Recent comments on applications from Burwood Council, NSW

  1. In Burwood NSW on “Boarding House” at 11A Ethel Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    MT commented

    The development of the proposed boarding houses will significantly degrade the architectural history and charm of Ethel st which is known as a landmark and premier street in Burwood. The street features a number of heritage homes including those of grand Victorian and Federation style that contribute to the heritage, culture and history that Burwood can be proud of.
    Subsequently the addition of such a development will devalue each of our homes on Ethel street, not to mention Burwood as a suburb in general.
    The development of such a densely populated boarding house will lead to the street becoming significantly more congested with increased cars parked on the street and through traffic.

    Currently, the round-about at each end of Ethel street at the corners of Burwood road and Weldon street are very congested at peak times as Ethel street is a major thoroughfare between various surrounding roads including Liverpool road, the Boulevarde, Parramatta road and the roads leading to Croydon.
    As residents we already have difficultly getting in and out of our own driveways in the morning and afternoons due to traffic build up and congestion leading up to these roundabouts. It will become significantly worse with such a development proposal which will only add to the congestion due to over-population.

    I believe that the proposal is non compliant with regards to the number of dwellings, the number of rooms and occupants which is too dense for our low density residential zone. The proposal will effectively double the entire population of the street and potentially allow nearly a hundred more cars on the the street of each person owns their own car.
    In addition, the number of garbage bins required for the number of occupants in the development will degrade the facade and impact on the hygiene of the street.

    Burwood council needs to consider that this development proposal is a gross and unnessessary oversupply of housing which only serves to benefit the developer and their desire to maximise profits in their use of this prime land.

  2. In Enfield NSW on “Dwelling - New Construction...” at 4 Carlyle Street Enfield NSW 2136:

    Kim Sun commented

    I request property remain as low density residential housing. Just build 2 houses on the block at the most to accommodate 2 families. I don't want the high density housing creeping down from Liverpool Rd & taking over Enfield. Residents of Enfield were able to rejected proposed high density housing at the Flower Power & Old Vision Australia site.
    We don't want Enfield to become over crowded like Burwood.

  3. In Strathfield NSW on “Mixed Use Development...” at 325-329 Liverpool Road Strathfield NSW 2135:

    J. Lopez commented

    In regards to the development att 325-329 Liverpool Road Strathfield NSW 2135

    Are the residents in the surrounding area going to be advised of the type of boarding house this new development going to be, before approval is given?
    ie Will it be for:- International Students, or the disadvantaged, or singles, or women's refuge, or vactioners, etc?

    And, will the developer AND Council advise local residents of the reasons for the need of that particular type of boarding house?

  4. In Croydon NSW on “Boarding House” at 35 Young Street Croydon NSW 2132:

    Jeffrey Williams commented

    This proposed boarding house is totally unsuitable to be a boarding house for the following reasons
    1. It exceeds the maximum building height for boarding houses in the R2 zone of 8.5 metres. It is over 11 metres tall. A three storey building surrounded by single storey dwellings.
    2 The wrap around balcony, many windows on the second and third storeys together with two verandahs seriously compromises the privacy of residents of adjacent dwellings and the children in the playground of Croydon Public School located only 35 metres away.
    3. The side set backs on the southern side of the house are 200% too close to the adjacent property. A 5 metre side set back is required for a three storey boarding house. The side set back is only 1.67 metres. Non compliant.
    4. The floor space ratio for the proposed boarding house should be 0.55. The huge bulk of this dwelling causes the FSR to be estimated at a value of over 0.75 making it illegal.
    5. On the plans at council there is no provision for a communal laundry. Obviously the plans were very rushed as to not address laundry facilities.
    6. One of the proposed boarding house rooms is over the maximum allowable 25 square metres.
    7. New legislation passed on 1st June 2018 requires 0.5 car spaces per room. At a proposed 27 rooms for the boarding house 13 -14 spaces will not be possible.
    8. No BASIX or Section J report to explain how a proposed 27 kitchens and 18 bathrooms in this dwelling plus a laundry etc can be energy and water efficient. No comments on the ventilation needed to cope with this excessive amount of steam from the kitchens and bathrooms.
    9. The filling in of the swimming pool, creation of 7 parking spaces, installation of wheel chair access lifts, building of a shed to house the waste disposal bins and all other inclusions alterations and modifications to create 27 furnished rooms for the ridiculously low sum of $25,000 as quoted in the DA is totally unrealistic.
    10. Finally 37 residents crammed into a dwelling which used to accommodate one large family will require over 90 metres of clothes lines. The only place for this is over the outside communal area located right next to two adjoining properties.
    For the many above reasons the current dwelling at 35 Young St is not suitable to become a boarding house because it breaks too many council and state building regulations and no changes or modifications can alter the non compliance to the mandatory side set backs, height restrictions, car space allowances or FSR for this dwelling.

