12 Mackenzie Street Revesby NSW 2212

Demolition of existing structures and construction of a boarding house.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website over 2 years ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Canterbury-Bankstown Council, reference DA-589/2017)

23 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Leigh Killorn commented

    To whom it may concern
    This proposal will severely impact on the surrounding residents.
    Currently there are 19 single units on the property and the existing tenants regularly take up all of the parking available on this small street.
    To potentially nearly triple the amount of cars requiring off street parking is not only unrealistic but it lacks simple common sense.
    The proposed building could also house nearly 5 times the amount of residents which currently live at the property, this alone would have a severe impact on the residents who currently live in this small quiet cul de sac.
    Thank you

  2. Leonie Robinson commented

    I strongly oppose this development. This area is already overcrowded with duplexes and parking is scarce already in Padstow and Revesby shopping areas. It is already difficult to even drive down the street where I live because of cars parked.

    I therefore ask that the Canterbury Bankstown Council reject DA-589/2017.

  3. Leanne masetto commented

    This da will put the immediate area under stress. Bare minimum parking is being provided and already the street has parking only along one side leaving no option but to impact surrounding streets to park. I object to 25 of the 27 trees being removed. What happens to our native birds who have only just returned since M5 widening. The size of this development will stand out in a R2 low density. Don't ruin our area any more with such da.

  4. Khaled Chmali commented

    My family and I strongly opposed DA-589/2017. It is a 'cash-cow' development that will severely impact on neighbouring residents.

    1) Street parking is already limited, in Mackenzie Street and surrounding streets.

    2) There will be additional overcrowding and increased pressure on existing resources and facilities.

    3) I currently have a tree overhanging above my property from the neighbour's yard, it looks like the leaning tower of Pisa, is always thudding large branches on our garage, cars and roof and fear that it will give way and fall one day. I applied to Council to have the tree cut down, with owner's consent, but Council refused. But in this instance, the Council seems all to happy to 'do away' with 25 OTHER trees for the proposed development. The environment is ever so scared, until...money starts to talk!

    4) Common sense suggests that if you want to propose a development you should provide residents with sufficient parking spaces. But seriously? 34 spaces for personal transport and if people don't own a motorcycle or bicycle that essentially means 12 car spaces. Worse still, what about those households who own more than 1 vehicle? Oh, the chaos this will create!

    In short, very strong opposition to this DA application.

  5. Pat Kuluris commented

    This neighbourhood is already congested with all the duplexes. In addition the increase of duplexes and decreased the number of street parking spots due to the multiple driveways and the increasing challenge of adding "no stopping" signs in the narrow streets. Many people have chosen this location due to it being so residential and we are overpopulated with an infrastructure that cannot support it. The quite residential streets that many of us have invested in are now becoming busier than some of the main roads surrounding us as more and more people are cutting through our narrow streets to avoid the already congested traffic. Some of us are already dealing with the increased noise from widening the M5, how much more do we want to decrease the value of our properties. I urge the council to reject this application and keep the area as a residential one and avoid removing the greenery that helps the environment.

  6. Stewart Burke commented

    My Family and I total oppose this.
    The congestion in this area is already bad enough and a school in close proximity is just dangerous.

  7. Joe Martin commented

    My family and I oppose this development which will cause traffic jams and adverse environmental impact.

  8. Daniel Domenici commented

    My family and I are opposed to this development application. The area is already far too congested for development of this nature. Twelve car spots allocated for up to a hundred and six residents is clearly not suitable. A DA was rejected by Sutherland shire council for a boarding house for up to forty residents across from a child care center. The council stated the application 'did not evaluate social impact' and would 'erode the existing character of the zone through cumulative social effects'. This application is far larger, in a smaller area, across from a school. The social impacts on the area will be tremendous and are completely unreasonable. It is the councils responsibility to consider the needs of the local community and act with integrity. This development will result in far too many negative outcomes. In addition to the logistical issues, there is the environmental issue of cutting down 25 trees. Regular citizens are required to jump through council hoops to cut down or even simply prune trees. For an DA to be approved to cut down 25 trees clearly brings into question the councils integrity regarding environmental matters.

  9. P.Baarendse commented

    To the Planners,

    My family and I oppose this development which will cause traffic jams and adverse environmental impact. 106 residents requiring some sort of parking requirements doesn't equate to 12 car spaces. Realistically 106/4 for average tenancy per unit equates to 26.5 spaces minimum. This doesn't include visitors parking.
    My family has enough trouble getting out of the driveway let alone having the overflow of motor cars parking in front of my house making exiting my property a safety concern.
    Too much development of duplexes has made this suburb overcrowded.
    Please take into consideration THAT the developer is not GOING to live here with the mess his created but council will get an ongoing complaints on all topics.

