Recent comments on applications from Canterbury-Bankstown Council, NSW

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

    This should not go ahead. commented

    This is not the correct zone or place for apartments, end of story. Too close to public school and unsafe for primary school crossing with congestion. If for whatever wrong reason this is approved, the council clearly has no concern for the residents ( the ones also who pay their council bills) it's a fact that it's not the correct zone for apartments to be going ahead not to mentioned 3 storey opposite public school! If approved there is obviously something very wrong with the system. What's the point of having petitions and zoning if these greedy developers go ahead and get approval for these outrageous over the top developments? This is not the city, it's a quiet neighbourhood (well was once a quiet neighbourhood) which is already over congested with duplexes.

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

    TW commented

    It's oppose, not "appose".

    Perhaps the Al-Jaafaria organisation will be offering English lessons at their new community centre which will be hugely beneficial for the local residents. I support any such venture which improves basic reading and writing skills in our community.

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

    Leanne Holmes commented

    There is little to no availability for 0-2 year olds is our area, so it is vital this centre be permitted to proceed with their plans.

    For a working mum who has lived in Picnic Point her entire life, in order to return to the workforce post maternity leave I need this centre to be approved.

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

    Rebecca commented

    Please support this proposal, for such a well deserving centre that provides exceptional care in the area for 2-6 years olds for over 5 years now. Please allow them to continue this in th 0-2 years age group which is greatly needed.

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

    Jessica commented

    Cant wait until my 6week old turns 2 so I can send her to Teenie Weenies- the only decent childcare facility in the area. I support this one million times over!! Very much needed for the local area

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

    Michael Galipo commented

    We need this 0-2yo child care proposal to be approved so that working families in the area have a suitable child care option close to home.

    Residential density has increased and the associated need for child care services must be addressed!

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

    Mike D commented

    There is no more to say than I agree with all the above comments and the lack of community consultation in bringing in such a change to the area.
    I OBJECT to this proposed D/A and would like to see a community centre for the community that live in the area,not for people who visit the area.

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

    Warren Reynolds commented

    I along with my Wife and family strongly oppose the proposed development at 1 Donovan st Revesby Heights. We oppose this development on the grounds of traffic congestion as the vast majority of the people using this so called community centre will be from outside the local community and therefore will be traveling into the area by car. Due to the over development of the Revesby Heights area with many duplex sites being built and the current development at the corner of Centuar and Edinburgh st's the increase in the traffic has become overwhelming. As parking will be at a premium when the community centre is in full use i.e.: when hosting a community event of 225 people and with the fact that the facility will have limited parking once the council land is fenced off.The streets of Rowell and Sandakan will become a bottle neck as the visiting attendees will utilise the access walkway from Sandakan st which will also have an adverse affect on the local residents access and street parking.
    The current application outlines specific times and numbers for use of this facility, if the use of this facility increases from the said application will the council ensure that the users comply with the submitted application?
    There are many valid points brought up on previous post but I believe that the questions and queries raised in the post by N.L.C need to be and should be responded to and be made public by our local council, before any further movement on the pending application.

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

    A concerned rate payer! commented

    Here is a prime example of the corruption of the Bankstown council. They take bribe money to allow for the over development of picnic point and Panania. Without forethought and planning the council has created this problem! There are too many duplexes invading this suburb and now we have too many families needed daycare positions. Yes parents this development will go through because council will take their payoff money and again create stress on an already over populated street!
    Have you thought about the children who use this street to attend school? The traffic entering and exiting this facility will not only strain the traffic but cause a dangerous situation for those using the footpath. But that's ok, you have your duplexes and child care spots. Forget the original community and the quiet ethos we used to enjoy!!!

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

    Peter Rowdy commented

    Child care should be as it's in Queensland. "Primary School" based. These private centres are expensive and set up primarily to make a profit at the expense of young families.

    Kennedy street is busy enough with high school and primary school located on or very close. We don't need even in this increasing busy roadway.

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

    Connie Psomas commented

    0-2 childcare centres with vacancies are non existent in the area. As previously mentioned, there are many developments of duplexes being approved all around the area which attract young families, yet there are not many 0-2 centres available for these families to access. It would be a big help for those in the area that need care in order to return to work.

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

    Betty Wilson commented

    I'm currently AND desperately looking for Childcare facilities for my 5 month old. This is so close to home, making it convenient and manageable to return to work. I hope it gets up and running soon.

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

    Joana Astengo commented

    Panania and surrounding areas has very limited Childcare options for 0-2 years. This centre would be a great addition to the growing surrounding suburbs of young families!!! With my first child I had to travel over 5 suburbs away to get my child in daycare, I'm currently expecting baby number 2 and it would be great to have a 0-2 year day care close to my first child's public school...

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

    Clint Baird commented

    I support this development. 0-2 child care centres are next to nil in the area, this will support local working families who this service. It can not happen quick enough.