  5. In Burwood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 53 Nicholson Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    jules commented

    Couldn't agree more with Yang. We must STOP all these madness of over-development otherwise we will have no character and history left of our town. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN RUINED BY ALL THESE MACMANSIONS.

  6. In Burwood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 53 Nicholson Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    Yang commented

    The property doesn't have the necessary frontage of 17m required for a multi storey townhouse. Currently the property only has a 15m frontage. The property doesn't have adequate street parking either. As currently there is only one side of the corner block that has street parking. With extra residence more street parking is required on already very narrow streets. If you visit the site the corner street (Wentworth road) is very narrow. Extra cars parked will cause more congestion on a already very busy street. The building of a townhouse is also not in character of the general neighbourhood. There is no other townhouse in the area. Extra residence caused by the townhouse will lead to more traffic and congested roads.

  7. In Burwood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 53 Nicholson Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    Tonia commented

    Townhouses not suitable for Nicholson St
    This street is residential and should be kept so
    Stop degrading Burwood

  8. In Burwood NSW on “Dwelling - New” at 5 Oxford Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    Pauline Forrester commented

    The proposal falls short of the current requirements for residential flat buildings in a R1 Zone as set out by the Council:
    * the Site frontage is less than the required 20m (as it is only 15.9m)
    * the Site area is inadequate for a building of the proposed height. The site is only 372.4sqm and the proposed height is 25.2m, whereas any development with a height over 9m is generally required to have a minimum site area of 500 sqm.
    * the lack of setback on the northern boundary, is not in keeping with the requirements to enhance the setting of the building. The overall visual impact from the street will be negative, and there is minimal chance of any landscaping opportunities to improve the effect.
    * the amount of traffic in this street is already excessive, given its proximity to the Primary school and the inadequate width of the street to allow for parking and the flow of 2-way traffic. Additional traffic into/out of this street will create issues.
    A building of this size; being disproportionately high compared to the ground area of the site, is out of keeping with the surrounding buildings. Whilst there are some high-rise buildings in the area, this one detracts from the area even more with an impression of extreme over-crowding.
    Therefore, I urge the Council to reject the proposed development plan.

  9. In Croydon Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 267 Georges River Road Croydon Park NSW 2133:

    francis thettayil commented

    do anyone has this property owner email/phone to provide an important information?

  10. In Burwood NSW on “Enlarge approved 3-bedroom...” at 39 Conder Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    Pauline Forrester commented

    With regard to Development Application No 2017.33 at 39-41 Conder St, Burwood, please consider the following points:
    • Height of building
    The proposal admits that the building exceeds the height requirements by a significant amount – 6.41m (ie 46% more than the regulated height of 14m).
    The roof top garden is included as a storey; making the building 7 storeys high, including the 2 basement levels.
    The argument put forward seems to hinge on the argument that the shadowing effect would be worse if they were compliant. However, from my point of view as the immediate neighbour this argument holds no weight. (See my comments on the shadowing below.)
    There are no buildings in the surrounding area which exceed 2 stories. Across the road the building height is zoned as to be significantly restricted to only 8.2m, and a building of the proposed height would be anomalous to the area. Also, the closest multi-unit developments are over 200m away, not visible from the site, and in a different zoning area.
    Comments on ascetics and appearances are purely subjective and should not be accepted as valid arguments.
    There seems to be no valid reason for the height criteria to be breached.