  10. Ngoc Nguyen commented

    My family and I strongly oppose to this development.
    We have been leaving on this street since 2003 and have always known to be very quiet residential street .Since the development of duplexes grew in time has made the street very busy and congested already because of the off-street parking. With another 106 families propose for this dwelling will create more congested and will create unsafe area to live in.

  11. Wing Kwong Yu commented

    My family and I oppose the development at Mackenzie Street. There are already too many duplexes in Revesby and Padstow and this has congested the streets when it comes to street parking.

  12. CAROL GROOM commented

    My family and I oppose the development at Mackenzie Street. The area cannot accommodate overcrowding with more vehicles, not enough parking, not enough infrastructure. The surrounding streets have no parking now let alone vehicles for 106 more residents. Cutting down of 25 trees, when the Council does not let us trim trees...one has to question this! Money talks so they say.....it is very suspicious.
    This area just cannot accommodate a development of this size and Council should re-evaluate the impact this will cause both environmentally, socially and the local community. Council should decline this application.

  13. Janina Manalese commented

    To whom it may concern,

    My family and I strongly oppose this development application due to the impact it will have in the area and surrounding streets.

    The number of units and residents it will house will result in congesting the surrounding streets with vehicles due to the low number of parking spaces being provided. Please consider how overpopulated the streets will become and where will these cars park specially on days of garbage collection when the footpaths will be filled with the red and yellow/green bins. The garbage trucks needs the roads in front of footpaths to be clear of cars in order to empty the rubbish bins.

    The removal of 25 trees is a great loss to the environment as well as the local wildlife that have already been affected by the m5 widening. Property owners with trees on their lots are required to meet strict conditions with tree removals so to remove 25 for this development should be prohibited.

    I am also concerned of the noise and overcrowding in the area. There have been a lot of duplexes being built over the past few years and a development of this size will contribute to overcrowding specially in such a small street.

    With the location being right across from a school the size of the development is unreasonable and impractical.
    Also, developing a low-income, affordable housing will decrease the value of properties in the area.

  14. Ali Khan commented

    My family and I strongly oppose this, we have lived here for over fifteen years and it has slowly become more and more congested already. This project will increase congestion exponentially and more importantly will have an adverse impact on the value of our properties in an economy where we simply cannot afford it.

    Please reconsider for the actual residents of the community you represent rather than for whoever put this forth to make a buck.

  15. Daniel Laus commented

    My family and I strongly oppose this and request council to reject DA-589/2017.
    To put such a complex in such a cramped surrounding is just asking for problems not to mention the environmental impact by removing 25 native trees.
    Please let common sense prevail and scrap this plan!

  16. violet commented

    My family and I strongly oppose this, we have lived in Revesby area for over fifteen years and it has slowly become more and more congested already. This project will increase congestion exponentially and more importantly will have an adverse impact on the value of our properties in an economy where we simply cannot afford it.

    Please reconsider for the actual residents of the community you represent rather than for whoever put this forth to make a buck.

  17. Andrew k commented

    The proposed development at 12 Mackenzie st Revesby DA 589/2017 for a boarding house. I oppose this development . The reasons are listed below ;

    * This development does not even qualify for a Boarding House In the Canterbury / Bankstown guidelines . The Minimum Frontage required is 20 Meters . This development is only 18.29 meters and would send a dangerous precedent to all applications lodged with this council if the minimum requirements are ignored or not met .

    * The Scope and scale of this development is out of character for this area.

    * This development proposes an access path through Wolaroi Crescent is currently a quiet cul-de-sac street . These residents bought in this street because it is a quiet and peaceful street . The addition of hundreds of people daily using this quiet cul-de -sac as a thoroughfare would infringe on these residents' privacy, creating noise and parking issues. .
    * This development would affect the residents resale value of their homes in close proximity to this development ,

    * The Revesby area is renowned for its trees and bird life . This development wants to cut down 25 established trees which are mostly Australian native trees and which have become home to many wildlife . These Trees are vital to this area as it also creates a buffer zone from the M5 motorway .

    * Residents privacy in Wolaroi Crescent would be severely impacted as this development proposes to build two story row houses only a few meters from their rear boundary line.
    What about the line of sight buffer zones for these residents and their right to privacy .

    * This development would cause traffic, parking chaos and noise problems with an extra 106 residents on a daily basis. There is also a high school across the road with cars entering and exiting the street and would be quite hazardous for students using that walkway/path.

    This clearly is not in the best interests for residents in the suburb or the community.

  18. Melissa Pereira commented

    To the planning authority,

    I strongly oppose this development. For the following reasons:

    To try and nearly triple the number of boarding rooms and only offer an additional 3 extra car spots is absurd. The area will cause chaos with parking and the additional traffic. To suggest that there will also be bicycle and motorcycle areas to assist is even more absurd Will all applicants be screened on how they commute ? I think not.

