364 Homer Street, Earlwood NSW

Section 82A Review - Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a 4 storey mixed use development over 2 levels of basement carparking

External link Read more information

43 Comments

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

  1. Cameron commented

    I oppose this development, please keep earlwood low residential area . we do not need more apartments and congestion

  2. MC commented

    I think another parking option in Earlwood would be beneficial, however what would be better is for council to stop the greediness and approving all of the applications for multi story apartment complexes. The traffic congestion in the Canterbury/Earlwood area is absolutely ridiculous. Bumper to bumper traffic most days. Trying to get through Earlwood of a morning can take over 15 mins. Canterbury Road is ridiculous, even on a weekend.

  3. Nicole Donohue commented

    I am against this development in Earlwood. It is a relatively small lot between 3 roads. Two of which are already at capacity. Both Hartill-Law and Homer Sts are very busy roads. Getting through the lights at this intersection already can take a number of sets of lights, additional traffic or residents trying to use this intersection to leave their driveway will add to this. The other road this is on the corner of is Richard Avenue. A one way street which runs behind the school. This street is very busy in the mornings and afternoons with school traffic. Should Richard Avenue be he exit point for the driveway, not only is it putting more traffic onto a one way street, it is increasing the risk of a child being hit by a vehicle on this street.

    Earlwood does not need any more high rise. Council need to consider other infrastructure in conjunction with these developments. That not only includes our over crowded roads, but also our schools which are at capacity, This development would fall under Earlwood Public School which is full. The ever increasing development around the Canterbury area is putting further strain on the hospital.

  4. Sonia commented

    I am at a loss to understand how the council could possibly consider this development. The traffic chaos that already exists in and around this area would be made 100 times worse and the family friendly feel of Earlwood would be lost.
    I very strongly apples this development.

  5. Bruce Mitchell commented

    Totally against the development of this park.
    The traffic congestion at that intersection is already a major concern adding to this with further residential development specially on that busy corner for access will be a disaster
    Stop greedy developers underhand deals and corruption leave that to other parts of Sydney. Keep Earlwood low density.

  6. Marie commented

    I'm opposing this development - council should try and use their town planning much more efficiently to help aliviate the congestion between the three roads - hartill-law, homer and Williams street, not to mention the Clarke st.
    the development will add to more traffic congestion and Earlwood has always been a favourite suburb due to the low high-rise residential buildings. We don't want to become another "ghetto" suburb. Please think of the community and not feed greedy developers.

  7. Eleni commented

    Opposed to this development. Already far too much traffic trying to get through this precinct with the development that has already been approved. Canterbury Bankstown Council need to reconsider setting precedence with approving such developments in Earlwood and surrounding suburbs and consider the opinions of local residents who strongly object.

  8. Jeffrey commented

    I am strongly opposed to this development. The loss of this delightful and iconic little park at the top of Hartill-Law Avenue would be a tragedy for Earlwood. I cannot think of a site that is less appropriate for a four-storey development than this. The traffic congestion at this busy intersection is already very bad, and to feed into this by constructing underground parking lots beggars belief. The character and amenity of our lovely suburb is being irrevocably and shamefully altered by inappropriate developments like this. I would like Council to listen to their residents and ratepayers on this issue, rather than engage in money-driven deals with property developers.

  9. Exe carrizo commented

    Opposed to this development. Earlwood has already problem with traffic at that intersection due the developments near by increasing traffic at peak hours.
    Earlwood is one of the last neirbourhood near the city where it has not been cover full of apartments. Let's keep t in that way and stop thinking only on developer's interest to full their pockets with money.

  10. Karen commented

    I'm strongly opposed to this development.
    The traffic congestion in this area is already terrible and this development would make it worse.
    There are two schools very close by which would be negatively affected by the increased traffic. I'm greatly concerned about the safety of pedestrians, in particular the school children who commute on foot though this area. This development and the increased traffic/congestion/driveway acess/acesses it will bring I believe would be irresponsible in this position and an accident waiting to happen.
    Additionally the lovely village and community feel and look of this area will be lost and this area would become shadowed and dark.
    This is not the correct position for a development like this, from a pedestrian safety perspective, from a traffic congestion perspective and from an aesthetic and community perspective. Thank you.

