Recent comments on applications from Canterbury-Bankstown Council (Canterbury), NSW

  1. In Riverwood NSW on “Unauthorised work deck and...” at 82 Hannans Road, Riverwood NSW:

    concerned neighbour commented

    Just checking if this is allowed now as its being done again next door to their back verandah.

  2. In Earlwood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 4 Pomroy Avenue, Earlwood NSW:

    Rena S commented

    Pomroy Ave is a small cul-de-sac with one lane traffic, the street is so small that the garbage trucks have to reverse in because they can’t make U-turn, on garbage day we have to get all the cars out of the street for collection to happen. We have parking problems already from the townhouse visitors next door, in addition they park so bad sometimes we can’t enter our street.
    Council approved a DA for two three bedroom duplexes with one car garages.
    ( no one has one car per family anymore).

    Also because Earlwood is built on a cliff any drilling below ground causes our houses to crack with my garage floor collapsing from the prior approved construction of units behind us.

    The only way we can stop construction is by going to court, which is a financial burden for residents on the street. There is no accountability for poor decisions made (council members don’t live on the street, so who cares right?)

    Residents on the street weren’t notified also of the application, when residents found out about it and signed a petition, the response from council was sent to a resident half a kilometre away and not to the residents of the small street.

    When I spoke to council about not receiving a response and it’s disrespectful as we are the neighbours they told me that sending the response to someone who doesn’t live on the street is them being transparent.

  3. In Earlwood NSW on “Construction of an attached...” at 32 Undercliffe Road, Earlwood NSW:

    Mr Adam Joseph commented

    This site is currently being investigated by DPIE NSW for potential naming as an "Aboriginal place".

    The Department has received formal notification by Ms Chantell Haines that the site includes caves of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, and residential dwelling construction on the site should cease while the authorities properly investigate this claim.

    Council should discuss this DA as a matter of urgency with Ms Jody Orcher of DPIE, Jody.Orcher@bgcp.nsw.gov.au or by phone on 0472 820 852

  4. In Belfield NSW on “Single dwelling” at 52 Bruce Avenue, Belfield NSW:

    Iksoo Lee commented

    I am writing re the original DA (Application No: WP-CPTD-64/2019, Property No.452696, at 52 Bruce Ave Belfield NSW 2191), approved as at 06/03/2019.
    Just to ensure that I do not miss any amendment to the original DA I'd like to request you to kindly respond to the followings;

    (1) Could you please advise if there has been any amendment in the area of the "garage metal roofing" as marked in the original DA ?
    (2) Could you please advise in future if/when any amendment application is lodged in relation to the exterior of the new building?

  5. In Lakemba NSW on “Part demolition of existing...” at 78 Quigg Street South, Lakemba NSW:

    Enza commented

    I’m with you guys who have commented. Your comments correct. Nothing has changed with Canterbury council except their amalgamation, with Bankstown, (which I think is stupid, as I am On kingsgrove/Beverly Hills side, and have nothing whatsoever to do with Bankstown. ) they will do what they like, don’t listen or care about their ratepayers. Quigg street residents, I wish you luck, but from previous experience , council does what they want. We must be polite with comments, so I need to stop here. Good luck residents......

  6. In Lakemba NSW on “Part demolition of existing...” at 78 Quigg Street South, Lakemba NSW:

    Paul commented

    I object because of the following:

    I have a physical disability and one day I was fined for parking on the footpath grass are due to lack of parking on that day

  7. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of all exising...” at 680 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    C. Jones commented

    I object to this application because a boarding house is not suitable for this residential area as the appropriate infrastructure to properly support this type of building is not there including healthcare services, hospitals, policing etc. I feel that this is just an opportunistic development to make as much money for developers and does not take into consideration the socio-economic impact it will have on the area.