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

    Charissa Dormido commented

    I did a search for long day care centres for children aged 0-2 within a 2km radius from where I live and it returned a search result of ONE centre with ZERO vacancies. Bankstown Council has approved the redevelopment of many lots in the Revesby and Picnic Point area into duplexes which attract many growing families like mine. Currently, the number of housing to childcare ratio seems to be out of proportion. With a diverse population of over 20,000 in Revesby, Revesby Heights and Picnic Point, the community needs available childcare services to match the growing population. A lack of long day care centres catering to children aged 0-2 will mean that returning to the workforce will not be possible until the child turns 2 resulting on families leaning on only one income for support. The development of this new childcare centre is therefore essential to the community and will be of long-term benefit to Sydney's growing population.

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

    Eliana Toumazis commented

    This is very much needed for parents in the area. It is extremely hard to return to work before children are aged 2 in this locale. This development would help alot of families struggling on one income. Would help so many of us, I strongly support this for Picnic Point as a community!

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

    Suzanne Merry commented

    We desperately need more childcare centres in this area for children under the age of 2. It is virtually impossible to find vacancies anywhere. There are so many growing families in the area that need facilities like this to ensure parents can return to work and be able to financially support their growing families. I fully support this development. Please don't hold it up any longer as we really need this!

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

    Kellie Fonseca commented

    I support this development as there is currently a shortage of nursery vacancies for under 2's in the area and this development will see the creation of new nursery vacancies at the existing Teenie Weenies site across the road. I have had my daughter on nursery waiting lists at 5 local centres (since I was pregnant) and have recently been advised by 4 of those centres they have no vacancies for next year. I'm now looking at vacancies as far as the city because our local area is unable to accommodate the demand for nursery places for under 2's.

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

    Chris Solway commented

    I support the comments made by Debbie & Joan. Heroes Hill has a unique place in the history of Bankstown and it needs to be preserved and is a memorial for all the fallen hero's.I strongly disagree with the new movement as it would not serve the residents of the area, it would cause negative impacts on the community.

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

    Daniel commented

    I Strongly appose the proposal as I don't think it would be in the communities best interests.

    The Parking around the area is already a struggle when there are sporting games on and is a nice quiet and respected area, not to mention Heroes Hill is a respected War Veterans Site and should be kept that way.

    I think the council should listen to the multiple comments made by its residents and I DO NOT support the proposal for the above reasons along with the multiple objections already listed on the site below, which I agree with

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

    Sarah commented

    Might be worth reading the actual newspaper report. It's not a war memorial, its a 'dilapidated ex-servicemen’s club"... that was sold in 2013...

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/the-express/former-revesby-heights-heros-hill-rsl-to-become-islamic-community-facility/news-story/81602cfd2b6044473b3d8168a18f958f

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

    N.L.C commented

    Dear residents, please consider the below items in your objections to development application number DA-794/2016.
    It's absolutely vital all local residents with any concerns send their objection to council. What is now a beautiful and quiet pocket neighbourhood stands to become something entirely different should this or anything alike go ahead on the site.

    Donovan Street is a primary thoroughfare used by many pedestrians each and every day.

    Professionals and school children flood the area on foot from Sandakan Road through to Donovan Street and over centaur Street to get to the bus stop and gymnasium, and throughout the afternoon, evenings and weekends, locals walk through Donovan Street to get to the park to play or while doing daily exercise.

    The Heroes Hill area in Revesby Heights has always been a quiet neighbourhood for families. Given the number of people including unaccompanied minors who use Donovan and Centaur Street it is vitally important that traffic not increase to the area.

    We are not against development in the area however this proposal would significantly and undoubtedly impact on our amenity now and in the future.

    Use of premises
    The proposed use is defined as ‘Community facility” which is defined as follows;
    A building or place:
    (a) owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and
    (b) used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community, but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.

    The proposed uses are open ended meaning that certain activities may or may not comply with the definition of Community facilities. For instance referring to the Shia Islamic Centre Al-Jaafira website, activities such as Quran lessons and interpretation are regularly conducted. The question is how is this different from prayer and worship by a religious group? It appears that such uses form a core purpose of the proposal and is more accurately defined as a place of public worship which is “a building or place used for the purpose of religious worship by a congregation or religious group, whether or not the building or place is also used for counselling, social events, instruction or religious training.
    Further, the acoustic report and SEE refers to the use of the premises as conferences during the larger events. The most appropriate definition for this use is a function centre which is “a building or place used for the holding of events, functions, conferences and the like, and includes convention centres, exhibition centres and reception centres, but does not include an entertainment facility”.
    The use or at least part of the use shall be redefined as a place of public worship and function centre. The application should be re-lodged with the accurate description and associated assessment against the relevant parking, traffic generation, noise and other amenity considerations associated with those uses and not a Community facility.
    Traffic and Parking
    The traffic report concedes that there is not enough parking spaces on site for the larger events. In fact, the proposal is at least 95 spaces short during those stated events. The local roads are not equipped for such volume considering the minimum road width and demand for existing on street parking.
    The matters relating to congestion are exacerbated by safety concerns which is a significant issues for the following reasons;
    • There is one entry and exit point to the site where congestions will be exacerbated at this junction. Traffic management at the entry to Donovan Street has not been addressed

    • Many of the proposed spaces on site do not comply with RMS guidelines in terms of dimensions and turning clearances

    • Local street widths are not conducive to volumes associated with peak usage times.

    • Council cannot affectively monitor the number of ‘larger’ events held by the Islamic centre.

    • The majority of the floorspace is better defined as place of public worship; attracting specific parking generation rates that when used in this assessment would reveal further non-compliances.

    • The traffic report compares to the previous use and associated generation of traffic of that use. However, no evidence has been provided regarding the traffic generation and peak times of the previous use.

    Noise
    My property will be significantly affected by vehicles entering and existing the site, attendees queuing to enter the premises, and the use of the premises considering the proximity of the buildings.
    The acoustic report does not alleviate any of my concerns particularly considering that there is no control as to how many larger gatherings are held. How can Council of the EPA define a larger gathering and further, how can Council monitor the number of these events held?
    Further the acoustic criteria is not accurate as it has been based on the use of the premises as a community facility. The proposed use is better defined as a place of public worship and function centre. The report need to be re drafted to reflect the actual likely uses.
    The report does not include the impact of traffic and noise associated with parking and congregating at the front of the premises. The impact upon properties within Receiver 4 is therefore underestimated. The report concludes that the conclusion that the use will not have an acoustic impact relies on ‘no queuing’. How can this be controlled?
    Bushfire risk
    The SEE states that where bushfire risk are significant, the building is not permitted to be occupied. There is a significant safety risk to occupants. It is likely that the use will include many children who will be at risk if the requirement of ‘non-occupation days’ are not adhered to. The monitoring of such closures is also most difficult to undertake and surely not worth a catastrophic event endangering lives.
    The building should be upgraded in order to minimise bushfire risk as per the requirements of the BCA. The banning of use of the building is not an acceptable means of controlling risk.
    Application deficiencies
    • A Waste Management Plan has not been submitted
    • It is obvious that the Statement of environmental Effects was completed prior to the finalisation of use details and technical studies.
    • The use has not been accurately defined and as such noise and traffic assessment is inaccurate.
    • The risk to occupants during significant bushfire events is prohibitive and may result in catastrophic event. A BCA assessment including recommended upgrades is required prior to the determination of the DA.
    • An access report has not been submitted with the application. The SEE states this will be submitted prior to a Construction certificate. Council and the applicant have legal requirement to ensure a building subject to a change of use complies with legislative requirements for disabled access. The required upgrades may warrant a reconfiguration for the building and should be indicated on the DA plans. An Access report should be prepared at the DA stage.
    Compliance
    Grating consent to the organisation will increase emphasis on compliance. For instance, will Council monitor the ongoing uses to ensure they comply with the stated definition? Will there be motoring of how many ‘large events’ are held? How would the Council limit the number of ‘large events’ to five? What constitutes a large event in the first place?
    Conclusion
    The use or at least part of the use shall be redefined as a place of public worship and function centre. The application should be re-lodged with the accurate description and associated assessment against the relevant parking, traffic generation, noise and other amenity considerations associated with such uses
    Council shall also consider the deficiencies in the application that may increase risks to future occupants and certain impact of local amenity.
    Conditioning the consent to limit ‘larger events’ and monitoring compliance with such a requirement is not only impractical but also near impossible.
    It is for these reasons that Council shall either refuse the application or seek the re-submission of a new application with accurate land use descriptors and consideration of associated impacts.

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

    Mark commented

    Traffic levels in Revesby Heights have increased in recent years to near capacity as a result of the high level of construction of dual occupancies. The replacement of single dwellings to dual occupancies has doubled and tripled the amount of vehicles on the road and the double driveways halves the available street parking. Revesby Heights has narrow roads and when vehicles are parked on opposing curb sides it reduces the roads to single lanes. Everyday drivers have to pull over to let oncoming traffic through. I have witnessed the local bus driver having to stop to fold back car mirrors before entering streets. There are many further developments planned coupled with a multiply storey residential development that will add further increase congestion.
    When the Hero’s Hill club operated the suburb was mainly single dwelling housing. Most patrons walked to the club, especially the war veterans who lived in war service homes in the surrounding streets.
    The demographic that will use the community hall does not match the local community and therefore there will be a significant increase in traffic in a small suburb that does not have any through roads.
    The previous club was generally quiet (hence it closed), and on the odd occasion when it hosted a populate event, like ANZAC day, the streets were mayhem, even before the recent increase in development.
    I oppose the DA for a community hall due to the inadequate traffic infrastructure in Revesby Heights to cope with any further increases in traffic.

