Recent comments on applications from Canterbury-Bankstown Council, NSW

  1. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 95 Ardath Avenue Panania NSW 2213:

    Ardath Ave resident commented

    We are opposed to this development application of an attached dual occupancy at 95 Ardath Ave for the following reasons:
    - Since the area is zoned as an R2 low-density residential area, where the land is mainly comprised of single dwelling properties, we feel a two-story duplex who be out of character with the street and neighbourhood and is contrary to the objective of this zone. There are no duplexes currently in the street and all new developments have been single dwellings.
    - The proposed site plan indicate a set-back of 5.5m from the boundary. This is significantly closer to the boundary than all neighbouring properties on the street.

  2. In Padstow NSW on “Change of use from a...” at 71 Howard Road Padstow NSW 2211:

    Barbara Rowan commented

    We have 3 gyms in this small area it does not need another there is no parking and the school and shops have enough problems with parking as it is

  3. In Padstow NSW on “Change of Use of an...” at 15 Enterprise Avenue Padstow NSW 2211 Australia:

    Barbara Exton commented

    This development will create major traffic problems to residents and Padstow north primary school as well as the surrounding factories and business with in the area

  4. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 14 Ferndale Road Revesby NSW 2212:

    Alex Kamensky commented

    Childcare centres in the area are needed as most of exiting centres have long wait times despite being quite expensive. Parents / carers should be discouraged from driving to and from centres and encouraged to walk / cycle / using public transport. Eg new childcare centres should provide bike racks.

  5. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 14 Ferndale Road Revesby NSW 2212:

    David commented

    The bankstown/Canterbury council should conduct an assessment on how many childcare in this area , it is more than the school. All the application are in this area . The road is so busy specially its near the high school . There is also one application in Rowland near the school as well and one approved in Kennedy Street. The traffic become congested and childcare becomes the Business of the community. The road becomes narrowed specially more cars parking in the street and thats not included the single duplex with two cars .

  6. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 3 Rowland Street Revesby NSW 2212:

    Andrew commented

    Parking on Street already at capacity, also Street used by tragic as a rat run short cut or speeding. Turning onto River Road difficult with current tragic.

  7. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition of Existing...” at 3 Rowland Street Revesby NSW 2212:

    Dan commented

    Street to narrow for traffic. Near corner of busy River Rd so will make turning in /out almost impossible, and its alraedy hard enough.

  8. In East Hills NSW on “Additional floor comprising...” at 17 Maclaurin Avenue East Hills NSW 2213:

    Miguel Verjoustinsky commented

    How many floors are you planning 4 or 5?

  9. In Padstow NSW on “Proposed use of existing...” at 22 Howard Road Padstow NSW 2211:

    Jim commented

    I think these complaints are a bit ridiculous. Apart from the generalisations about "singlet wearing men on steroids", what is the actual concern about having four gyms? Is it a bad thing that there is a population in Padstow that want to be fit and healthy?
    As for the specific site being discussed (Civic Video/old cinema), who other than a gym would want to lease it? The amount of work required to re-purpose it to a shop would make it too expensive for a small business. Would you prefer council allowed a developer to build more apartments there? Or would you then complain about that? How about it is left as a derelict building because no one wants to lease it? Or would you complaint about that?
    Seriously have a look at your comments. Complain all you like, but provide some alternative solutions. If there are too many gyms in Padstow, the market will decide as there wont be enough customers to make it viable.
    As for comments about the speed bump, remember that council put speed bumps in but residents and businesses signed a petition to remove them! It is a 40km zone, if cars are speeding then take it up with the police, not council. If the residents opposite aren't happy with noise, maybe they should move out of the center of Padstow to somewhere quiet.
    This is NIMBYism gone mad.

  10. In Padstow NSW on “Proposed use of existing...” at 22 Howard Road Padstow NSW 2211:

    Sam commented

    I agree with other comments, Padstow has enough gymnasiums and no need for another one.

  11. In Padstow NSW on “Proposed use of existing...” at 22 Howard Road Padstow NSW 2211:

    Sarah Sibly commented

    Actually, this will be the fourth gym in Padstow. So not required.

  12. In Bankstown NSW on “Construction of four (4)...” at 20 Eldridge Road Bankstown NSW 2200:

    Ross Wilson commented

    # It's not & never has been provided how many car parking spaces/ garages will there be.
    # Where is all the visitors parking?? How many are allocated?? Is it free parking or cost if so what price ???
    # Also this is a 155 Residential Care Facility, on average how long would the people be staying for & what age (Nursing Home, Drug Rehab, Alcohol Rehab, Homeless,Children etc etc).
    # As for VISITORS, DELIVERS, TRAFFIC I can see a major fault & many other people can as well even if you already have one entry for TRUCKS its all in residential.
    # SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THE TRAFFIC ON ELDRIDGE RD as for speed we need either another {roundabout,, speed humps,, or zig zags & please don't use the excuse that you can't because of Ambulance etc.. In there driving training they do & learn all this so please!!
    And driving onto South Chapel Rd LEFT & RIGHT this is so VERY DANGERS for the PEDESTRIANS & OTHER CARS.
    # What's the Open & Close Hrs of this building.
    # Such a large 4 Story Building with 2 Entry"s & Only 1 Exit, I feel it's not enough for OH&S in a Residential Street.