    • Solar Access
    The proposal also fails the criteria in respect of solar access. From my position, it appears that I will not get any winter sun on any of my living areas. The shadows on my house are totally unacceptable.
    I have solar panels which have been in place for over 10 years, and under the proposal they will become totally ineffective during winter. Also, I presume they will also be adversely affected during summer.
    Most of the comments on shadowing refer to the impact differences on neighbours further away when looking at compliance with the height restriction. They seem to assume that I should be happy with their comment that “The setbacks of the development provide at least 3 hours direct sunlight to No 43 rear private open space.” This does not tell the full story – only part of my back yard will get sunlight, and even drying my clothes on the clothesline will be a major issue.
    The argument that it could be worse does not remove my dissatisfaction with the proposal, nor does it justify acceptance of the breach.

    • No mention of the existing easement
    From a previous application put forward for 41 Conder St, there was mention of the restriction necessary because of the easement which runs the length of the property adjacent to the boundary fence adjoin my property. I could not find any mention of this in the plans, and the carpark area will be totally blocking this position.
    Is there no longer any restrictions relating to the easement, or has it been conveniently overlooked?

    Overall, I would ask the Council to consider the impact that approval of this application may have on the future of any adherence to the criteria set by the Council, and to the heritage character of the appearance of the area. There seems to be very little regard by any developers in the area to take into consideration the rules and regulations set in place by the Council, or to consider the pride associated with these older houses and the character they instil in the overall area, which admittedly is changing rapidly in the area close to the central shopping area. I would ask that the Council try to limit the impact of this advance to a totally different image of multi-layered living; with no “heritage” and no reason for “pride”.
    I would, personally, ask that the Council do not approve this development as its impact on my living space would be significant.

  11. In Burwood NSW on “Townhouses” at 31 Wyatt Avenue Burwood NSW 2134:

    Margaret Lowe commented

    I strongly oppose the development application (ref 172/2016) to demolish yet another Federation home in the area, namely, 31 Wyatt Avenue, Burwood. The loss of a beautiful and historic house which is irreplaceable would be tragic for residents of Burwood and the wider community. This area is known for its heritage significance and Federation homes and is a place of serenity where many people come to enjoy the trees, the birds, the beautiful homes.

    This large townhouse development, a construction of 12 x 2 storey plus attics townhouses above basement parking, would affect the amenity of the area and have a negative impact on the streetscape and tranquil environment and is not in keeping with the low density residential nature surrounding this part of Burwood.

    It is not enough that most of the street has already been turned into townhouse developments but the remaining historic houses have been assaulted with development application after development application to demolish and overdevelop lots.

    18 Wyatt Ave: (Oct 2013) application to demolish the building and construct 8 townhouses (rejected)
    16 Wyatt Ave: (DA 134/2015) construction of 1 x 2 bedroom and 5 x 3 bedrrom townhouses, approved on 6 Dec 2016.
    29 Wyatt Ave: (DA 84/2016) demolition of existing original Federation building (pending decision)
    and now 31 Wyatt Ave.

    Fortunately 18 Wyatt Ave was saved from demolition through the efforts of concerned residents. The many objections submitted must have given council a strong indication that the community is passionate about preserving our remaining heritage and does not want bland, insipid, uninspired, poorly designed townhouses replacing grand Federation homes.

    The mature trees and green space on this property provide housing and shelter for birds. With overdevelopment encroaching on the valuable, ever-diminishing green space, wildlife will suffer and the area will be worse off with the removal of these majestic trees.

    Parking is a potential issue with additional townhouses in the area. There are 4 semi-detached cottages close to the property which do not have off street parking which already have difficulties with parking. I understand that the townhouses will have basement parking, however, residents will not be obliged to park in the car parking spaces and there will also be more visitors to the street taking up car spaces.

    Not only will this development threatened Wyatt Ave and will forever alter the beauty, ambience and historical significance of this unique area. But please keep in mind the effect the other development applications will have on this previously quiet and peaceful area. This should be considered not in isloation but alongside the already approved development at 16 Wyatt Ave and potential demolition of and development at 29 Wyatt Ave.

  12. In Burwood NSW on “Residential Flat Building” at 47 Conder Street Burwood NSW 2134:

    Pauline Forrester commented

    With regard to Development Application No 2016.154 at 47 Conder St, Burwood, please consider the following points:
    • Minimum Site Frontage
    Whilst I cannot find any definition on the Council’s web site as to what constitutes “frontage”, the proposal itself details the property to have a length of only 13.61m. It then refers to a “secondary frontage” of 32m and uses that as the criteria to pass the requirement that “A residential flat building shall not be erected on an allotment of land having a frontage of less than 20m.”
    Surely, the Council’s intention was not to allow any corner block to be able to bypass the requirements simply because the side fence is longer than the front fence.

