1 Donovan Street Revesby Heights NSW 2212 Australia

Proposed change of use of ex serviceman's club to a community facility

External link Read more information

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

(Source: Canterbury-Bankstown Council, reference DA-794/2016)

20 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Joan Ball commented

    Re the proposal to build a community Facility Revesby Heights-
    I appose this proposal The site should not be used as a community centre we have not been informed as to who it will benefit and what it will be used for. There is no information been made available to the residents of the area.
    The site was gazetted as a memorial site and as a widow of a "trobuk Rat" I feel it is a slight on the memory of our service men. Furthermore the impact on the surrounding district would be extreme. The parking is already problematic. We have a Park within a short distance of the proposed facility although this does service the residents of the area Parking is at its limit weekends and weeknights. We have a new recently approved development residential and restaurant site opposite the proposed facility that will increase the burden of traffic and parking to the area. There would be an impact on the road conditions from increased vehicular use with cars that would travel to this facility daily. My firm response is No it would not serve the residents of the area but have a negative impact on the residents of this area.

  2. Debbie Wileman commented

    Re the proposal to build a community Facility Revesby Heights-
    I appose this proposal. If the site is going to be a community centre it should be used as a council community centre for ALL residents of Canterbury Bankstown not just for a particular race or religion. The area is 'Heroes Hill' and it should be kept that way in their honour. Our small village atmosphere will change and will not cope with any more traffic in the area. The parking is already a nightmare with all the development happening. We have a new residential and restaurant site in progress now opposite the proposed facility that will increase the burden of traffic and parking to the area. There would be an impact on the road conditions from increased vehicular use with cars that would travel to this facility daily. Morotai Road is chaos now with thru traffic especially buses trying to gain access. My firm response is NO as it would not serve the residents of the area but have a negative impact on the residents of this area.

  3. Garry commented

    There is insufficient parking in the area already and the infrastructure has no capacity to cope with this. I agree with comments made by Debbie & Joan. My deceased dad was a returned serviceman from World War 2. Heroes Hill has a unique place in the history of Bankstown and it needs to be preserved. My firm response is also NO as it would not serve the residents of the area but have a negative impact on the residents of this area.

  4. Alison Kiel commented

    Due to the increase in housing developments in our area, the traffic congestion is ridiculous. Morotai Road can be found in gridlock many times a day or week. Our usually quiet and peaceful neighbourhood now has demolition crews, jack hammers, bulldozers and the like from morning until evening.
    Add to this increased traffic, in hand with very limited parking; residents - many with young families - who regularly walk in our neighbourhood to access schools and parks - I strongly oppose this development.
    I will not feel comfortable walking our usual route to and from school, directly through the property where this proposal is to take place.

  5. David Fuelling commented

    The "Acoustic Assessment" (AA) submitted with the DA did not do any assessment of the noise produced by the air conditioning system mounted on the roof of the building. I think locals (like us) were happy to put up with it previously because we enjoyed using the club's facilities. But if no locals intend to use the services offered by the Al-Jaafaria Society, then I'm not sure we should have to put up with the noise, which I'm certain exceeds recommended levels. Furthermore, the AA ASSUMES the noise levels will be consistent with other community centres, but how can we be sure of that? The AA endorses the DA PROVIDED the 9 recommended noise management controls are implemented, but how can we be sure they will be as the DA makes no mention of complying with them?

  6. Lola Chen commented

    The increase of traffic into Revesby Heights has become a nightmare. Adding further stress to the 1950s roads and traffic will make the streets impassable. Revesby Heights is a quiet, suburban neighbourhood with many young families. It is a neighbourhood that does not have a lot of movement as many residents stay for many years due to the amenable neighbourhood facilities. Adding a "community centre" that a majority fo the community cannot access is absolutely ludicrous - let alone allowing a community centre to run everyday 8am-10.30pm every day of the week. Additionally, the reports with the DA, particularly the sound assessment, measured the levels of noise against an URBAN environment, not a SUBURBAN environment. These reports need to be re-done or at least checked by another external agency with no ties to the DA. The RSL that previously ran at the site was well supported by the community as most residents were ex servicemen or family of ex servicemen. The people moving into this space are not from our community and do not support our community. We do not support this application and urge the council to DENY this DA.

  7. Paulo Lopes commented

    My wife & I strongly appose to the proposal.

