2. Inadequate parking provisions:
    The proposed 4 unit, 10-bedroom development provides only 4 parking spaces, which is grossly inadequate compared to the potential number of residents and vehicles using the property. Allans Avenue already experiences parking congestion and traffic management challenges as a two-way street with parking on both sides, but room for only one car at a time. This development will exacerbate these issues, leading to increased competition for street parking, potential spillover onto surrounding streets and increased congestion.

    3. Lack of green space: Buildings in Allans Avenue are subject to maximum floor space ratios which ensure adequate green space is provided for residents and the environment. This development proposal lacks adequate, distributed green space, which is out of character with the street and the established FSR regulations and depriving future residents of access to vital outdoor areas. The absence of green space will contribute to urban heat island effects and reduce the overall amenity of the development.

    I feel this development proposal's scale, design, and inadequate parking provisions are incompatible with the established character and needs of the neighborhood. Approving this application would set a dangerous precedent and threaten the unique amenity of Allans Avenue.

    Thank you for your consideration,

    Georgie Harvey
    Allans Ave

  5. Dominic Behrens commented

    I am writing to express my strong support for this application.

    The proposed plans are of high quality and the building will contribute positively to the streetscape and amenity of the area.

    In a housing crisis, we must take all opportunities to allow new homes, and this is a high quality development that will provide 4 more homes for families like mine to live in.

    I ask that you approve it as rapidly as possible.

  6. Dean M commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I would like to express my full support for this proposal. Sydney is experiencing a housing crisis. Blocking this proposal will only increase housing prices further and create immense financial hardship for those on lower and middle incomes. These properties are particularly crucial for our front line workers, such as nurses or paramedics, that are struggling to afford the beautiful inner city and they need to be situated in all areas of Sydney. As an inner west resident, the thought of more people being able to live here brings me immense happiness and I hope to see this development and similar ones thereafter succeed.

  7. Phillip Balding commented

    I fully support this modest harmless development which will add some more needed dwellings. It looks good, sure they will be expensive but I understand that will free up other cheaper households that the residents vacate aka the filtering effect. My only concerns are that it isnt dense enough given our housing crisis, council could offer an additional 2 floors in exchange for 1 floor being Affordable Housing. Given our rates of skin cancer and suburban heat issues, some taller buildings would be extremely benefitcial to the street, we aren't the UK, we need more shade. I would like to move back here some day as it is close to my work, I was priced out and moved away 12 months ago. My Italian relatives all live in Campsie and I have barely seen them since. These additional units will reduce prices overall and allow hard working local employees like me to move back in.

  8. Brendan Leonard commented

    I am writing to express my strong support for this application.

    The proposed plans are of high quality and the building will contribute positively to the streetscape and amenity of the area.

    It is in line with both federal and state govt initiatives to build many new homes in 5 years in transport appropriate areas that already have infrastructure and suitable amenities .

    I ask that you approve it as quickly as possible.

  9. Karen Soo commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I request that this DA be rejected and revised in accordance to the following points;

    1. Destroys Allans Avenue's character:
    Allans Avenue is comprised of low-rise residential houses, with most buildings being either one or two stories. A four-story building would be visually eye sore and out of scale with the existing streetscape. The proposal contradicts the established urban design of Allans Avenue, of all existing single-story or set-back second-story dwellings that maintains a low-rise character. The size and scale of this DA will damage the unique and historic charm of the avenue.

    2. Inadequate parking provisions:
    The proposed 4 parking spaces, which is grossly inadequate compared to the potential number of residents and vehicles using the property. Allans Avenue already experiences parking congestion and traffic management challenges as a two-way street with parking on both sides, but room for only one car at a time. This development will exacerbate these issues, leading to increased competition for street parking, potential spillover onto surrounding streets and increased congestion.

    3. Lack of green space: Buildings in Allans Avenue are subject to maximum floor space ratios which ensure adequate green space is provided for residents and the environment. This development proposal lacks adequate, distributed green space, which is out of character with the street and the established FSR regulations and depriving future residents of access to vital outdoor areas. The absence of green space will contribute to urban heat island effects and reduce the overall amenity of the development.

    This DA’s scale, design, lack of adequate parking and green space offends and damages the established character and needs of the neighborhood. Approving this application would set a dangerous precedent and threaten the unique amenity of Allans Avenue.

    Do not proceed with this DA.

    Thank you,

    Karen

  10. June Simpson commented

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    I am writing to object to the Development Application for the proposed four storey building at 176 New Canterbury Road, Petersham. My objections are as follows:

    1) Although the address of the building is on New Canterbury Road, there is no entry to it from that address, rather the building’s facade is on Allans Ave and all entry to it (including vehicular) is on Allans Ave, where it will have its major impact. It is essentially a development on Allans Ave with an address on New Canterbury Road and I believe Council should treat it as such.