  8. In Ashbury NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 71 Hay Street, Ashbury NSW:

    Marie Healy commented

    Thankyou for the opportunity to respond to this proposal.
    The suburb of Ashbury sits within a Heritage Conservation Area. This house is surrounded by mainly single-storey bungalow-style homes. Buying, and living, within a HCA presumes that the owner accepts building restrictions so that the streetscapes and houses within it sit in harmony with the predominant heritage style of the area.
    The house to be demolished, while having undergone unsympathetic renovations in the past, still maintains its basic bungalow structure and form. It is single-storey, has as a front verandah, a pitched roof with chimney and a simply-decorated front gable.
    I oppose its demolition unless suitable plans are put forward that will improve this sites harmony with the local character.
    Marie Healy

  9. In Campsie NSW on “Section 4.55 (1A) - to...” at 9 Elizabeth Street, Campsie NSW:

    Natalie Cain commented

    Residing in Elizabeth Street for more than 20 years, I have been able to experience first-hand the lack of disrespect that Marco Polo Foods at No.9 Elizabeth Street has for compliance, Council and the local community.
    Previous complaints to council include:
    • accessing the property at all hours 24/7
    • ongoing noise issues from containers accessing the property
    • no response from Council with regards to receipting deliveries prior to 7am
    • painting yellow markings on the road without Roads & Maritime Service or Council permission
    These complaints have been made in person at the Campsie Customer Service Centre, over the phone and via email. Unfortunately follow-up has been inconsistent or non-existent. When personally following up on a complaint I have been told that there is no record of the original complaint, and/or the staff member who took the original complaint no longer works there. Even when advised I will receive a call back from a Liaison Officer, Ranger, or Environmental Health Officer, no call eventuated.
    My main concern with allowing a change to operating hours is the disruption to the street community. Huge trucks hauling shipping containers are already a regular feature during the night, disturbing myself, children and neighbours. Not in the last 10 years have we had one night of uninterrupted sleep. It is so bad of late that we have had visits from residents in neighbouring Chelmsford Avenue requesting information as to the source of the noise so they could make their own complaints.
    The noise begins as soon as a truck enters the street, some even remain double parked in the street for some time before deciding to undertake the long reversal into the No.9 loading dock. Once within the property is can take a truck between 10-20 minutes for a container to be completely unloaded. Even though my house is not directly opposite the property the reverberations can be felt throughout my house. The ground shakes under the sheer weight of the container crashing to the ground. To add insult to injury the truck drivers usually rev their engines for some time before making an extremely noisy and hasty exit.
    In changing the operating hours to 5am – 6pm Monday to Friday, you are simply creating a greater window of compliance for Marco Polo Foods, you are not granting them permission to operate within those hours as they will NEVER operate within the hours. They will never listen to Council and they will never respect their residential neighbours.

  10. In Lakemba NSW on “Proposed detached outbuilding” at 78B Chalmers Street, Lakemba NSW:

    Joe Black commented

    its come to our attention that this type of descriptive proposal seems to cluster and this is unspecific to any area but please take into account any unnecessary common application being submitted within a local radius were it is know for please to submit application and then hence create menace and havoc for local community seeking less traffic in the area

    Hi Team,

    Please note hat the description of out building is very open ended. The proposal incites that the application should state what this said building, will be in use for : is it for water ::works . cooking cleaning living of place of worship/

    please abbreviate or include specifications of who. what: where". how, and why in each application of out building proposal.
    With Thanks
    concerned resident of local community

    On the application: 78A Chalmers Street, Lakemba NSW (DA-35/2019)

  11. In Lakemba NSW on “Proposed detached outbuilding” at 78A Chalmers Street, Lakemba NSW:

    Joe Black commented

    Hi Team,

    Please note hat the description of out building is very open ended. The proposal incites that the application should state what this said building, will be in use for : is it for water ::works . cooking cleaning living of place of worship/

    please abbreviate or include specifications of who. what: where". how, and why in each application of out building proposal.
    With Thanks
    concerned resident of local community

  12. In Canterbury NSW on “Installation of a rooftop...” at 73-87 Jeffrey Street, Canterbury NSW:

    Liz Locksley commented

    Hooray for more solar in the Inner West. I support this application.

  13. In Roselands NSW on “Section 96 modification to...” at 37 Ludgate Street, Roselands NSW:

    charlie commented

    we bless this people how there very respectful to our public and parking spaces

  14. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 8 Shackel Avenue, Kingsgrove NSW:

    Adrian Rumiz commented

    The private certification process is failing our community. Based on dwelling to land size there is no way this property meets those guidelines of a 50/50 ratio. It is disappointing that Canterbury Bankstown Council doesn’t stop dwelling been built that clearly exceed these guidelines.

