Recent comments on applications from Camden Council, NSW

  1. In Narellan NSW on “New Carport” at 13 Doncaster Av, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    alana jeanes commented

    Is the new carport set 1 metre back from the front of the building?

  2. In Leppington NSW on “New Swimming Pool - Fibreglass” at 55 Matilda Rd, Leppington 2179 NSW:

    6AXIS commented

    Hi, if you require any assistance with soil removal or excavation feel free to contact me.

  3. In Leppington NSW on “New Swimming Pool - Fibreglass” at 15 Fig Av, Leppington 2179 NSW:

    6AXIS commented

    For all excavation work plz feel free to call 0404014848 - 6 AXIS

  4. In Leppington NSW on “New Swimming Pool - Fibreglass” at 4 Smokebush Ave, Leppington 2179 NSW:

    6AXIS commented

    Hi, if you require excavation and soil removal plz feel free to call me on 0404014848 for a quote.

    6 AXIS

  5. In Leppington NSW on “New Swimming Pool - Fibreglass” at 15 Fig Av, Leppington 2179 NSW:

    6AXIS commented

    For all excavation work plz feel free to call 0404014848 - 6 AXIS

  6. In Smeaton Grange NSW on “Section 4.55(1A)...” at 11-19 Waler Cr, Smeaton Grange 2567 NSW:

    Amanda Morgan commented

    The hours of operation suggested in this proposal and the activities of this business (including noise) may disrupt residents close to this business.
    The hours suggested are too long (early in the morning and late in the evening) on the weekend.

  7. In Narellan NSW on “New First Floor...” at 65 Doncaster Av, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Alana Jeanes commented

    Just asking is the new carport 1 metre back from front of the house, as we are told we must have?

  8. In Harrington Park NSW on “New Awning” at 62 Fairwater Dr, Harrington Park 2567 NSW:

    Keith Jeanes commented

    But isn't the awning at the back of the property?

  9. In Harrington Park NSW on “New Awning” at 62 Fairwater Dr, Harrington Park 2567 NSW:

    Kristine D commented

    Why are people moving into Harrington Park and then ruining the look of their houses?
    This house is on the main road and an awning will ruin the whole street aspect and appeal of the beautiful neighbourhood!
    Please Re-consider.
    Thank you very much!
    Kind regards

  10. In Kirkham NSW on “Concept Development...” at 200 Camden Valley Wy, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Geoff Dent commented

    Forgive me if I am dumb but what is the significant's of the picture of Camden Valley way and the old entrance. Is this to be used during initial stages of construction etc? If so why can it not be the permanent entrance for this facility, there are plenty of golf courses that have a usable road running through the middle of them. Construct a round about and away you go no need for further changes and disruption to the course.
    Secondly what is the time frame for this development should it be approved, as this organisation has a terrible track record for getting things done,
    Thirdly is the Hotel going to be a license premises with poker machines etc as this would have a great effect on the golf clubs revenue stream.
    Lastly and by no means a trivial matter but why has Council not forced these owners to clean up the site and keep it clean while awaiting development application to be approved. If this was a house on a suburban street the owners would have had a clean up notification long ago.
    Geoff Dent. Club member

  11. In Kirkham NSW on “Concept Development...” at 200 Camden Valley Wy, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    John and Susan Gammage commented

    I agree with Neville Hoskins comments regarding the entry to both the Club and entry to the Motel / Resort and the parking for the patrons of the golf course.
    The dramatic changes that are being made to the existing house and surrounds are pretty extreme considering the size and heritage concerns of the house.
    There is no outline of the changes to the golf course and where the Proshop is to be located, also the amount of trafic flow through the roundabout and though to Liz Kernahan drive.
    Also what impact will all this construction have on the operation and financial operation of the existing Golf Club

  12. In Kirkham NSW on “Concept Development...” at 200 Camden Valley Wy, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Neville Hoskin commented

    While the proper development of this site is long overdue I have concerns with two issues in particular the first is parking within the golf club area, as I understand the proposal a new entrance will come of Lodges Road and impact the current parking lots, if current spaces are not retained than patrons will have to park on Lodges Road which is dangerous and will impact traffic in the area.

    The second concern is the impact on the golf course. To retain playing conditions changes will be required to the course layout. This needs to be done in a timely manner as not to effect the viability / profitability of the club. The club provides other services for locals and organizations and any impact must be minimal.

    It would be advantageous if these changes could be done prior to construction starting on some of the proposed buildings.