    2) Allans Ave is a residential street with twenty six houses, almost all in Victorian and Federation styles, and one or two storeys high. Where later upper storey extensions have been built they are set back from the street to preserve the character of the street. The proposed four storey development will have no set back and will tower over the street and be completely out of character with the it. I believe this contravenes the building height controls which apply to Allans Ave while the size / scale is well outside the bounds of appropriate development on Allans Ave.

    3) The increased traffic from a four unit development at that end of Allans Ave will considerably increase the danger to pedestrians on the street. The boundary of the proposed development is situated immediately on the edge of the road in the narrow part of Allans Ave i.e. that section between New Canterbury Rod and the dogleg bend at 25 Allans Ave. There is no footpath on that side of the road, and a very narrow one (a ledge) on the other, so that pedestrians have to walk on the road on that part of the street as they go to and from New Canterbury Road. Vehicles entering and leaving an underground car park with no visibility straight onto the road will present a considerable hazard to pedestrians who have no choice but to walk on the road.

    Allans Ave is a narrow street - there is no room for vehicles to overtake or pass. Drivers frequently have to reverse when confronted by a vehicle coming in the opposite direction. A multi vehicle car park in this position with no visibility on exit presents considerable dangers to pedestrians as well as motorists and will create ongoing inconvenience for traffic in both directions. Residents have long been opposed to making Allans Ave a one way street.

    4) Parking is an important amenity for the residents of Allans Ave that is threatened by this proposed development. The proposal to have a four car car park in a development with four units means that the cars that cannot fit into the car park will park on the street, along with those of visitors, tradesmen etc. Residents of Allans Ave already have considerable difficulty parking in the street which is also used by commuters, shoppers, frequenters of the pub in New Canterbury Road, etc - every other street between Allans Ave and Lewisham Station has parking restrictions, and there is no parking on New Canterbury Road for the residents of this proposed development, even though that will be their address.

    5) Waste servicing for the proposed development has not been considered in this application. A development of four units will require twelve waste bins, eight of which will need to placed on the road each week, given that there is no footpath. All waste collection will have to take place on Allans Ave as it is not possible on New Canterbury Road. It is inappropriate and unfair for a proposed property development on Canterbury Road to regard it as convenient to take up parking and road space in Allans Ave for their waste collection because they have not allowed for it.

    6) Visual Privacy requirements have not been met with this development proposal.. Because there is no setback from the road for the balconies and there is no footpath to provide a buffer, balconies will be no further than 350 mm from passing traffic and pedestrians.

    7) Green space is lacking in this development proposal which is effectively on Allans Ave despite its address being on New Canterbury Road. This is completely out of character with the street. The proposal is to develop the property to the very boundary on all four sides and remove the existing property’s courtyard area of some 60 square metres, with resultant heat island effects and reduction of amenity of the neighbourhood, and should not be allowed.

    I believe this development proposal should not be approved because of the objections outlined above. It proposes an overdevelopment for a site of its size, is incompatible with the character of the street on which it will sit (Allans Ave) and will present numerous problems for the residents of Allans Ave including parking and traffic congestion, danger to pedestrians and motorists and waste collection problems, and it will detract from the amenity of the street.

    Thank you for considering the issues raised,

    June Simpson

  11. Nick R commented

    I support this proposal. It is modest at 4 stories, and provides some much needed additional housing during a housing crisis.

  12. FIona Gillies commented

    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to object to the development application for a proposed four-story building at 176 New Canterbury Rd, on the corner of Allans Ave in Petersham.

    While the application’s address is on New Canterbury Rd, its façade and entry points are on Allans Ave, which will be most affected by the development.

    I live on Morgan St, directly opposite Allans Ave. I never drive on Allans Ave, because it is a tiny, narrow, dog-leg street, and car access is difficult, so I leave it to the residents though I walk up and down it frequently en route to the station or shops.

    Most of the houses on Allans Ave are single-storey, with a handful of two-storey dwellings. The street is like a quaint back lane. A four-storey building would be wildly out of scale and character with the existing low-rise streetscape and would completely dominate the surrounding buildings.

    As mentioned above, parking and driving on Allans Ave is already difficult. On Morgan St, where I live, parking is also at a premium, with spillover from residents of other nearby streets making it often difficult to find a park. The proposed four-unit, 10-bedroom development allows for only four parking spaces. This is clearly insufficient for the number of residents and vehicles that will be attached to the property and will only exacerbate the existing congestion issues.

    I note that letters of support for the development appear to come from people who are not residents of the immediate area. I absolutely support increases in urban density. However, these changes need to be made with consideration to existing residents and streetscapes.

    I therefore ask you to consider the proposal in that context.