    • Height of buildings
    The proposal admits that the building exceeds the height requirements – (from Annexure C) “… three parts of the building breach the height limit: the proposed roof of the common space area of the western end of the building (max 1.8m above), the lift overrun (2.5m) and the uppermost level of the building at the eastern side (1m).”
    1.8m above a restricted limit of 14m is quite significant, and 2.5m over is very significantly in breach of the criteria.
    The argument put forward is that the “proposed height is suitable for the site as the locality includes low and medium density development with a number of multi-unit developments located nearby.” This contradicts the proposal’s statement (in paragraph 2.3) that it is located “in a low density residential area.” There are no buildings in the surrounding area which exceed 2 stories. Also, the closest multi-unit developments are over 200m away, not visible from the site, and in a different zoning area.
    There seems to be no valid reason for the height criteria to be breached.

    • Landscaping and removal of trees
    The proposal also (in paragraph 4.2.6) “… does not provide the 25-30% of site area as landscaped area.”
    The Council has a positive attitude to the retention of trees, and the existing trees are fully mature healthy natives which cover a significant part of the block and can readily be seen to provide habitat for local birds. Any new plantings will take a long time to grow and mature to the point where they provide the same habitat.
    The removal of these trees and the failure to meet the criteria does not seem to be in keeping with the Council’s objectives.

    • Solar Access
    The proposal also fails the criteria in respect of solar access. Paragraph 4.305.1 states the requirements are “… 70% of the living rooms and private open spaces of the proposed apartments … to receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on June 21.” However, “the Apartment Design Guide as it is achieves a minimum of 2 hours of solar access to living room windows and living areas for 13 of the 18 apartments (70%) between 9:00am and 3:00pm during mid-winter.”
    Again, there does not seem to be any acceptable reason to allow this breach to be permitted.

    • Character of the immediate vicinity and the age of the existing building
    Paragraph 4.3.1 states “The proposal results in a form of development that is consistent with the desired future character of development in the area, and, as such, the proposal will not generate any adverse topographical or scenic impacts.”
    I don’t know what criteria they are using to determine the “desired future character”, but I believe that the proposal will adversely change the character of the immediate vicinity. Council promotes “Heritage” as the first word in their logo and this should be reflected in their desire to retain the existence of buildings such as the one that currently exists on this site. This house and several of the nearby houses are over 100 years old, and in most cases the houses are well-kept and cared for. To target them and knock them down to be replaced by new structures seems contrary to the concept of “heritage”.

    Overall, I would ask the Council to consider the impact that approval of this application may have on the future of any adherence to the criteria set by the Council, and to the heritage character of the appearance of the area.

  13. In Burwood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 29 Wyatt Avenue Burwood NSW 2134:

    Margaret Lowe commented

    I oppose this application as this property is an original federation home (
    The demolition of this federation home will mean a another loss of a part of Burwood's history for a building which has no significant architecture merit or historical value.

    This planning application is a lack of respect for our heritage and also for those people who appreciate a beautiful area of historical significance which is ever diminishing.

  14. In Burwood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 12 Gloucester Avenue Burwood NSW 2134:

    Antonina Kisliakov commented

    Build a park instead, Burwood does not have enough green areas. Burwood should have a park like Centennial Park, Burwood has too many ugly high rise buildings

  15. In Burwood NSW on “Townhouses and Dwelling -...” at 16 Wyatt Avenue Burwood NSW 2134:

    Pedro Queiroz commented

    I strong oppose this proposal. With the current explosion of high-rises close to Burwood station and all the way to Parramatta Road, I find it absolutely disheartening that yet another beautiful property in this unspoiled area of our suburb is being defaced to give room to medium-density housing.
    An approval would It send a very uncomfortable message to anyone deciding to live in Burwood: disregard your property's current surroundings, they'll change at a drop of a hat.
    This proposal is also incredibly unfair to anyone currently living in Wyatt Avenue, as they will get all the downside and none of the upside.

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