    If the site will become a "community centre" then it should be used as a "community centre" for ALL residents not just for a particular race or religion.

    The area is 'Heroes Hill' and it should be kept that way in their honour.

    Furthermore, the impact on the surrounding district would be extreme. With park land within a short distance of the proposed facility which serves residents of the area parking is at its limit weeknights & weekends.

    With a new approved residential / restaurant development opposite the proposed facility this will only increase traffic flow and increase pressure on parking within the area. There would also be impact on the road conditions from increased vehicles that would travel to the facility daily.

    Our firm response to the proposal is NO it would not serve the residents & negative impact on the residents of Revesby Heights.

  8. Mark commented

    Traffic levels in Revesby Heights have increased in recent years to near capacity as a result of the high level of construction of dual occupancies. The replacement of single dwellings to dual occupancies has doubled and tripled the amount of vehicles on the road and the double driveways halves the available street parking. Revesby Heights has narrow roads and when vehicles are parked on opposing curb sides it reduces the roads to single lanes. Everyday drivers have to pull over to let oncoming traffic through. I have witnessed the local bus driver having to stop to fold back car mirrors before entering streets. There are many further developments planned coupled with a multiply storey residential development that will add further increase congestion.
    When the Hero’s Hill club operated the suburb was mainly single dwelling housing. Most patrons walked to the club, especially the war veterans who lived in war service homes in the surrounding streets.
    The demographic that will use the community hall does not match the local community and therefore there will be a significant increase in traffic in a small suburb that does not have any through roads.
    The previous club was generally quiet (hence it closed), and on the odd occasion when it hosted a populate event, like ANZAC day, the streets were mayhem, even before the recent increase in development.
    I oppose the DA for a community hall due to the inadequate traffic infrastructure in Revesby Heights to cope with any further increases in traffic.

  9. N.L.C commented

    Dear residents, please consider the below items in your objections to development application number DA-794/2016.
    It's absolutely vital all local residents with any concerns send their objection to council. What is now a beautiful and quiet pocket neighbourhood stands to become something entirely different should this or anything alike go ahead on the site.

    Donovan Street is a primary thoroughfare used by many pedestrians each and every day.

    Professionals and school children flood the area on foot from Sandakan Road through to Donovan Street and over centaur Street to get to the bus stop and gymnasium, and throughout the afternoon, evenings and weekends, locals walk through Donovan Street to get to the park to play or while doing daily exercise.

    The Heroes Hill area in Revesby Heights has always been a quiet neighbourhood for families. Given the number of people including unaccompanied minors who use Donovan and Centaur Street it is vitally important that traffic not increase to the area.

    We are not against development in the area however this proposal would significantly and undoubtedly impact on our amenity now and in the future.

    Use of premises
    The proposed use is defined as ‘Community facility” which is defined as follows;
    A building or place:
    (a) owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and
    (b) used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community, but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.

    The proposed uses are open ended meaning that certain activities may or may not comply with the definition of Community facilities. For instance referring to the Shia Islamic Centre Al-Jaafira website, activities such as Quran lessons and interpretation are regularly conducted. The question is how is this different from prayer and worship by a religious group? It appears that such uses form a core purpose of the proposal and is more accurately defined as a place of public worship which is “a building or place used for the purpose of religious worship by a congregation or religious group, whether or not the building or place is also used for counselling, social events, instruction or religious training.
    Further, the acoustic report and SEE refers to the use of the premises as conferences during the larger events. The most appropriate definition for this use is a function centre which is “a building or place used for the holding of events, functions, conferences and the like, and includes convention centres, exhibition centres and reception centres, but does not include an entertainment facility”.
    The use or at least part of the use shall be redefined as a place of public worship and function centre. The application should be re-lodged with the accurate description and associated assessment against the relevant parking, traffic generation, noise and other amenity considerations associated with those uses and not a Community facility.
    Traffic and Parking
    The traffic report concedes that there is not enough parking spaces on site for the larger events. In fact, the proposal is at least 95 spaces short during those stated events. The local roads are not equipped for such volume considering the minimum road width and demand for existing on street parking.
    The matters relating to congestion are exacerbated by safety concerns which is a significant issues for the following reasons;
    • There is one entry and exit point to the site where congestions will be exacerbated at this junction. Traffic management at the entry to Donovan Street has not been addressed

    • Many of the proposed spaces on site do not comply with RMS guidelines in terms of dimensions and turning clearances

    • Local street widths are not conducive to volumes associated with peak usage times.