    Thank you
    Fiona Gillies
    Morgan St, Petersham

  13. Nadia commented

    I support this development in Petersham. As a local resident more low density housing of this nature is desperately needed, and a four story development balances the need for maintaining character on the street with larger developments.

    This is a modest development by any design and the allowance for ten bedrooms - shifting away from the dominance of 1 bedroom apartments in the inner west - is another huge plus, larger apartments are the push we need.

    We are in then middle of a housing crisis at the moment, I urge the council to approve the development.

  14. Kitty F commented

    I wholeheartedly support this development application, as a long term resident of New Canterbury Rd. We are in a housing crisis and a modest 4 storey block is exactly what is needed in the area. This proposal matches the character of other blocks built on the corner of New Canterbury Road and Audley Street. As these existing buildings have demonstrated, complaints about traffic and parking in the area are unwarranted.

    As a disabled person living in the Inner West LGA, I urge you to adhere to Action Area 5.4 of the Inner West Council Disability Inclusion Action Plan and 2.4.2.1 of the Operational Plan, in which council must advocate for an increased level of liveable housing in development assessment considerations including with a gold or platinum outcome.

    The need for housing is far more urgent than any quibbles about character or traffic, especially for disabled people

  15. Tania Elliott & Peter Shura commented

    To whom it may concern

    I am writing to object to the Development Application for the proposed four storey building at 176 New Canterbury Road, Petersham. I understand the need for additional housing but this proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site and not appropriate for Allans Avenue and will negatively impact the residents of Allans Ave.

    My objections are as follows:

    1. Height and Scale of Building Excessive for Site - Allans Ave is a residential street with all homes one or two storeys high. The proposed four storey development will have no set back and will tower over the street and neighbours and will be completely out of character.

    2. Increased Traffic - Allans Ave is a very narrow street and does not have the capacity for increased traffic from a four unit development at that end of Allans Ave. It would considerably increase the danger to pedestrians and vehicles on the street. Drivers frequently have to reverse back when confronted by a vehicle coming in the opposite direction. We already have issues with some of the businesses in New Canterbury Road double parking or parking in no parking zones at that end of Allans Ave adding to the congestion of the street and making it difficult to enter or exit the street. This proposed development would further exacerbate this problem.

    3. Insufficient Parking - The proposal to have only four car parks for 4 units is not adequate. Residents of Allans Ave already have considerable difficulty parking in the street or surrounding streets and the extra vehicles that would come with this proposed development has not been allowed for.

    4. Insufficient Waste Bin Area - A development of four units will require twelve waste bins, eight of which will need to placed on the road each week, given that there is no footpath. All waste collection will have to take place on Allans Ave as it is not possible on New Canterbury Road. This will create a hazard and make it difficult for vehicles to travel along Allans Ave.

    5. Green space is lacking in this development proposal which is effectively on Allans Ave. This is completely out of character with the street. The proposal is to develop the property to the very boundary on all four sides and remove the existing property’s courtyard area of some 60 square metres, with resultant heat island effects and reduction of amenity of the neighbourhood, and should not be allowed.

    I believe this development proposal should not be approved because of the objections outlined above. It proposes an overdevelopment for a site of its size, is incompatible with the character of the street on which it will sit (Allans Ave) and will present numerous problems for the residents of Allans Ave including parking and traffic congestion, danger to pedestrians and motorists and waste collection problems, and it will detract from the amenity of the street.

    We appreciate you considering the issues raised.

    Regards
    Tania Elliott & Peter Shura

  16. Asst. Prof. Lothrop S. Froploth commented

    I would support this proposed development on the basis of its amenity and character. This development proposes to allow more non-residents to become residents, and amenity and local character preferences of non-residents over their developed or undeveloped local non-residences needs to be acknowledged, as well as those of current residents and heritage residents, in the development assessment of local residential development in a heritage area. As a character, and a resident of the highly developed inner west, I would urge Council to allow the local development of this kind of amenity right to the outer boundaries of inner west residences, which is appropriate and characteristic for highly developed heritage inner-urban areas.

  17. Katherine Lee commented

    I object to this development. My reasons for objection:

    1) It is oversized and disproportionate to the area. A four storey building in a 1-2 storey residential area is well out of character and will look obviously so. It
    2) It adversely affects privacy and sunlight for neighbouring residents.
    2) Increased traffic in an area with already insufficient parking.
    3) Lack of green space - this development is devoid of sufficient green space. It will be completely incongrous with the area

  18. J. Ocallaghan commented

    I object to this DA. The building is out of scale and out of keeping with the local area.
    It will cause increased traffic and congestion, particularly with the only access via a small side street. There is also inadequate parking provisions, which will impact local residents.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished 5 months ago. It lasted for 29 days. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to Inner West Council. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small 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