  13. In Padstow NSW on “Proposed use of existing...” at 22 Howard Road Padstow NSW 2211:

    Susan Fordyce commented

    I agree we already have two fitness centres let's put this space to better use.

  14. In Padstow NSW on “Proposed use of existing...” at 22 Howard Road Padstow NSW 2211:

    Jeff Murphy commented

    Does Padstow really need a third fitness centre? Don't we have enough singlet wearing men on steroids coming to Padstow in noisy cars?
    As a by the by, residents opposite this old picture theatre are already complaining about cars tearing through this part of Padstow at high speed so a speed bump might be considered here.

  15. In Georges Hall NSW on “Proposed demolition of...” at 67 Oak Drive Georges Hall NSW 2198:

    spiro jakas commented

    i have read the statement of environmental several times and i wish to have the following points explained please.
    1.over shadowing having marginal impact on side neighbouring property. . It is now 2.39 on the 9-4-2017 i have full light no shadowing. the shadow diagram as i understand it shows from 2.pm will creep across and by 4.pm cover the whole house and yard. i do not consider this as marginal. the court yard of 69 will receive 50% sunlight for more than 3 hours. Who came to that decision. Its obvious they haven't lived here for 46 years.
    Their private space and i quote"carefully considered to maximise sunlight." go from maximise to marginal impact.
    it is admitted that the design will minimise the overshadowing impact on our living it's 3.pm there is no shadowing at all, hasn't been for 46 years. minimise nothing at this stage.
    The current property single story (67)on the eastern starts 12 meters from the front boundary, 2 meters from the fence (eastern) side. Therefore no shadowing. The new premises is 6 meters from the front boundary and less than 1 meter from the side fence
    Right now i can see the sky and there is plenty of light in the living room and kitchen.
    from the plans, that will go and i will look out to a 9 meter high wall plus the roof height, 6 meters longer, 54square meters of wall plus roof.. That logically will cut down the light considerably. please explain how that can be a marginal impact.
    Marginal " Amount allowed beyond what is necessary " who decided what is necessary
    for my living standards this case?
    it appears that the conclusion was made by someone who does not live here.
    I still have great concerns about the retaining wall and drainage.
    It is now 3.30pm still no shadowing. this development will put an end to that according to the shadow diagram.

  16. In Bass Hill NSW on “Demolition of all existing...” at 821 Hume Highway Bass Hill NSW 2197:

    Marc commented

    How will any asbestos be handled? How will they manage all the dust that will engulf the surrounding properties?
    What is the site being prepared for? Surely council should have notified residents of the intended use of the site post demolition?

  17. In Georges Hall NSW on “Proposed demolition of...” at 67 Oak Drive Georges Hall NSW 2198:

    spiro jakas commented

    it appears from the shadow diagram that at 3pm half of my residence will be in shadow and at 4pm all will be in the shadow of the proposed residence including the backyard. This in my opinion will increase the heating costs of my residence and the drying of clothes will become an issue. its appears that this residence will have neither of these problems but it appears it will create them for us. The present home is 2 meter from the fence, single story, the proposed home will be less than a meter from the fence and two stories.
    I am also concerned of the excavation which will take place along the boundary fence which appears to be up to 2 meters deep. Will the subsequent retaining wall stop the flow of the natural ( rain ) water run off and be re direct towards my property. My home of 46 years has never had a problem of water under the house and i suggest that if an efficient drainage is not in place i may have a water problem. who is responsible if this occurs ?
    who is responsible for any damage to the current fence, cracks in the outside and inside walls.

  18. In Greenacre NSW on “Modifications to existing...” at 74 Roberts Road Greenacre NSW 2190 Australia:

    Osman kaade commented

    I need this job because I need to make money and I want to work

  19. In Bankstown NSW on “Demolition of Existing Site...” at 2 Conway Road Bankstown NSW 2200:

    Robbie Kaysar commented

    A 40m radius on French Ave has seen 3 full scale apartment constructions being built and this would be the 4th. This vicinity within the Bankstown CBD cannot cope with additional population in terms of road, infrastructure, transport and parking. The area has been rocked by noise pollution from the construction works for the past 24 months

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

    Daryl A commented

    I oppose the DA on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements of a 'Community Centre', it is a religious organisation to teach religion and foreign language.
    If they want a church/mosque, then the DA should be for such.
    It does not support the existing majority demographic.
    There is no infrastructure support or plan for the increased traffic such a development will encourage and there is no ability to make such an allowance given the existing streets and housing.
    Redevelopment work will prevent through pedestrian access from Sandakan Rd to Donovan St adversely affecting school children and pensioners accessing Padstow Railway for train and bus connections.
    This development will adversely affect housing prices due to the negative perception of certain religious observances.
    If I had known of this DA I would not have purchased in this area and it explains the lack of interest in my property and lower property price compared to the professional and banking assessments which did not take this into account.

