728-750 Princes Highway, Tempe

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 3 months ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: NSW Joint Regional Planning Panels, reference 2017SCL027 DA)

8 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Jamie Rojas commented

    I object to the need for another Bunnings, when another 2 are located 10 minutes in either direction. The traffic issues and congenstion this building will have on the Smith Street, and Union Street residents and local traffic will make this area a nightmare.

  2. Rebecca Curran commented

    These streets are highly residential and this should be considered before we add another high density traffic magnet. Why is there the need for another Bunnings when there are also two others in close proximity in areas that are industrially zoned?
    This DA proposes that traffic will be directed into Union Street which is the narrowest and most congested street in Tempe. This street already has a number of concerns to do with residents cars being hit and traffic speeding up it.

  3. David S Lynn commented

    I oppose Bunnings to be built in Prince Highway so I dont want to see another IKEA style due to heavy traffic and lot of congestions. This site is too close to airport developments and West & Future Southern Connex bringing our impacts. Prefer site turning into parkland area.

  4. Siobhan Hannan commented

    I oppose the planning submission for Bunnings at 728 Princes Highway, Tempe.

    The current traffic burden on residential streets due to the existing businesses - IKEA, The Good Guys, Tempe Tyres and the soon to open, Decathlon store - as well as the traffic accessing Tempe Reserve playing fields is already heavy during business hours which extend well into the weekend. The change from light industrial use of these spaces to an intense retail area is risking overwhelming resident needs and amenities.

    With 2 extremely large Bunnings stores within 10 minutes of the proposed site, it also creates an extraordinary monopoly in a small area of the inner west and potentially drives out the smaller retailers on the inner west High Street commercial areas. I believe our council needs to consider diversity of services and commercial enterprises as well as the needs and comfort of residents in approving, or rejecting planning proposals.

    I hope the council will reject this planning proposal for the benefit of residents and in order to maintain the right balance of commercial and residential mix in Tempe.

    Yours sincerely,
    Siobhan Hannan

  5. James Talbot commented

    I oppose the planning submission for Bunnings at 728 Princes Highway, Tempe.

    I note that nowhere in the 78 page “Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications” document does the name “South Street” appear, other than to describe Smith Street.

    South Street is used daily by the local car-driving residents (and their visitors) located in the six streets running from Smith Street to Station Street East (comprising approx 200 properties).

    South Street is also used numerous times per HOUR, seven days per week, by the trucks owned by Tempe Tyres (for the transport of tyres between Smith Street and the Tempe Tyres facility located between Wentworth and Hart Streets.

    In addition to the above traffic, if the proposed development proceeds, South Street will be selected by exiting Bunnings customers either (a) in the event of any traffic build-up at the Smith St exit to the Princess Hwy or (b) by southbound customers, since using South Street avoids having to use any traffic lights, including those on Smith Street. (In addition, as result of (b), either or all of Barden St, Fanning St, Wentworth St, Hart St and Station St East will incur increased traffic.)

    South Street is narrow to the extent that it does not permit two cars to pass each other at places where any car is parked on the street. At any one time, 20 to 30 cars are parked on South Street.

    I note also that the document states the following: “Whilst team members will avail themselves of the conveniently located rail and bus services it is largely impractical for Bunnings customers to travel on public transport or bicycle/motorcycle with bulky purchases. A large proportion of residential properties in the vicinity of the site do not have off-street parking and as a result there is a high level of on-street parking in the area.” This indicates that the Bunnings team members who drive will not be permitted to park within the proposed Bunnings car park. Accordingly, much like the employees of Tempe Tyres who park along the length of Wentworth St, Hart St and South St seven days a week (who I note do not avail themselves of the conveniently located rail and bus services), the Bunnings “team members” will park in the above streets causing an even greater burden for residents.

  6. Louise Heslop commented

    I am supportive of this, I cannot comment on some of the other issues raised by residents but personally the side roads I take to shop there will barely differ to when I visit Bunnings in Alexandria. Furthermore, the closer proximity will reduce my travel time and result in less overall pollution.
    It may be an unpopular opinion but I would actually find it handy to have more services offered in that vicinity (even a Costco? I'm sure that will have me evicted to the suburbs) to allow a one-stop shopping experience and reduce travel time for those rare occasions I do need to visit furniture, pet, and hardware stores.
    I too feel sad about the loss of local business such as the Mitre 10 on Marrickville Road but I would be a hypocrite to moan about it as as I rarely (if ever) visit as although it is in walking distance if I did require something it would generally require a car for transport so I just jump in the car and drive to Bunnings.
    I would however like to see Bunnings ensure there is adequate employee and visitor parking.

  7. Louise Heslop commented

    In addition to the above what I would like to see is that more of these companies get together and share services (potentially building upwards rather than outwards) or at the very least having substantial underground car parking. I see this as a way to reduce traffic congestion (multiple services in one place) and also frees other land in the area for parkland or housing. Although I am supportive it is extremely wasteful to keep having single storey dwellings and I imagine a few storeys could be tolerated even with that proximity to the airport.

  8. Jennifer Killen commented

    This proposal is not in the public interest as there are other local hardware stores and it will just increase traffic, noise, pollution and parking problems.
    The council needs to start applying the public interest test before approving commercial applications.

  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