  11. Steve commented

    No parking available on Homer Street, Hartill-law and Richard Ave. congestive enough during morning and evening with parents using these streets for Earlwood Public School. This is bad news I live close-by I ought to know !

  12. Naomi Chrisoulakis commented

    This is a ill conceived development that will cause traffic chaos, congestion issues and be completely out of place in low rise Earlwood town centre. With schools so close by it could also be more than an eyesore and a Hubble traffic jams - it could be dangerous. Unacceptable development in the wrong area.

  13. Steve commented

    No parking available on Homer Street, Hartill-law and Richard Ave. congestive enough during morning and evening with parents using these streets for Earlwood Public School. This is bad news I live close-by I ought to know !

  14. Alex commented

    I oppose this development. Morning traffic is bad enough without this monstrocity being built!

  15. Sue Evans commented

    I oppose this development. Traffic around this area is already at capacity and there is no street parking around there. There is a school close by and Richard Ave is a main thoroughfare to that school. A building this size on it's own will stick out like a sore thumb.

  16. Jon commented

    I oppose this development for several reasons...
    - Height of construction in what is a relatively low rise area
    - Wherever the access and egress are, there will be an impact on traffic flow and relative safety (especially if those vehicles enter Richard Avenue and are forced down past the school. Surely they can't enter/exit from the main roads?)
    - The traffic on Homer Street and Hartill-Law Ave is already congested, not only in peak hour but at other times of the day. This development will add to this.
    - Parking around the development is already at capacity between 8.30am - 9am and 3pm to 3.30pm for school drop offs and pick ups.
    - This might be a development on a main road but the back of it will overshadow a low rise, single story street. The building is incongruous to the surrounding area and incredibly ill fitting.

  17. Iain Slater commented

    This development will not serve the constituents of Canterbury and particularly the residents of Earlwood.
    Current redevelopments in the area and alterations to current traffic controls have actually added further stress to the existing congestion being experienced.
    I would recommend far more detailed studies of current traffic congestion and the exploration of better long term solutions to current housing requirements.
    This development appears to be a very short sighted solution in a very inappropriate location.

  18. Sharon commented

    As a home owner in Richard Avenue we strongly oppose this development as this is a safety risk for school children & residents children. The traffic flow during peak times on Homer St is congested already due to new developments in the area. What are council's plans to manage traffic impacts of this development?

  19. Debra McLaughlin commented

    I am particularly concerned about this development with respect to the safety of children walking/riding to/from Earlwood Public School. The intersection is already a safety issue with congestion and cars frequently going through red lights. Development on the site of this park has the potential to further reduce visibility for cars turning left into Homer St and make crossing the one way street (as many school families do on a daily basis) even more fraught with danger than it currently is.

    In addition there is already so much pressure on the parking along Homer Street and Richard Avenue that during school pickup and drop off there are already multiple vehicles parking illegally every day. Once again, adding to this problem just increases the safety risk for local pedestrians, particularly school children.

  20. Diane commented

    As a home owner in Richard Ave who's home also backs onto Homer Street I can't conceive such a development. Our narrow street is Oneway parking is at a premium visitor having to park a distance away. THe congestion from Homer street across Harthill Law is a nightmare and you are forced to wait several light changes at times, I find it hard to comprehend why William St is not accessible with a right turn from Bexley Rd as there are no schools to contend with and it would ease the congestion on Homer St

  21. Mark Gaffey commented

    .. I believe that the proposed development is totally inappropriate for the proposed site .. The base sandstone has large fault lines through it that extend right along Hartill-Law Avenue due to poorly executed excavation for building Hartill-Law Avenue, as well as the high traffic load over many decades on said Avenue .. Add this to already heavy traffic flows through the area, poor access for existing residents through to Richard Ave, Sunset Place and Ibex St and the heavily utilised School zone creating major implications to traffic management issues .. Then on top of that the increased dangers to pedestrian traffic, including the the increased dangers facing Children, those with disabilities and the elderly.. I imagine that the overshadowing and privacy issues created by such a proposal would be highly unwelcomed also .. I am most assuredly against this proposal, as I'm sure most of the residents in the area would also be ..

