Recent comments on applications from Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Bankstown), NSW

  1. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 83 Sandakan Road, Revesby Heights NSW 2212:

    Paulo commented

    I am writing in regards to the DA & as a resident and household in this area, I am concerned about the increased traffic movement in our area due to the increased dual occupancy properties being constructed. Not only am I concerned with the increased traffic I’m also concerned with minimal amount of parking available for permanent residents which is becoming an issue. It is disappointing that the Canterbury-Bankstown Council continues to approve the development of Revesby Heights/Revesby without consideration for residents. We ask Canterbury-Bankstown Council to seriously reconsider the amount of Duplex development approvals & apply stricter rules.

  2. In Picnic Point NSW on “Demolish the existing...” at 87 Kennedy Street Picnic Point NSW 2213:

    Mark commented

    Looked on council DA Tracker this morning & it says under assessment.

  3. In Picnic Point NSW on “Demolish the existing...” at 87 Kennedy Street Picnic Point NSW 2213:

    ROBYN KENNEDY commented

    We sent a letter to CB Council re above DA-904/2018 in December 2018, as of today 29/4/2019 we have not any correspondence from the CB council. Please advise if there has been any outcome about the above DA.

  4. In Picnic Point NSW on “To Demolish the existing...” at 1 Doris Street, Picnic Point NSW 2213:

    Graham commented

    Could CanterburyBankstown council please consider the over development of this street. Parking restrictions may need to be considered as it is a maze of parked cars at present. Adding this construction would then add more vehicles to this street.

  5. In Revesby NSW on “The proposal is a mixed use...” at 9 Macarthur Avenue Revesby NSW 2212:

    Janelle Carter commented

    This proposal is for a 30 room, 48 resident boarding house on top of a childcare centre, and also another 3 residential units! This is totally excessive for this site and location. I've submitted a detailed objection to council but to summarise there are issues around parking, access, traffic, safety and more. The parking for this proposal is totally inadequate - 15 spaces for a 48 resident boarding house - and the childcare parking is inadequate too. There are traffic and access issues, as there are several one-way streets and narrow lanes in this part of Revesby. There are safety issues - both for the residents (the full proposal shows a shockingly small amount of private space available to each resident, one room has under 12.3 metre square for two people to live in) - and safety issues for the kids - how can anyone think it's a good idea to have a boarding house on top of a childcare centre? Furthermore I don't think there is a great need for this type of short-term accommodation in our area. I urge council to please vote against this application.

  6. In Chester Hill NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 70 Esme Avenue Chester Hill NSW 2162:

    Skye commented

    Canterbury-Bankstown Council area has a low canopy cover as well as it decreasing creating Urban Heat Islands that will impact surrounding residents. Removal of 7 trees on this property is considerable and should be re-evaluated

  7. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 35 Gowlland Parade Panania NSW 2213:

    Skye commented

    Trees should be obtained as canopy cover is decreasing and Urban Heat Islands are occurring creating issues for surrounding residents. Investigation should be done to determine if this is a genuine claim it is the only spot for a powerpole

  8. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 35 Gowlland Parade Panania NSW 2213:

    David commented

    It is simply not true that the tree obstructs the power. If you look at the photo of the current house the power is on the other side. Greedy developers are not telling the truth. What is the real reason for the tree removal?

  9. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 35 Gowlland Parade Panania NSW 2213:

    Jenny commented

    I think the developer should be made to put underground power to house in this instance. Council is quite clear and strict on residents when it comes to tree removal, I see this as a greed issue for the developers.

  10. In Padstow NSW on “Construction of a double...” at 7 Lock Avenue Padstow NSW 2211:

    Yasar commented

    There is already very limited narrow road on Lock Avenue for passing traff8c and parking.

    Adding a double storey building will facilitate more cars and create more traffic congestion in Lock Avenue and add to noise and air pollution.

  11. In Bankstown NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 38 Columbine Avenue Bankstown NSW 2200:

    peter card commented

    Too much development in this street allready with really ugly Dual occupancies and now a block of flats at 96 columbine too much over development. Cant park in the street anymore.

  12. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 89 Mackenzie Street Revesby NSW 2212:

    EMIL MIHALJEVIC commented

    I am writing in regards to the construction of 89 Mackenzie Revesby
    On behalf of the owners and residents of 1 and 1D Langdale avenue Revesby which is located to the right side of 89 Mackenzie St.

    Collectively we have major concerns, primarily regarding 2 full length windows approximately 1800mm in hight which are located to the back of the new development on the right side, 2nd floor (presumably master bedroom). They eliminate any type of privacy for both residencies, including pool area for 1 Langdale avenue, alfresco area and backyard for 1D Langdale avenue and all 4 rear bedrooms of 1 and 1D Langdale avenue.

    As a secondary concern there are two full length roughly 1800mm in hight, right side 2nd floor, (presumably bathroom) windows. However looking over the plans we have come to the conclusion that they may have frosted glass in which case this is ok, but we are not happy that they will be able to be opened because this again defeats the purpose of having frosted glass and privacy is compromised.

    All other windows on the right side, top floor, (3 in total) are longer in width, and shorter in hight, and placed towards the top of the ceiling (starting roughly at 1800mm from the floor) and we are happy with these windows because in our opinion they do not ruin our privacy AS MUCH as the full length windows. However we would be even more grateful if these windows were to have frosted glass as well.

    In conclusion, please review and consider making all the windows from the right side facing 1 and 1D Langdale avenue the same as the 3 shorter window we approve of. The current plan as it stands completely eradicates our privacy and will be uncomfortable for not only us but the new residents of 89 Mackenzie street because our bedrooms will be looking straight into each other.
    In the best interest of both parties please consider this application as a serious one.

