PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

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

1. Why after approval is given are developers permitted to submit for consideration and ultimately approval such major changes? The addition of another floor taking it to 6! The scape of the suburb has already be ruined by such massive concrete blocks. This developer had already sold a high percentage of the units on the existing plan but it is still not enough it seems. Over 200 units in less that 500m on a strip of major roadway that is already choked, no thought or consideration given to increases in infrastructure such as health care and schooling. Given the opportunity to voice an opinion only to ignored by the community. It's disgraceful.

2. Please note my objection to this application.

   It appears to be yet another attempt by a developer to circumvent the process by getting an application approved and then applying to update the proposal to end up being a building that wouldn't have passed the process had it been submitted in the original application.
   This area of New Canterbury Road currently has several apartment blocks (some of dubious architectural merit) being built. As noted by other concerned residents, this significantly increases the population of the area with little regard to infrastructure and amenities.

   I believe that the extra car parking spaces should made mandatory but that the addition of an extra floor should be declined.

3. I object to the proposed amendment. Either the developer didn't do their sums at the outset or it's a cash grab. As a daily commuter along Canterbury Road, I have observed increasing instances of drivers attempting to turn into basement driveways or the side streets that provide access to these new units (and vice versa). And it only takes one car in peak hour to cause delays. I don't believe planners or developers have considered the domino effect on traffic as each new unit block comes on line. Oddly enough, it can be worse on weekends when traffic volumes are still quite high and the clearway is not in force, ie one lane operating in either direction - and more opportunity to block traffic. I could go on about the impact on visual amenity, but that horse has bolted. We're obviously not deemed worthy of "owner-occupier" standard developments that might include thoughtful landscaping, increased set backs or a variety of building materials. Instead we are expected to accept "investor-standard" buildings (ie cheap, quick and nasty) and painted in the ubiquitous shades of grey. Wonder how they'll look in a couple of years when the buildings have started to settle?

4. This is not the first time this developer has tried to increase the height of this development to make some extra dollar.

   Their previous application was rejected, so God knows why they are trying again.

   This request so late into this project not only affects local planning but is very unfair to the purchasers who were sold on a particular building and layout.
   
   I agree with the above comments that if they had the room to build additional parking, it should be made mandatory for visitors or the commercial lots as local parking has become quite scarce in the area.
   

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Canterbury). They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment