Recent comments on applications from Canterbury-Bankstown Council, NSW

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

    Geoff Wilkins commented

    Dear Rosemary,

    This facility should be approved as there is a large Muslim community in the Banks town LGA and there is a lack of places for us to gather and meet.

    Also the mixed use facility will be used for male and female patrons at the same time. I'm not sure where you are getting the facts that male only people will use the facility.

    The facility is also in a industrial area, away from any houses.

    To be honest if this was a Brothel, Church, Buddhist Temple, or Synagogue I don't think you would be making a fuss about it.

  2. In Padstow NSW on “Sec 96 Increase first floor...” at 45 Ronald Street Padstow NSW 2211:

    Jamie Moss commented

    We live next door at 43 Ronald Street Padstow. The demolision crew have damaged our brand new colourfence fence. They somewhat repaired it but its still badly damaged.

    Please advise to the owner of 45 Ronald Street that he is to repair the colourbond fence when he has completed the dweilling.

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

    Rosemary Michail commented

    Should NOT be approved!
    This is an attempt for a group of males largely ages 18-55 to congregate & utilize the facility largely as a "place of worship"& a place to attend Friday sermons in Arabic.
    If approved it will serve similar function as a mosque/prayer hall.
    This site is very close to a public school
    1) it does not have adequate parking facilities
    2) will not be used for its intended/stated purpose
    3) even if used for its intended purpose will not be commensurate with the surrounding industrial facilities
    4) is further not suited to its location Due to ingress/egress issues as well as safety issues for emergency vehicular access etc)
    5) is not a service/facility that will be available & accessible to the people located within its immediate surrounds ie) it services a male minority who are not currently located in Padstow
    6) how does this facility differ from any of those in Punchbowl Bankstown Revesby & Le Kimba???

  4. In Chester Hill NSW on “Strata title subdivision of...” at 38 Fuller Street Chester Hill NSW 2162:

    Chris Smith commented

    I am neighbour to this property and need to contact owner in regards to trees causing damage to border fences.

  5. In Revesby Heights NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 134 Centaur Street Revesby Heights NSW 2212:

    Charlie R Munns commented

    Hi there, now, I was going to say, I am only 14 years of age, and I am saddened to read of this application, as I think it would be a great shame to lose such a facility that has been there that long, and has served the community for years. I'd like to see it continue to serve for many many years to come. We've already lost Hero's Hill, and I think it would be quite a shame for the locals to lose another local icon.

    Every day I travel to school, I pass many houses and buildings from the 1950s era, and nearly every day, I notice more and more construction fences going up, and these somewhat well maintained, very repairable, character-filled homes and buildings being replaced by these very similar looking, somewhat character-less structures. Living in a war service home myself, and being in a neighbourhood full of them, I see no reason why people won't fix/renovate if needed. Instead, they spend double the amount on building a duplex.

    And, from seeing these houses stand the test of time, I'm not sure I would like to see most of the structures today in 50 or 60 years time.

    Thank you for reading this, have a nice day.

  6. In Yagoona NSW on “Construction of a secondary...” at 39 Worland Street Yagoona NSW 2199:

    NICOLE Chen commented

    I was wondering is there any job vacancies in conway street bankstown for childcare.

  7. In Padstow NSW on “Change of use to place of...” at 9 Gatwood Close Padstow NSW 2211:

    Virginia commented

    Need more information such as how many this will cater for? Car spaces specific to this?

  8. In Greenacre NSW on “Retention of Existing Brick...” at 118 Rawson Road Greenacre NSW 2190:

    Ed commented

    I live in the vacinity of the bakery and its good to generate business in the local area but not when you put a bakery in between residential houses.
    its busy enough having to try and find parking around the streets and now this will just make it worse and louder than it already is.

  9. In Picnic Point NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 15 Samoa Avenue Picnic Point NSW 2213:

    Graeme McTighe commented

    It's typical of the urban culture we have allowed to grow in Australia. Homes built 30 or 40 years ago with sound structures are demonolished and replaced with tightly packed duplexes that have no room for plants other than synthetic grass and a couple of solar lights placed near the driveways.

