Recent comments on applications from Campbelltown City Council, NSW

  1. In Leumeah NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 88 Rudd Road, Leumeah NSW 2560:

    Simon commented

    This is certainly not an appropriate style of development so close to a public school. Boarding houses are become abundant in and around the area and do not attract the most appealing residents. There are also 2 very large and significant trees that will need to be removed. Rudd Rd deserves to have clean, neat and appropriate housing.

  2. In Leumeah NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 88 Rudd Road, Leumeah NSW 2560:

    Nabila commented

    The development of the boarding house will substantially block natural sunlight coming into 90A and 90B Rudd Road (properties next door). The council is being contradictory, on one hand attempting to improve the image of the suburb, and on the other assessing the construction of a property which will house multiple tenants at the one time. A boarding house, if approved, will affect the neighbourhood's image, provide additional risks to the young families surrounding 88 Rudd Road AND reduce the livelihood of existing home owners. Not to mention the risks associated to tenants not following community etiquette such as no drinking, vandalising or use of illegal substances.

  3. In NSW on “...” at, NSW:

    Glen D’Costa commented

    Reference CR1223655

    Dear Sir or Madam
    On the 24/03/20, I phoned the council regarding the dog from 10/43 Rudd Road Leumeah, pooing on my front lawn
    I am very thankful for the excellent way the customer service people at Campbelltown Council treated and handled my concerns. They are
    1. Lachlan
    2. Tess
    3. Lauren
    Yesterday the 06/04/20 I spoke to Tess who very kindly transferred me on to Amy the same day 06/04/20. Amy is also a wonderful person that listened to my complaint, about the dog from 10/43 Rudd Road pooing on my front lawn.

    In all instances I had to clean up the dog poo myself.
    Amy said to me that she was going to send out the Ranger, which she did the same day. The Ranger came out the same day 06/04/20.

    Mark the Ranger came out and spoke to the people from 10/43. Another excellent service by Mark the Ranger, not only did he come out and talk to the people with the dog but he rang me the same day and told me what had happened.
    In my opinion I believe that Campbelltown City Council has some of the greatest customer service staff, in NSW

    Thanks and Kind Regards

    Glen D’Costa

  4. In Leumeah NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 88 Rudd Road, Leumeah NSW 2560:

    Sara Banks commented

    There are already so many boarding rooms in the area. This is excessive and shouldn't be approved. It will create an antisocial behavior and will not help the new image of Leumeah/Campbelltown, that counsel is trying so hard to create.

  5. In Ingleburn NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 31 Chester Road, Ingleburn NSW 2565:

    Elyza commented

    Please decline. There are already 2 early childhood education and care centres on this road . This one is too close to community kids. This road is already busy and dangerous with traffic. The roundabout on Cumberland rd has an obscured view with the brick wall from the house on the corner and is a major incident waiting ro happen.
    There are 7 early childhood education and care centres in ingleburn currently.

  6. In Menangle Park NSW on “Modification of existing...” at 170 Menangle Road, Menangle Park NSW 2563:

    dennis shi commented

    I like and support it.

  7. In Campbelltown NSW on “Modification of an exisitng...” at 17 Iolanthe Street, Campbelltown NSW 2560:

    Sanaz commented

    What rational is behind having a four storey 19 self contained room boarding house? The area already have 2 boarding houses and affordable housing as well.
    How is the developer going to handle the potential +19 parking spaces and the risk of antisocial behavior?

  8. In Ingleburn NSW on “Partial demolition of...” at 111 Oxford Road, Ingleburn NSW 2565:

    J Green commented

    This building is both a prominent and significant example of very few heritage buildings remaining in the Ingleburn township, noting recent years have seen the loss of prime and visually significant examples of Ingleburns architectural history (e.g. cnr Lionel street & Oxford) to be replaced with characterless development.

    Although this site has already been largely denuded (I believe in contravention of heritage protection directives), vegetation can be recovered over time. This action however does point toward likely destruction of heritage aspects of the building itself should development proceed - something which cannot be recovered.

    Suggest the heritage value of 111 Oxford Road should be protected as a community asset and the property best be restored with sensitivity to both its period and contemporary use as a dwelling.

  9. In Leumeah NSW on “Modification of an existing...” at 9 Angle Road, Leumeah NSW 2560:

    Sanaz commented

    This street is pretty narrow and the area is suburban family houses. I'm quite interested in knowing where 16+ cars will park? Are the developers planning on building some sort of parking to accommodate the dwellings? It doesn't look like any parking is being build at the moment. Please prioritize this request as the street absolutely can't handle this amount of parked cars.