    • Council cannot affectively monitor the number of ‘larger’ events held by the Islamic centre.

    • The majority of the floorspace is better defined as place of public worship; attracting specific parking generation rates that when used in this assessment would reveal further non-compliances.

    • The traffic report compares to the previous use and associated generation of traffic of that use. However, no evidence has been provided regarding the traffic generation and peak times of the previous use.

    Noise
    My property will be significantly affected by vehicles entering and existing the site, attendees queuing to enter the premises, and the use of the premises considering the proximity of the buildings.
    The acoustic report does not alleviate any of my concerns particularly considering that there is no control as to how many larger gatherings are held. How can Council of the EPA define a larger gathering and further, how can Council monitor the number of these events held?
    Further the acoustic criteria is not accurate as it has been based on the use of the premises as a community facility. The proposed use is better defined as a place of public worship and function centre. The report need to be re drafted to reflect the actual likely uses.
    The report does not include the impact of traffic and noise associated with parking and congregating at the front of the premises. The impact upon properties within Receiver 4 is therefore underestimated. The report concludes that the conclusion that the use will not have an acoustic impact relies on ‘no queuing’. How can this be controlled?
    Bushfire risk
    The SEE states that where bushfire risk are significant, the building is not permitted to be occupied. There is a significant safety risk to occupants. It is likely that the use will include many children who will be at risk if the requirement of ‘non-occupation days’ are not adhered to. The monitoring of such closures is also most difficult to undertake and surely not worth a catastrophic event endangering lives.
    The building should be upgraded in order to minimise bushfire risk as per the requirements of the BCA. The banning of use of the building is not an acceptable means of controlling risk.
    Application deficiencies
    • A Waste Management Plan has not been submitted
    • It is obvious that the Statement of environmental Effects was completed prior to the finalisation of use details and technical studies.
    • The use has not been accurately defined and as such noise and traffic assessment is inaccurate.
    • The risk to occupants during significant bushfire events is prohibitive and may result in catastrophic event. A BCA assessment including recommended upgrades is required prior to the determination of the DA.
    • An access report has not been submitted with the application. The SEE states this will be submitted prior to a Construction certificate. Council and the applicant have legal requirement to ensure a building subject to a change of use complies with legislative requirements for disabled access. The required upgrades may warrant a reconfiguration for the building and should be indicated on the DA plans. An Access report should be prepared at the DA stage.
    Compliance
    Grating consent to the organisation will increase emphasis on compliance. For instance, will Council monitor the ongoing uses to ensure they comply with the stated definition? Will there be motoring of how many ‘large events’ are held? How would the Council limit the number of ‘large events’ to five? What constitutes a large event in the first place?
    Conclusion
    The use or at least part of the use shall be redefined as a place of public worship and function centre. The application should be re-lodged with the accurate description and associated assessment against the relevant parking, traffic generation, noise and other amenity considerations associated with such uses
    Council shall also consider the deficiencies in the application that may increase risks to future occupants and certain impact of local amenity.
    Conditioning the consent to limit ‘larger events’ and monitoring compliance with such a requirement is not only impractical but also near impossible.
    It is for these reasons that Council shall either refuse the application or seek the re-submission of a new application with accurate land use descriptors and consideration of associated impacts.

  10. Sarah commented

    Might be worth reading the actual newspaper report. It's not a war memorial, its a 'dilapidated ex-servicemen’s club"... that was sold in 2013...

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/the-express/former-revesby-heights-heros-hill-rsl-to-become-islamic-community-facility/news-story/81602cfd2b6044473b3d8168a18f958f

  11. Daniel commented

    I Strongly appose the proposal as I don't think it would be in the communities best interests.

    The Parking around the area is already a struggle when there are sporting games on and is a nice quiet and respected area, not to mention Heroes Hill is a respected War Veterans Site and should be kept that way.

    I think the council should listen to the multiple comments made by its residents and I DO NOT support the proposal for the above reasons along with the multiple objections already listed on the site below, which I agree with

  12. Chris Solway commented

    I support the comments made by Debbie & Joan. Heroes Hill has a unique place in the history of Bankstown and it needs to be preserved and is a memorial for all the fallen hero's.I strongly disagree with the new movement as it would not serve the residents of the area, it would cause negative impacts on the community.