  21. In Bankstown NSW on “Use of existing garage for...” at 303 Stacey Street Bankstown NSW 2200:

    Trevor commented

    Hi i am amazed at how Bankstown council has still left this to operate anongst other places i am sick of going to massage shops in Bankstown and being propositioned for "extra service" if i wanted i will go to a brothel.
    This is a brothel Bankstown council do what you are paid for rather than chase up someone cutting a tree.

  22. In Padstow NSW on “Change of use of an...” at 19 Enterprise Avenue Padstow NSW 2211:

    Alex Parail commented

    This facility should never be approved!!!
    It should be used as industrial site to conduct business, as was originally intended.

    Site doesn't have enough parking for multi-purpose community facility.

    It'll increase already heavy traffic.

    It should not be placed near the school.

    This facility would not be serving local population largely, so it should not be placed in Padstow.

  23. In Greenacre NSW on “Demolition of old SES...” at 103 Chiswick Road Greenacre NSW 2190 Australia:

    Taghred commented

    Hi
    We live on Rawson road Greenacre, which is sitting right behind the SES building.

    We have seen rats, mice and spiders coming from the SES building and we fear that once the structure is demolished our properties will be invaded. So we ask that your department spray the premised so to prevent the rats invading our homes.

  24. In Revesby NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 94 Doyle Road Revesby NSW 2212 Australia:

    Sandra Low-Griffith commented

    I only found out recently that this house that is next door to us is getting demolished. I have been told from the current tenants that this older style house does have apestos, as I have 3 young children aged between 2-9 I am very worried that it will affect us if not done with the proper precautions. The house in question is right next to where we park our car, as we park it in our driveway inside our backyard, so we will often be in and out from the car to the house and vice versa.

  25. In Sefton NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 35 Waldron Road Sefton NSW 2162 Australia:

    colin M commented

    This is a big jump in density and change to landscape and area usage. 30 units seems like a lot.

  26. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 26 Sandakan Road Revesby Heights NSW 2212 Australia:

    Warren Reynolds commented

    I would also like to raise the issue with regards to the over development of the Revesby Heights area. I agree with the issues raised by Jason and also believe that the planning team needs to visit the area to experience the difficulties faced by the local residents.

  27. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 26 Sandakan Road Revesby Heights NSW 2212 Australia:

    Jason Galer commented

    Off street parking.
    Please consider the impact the number of cars being shoehorned in to this street.
    In particular the corner just preceeding this proposed development has become dangerous due to cars parked on the road forcing on coming vehicles on to the wrong side of the road on a blind corner. There have already been incidents throughout the street.

    Single driveways are simply not sufficient. Regardless of the ability to park vehicles in tandem, the reality is that one car is parked on the road so the owners dont have to shuffle cars, irrespective of the danger or inconvenience to other residents. As a result the road is severely congested. It is now unsafe to drive at the posted speed limit for fear of an accident, or worse, a child stepping out from behind parked cars.

    I know resident after resident has highlighted this issue but please consider that once built these duplexes cannot be changed to fix the parking issue.
    I strongly encourage the planning team to visit this, and surrounding streets, at varing times of the day to see the impact this is having on the area. Further, having lived abroad, I recommend the team look to the UK to see how bad this issue can get. Fringe suburbs with streets lined with parked cars where there is no passing for oncoming traffic. Its an extreme example but the opportunity to avoid it is now.

    I hope you consider the impact the residents are calling out. I would have duplex houses built as the exception in Revesby heights, not the norm, but I will settle for a sensible approach to parking.
    Best regards,
    Jason

  28. In Picnic Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 23 Kennedy Street Picnic Point NSW 2213 Australia:

    David Traylor commented

    74 Kennedy Street was approved as a Childcare centre and another Childcare in the same street within few meters will congested the street specially if another Childcare beside the school who drop their children at the same time. We have to consider traffic and safety of children walking in this street. Imagine 3 Childcare in one street and a high school in the same street ?

  29. In Picnic Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 23 Kennedy Street Picnic Point NSW 2213 Australia:

    Yasmin commented

    As a current parent whose child attends the childcare centre across the road, I am relying on this daycare centre to be built so my daughter can attend next May. I have put my daughter's name down at 2 other centres and have not heard of any places being available. I will be in a very difficult position if this childcare centre is not built.

    I understand residents are concerned about the increased traffic on Kennedy Street. There will not be another 29 families coming to this childcare centre, but mainly existing families having their children at centres across the street from each other. I know of at least 6 families that will be doing this. For my family, it means that we will not be driving around the Revesby/Panania area dropping children off at two different centres.

  30. In Panania NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 146 Lambeth Street Panania NSW 2213 Australia:

    Kellie F commented

    Traffic and parking outside Panania public school is bad enough as it is and this development will only add to the chaos and create major safety issues for the young children who enter and exit the school from Lambeth Street. As it is, parents are having to park up to 2 blocks away to drop off their children because Lambeth street and surrounding side streets get so congested at school drop off/pick up times. The parking spaces included in the proposed development are not adequate and parents will likely take more risks at drop off time (trying to drop kids at the crossing etc) because they won't want to park even further away which will further compromise student safety. A ridiculous proposal.

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