    We purchased our home in 2011 - what attracted us to the area was the number of trees and birds .To remove 25 trees is a loss to our environment, wildlife and our community.

    When we built our home we had to make a number of changes in order to comply to privacy regulations, I hope council will reject the application so the residents in Wolaroi Crescent can maintain theirs.

    Thank you

  19. samer makkouk commented

    The proposed development at 12 Mackenzie st Revesby DA 589/2017 for a boarding house. I oppose this development.

    It will severely impact the residents in the street I am located very close to this development only some houses away and have 3 kids under 2 years of age it is already a busy street so with the addition of at least another 80 cars on average there will be an increase of traffic to and from this development, not only during the development process but post development with over 100 new resident, this will also impose on the safety of the school kids that walk to and from school on a daily basis with the increase in traffic will most certainly increase the risk of an accident in a 40 zoned area. Turvey street and streets surrounding are not suitable for such developments. A factor that also plays a big part in opposing this development I can probably speak for a lot of home owners is the fact we work hard to pay our mortgage off and have pride in where we live then for some development to take place without the communities consent and de-value the aussie dream of owning a home and being able to use that equity as your retirement. History in the market has shown a decrease in house prices in areas of low-income, affordable housing and boarding houses.

    It is a way to manipulate the system where the land isn't sufficient in size to occupy all the opposed properties in a normal DA so the developer has gone down the path of boarding homes and affordable living scheme its really a win win for the developer as he gets more properties on his site, higher profits and government incentives and doesn't need to live anywhere next to this development. I think its a absolute joke, the system should be designed in a way where it cant get manipulated by government funded schemes.

    to sum up I strongly oppose this development for the reasons mentioned above as well as other factors please put a stop to this very unhealthy housing growth in Sydney metropolitan areas.

    thanks

  20. Trevor Davies commented

    I am against the approval of DA589/2017 at Mackenzie Street

    I have lived in the Padstow area for 42 years and have concerns over the increased congestion within the area caused by new developments such as the one proposed at Mackenzie St.

    New duplex approvals for the area provide parking for one vehicle per family - how many families have one vehicle these days? Any additional vehicles are parked on the street making two way traffic flow in the area a thing of the past.

    Try getting a park in Padstow and Revesby shopping centres in peak times.

    In the past our neighbours could not get council approval to have trees (considered to be dangerous because of age) removed from their property. One of those trees eventually came down during a storm and landed on their roof. Of course all repair costs were borne by the neighbour. Where is the consistency in council policy when 25 trees are approved to be removed to make way for a Boarding House?

  21. Jim Kokla commented

    To the planning authority,
    I strongly oppose this development for the following reasons
    As residents we will need to deal with the increase of traffic, pollution and noise on a daily basis. This will mean that our children will not be able to ride their bikes or play outside. This also poses a risk to our elderly and school children who walk locally each day. To believe that the number of parking spots is sufficient is a joke. How many people commute by motorcycle or bicycle as their main means of transportation and what if there is more than one vehicle? Congestion! Property value decreases with low-income, affordable housing and boarding houses unfortunately, this is a fact. I understand that affordable housing is a need but these rooms should be built in areas that can accommodate it without impacting its community and it does impact ours.
    We purchase our homes we have a 30 year mortgage and to have a developer decide he wants to put 53 boarding rooms on a block that does not meet requirements with the site frontage is wrong. Neighbours want to build a duplex have been informed by council that they are unable to proceed as they are just short of the minimum frontage requirement. Please be fair. After living in the inner west for many years we were attracted to the area because of it's wildlife and trees and remove 25 will be a loss to our environment.

    I ask that council please reject the application

  22. Sandra commented

    I strongly oppose this development due to lack of foresight on the impact on surrounding streets in our community. Who in their right mind would build a complex for 106 residents and only provide 12 parking spaces. Just because residents may be low income earners doesn't mean they don't own a car. This complex is in close proximity to the high school so this alone will cause parking issues.
    It stands to reason that extra cars will park in the south side of Mackenzie St as well as surrounding streets and will add to the already choked Louie St. Try driving down these narrow streets when people are home from work.
    Already in our streets there are multiple duplexes being built which has had a huge impact on parking in our narrow streets. There are a number of families in my area that own at least 3-4 cars.
    Please reject this planning application .

  23. Khaled Chmali commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I reiterate the comments this year that I did last year:

    The proposed development (DA-589/2017) will negatively impact the environment, availability of street parking and create more noise and congestion in an already congested locality. Parking specifically appears to be a major concern amongst residents.

    Kind Regards.

  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