  15. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Freestanding and tables and...” at 4 Crinan Street, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Marie commented

    I support this application. Outside dining is popular in Sydney and attempts to improve social interaction and street life are appreciated.

  16. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Mixed use development” at 590-602 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Rebecca commented

    Is it possible to consider the additional traffic along Duntroon Street with the addition of all the new apartments at the top of the street? Cars are already speeding along the street at ridiculous speed.Some speed humps or something along the street should slow down the traffic and make it a much safer street for all.
    And hopefully the retail premises will be just that, and won't be yet another tax agent/mortgage broker which does not add to the community at all.

  17. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 590-602 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Justin Simon commented

    This is a great idea, Hurlstone Park needs more people.

  18. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Change of use to a self...” at 186-190 Kingsgrove Road, Kingsgrove NSW:

    Margaret Millen commented

    Margaret Millen
    I live at 31 Arinya St. & my property backs onto the yard of 186-190 K. R. Kingsgrove
    For at least 8 years we have been going to Council about the tenants of this property. Our concerns were out of hours work, noice & diesel fumes, but mainly heavy transport vehicles eg. containers, coming right up against the back fences of 23-31 Arinya St. to enter & exit the property. We are supposed to have a buffer zone. But this law has never been enforced for this property. Work has already begun to turn the property into self storage units. How can this happen when Council only received the building application 3 weeks ago? We request that Council look at this DA with our concerns in mind. Thank You.

  19. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Change of use to a self...” at 186-190 Kingsgrove Road, Kingsgrove NSW:

    Margaret Baseley commented

    I am very concerned regarding what will be happening at the rear of 186-190 Kingsgrove Road. My property is immediately behind that property and I am adamant that there must be no large trucks in proximity to my fence.. In the past we have had a lot of trouble with trucks using that property and coming right up against my back fence belching diesel fumes and causing vibrations which led to damage to my property. I have now had the cracks in the rear half of my home repaired, patched and painted and I don't want it to happen again. The trucks used to pass immediately behind my neighbours fences as well as mine and our fences have all suffered as a result. I want to be able to enjoy my backyard, free from fumes, vibrations and noise.

  20. In Punchbowl NSW on “Section 4.55(8) - LAND AND...” at 1552 Canterbury Road, Punchbowl NSW:

    Gabi Petry commented

    I strongly disagree with overdevelopment and overpopulating the suburbs. The infrastructure cannot support the huge increase in people. Our transport system cannot cope with moving all these additional people to and from work. The streets cannot cope with all the additional parking needed for families who have more than two cars. The time it takes to drive along Canterbury road is ridiculous. A 10 minute trip during the morning and evening is now 20 to 30 minutes. This is contributing to road rage and stress. Our hospital services will not be able to cope with the increase of health issues caused by overpopulation. The schools cannot cope with the additional number of students. Overcrowded classrooms will negatively impact our children's learning and development. Our governments and councils should be ashamed of themselves - Neglecting to consider this impact on the local residents and communities. Most intelligent governments ensure the infrastructure is in place before overpopulating an area. Our beautiful Sydney is becoming a high rise concrete jungle with poor services. Our quality of life is deteriorating and we are negatively impacting our environment, not to mention the invasion of privacy - all these building looking into the back of homes - unacceptable. Shame on you. I strongly oppose this and other future developments.

  21. In Canterbury NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 263-267 Canterbury Road, Canterbury NSW:

    Nicole commented

    Canterbury Road has enough apartment blocks for now. The congestion is becoming very obvious, particularly at peak hour when it can take 20 minutes to travel 100 metres.

    There should be a moratorium on all future buildings above 2 stories in Canterbury for the next 30 years. It has had more than its fair share and has become extremely ugly. Why not add some more public facilities and green space to the area? Or at the very least, simply leave it alone.

  22. In Canterbury NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 263-267 Canterbury Road, Canterbury NSW:

    Kate Lumley commented

    I agree that no further developments along Canterbury Road should be approved by Council until:
    -- Canterbury Road traffic management plan has been finalised and implemented
    -- the new LEP is finalised and infrastructure needs (ie open space, schools, hospital upgrade) for Canterbury LGA have funding committed
    Any DA approved along Canterbury Road needs to have adequate set backs and a liveable scale. The monstrosities built near Canterbury Railway Station are totally out of character with what was a low rise area.