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

    Paulo Lopes commented

    My wife & I strongly appose to the proposal.

    If the site will become a "community centre" then it should be used as a "community centre" for ALL residents not just for a particular race or religion.

    The area is 'Heroes Hill' and it should be kept that way in their honour.

    Furthermore, the impact on the surrounding district would be extreme. With park land within a short distance of the proposed facility which serves residents of the area parking is at its limit weeknights & weekends.

    With a new approved residential / restaurant development opposite the proposed facility this will only increase traffic flow and increase pressure on parking within the area. There would also be impact on the road conditions from increased vehicles that would travel to the facility daily.

    Our firm response to the proposal is NO it would not serve the residents & negative impact on the residents of Revesby Heights.

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

    Christine Pate commented

    Unfortunately, this is another example of over development in the area. This is directly opposite the primary school and is a very busy spot for parents parking and dropping off students to school. It is already chaotic enough with buses and traffic and all the trucks around the area, with all the other developments that are going up, without another development opposite the school. This area in Lambeth Street is not zoned for units, it is a LZN-B1 - B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning - shops only.

    The surrounding streets have so many duplexes where people tend to park on the road instead of in their property as there is not enough room and use their very narrow garages for storage only, thus creating very busy streets, which is quite dangerous for students walking to nearby primary and high schools.

    For these reasons listed above I strongly object to the development application being approved.

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

    Leanne Rolton commented

    As a local resident in Irene St and a long time Panania resident having grown up in the area - this development is ludicrous. On the opposite corner is a development comprising of a duplex and granny flat already under way. This is simply over development. Be realistic!
    As others have mentioned parking is already at a premium around the school with the majority of people ignoring parking signage making it almost impossible to drive into the street. Combined with an increased amount of duplex's around the area, Picnic Point Bowling Club the size of the development is without a doubt inappropriate for the area.
    What about the tree on the property that they have already poisoned - if a normal resident had done that we would be fined. Two sets of rules one for renovators/home owners and the other for developers.
    Bankstown Council continues to support developers greed over local home owners.

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

    Lola Chen commented

    The increase of traffic into Revesby Heights has become a nightmare. Adding further stress to the 1950s roads and traffic will make the streets impassable. Revesby Heights is a quiet, suburban neighbourhood with many young families. It is a neighbourhood that does not have a lot of movement as many residents stay for many years due to the amenable neighbourhood facilities. Adding a "community centre" that a majority fo the community cannot access is absolutely ludicrous - let alone allowing a community centre to run everyday 8am-10.30pm every day of the week. Additionally, the reports with the DA, particularly the sound assessment, measured the levels of noise against an URBAN environment, not a SUBURBAN environment. These reports need to be re-done or at least checked by another external agency with no ties to the DA. The RSL that previously ran at the site was well supported by the community as most residents were ex servicemen or family of ex servicemen. The people moving into this space are not from our community and do not support our community. We do not support this application and urge the council to DENY this DA.

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

    Jennifer Andersen commented

    Totally out of character for the area in addition to the parking / traffic problems already mentioned.

  29. In Panania NSW on “Construction of two, two...” at 152 Lambeth Street Panania NSW 2213 Australia:

    Patrick commented

    Bradley, this is a different application. The DA for the 12 residential units is to the north of this site, at 146 Lambeth Street, Panania (as follows), hope this helps:

    "DA-838/2016 Development Application
    Demolition of existing structures, construction of a mixed use development comprising one (1) commercial tenancy and twelve (12) residential units, basement parking, and strata subdivision"

    http://eplanning.bankstown.nsw.gov.au/ApplicationSearch/ApplicationDetails?applicationId=70279706

    In relation to this application CD-405/2016 I have no comment to make.

  30. In Panania NSW on “Construction of two, two...” at 152 Lambeth Street Panania NSW 2213 Australia:

    Bradley commented

    This is the same development as the the proposed 12 units, why are they putting I two different DAs??????? Council please amend and take into consideration the fact that local tax payers do not want this high density living in this neighbourhood. We are council voters and rate payers. This is being developed by someone not local and does it respect the resources of this town or community ethos.

    It is right across from a busy school intersection, one that is full with small children, families and babies. The traffic is already dangerous with parents trying to park and the local bowling club a few doors down.

    This is why high density living for this side of tower street is not approved, keep such high density closer to the city and faster trains, such living is not compatible with this street.

    High density living was not approved for Lambeth street, and since the council as merged I believe any such changes to zoning can not be signed off. This will need to be advertised to community to take into consideration for the next council election.

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