  13. In Harrington Park NSW on “New Principal Dwelling /...” at 68A Pearson Cr, Harrington Park 2567 NSW:

    Alana Jeans commented

    Given the changes Camden Council has made regarding lot size and frontage length to allow for dual occupancy I would like to know is this property over 600m2 and does it have a frontage of 18 meters and over, or does this not apply for a 'secondary dwelling'?
    Alana Jeans

  14. In Narellan Vale NSW on “Detached Single Storey...” at 9 William Howe Pl, Narellan Vale 2567 NSW:

    Cheryl Minihan commented

    There seems to be an attitude of “us” and them” mentality! Council have DOUBLE STANDARDS!
    What is allowed to happen on one block should be able to be done on another block. There does need to be a standard size of a frontage allowing for room building/s. However there needs to be “exceptions” to this “policy” but Council are steadfast! If you have a lot of money to give to “council” for their “contribution fund” on top of the “normal payments”, then seems you can do as you like. As ratepayers there needs to be a “group of ratepayers” to protest outside council with “media attention@. I personally see that this is the only way that maybe able to change their “Double standards! What are your thoughts people?

  15. In Narellan Vale NSW on “Detached Single Storey...” at 9 William Howe Pl, Narellan Vale 2567 NSW:

    Alana Jeanes commented

    I was making a point that, thanks to Council's new regulations, it doesn't matter so long as the frontage is 18 meters or over, and lot size is over 600m2. I haven't seen any plans but assume this is for a family and the set out would not be an issue (to them).
    It warrants the question why when people have larger lot sizes they are not not allowed the same liberties. There is an agenda we are not privy to.

  16. In Narellan Vale NSW on “Detached Single Storey...” at 9 William Howe Pl, Narellan Vale 2567 NSW:

    Cheryl Minihan commented

    They may have an 18 metre frontage. However where is the room to independently move from one house to the other without going through the existing building?

  17. In Narellan Vale NSW on “Detached Single Storey...” at 9 William Howe Pl, Narellan Vale 2567 NSW:

    Alana Jeanes commented

    But I believe they have an 18 meter frontage!!

  18. In Narellan Vale NSW on “Detached Single Storey...” at 9 William Howe Pl, Narellan Vale 2567 NSW:

    Cheryl Minihan commented

    This house does not have enough area for people to move from front house to rear dwelling and pool. The side entrance is way too small!

  19. In Narellan NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 22 Mowatt St, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Alana Jeanes commented

    Well Cheryl, I appreciate that at least one other person understands the unfairness of the frontage changes made by council. I did object in writing and at the Council meeting and I believe given answers that were not answers. Will be interesting to see what they really have planned for land owners/rate payers in the future.

  20. In Narellan NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 22 Mowatt St, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Cheryl minihan commented

    I agree with Alana (going back a bit on my earlier message) that they should be able to put on two homes on their property depending on the size of the dwellings. I agree also that council went out of there way to change the criteria who have been able to do the same thing on lots the same size by restricting dual occupancy on lots just under 18 mtre frontage. Yes they have the “right to do this” however what about the rest of the other land/house owners in the narellan/narellan vale area which Council has refused as for instance a frontage of 17.5 mtre and not allowing same development as we are talking about here. We pay same rates but given no say at all. Yes they asked for submissions but did they reply as to the outcome? No! Just left it hanging and when you want to get information about the outcome you get the “run around”. We have been rate payers here for over 35 years! That should mean at least being listened to! Thank you Alana Jones for your comments. At least l am not alone in all this unfairness! Is there anyone else out there with similar comments! Once again Thank you
    Cheryl Minihan

  21. In Narellan NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 22 Mowatt St, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Alana Jeanes commented

    I believe the owners should have the right to be allowed to demolish and build two houses on their land (depending on sizes of dwellings), but I do object to the fact that Council went out of its way to change the criteria for land owners who would have been able to do the same thing on lots the same size, and bigger, by restricting dual occupancy on lots under a 18 meter frontage, which I see as very unfair on us who have property in medium density R3 zoning. Luckily for these applicants, they have a larger frontage even though I question if they are in medium density zoned area. I agree with Cheryl Minihan, in that it is unfair, and a double standard, but I believe the owners have the right to do this.
    Alana Jeanes

  22. In Narellan NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 22 Mowatt St, Narellan 2567 NSW:

    Cheryl Minihan commented

    I don’t feel that this application for TWO LOW COST RENTAL DWELLINGS should be allowed. It brings down the value of the houses surrounding and for all housing in NARELLAN and NARELLAN Vale! If this is allowed then ALL EXISTING HOMES should be allowed to do the same. I see a DOUBLE STANDARDS in the CSMDEN COUNCIL where one is allowed and another application is not allowed. Please advise me if this goes ahead as l will be very vocal if it does. I DO NOT WANT THIS APPLICATION TO GO AHEAD AS STATED AT BEGINNING of THIS EMAIL! Thank you
    Cheryl Minihan