  23. In Canterbury NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 263-267 Canterbury Road, Canterbury NSW:

    Michele van der Sander commented

    I would support the previous comments about further development around the Cooks River at Canterbury being shelved until the current concerns being raised at ICAC are resolved and the infrastructure concerns are adequately addressed.

  24. In Canterbury NSW on “Demolish existing...” at 263-267 Canterbury Road, Canterbury NSW:

    Mark Johnson commented

    Dear council,

    previous councillors are currently being investigated by ICAC for approving developments in this area of Canterbury with the view that there was potential corruption. Also, the current State Minister (Environment and Planning) has identified Canterbury as a suburb that may not have the infrastructure capacity to cope with the recent high level of development the councillors mentioned previously have approved for this area.

    Given these areas of concern, I object to any development of this scale until ICAC have completed their review, and the State Minister has deemed this area has the capacity to cope with such projects.

  25. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of all exising...” at 680 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    K Farrell commented

    I object to this application because:
    There is a housing shortage, people need homes not boarding rooms.
    Developers are making a massive profit and not delivering what people need.
    This is not gentrification, it is rich developers demolishing existing homes and places of work to build a structure that will benefit them with maximum profit.
    This development is about developers greed solely.
    Council has already approved countless boarding houses in this area, there is absolutely no shortage of boarding rooms.
    Boarding rooms do not provide a home for anyone, single people without family and most times no pets or car get a small room. This isn’t considering their well-being or future.
    Presently boarding houses in the local area are being used as semi-temporary housing, this isn’t ideal for the community, one of the problems it creates is Ilegal dumping. The footpaths and streets are lined with furniture, clothing and homewares, due to them moving out of area, having too many items and not enough space when they move in and so on.
    It would be if no benefit to people needing a home, the local area, local businesses or residents but the developers would surely benefit a lot.

  26. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of all exising...” at 680 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Kitty F commented

    Boarding houses these days are largely used by university students and other single people who cannot afford to rent anywhere near where they have to study. Considering the housing crisis we have in Sydney, I welcome this development. Frankly, even if it was an old style halfway house, I would welcome that, too. People in need deserve a place to live and shouldn’t be pushed out of traditionally working class areas due to gentrification.

  27. In Hurlstone Park NSW on “Demolition of all exising...” at 680 New Canterbury Road, Hurlstone Park NSW:

    Kathy P commented

    I also agree that this type of boarding house planning is not appropriate for this residential area. There are many elderly living in the area and we fear crime.
    I agree boarding houses should be built close to hospitals for those whom are living in the boarding houses to have easier access to these facilities. There is also no room for cars to accomodate for 60 residents as the building is on the main road and behind it there is a lane that is already congested with traffic from Hurlstone Park rsl.

  28. In Lakemba NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 15 Ernest Street, Lakemba NSW:

    Allan Tate commented

    Good morning, i see that our street is already suffering from major congestion, especially at the northern end with many, many visitors to the islamic centre for payers and numerous secular festivals and celebrations. This leads to duoble parking, parking on footpaths, in driveways and on private property. Traffic congestion and fears of children being hit on the road are real concerns. Adding more and more residents here, opposite the sites mentioned will only further excaserbate the real, present problems. Thank you.

  29. In Kingsgrove NSW on “Section S4.55 (1A) Removal...” at 9 Thomas Street, Kingsgrove NSW:

    B commented

    This appears to be an amendment to DA conditions. Over 30 residents opposed the original application and any changes must address original concerns and issues and must be transparent to local residents.
    This item has been relabelled to generic description on council portal and so unsure if above description is infact related to the request (if the changes are regarding bollards, why relabel?)
    We have been advised we need to speak to the officer assign to get details of the change however the officer is a cadet and although we have called the council to speak to the officer multiple times, we are still waiting for our call to be returned to discuss and understand the changes.

  30. In Earlwood NSW on “Construction of new...” at 7 Dawson Avenue, Earlwood NSW:

    Janet Stankiewicz commented

    Very sad to see such a beautiful house destroyed.

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