  22. Paula Martin commented

    Strongly oppose this large development on insufficient land in a dangerous bottleneck of traffic that is already choked to capacity. It currently takes me about 15 minutes to drive along Homer St from View St to William Street in peak hour- approximately 200 metres. At night I often have to wait over 5 minutes to turn off Homer street into View St due to gridlock traffic. We are at capacity on Homer St which gets the bulk of traffic to and from the m5.

  23. Katherine commented

    I'm asking the council to strongly reconsider this DA. It is the most unfeasible non-viable and irresponsible town planning strategy for the Earlwood interchange area. You are plonking a high rise residential building in the middle of already congested traffic conditions, limited parking areas and high pedestrian traffic during school hours. You are destroying the urban aesthetic of our village centre and you are not thinking about the best outcome for your constituents. There are two schools near by. There are single storey homes in Richard Avenue that will be overshadowed by this building. Was council satisfied by the developer with their provision of ample shadow diagrams?

  24. Nicole T commented

    Of all the places to stick yet another huge block of units, this has to take the implausibility cake.

    How could Council even consider it? I had to check the map a few times to believe what I was reading - this is a small park, is it not? I can understand turning large unused factories, crumbling buildings or vacant blocks on busy roads into units. But this? Must we now rip up parks and turn them into future slums? Who even owns this land anyway?

    We must preserve these pockets of green land, however small. This proposal denies all logic.

  25. Maria commented

    I oppose this proposed development. It is totally inappropriate for the area chosen and completely out of character of the surrounds. As a resident of Richard Ave, I already dread having to pass the traffic lights at the Homer Street intersection at any time of the day - this proposal will cause more traffic problems and dangers - for those in transit as well as those who choose to live in such a building. The Richard Ave access from Homer Street is already also difficult to navigate at times with cars parked on BOTH sides of the narrow street without adding more unnecessary congestion. Let's not turn the lovely, leafy suburb of Earlwood into another Mascot or Green Square. We already have a monstrosity in William Street. Please reconsider.

  26. Nicole Donohue commented

    I am against this development in Earlwood. It is a relatively small lot between 3 roads. Two of which are already at capacity. Both Hartill-Law and Homer Sts are very busy roads. Getting through the lights at this intersection already can take a number of sets of lights, additional traffic or residents trying to use this intersection to leave their driveway will add to this. The other road this is on the corner of is Richard Avenue. A one way street which runs behind the school. This street is very busy in the mornings and afternoons with school traffic. Should Richard Avenue be he exit point for the driveway, not only is it putting more traffic onto a one way street, it is increasing the risk of a child being hit by a vehicle on this street.

    Earlwood does not need any more high rise. Council need to consider other infrastructure in conjunction with these developments. That not only includes our over crowded roads, but also our schools which are at capacity, This development would fall under Earlwood Public School which is full. The ever increasing development around the Canterbury area is putting further strain on the hospital.

  27. Daniela Gifford commented

    Totally WRONG place for a development of that size & scale.
    Council needs to factor in the environmental impact (noise & pollution) from increased traffic & congestion to schools & residents as well as the surrounding shopping precinct and other community facilities.
    That intersection is already over peak capacity most of the day everyday of the week.

  28. Abi Curtis commented

    I oppose this development.