  10. In Leumeah NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 3 Hughes Street, Leumeah NSW 2560:

    Neville citizen commented

    Hi all, I agree with Sana. Putting this kind of thing especially one with such a large number of rooms across the road from a childcare facility Is outrageous. There may be a need for boarding houses but put them in areas where there are small unit developments not houses and childcare centres. The state government encourages boarding houses but this seems like it will be a cash cow for the owner and it will make parking in Hughes street very difficult especially for the morning and afternoon childcare pickup. In general it will detract for the working class neighbourhood that is Leumeah.

  11. In Leumeah NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 3 Hughes Street, Leumeah NSW 2560:

    Sana commented

    Instead of developing the suburbs into nice family friendly areas, you approve housing. This is such a shame for the area, as it will only attract even more people, who are not trying to move forward with their lifes.
    I'm seeing so many housing developments being approved around Campbelltown and suburbs. What good will these massive housings bring to the area? You are responsible for making the suburbs an even bigger mess. Don't we have enough drug addicts and unemployed people in the area, so you want to welcome even more, right in the middle of hardworking family areas. What a shame.

  12. In Minto NSW on “Increase of student numbers...” at 10 Benham Road, Minto NSW 2566:

    JAN ELDRIDGE commented

    Please reject this application. There is no more room in the area re parking, Children and general movement plus noise. To small an area. Enough trouble now dont need more

  13. In Bardia NSW on “Single Dwelling” at 65 Macdonald Road, Bardia NSW 2565:

    Gavin Lo commented

    What dwelling is being built here. I am in a neighboring property.


  14. In Bradbury NSW on “Refurbishment of the...” at 74 Fern Avenue, Bradbury NSW 2560:

    Chris Webb commented

    Hi CCC, Can you please give me some updated information on what is happening with this development, if it is going ahead and if there is any sort of start date

  15. In Glenfield NSW on “Multi Res/Unit/Dual Occupancy” at 5 Eleanor Drive, Glenfield NSW 2167:

    Tom Tesoro commented

    Community Estate in Glenfield ( Eleanor drive duplex) have no record of an application to this COMMUNITY (design review) and we will OBJECT to any application.

  16. In Casula NSW on “Commercial” at Lot 1 Campbelltown Road, Glenfield NSW 2167:

    tom tesoro commented

    Concern from adjacent community estate regarding traffic access into estate and parking. We will OBJECT on the above grounds. 200 homes ( VISTA community)

  17. In Ingleburn NSW on “Demolition of an existing...” at 37 Cumberland Road, Ingleburn NSW 2565:

    Susan Andrews commented

    The DA application notification for 37 Cumberland Rd, Ingleburn has only just been received by the Body Corporate for 41 Cumberland Rd, Ingleburn yesterday being the 19/9/17. This notification was dated in early August 2017 and only now been bought to our attention.
    We have obtained a petition with names and signatures that oppose this DA application.
    We object to this DA as it will greatly affect our privacy, sun light and reception for TV.
    It will cause the residents of this strata stress and affect our health as the building is being done, noise will be detrimental to our health and it will reduce the valuation of our properties.
    Tomorrow 21/9/2017 this petition and covering letter stating our objections will be lodged to the Council.

  18. In Saint Andrews NSW on “Outbuilding” at 55 Stromeferry Crescent, St Andrews NSW 2566:

    Peace Park user / Glenshee Place Pedestrian commented

    This development is strongly opposed by many local residents and the proposal fails on many fronts when assesed against the following key planning assesment questions:

    1. How does the impact change the amenity of the affected property? Comparing current views of the property with the former outlook before work will show the amenity, functionality and traffic/pedestrian safety is destroyed by a 6+ foot fence running right down to the nature strip. A future development on the new slab will further encroach the views and common setback.
    2. How reasonable is the proposal causing the impact? Completely unreasonable, since this barrier does nothing but secure a small corner parcel of land to the detriment of the entire streetscape.
    3. How vulnerable to the impact is the property receiving the impact? No development potential is lost by either party if this development is suitably altered or better still, stopped completely.
    4. Does the impact arise out of poor design? A substantial impact reduction on neighbours and safety could be achieved by reviewing the lines, length and height of the dividing fence, as well as reviewing the slab development on the site boundary.
    5. Does the proposal comply with the planning controls? I would enquire as to whether the requirements of the dividing fences act are being adhered to, and furthermore if the upcoming slab development is for a shed there is no way the slab is 900mm from the boundary as per the SEPP for such development.