    Bankstown in the leafy Picnic Point area is becoming more like the urban developments near Oran Park. Little or no folliage makes for an environment that becomes hotter, children more indrawn because there isn't a space to play/exercise in a yard.

    The council's domestic dwelling ordnance for the area, states that new developments must fit into existing housing environments and not detract from the local residence area. Two storey duplexes next to a single storey property and across the road properties hardly fits in.

    Unfortunately, without proper mechanisms to make all parties compliant, these types of homes go up without being challenged. An application for DA has been put forward without published plans. No one can accurately assess the wholistic impact such a development would have - it must be a complete package. Any amendments must also be published to understand the impact this has on neighbours. More is required before approval.

  10. In Padstow NSW on “Demolish all existing...” at 16 Meager Avenue Padstow NSW 2211:

    Kim Williams commented


    I am closely watching over development in the Padstow area.

    I notice this application seeks to increase the building height. If this is the case, it surely does not comply with the current policies. I would like to comment that if it cannot comply due to being in a flood zone, it does not meet the criteria and cannot be developed in the proposed manner. To increase the building height to try and comply with flood risk is not acceptable. It means the streetscape for this street will have buildings with are much higher than those in the street present.

    I would also like to request the Council do not allow a reduction in the ratio of land as per the plan. The proposed plan does not meet the current standards and the number of units will need to be reduced to meet the standard.

    It also looks like it is single garaging. In reality, unless storage sheds have been provided, the cars will not be parked in the garages, and if you have multiple cars for each address, the off street parking will not be sufficient. If you have a minimum of 2 cars per unit, you will potentially have 6 cars trying to park outside what was 2 houses, taking the street parking from the existing residents.

    I notice they quote about the proposed development rules, this is totally irrelevant, as not the current rules.

    I feel passionate about this as it is happening all over by developers who are simply attempting to buy up land, over develop the area and then move on to their next project. They rarely live in the area and are not concerned about the effects in the streets with over crowding, increased noise levels and insufficient parking for the real number of cars that will reside in the villas, creating parking issues for all existing residents who will no longer have street parking due to the approval of developments which do not provide sufficient off street parking.

    To summarise, I would request that the Council do not allow developers to breach the current rules in regard to height or the number allowable on a piece of land based on the fact that the developers are trying to fit one more on the land to sell. We have rules and I believe they should be adhered to, for all the reasons outlined above.

    Simply put, if it cannot be built to the current rules, it should not be built. The rules are in place for a reason. I only live one street over and do not want to see over development in our area, especially when the plan does not meet the rules for 2 reasons.

    Thank you.

    Kim Williams.

  11. In Panania NSW on “Remediation of former...” at 35 Anderson Avenue Panania NSW 2213:

    D. Haggart commented

    High rise development is not in keeping with the current usage of the area.
    All development should be NO higher than existing 2 storey !
    The location , Marco/Anderson Ave, intersection is a dangerous location NOW.
    The additional 30 units with its 50 plus vehicles will create even greater traffic dramas.
    Say no to current development application.

  12. In Panania NSW on “Remediation of former...” at 35 Anderson Avenue Panania NSW 2213:

    Jim commented

    Amenaties and Retail should improve on this side of Panania as a result. Good for the Street and Panania. The Mechanic was an eyesore.

  13. In Punchbowl NSW on “Battle axe subdivision,...” at 21 Wattle Street, Punchbowl NSW 2196:

    Riley R commented

    I object.

    I don't like dual occupancy developments.

    I don't like additional cars using the street.

    I like to complain.

  14. In Revesby NSW on “Demolition” at 17 Lesley Avenue, Revesby NSW 2212:

    Sam commented

    I just bought 15 lesley Avenue Revesby. I would like to object to the development to 17 Lesley Avenue Revesby, due to privacy to my house and my backyard. Please consider my request.

    Kind Regards

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