  13. Warren Reynolds commented

    I along with my Wife and family strongly oppose the proposed development at 1 Donovan st Revesby Heights. We oppose this development on the grounds of traffic congestion as the vast majority of the people using this so called community centre will be from outside the local community and therefore will be traveling into the area by car. Due to the over development of the Revesby Heights area with many duplex sites being built and the current development at the corner of Centuar and Edinburgh st's the increase in the traffic has become overwhelming. As parking will be at a premium when the community centre is in full use i.e.: when hosting a community event of 225 people and with the fact that the facility will have limited parking once the council land is fenced off.The streets of Rowell and Sandakan will become a bottle neck as the visiting attendees will utilise the access walkway from Sandakan st which will also have an adverse affect on the local residents access and street parking.
    The current application outlines specific times and numbers for use of this facility, if the use of this facility increases from the said application will the council ensure that the users comply with the submitted application?
    There are many valid points brought up on previous post but I believe that the questions and queries raised in the post by N.L.C need to be and should be responded to and be made public by our local council, before any further movement on the pending application.

  14. Mike D commented

    There is no more to say than I agree with all the above comments and the lack of community consultation in bringing in such a change to the area.
    I OBJECT to this proposed D/A and would like to see a community centre for the community that live in the area,not for people who visit the area.

  15. TW commented

    It's oppose, not "appose".

    Perhaps the Al-Jaafaria organisation will be offering English lessons at their new community centre which will be hugely beneficial for the local residents. I support any such venture which improves basic reading and writing skills in our community.

  16. Daryl A commented

    I oppose the DA on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements of a 'Community Centre', it is a religious organisation to teach religion and foreign language.
    If they want a church/mosque, then the DA should be for such.
    It does not support the existing majority demographic.
    There is no infrastructure support or plan for the increased traffic such a development will encourage and there is no ability to make such an allowance given the existing streets and housing.
    Redevelopment work will prevent through pedestrian access from Sandakan Rd to Donovan St adversely affecting school children and pensioners accessing Padstow Railway for train and bus connections.
    This development will adversely affect housing prices due to the negative perception of certain religious observances.
    If I had known of this DA I would not have purchased in this area and it explains the lack of interest in my property and lower property price compared to the professional and banking assessments which did not take this into account.

  17. M & I commented

    I love the quiet family oriented Revesby Heights that exists now. We want a place to raise our kids, that is safe to travel around and without high traffic congestion.

    I oppose the DA application for a number of reasons
    1. With the number of duplex houses being built it's already higher density living
    2. The build would bring in people from out of area which would further congest the streets
    3. It wouldn't be safe for kids to ride bikes or scooter the streets due to congestion
    4. The concept of a community centre should benefit the residents who live there - this proposal doesn't do this

    Please do not allow this DA to be approved and ruin a beautiful neighbourhood

  18. Sophia commented

    Surely council can see the issues with this . It’s a small neighbourhood with enough houses which are already existing and now being built . The parking and traffic will be horrendous and so dangerous to the lots of people who walk with children to the park just near the proposed “community centre “. Not to mention the small business in centaur ave who will suffer because no one will be able to find parking and stop . The times they are asking to run is till 10;30 pm. This is not fair to the locals and I am afraid of the noise and disruption this community will cause. The streets around are just not able to cope with the noise , parking or amount of people that will come to this centre .... sorry I politely object. I hope our voices are heard

  19. robert byrne commented

    although this proposal states that it is to be a community centre,it will not be for the local community but for a community that resides more than 10 kilometres from revesby heights.this means that every person attending there would arrive by cars or mainly 4 wheel drive trucks as there is no reliable public transport to the site.when it was a club there was very little traffic as the majority of attendees walked to the site.

  20. Daryl Alverson commented

    I would like to register my concerns relating to the proposed development,
    First, the roads are already insufficient to support the current population of Revesby Heights, it is currently dangerous to drive faster than 40km/h. Add additional buses and vehicles to this site and getting in and out will be impossible.
    Second, pedestrians are already risking their lives with the current traffic levels.
    Third, the traffic noise levels and pollution will increase as people from outside Revesby attend, what is in effect, a non-secular building.
    Fourth, the 'club' will cater to less than 2% of the population, this is not the definition of a 'Community Centre'.
    This is an attempt simply to create a church whilst obscuring its true function.

  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