    Thank you in advance

  13. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of exsiting...” at 3 Bishop Street Revesby NSW 2212:

    Barbara commented

    This street can not take any more duplexes when will Bankstown council stop allowing over development and start listening to the people who actually live in this area we are being over developed
    Not one of the duplexes that have been guilt actually use there own driveways and clog our streets
    What will Bankstown council do about this where is the new infrastructure that will be built for this type of overdevelopment

  14. In Panania NSW on “Dual occupancy & strata...” at 6 Kenneth Avenue, Panania NSW 2213:

    Steven commented

    Please send the information of DA.

  15. In Yagoona NSW on “The revision of timing of...” at 226 William Street Yagoona NSW 2199:

    Ross Wilson commented

    So what/when is going to be put on 226 William street Yagoona.
    Thankyou

  16. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 7 Dove Street Revesby NSW 2212:

    Barbara Exton commented

    Bankstown council please stop the overdevelopment of our streets the roads are not wide enough for all these duplexes
    Council doesn’t take into to consideration that these duplexes put extra strain on our roads and infrastructure
    Duplexes May have garages but they are not used as garages and the extra cars park on the street and clog the street up
    If a fire truck or ambulance needs to get through in a hurry there is no way they can get through

  17. In Picnic Point NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 58 Victor Avenue Picnic Point NSW 2213:

    Stephen Dravet commented

    great to see one house being replaced by one house, the way it should be. You, (the Labor dominated council) rave on how you have stopped the units near the stations but you are still approving Duplex developments which are overloading our suburbs in every way.

  18. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 212 Marco Avenue Panania NSW 2213:

    Jenny commented

    Hi why is this application being presented now? The buildings are almost complete. Is it not usual to apply before building starts (I am sure this was done)? Just querying the present application. Thanks.

  19. In Padstow NSW on “Proposed to modify the...” at 88 Fairford Road Padstow NSW 2211:

    Craig Armstrong commented

    Can you please advise if people will still be able to turn right from Fairford Rd into Bryant St or if will have vehicle access through Bunnings to Bryant St

  20. In Panania NSW on “Demolish all existing...” at 15 Lawler Street Panania NSW 2213:

    Sue Heinrich commented

    There are numerous reason as to why I object to the above building application. The cutting down of the large jacaranda tree. It is a source of refuge for many birds and nesting spots. The lilli pilli out the front of the house is home to a possum.

    The sewerage is now becoming a problem as Sydney Water has had to come and and clear it just a few months ago. I have lived here for a number of years and this is the first time they have had to do so. The water pressure in the area is not that good as it is and with the added addition of yet another dual residence this will only get worse. The street is already full of residence cars and even though they cater for two vehicles in each building most residences park atleast one of their cars in the street. Many cars are parked in front of other peoples houses and then the people who live in these have no where to park. It is very annoying to come home from a night out only to have someone parked in the front of your house. .
    Does council actually come out and look at these development application sites and if they did they they would release that people are getting sick of new dwelling imposing on the ones that are already there. A number of people have had to sell up and move as the dwelling is built so close to the boundary lines and so high that they take the light out of the dwellings. The probem of privacy is another issue. They build up the site and this then it lifts the whole development and make already existing fences useless and on some occasions they fence has had to to be lifted adding extra cost ot the person already living there.l

  21. In Revesby NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 10 Rowland Street Revesby NSW 2212:

    Dan commented

    Is inconsistent with neighbouring properties and all properties on street. Opposite new childcare - would cause traffic congestion on the quiet street, but particulalrly down River Rd end. This can be dangerous at present before either building is even finished.
    It will make going from Mars to Rowland St extremely dangerous.

  22. In Padstow NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 5 Louie Street Padstow NSW 2211:

    June Conen commented

    As for the development of 5 Louie Street, Council should give consideration before agreeing to the erection of another duplex.
    Louie Street is congested and the road was not built to cater for the cars of today. Council doesn't seem to understand that a bad accident could happen as some people take the corner too sharply and wont move over to pass each other. This should be a one way street and Dravet Street one way in opposite direction to Louie Street.

  23. In Padstow NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 5 Louie Street Padstow NSW 2211:

    Barbara commented

    Louie st is already a very crowded street with no where to park as the duplex’s that have already been built don’t use their garages for cars and the street is a nightmare to drive down as it is please stop over developing the small and congested streets in Padstow/Revesby
    Bankstown council needs to start thinking to the future and what over development will create for our area

  24. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 12 Mackenzie Street Revesby NSW 2212:

    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.

  25. In Bass Hill NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 113 Johnston Road Bass Hill NSW 2197:

    Michael Ibrahim commented

    To whom this may concern,

    I would like to express my concerns regarding 113 Johnston Road property development. Given this is a double story with an alfresco setting and upper balcony in at the back of the property facing south, this will create visual privacy issues peering into my backyard. Please confirm whether there are provisions in this property development to implement any of the following privacy controls.

    - Tall Vegetation plants along back property fence
    - Balcony planter boxes
    - Fence screen attachments

    Please feel free to contact me on 0420 274 104.

    Kindest Regards

    Michael

    Michael

  26. In Padstow Heights NSW on “Extension to Existing Deck” at 43 Valley Road Padstow Heights NSW 2211:

    K Banks commented

    Its great to see the gentrification of some of the older houses in the area.

  27. In Revesby NSW on “Change of use from massage...” at 2 Blamey Street Revesby NSW 2212:

    K Banks commented

    Its great to see this change coming!

  28. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Proposed change of use of...” at 1 Donovan Street Revesby Heights NSW 2212 Australia:

    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.

  29. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Proposed change of use of...” at 1 Donovan Street Revesby Heights NSW 2212 Australia:

    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.

  30. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Proposed change of use of...” at 1 Donovan Street Revesby Heights NSW 2212 Australia:

    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

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