    I look forward to this proposal being adequately scrutinised and consequently denied.

  19. In Bradbury NSW on “Refurbishment of the...” at 74 Fern Avenue, Bradbury NSW 2560:

    Matthew Kelly commented

    I would like to make the case against Apartment blocks being built in this part, and of all Bradbury.

  20. In Glen Alpine NSW on “Commercial” at 161 Englorie Park Drive, Glen Alpine NSW 2560:

    Paul Curran commented

    I am objecting to the proposed development of the proposed church and Carparking

    I note that on the plans there is no reference to the number of church patrons

    My concern is the increased Traffic in our street if this development is approved our street and ask for a copy of any traffic study that has been submitted with the application

    There is a crossing near this site .

    Our street is a local road and is unable to cope with the increase in traffic movement

    Will there be social functions at the Church and if so our concern would be the noise and possible late night usage of the church

    The development is not in Character within the surrounding residential neighbourhood .

    I moved into the area to get way from the noise and traffic

    I request that there an onsite meeting with the residents prior to any decision on the application

    Yours Faithfully

    Paul Curran

  21. In Minto Heights NSW on “Commercial” at 49 Hansens Road, Minto Heights, NSW:

    Irene Roy commented

    Campbelltown City Council (Source: Campbelltown, reference558/2016/DA-C)
    Isn't this parcel of land on the Georges River Reserve Belt
    We don't need the run off from a commercial venture like this to run into the creeks and Georges River, we can't swim in Georges River now with out getting a earache or worse
    It's very sad how the river and the creeks are, the river bottom is slime, once upon a time it was clear, you could see the crayfish, fish, eels, the reeds growing from under the rocks in the water, the clean sand, it was beautiful and you could swim in the river, drink the water, you would die if you drank it now, you could camp in the bush and hear the night animals moving around at night, there were always plenty of native animals you could see, lots of wild birds to hear
    Now someone wants to cage the animals, the land doesn't look big enough, my thinking is, if you want to see native animals and birds, put some shoes on and go for a hike, we have some beautiful bushwalks in the whole Campbelltown area, get out and breath the fresh air, see the animals or their tracks
    Please leave The Georges River Reserve Belt as is "Natural" :)

  22. In Glenfield NSW on “Master Plan” at Macquarie Field House, Campbelltown Road, Glenfield, NSW:

    Greg BH commented

    Why are there no softcopy/electronic documents. How can the people of NSW review this significant destruction of our heritage without going to Campbelltown during work hours?

  23. In Minto NSW on “Commercial” at Al-Faisal College, Campbelltown Campus, 10 Benham Road, Minto, NSW:

    Benz commented

    Wow, so really the school was doing all this with anyone's knowledge.
    Well I think the authorities know what is best for the community and children of this school. Breaching a law is unlawful I suppose. Let's see how lawful or unlawful is it for big businesses.

  24. In Denham Court NSW on “Residential...” at 42 Denham Court Road, Denham Court, NSW:

    SusanLauric commented

    Re; DA 609/2014/DA-AL
    This development is close to my home and i have previously objected to it (over the last 8 years in all its forms) so why wasn't i notified there was yet another DA.

  25. In Ambarvale NSW on “Commercial” at 161 Englorie Park Drive, Glen Alpine, NSW:

    Mr Gilles Bastide commented

    Could you please let me know what has been proposed for development at 161 englorie park drive Glen Alpine NSW 2560.
    I have been told that it could be a religious Meeting Hall to be constructed within residential area.

  26. In NSW on “...” at, NSW:

    Karenn Solomon commented

    This is concerning the proposed development in Fluorite Place, I am appaulled that the council would consider such a development in such a built up area. We have lived happily here for 30 years now, taking pride in our street. And for Endeavour to come along and distroy the entrance to a highly reguarded and one of the best streets in Eaglevale, well I dont' know what to say. Years ago we saw notification of a substation being built near Eaglevale Pond. The vast vacant area around the pond would not impact on any one and could be hidden by screening plants. But our street the homes would only be a street width away. What are they thinking.??? This isn't even taking into consideration of the resale values in our lovely, well kept street. And the poor people over the road from it, my goodness. All the young families that have recently bought into this street now have to worry about health issues, as do all of us. But the children. I am so in a state of shock at Campbelltown Council for allowing this to take place.

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