  23. In Spring Farm NSW on “Construction of a 109 place...” at 134 Springs Rd, Spring Farm 2570 NSW:

    Peta Humphreys commented

    Sorry, but I am opposed to this application as I really don't see there being a reason for another child care centre on Springs Road as there is one almost complete just up further on the opposite corner, not to mention the other centres already operating in the area. It's great for jobs but is there any need for another child care centre in Spring Farm at all? Especially one of this size. Just to add to my comment, Springs rd is busy enough as it is.

  24. In Spring Farm NSW on “Concept staged development...” at 131 Springs Rd, Spring Farm 2570 NSW:

    Ian Ramsay commented

    I wish to voice my objection to this DA on the following grounds.
    1. It is proposed that the development will be at a height of 3 stories. This is in contravention of Councils current height restrictions of 2 levels. This raises the question as to why should Camden Council even consider this proposal in its current format?
    2. I envisage concerns in regard the 3 levels from the aspect of an emergency evacuation.
    I understand that it will be mandatory to have an emergency evacuation plan in situ however in the event of an occurrence where will the emergency FUP (Form Up Point) be located and what would the likely impact be on traffic on Springs Road?
    Has an impact study been conducted in regard to this issue?
    3. I have serious concerns about the impact of traffic in the immediate area, eg: Springs Road.
    One the southern side of Springs Road it is residential whilst the proposed DA is for the opposite side of the road.
    As it in its present form there is generally insufficient parking on the Springs Road immediately in front of those residences.
    Has due consideration been given to the impact of extra traffic and parking within the vicinity?
    4. With the establishment of the proposed DA has consideration been given to the amount of service vehicles that would be engaged on a daily basis that would require access and exiting rights from the premises to Springs Road?
    It would be highly probable to suggest that skip bins would be most likely the preferred method of garbage disposal and as such this would require heavy vehicles to manoeuvre in and out of the property.
    In summary I do not believe that this DA is in keeping within the residential keeping of Spring Farm.
    I agree that this DA is in close proximity to the considered Spring Farm shopping centre however I believe that the land for which this DA is being considered would be best utilised to service the needs of Spring Farm. An example of this would be the establishment of more shopping facilities to cater more for the growing needs of a rapidly growing suburb.

  25. In Spring Farm NSW on “Concept staged development...” at 131 Springs Rd, Spring Farm 2570 NSW:

    Peta Humphreys commented

    This development is going to increase the amount of road traffic on Springs Rd and Richardson rd which is bad enough at times. Also pedestrian traffic would increase, Springs rd is quite busy with cars, trucks and buses as it is and because of this traffic the pedestrians, especially the elderly and children would not be safe walking the area. As for another child care centre, there is one almost finished directly across the road and numerous more in the area that are new and being built I don't see how another one will be beneficial to Spring Farm therefore I am opposed to that idea.
    I'm opposed to the high density housing as t hi is would increase the amount of traffic and as I said before Springs rd is busy enough as it is. Coming in and out of Norfolk Bvde onto Springs Rd for example, the amount of traffic that I have seen come in and out, imagine the amount of traffic coming in and out of high density housing onto Springs Rd. This would quadruple the amount of traffic which increases the possibility of accidents with both cars and pedestrians. Please leave the area, how about make it a park where the residents already here can enjoy, or a pond or plant more trees, I feel a high density area will ruin Spring Farm and I agree with Emma that it would devalue and change this beautiful area we decided to build our forever home in.

  26. In Spring Farm NSW on “Concept staged development...” at 131 Springs Rd, Spring Farm 2570 NSW:

    Emma commented

    I don't think it is appropriate to build an aged care centre, another child care centre and/or seniors apartments in this location.
    There are already a multitude of childcare centres in the Spring Farm area. Being located on a main road, Springs Road, would pose a safety risk to the children and families accessing the facility, and create traffic.
    I don't think an aged care facility and/or seniors apartments are suitable in this location either. It would create additional traffic on Springs Road and be a safety risk for the aged care / seniors accessing the facilities. There aren't any traffic lights or crossings for them to safely use. In looking at what facilities are available within walking distance, this location couldn't provide community features for their quality of life. The only restaurants are fast food, there is only one cafe with limited seating and parks and outdoor areas are out of walking distances for the elderly patients. Once built, the community centre would provide a space for events and activities however I think this is also outside a feasible walking distance for the elderly.
    Apartments and more semi detached dwellings would not be suitable in this location either. The roads are already too narrow to cater for the population in the Spring Farm area, and adding more high density housing will increase the volume of cars and create more parked cars on streets and more traffic and congestion.
    I'm opposed to adding apartments and more high density housing in Spring Farm because it is stifling the rural feel the suburb once had. We bought our house on Kale Road 2 years ago because we liked the Riverside estate and the open spaces. I feel that adding more high density housing will change the landscape of our community and devalue existing properties.