  29. Gavin Costello commented

    This looks like a very nice low density development for our newly vibrant suburb and I’m sure we all applaud the provision of 13 new homes as well as improving the streetscape of the suburb. The plans look very detailed and well thought out, I’m looking forward to it’s completion

  30. Suzanne commented

    This is the wrong position for such a development. There are too many access issues and traffic issues as is. It is already dangerous enough for pedestrians, including many school children, in this area. Please, put it somewhere else.

  31. Con K commented

    I oppose this development. It is a tiny block to allow such a large development to proceed. It will place significant pressure on traffic in the area as well as parking. As a parent of children at Earlwood Public School I find it incredibly difficult to find parking and get through traffic every morning and afternoon. This will create precedent for developing further parts of Earlwood which are incongruous with the local community and there just isn't sufficient local amenities to cater for this in the area.

  32. James Cosgrove commented

    I oppose this proposed development. It is totally inappropriate for the location.
    This intersection is extremely congested during weekday morning and evening peaks and weekends. Entry/exit of this development being on the steep incline of Hartill-Law Ave will prove difficult and dangerous for the residents and other commuters.
    The proposal plans are inadequate and falsify the installation of trees on Hartill-Law Ave and Richard Ave. Both footpath widths will not support the installation of trees, especially Richard Ave. The elevations show trees growing withing the building face itself, a physical impossibility.
    No sectional drawing is provided to show the full extend of the deep excavation and care park levels. This deep excavation could further disturb the already fragile rock face along Hartill-Law Ave.
    Construction of a project this size will be impossible given the location for parking dump trucks and delivery vehicles. Neither Hartill-Law Ave, Homer St or Richard Ave could support construction vehicles. Richard Ave is not wide enough to park dump trucks while allowing residential access. How does the developer intend to address this situation?
    Council should reject this DA as inappropriate and lacking sufficient detail.

  33. Suzanne commented

    This is the wrong position for such a development. There are too many access issues and traffic issues as is. It is already dangerous enough for pedestrians, including many school children, in this area. Please, put it somewhere else.

  34. Marta Tordi commented

    I oppose this development as it will put even more pressure on an already busy set of roads. The Hartill-law/Homer St intersection is busy at most times and pedestrian safety is already an issue. I believe that this development would make the intersection even more dangerous.

  35. Cecilia commented

    A truck was broken down at the top of Hartill-law and Homer st today, it brought the area to a standstill. Some cars opting to do some illegal manoeuvres to get through.
    Building in that area will be pure chaos. As others have mentioned, the site is in the middle of 2 primary schools and 2 preschools. Increased traffic, frustration and time delays is bound to end in someone being injured or worse. That road is already at capacity during peak hours.

  36. Miss Parker commented

    I oppose the development on the corner of Richard avenue and hart hill law avenue. Over above all the concerns raised over traffic and congestion I want to know where all the garbage bins are going to go on the street? Have you been to Wolli Creek lately? Every apartment has their own bin and when lined up on collection night take over the whole area. It's amazing to see for all the wrong reasons. This means no parking on bin night/ morning. The residence on Richard Ave, Ibex Street and Sunset Place have been disadvantaged enough with the council have restricted parking so this will make it worse again. Please give this some serious consideration. Thank you!

  37. Vicki Majstorovic commented

    There is enough congestion at earlwood , too many units going up , creating chaos for earlwood and the surrounding suburbs. Just driving up to Earlwood Monday to Friday during peak is a nightmare this will just add to the problem. Why doesn't the council use the land to widen the road instead. The council shouldn't be approving all these developments to money hungry developers!!!

  38. Evonne Kalafatas commented

    Building another block of apartments in the artery of a heavily congested part of Earlwood, will only add more cars, more pollution, more angry residents, more trafficand change the feel to the area. The drive from Slade Rd to Homer St can take me up to 20mins to do 1km. It's HELL. My parents who are in their 80's who drive my sisters kids to school from Glenview Ave to Homer ST can take them over 30mins to do a 3kms trip. Something has to give. The answer is not high density living. Let residents build granny flats - expand this - lets think horizontally and not vertically. Parents driving their kids to EARLWOOD public, LADY OF LOURDES and UNDERCLIFF PUBLIC are going to just crack! I rarely get to work on time - so I feel my hand is forced to put my kids not only in afternoon school care but also before school care because the traffic always makes me late. A 7km drive can take me 45 mins! This rush to provide CHEAP and OVERPRICED, UGLY, SUB STANDARD housing is not the answer. Our infrastructure is ALREADY not coping - how much more can you squeeze in. Either get the cars off the road, create the most amazing and reliable public transport - but you can't. This is a planning disaster. I implore you to really listen to the genuine concerns of the residents, the people having to drive through the area. Is this really the solution to our HOUSING CRISIS? These pop up horrors are creating all these sub horrors - enough is enough. Highly concerned and very upset resident of Bardwell park - who shops in Earlwood, who's parents live in Earlwood, who loves EARLWOOD and BARDWELL PARK and its surrounds! More green space please . This concrete jungle is exploding.

  39. Noella Moore commented

    I agree for all of the above reasons - it is not an appropriate use of this site. We would loose the green space which we need to help with cleaning the air with all the pollution of the idling cars polluting the air on that corner. Rebuild the building on the same style if need be but DON'T make it bigger please.

  40. Christina Karakiozis commented

    Please don't go ahead with another concrete jungle building clogging up our already contested roads and uglyfying such a beautiful suburb. This needs to stop!!! We need more green to deal with the concrete jungle already erected at KFC!!! Please think of the next generation, what are they going to be breathing???? Into air tanks at this rate!!!!

  41. Anna Le Masurier commented

    I oppose this proposed development for a number of reasons, not least because its scale will exacerbate what is already a very congested location.
    - Re traffic: The intersection at which the development is proposed is already a bottleneck during weekday morning and evening peaks and weekends, made worse since traffic lights were recently installed at nearby Slade Rd.
    - Re pedestrians: the church, senior citizens and library opposite this site and the primary school 100 metres away mean there is a great deal of foot traffic around this site. I have witnessed cars going through red lights at this intersection multiple times, which particularly endangers younger and older members of our community. (I have reported red light infringements to the RMS but heard nothing back.)
    - Re parking and visitor access: Richard Ave is a narrow (one-way in parts) street, with limited parking already. In busy periods, people park on both sides of the street, making it hazardous to drive down. If there were increased development, this existing problem would worsen.
    - Re construction: the scale and location of this proposed development also pose problems for the build phase. I would anticipate that if it is approved, Richard Ave, Ibex Place and Sunset Rd residents will have limited access to their streets as there is not enough room to park dump trucks/utes etc. Is there a proposal to mitigate this?
    Finally, I have lived on Richard Ave for more than 10 years and have seen the traffic congestion, litter and parking availability worsen considerably around the area over this time. I am not a NIMBY but believe residential development should complement the neighbourhood, not degrade it. I was pessimistic when Council sold the narrow strip of parkland at the top of Hartill-Law a while back (which was a lovely piece of greenery and had aesthetic, well-kept flower beds which were a pleasure to sit amongst) and now unfortunately my fears have been realised upon seeing these plans. I believe Council should reject this DA as it will not enhance one of our suburb's main hub areas.

  42. John commented

    How can this be even seriously considered given the current traffic issues in the immediate vecinity. The roads around there would have to be blocked for many months and given the ridiculous time you need to drive through there it is not practable as Hartill Law rd is a major artery through there. Wow Earlwood may start to look as embarrassing as Canterbury soon. Council should stop feeding off these developments and start looking after the community that vote them in before their pockets.

  43. Matt Syron commented

    As an owner of a house in earlwood I strongly oppose this development. I purchased my house not too long ago to live in a low density housing community which I have been around for years. Just look st what the units have done to the Canterbury station 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

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