  27. In Elderslie NSW on “New Multi Unit Housing” at 110 Lodges Rd, Elderslie 2570 NSW:

    Luke and Tanya Chesworth commented

    My wife and I are pleased to see this small retail development finally moving ahead, and the amenity of Liz Kernohan Drive connecting to Camden Valley way and connecting both Camden Acres and Vantage Point estates is also welcome.

    We are concerned with the scale of the development though, the number of residential apartments and the impact of the additional traffic in the area is worrying, especially given the tendency towards greater density in the housing developments of the area.

    Of greatest concern though is the height and imposing stance that this development will have, which is out of character with the rest of the buildings in the local area. I would like to draw council's attention to the unit developments recently constructed on Vicary Avenue as a much better example of higher density accommodation for this area. We also note that large parts of level 2, and all of level 3 are above the 9.5m height line.

    We ask council to respect the 9.5m height line in this case, and restrict the development to the proposed spaces currently proposed to fall beneath this limit. This will allow the local community to benefit from the amenity of the proposed retail spaces and what we hope will become much needed affordable housing, while at the same time not suffering from the visual and tangible impacts of the proposed over height development.

  28. In Bexley NSW on “New Dwelling - Single Storey” at 18 Mimosa St, Gregory Hills 2557 NSW:

    Noah Faber commented

    Why does this notification say “Gregory hills”?? It is clearly meant to be Bexley

  29. In Cobbitty NSW on “2 x two storey semi...” at 13 Clydesdale Rd, Cobbitty 2570 NSW:

    David Wood commented

    There are quite enough double storey, compressed dwellings in Cobbitty already. There are 10 in an ugly stretch on Matavai street alone plus various other clusters spread through the newer side of the development. Where on earth do all the cars get parked?

    All these dwellings have single garages but its rare for a household with 2 or more bedrooms to have a single car this day in age. This is going to create a serious parking issue, pedestrian safety issue thanks to reduced sight lines, and devalue the development.

    This was advertised and modelled as 'country living' with specific design requirements and an elevated price bracket for the area. What on earth happened to that intent? Bait and switch much?

    Enough is enough. It Is irresponsible to allow this to continue with the severe lack of foresight in planning. I didn't elect to live in Newtown. I chose to live in Cobbitty.

  30. In Spring Farm NSW on “Subdivison of exisiting lot...” at 50 Pekin St, Spring Farm 2570 NSW:

    Gina commented

    It is such a shame that camden council is yet again approving or considering approving 9 lots of land be subdivided into MORE smaller lots.

    This subdivision of 9 lots to 11 lots doesn't work with the current vision of Riversidd precinct of dwellings. 98% of the dwellings have MINIMUM 13m frontage and lot sizes are the smallest of 375m2. Now this major builder is trying to cut this even further.

    Can the correct traffic management report be added to the file as this is for leppington and needs to be adjusted.

    My reasons against this subdivision:

    1. The dwellings will be directly across from a brand new childcare centre where there will be children around and heavy traffic due to this.
    2. Congested streets with insufficient space to park cars due to smaller lots and restricted driveways. 2-3 cars per house across 11 lots equals minimum an extra 22 cars across the street where majority may have to park on the street. This results unfortunately in accidents involving children as people can't see their blind spots due to other cars.
    3. There really isn't a clear reason to add an additional 2 lots to this block of land other than extra money not only for the builder but let's face it Council will get their extra rates involved too.
    4. There isn't this sort of housing construction in any of the riverside precinct and therefore will be completely out of order.
    5. The fact that council has admitted recently their error in allowing dual occupancy houses on small lots.
    6. Approval should not commence until a proper traffic check can be conducted when the childcare centre has opened and is being used. A traffic report cannot be conducted properly until someone actually can determine childcare safety.
    7. Talk to the residents, ask them first what they think and what should be approved or recommended.

    Camden council please do not allow the 11 lots and please keep this to 9 lots and perhaps consider the aspects of riverside. This was never in the original plans.

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