Conversion notice never sighted.(refer council mandatory requirements to inform neighbours) prior to and not after commencement of works, plus the removal/dismantling of existing building materials contain Fibro/Asbestos that has been used the original build and internal walls. I have major health concerns that removal of the contamination and polluting materials has not been and continues to be non compliant with health and OHS regulations.
The garage has previously been used as a non compliant residence and has been subject to numerous complaints from neighbours about parked heavy vehicles,cars on the street and on nature strip, plus noise and dumped rubbish.
Council have a duty of care to ensure that this construction and proposed use of the site are within regulations.
All recent comments on applications from Cumberland Council, NSW
I hope there's the requirement for extra off street parking off site. It is becoming more and more difficult to park in Sixth Avenue.
I hope there's the requirement for extra off street parking off site. It is becoming more and more difficult to park in Sixth Avenue.
I would like NO MORE high rise building in this site/area.
We need MORE GREEN than high rise apartment near the park.
Please keep the bowling club or something for the community.
Thank you for reading.
Re: Application DA2020/0207
I wish to lodge a complaint re the proposed development on 95-97 Dahlia St. for a
71 placement Childcare Centre.
This is a residential area and we have numerous Childcare Centres, the newest one
being completed in Hyacinth St. less than 1 km. away.
eg Narrow Hibiscus St. already has a major problem at certain times when mums
drop off and pick up kids from the Learning Centre and Cedary Cafe.
It`s near impossible to safely drive through because of cars parked on both sides.
Do we really need another commercial development in this area?
Please consider our very real concerns.
Demolition of house should follow asbestos remove standards and safety packaging removal.
Enforcement will through council.
This application should certainly not proceed. I grew up in Dan Street and my parents still reside there after some 40 years. We are there several times a week and it is increasingly difficult getting in and out of the street as it is now. Dan St is a narrow cul de sac with one way in and one way out. It is already heavily congested. Introducing a 50+ spot day care centre would have major impact on not only the residents of Dan St but on the traffic flow on Burnett Street in both directions.
As it is now, with cars parked on both sides of the road you constantly have to pull over to allow cars to continue up or down the street. Cars park at the end of Dan Street – right on the edge of Burnett Street (from residents as well as people parking from the tennis courts and football fields- I have previously made complaints via Snap/Send/Solve) - it is extremely dangerous turning in and out of Dan Street. I have had several near misses turning in and out of the street as cars coming the opposite way have nowhere to go, with cars parked on both sides and it is a matter of time before there is a major accident. There has previously been fatalities on the corner of Dan and Burnett Street so council should be well aware of the dangers.
It often can take several minutes to turn right out of Dan Street – or right into Dan Street from Burnett. This means the cars bank up behind you. Please stop and think what would happen if you allowed this to proceed. You could have traffic backed up to Hilltop Road!
Often it is extremely difficult to get in in and out of your own driveway – again introducing more traffic into an already heavily congested spot makes no logical sense.
Where would all the parents park? What happens when the daycare hosts the many functions( Easter/Xmas/ Mothers Day/Fathers Day etc) that occur throughout the year – both parents/grandparents arrive in separate cars. You are now talking about 100-150 cars…trying to park in an already overcrowded narrow residential street with only one way in and out, with only room for 1 car to proceed up or down the street at any one time.
This is certainly not in the best interests of the residents of Dan Street - I urge council to deny this application.
Cumberland Council
Dear Sir / Madam,
Objection re Development Application DA2019/432/1 – 20 Dan Street, Merrylands
I live at 17 Dan Street Merrylands (owner) and would like to lodge an objection to the DA for the childcare centre at 20 Dan Street Merrylands as following:
1.Over the years the number of cars using Dan Street and parking in the street
has increased such that there are difficulties in parking and navigating the
narrow street.
2.The increased traffic due to a 53 place childcare centre will become a serious
traffic hazard affecting pedestrians and resident traffic alike, particularly as
the street is not a through road and the cul-de-sac becomes congested with
turning traffic.
3.This turning traffic will be made worse by the entry and exit to the childcare
parking area under the building.
4.Dan street is so narrow that when cars are parked on either side of the road it
becomes a single lane.
5.Peak time for drop-off and pick-up times of the childcare centre are bound to
coincide with peak resident traffic morning and afternoon.
6.Currently Dan Street is mainly single storey dwellings while the proposed
Childcare centre is in effect a three storey building when the underground
parking is taken into account. This is a gross overdevelopment in a quite
street, totally in violation of the present scale of development.
7.The amenity of the street will be significantly impacted by the increased noise
and air pollution caused by excessive traffic.
8.Wait times to exit and enter Burnett Street at peak times are extensive. Either
turning right into Dan Street from Burnett or turning right into Burnett Street
from Dan Street can take 10-15 minutes at present. The increased traffic
expected with the childcare centre could gridlock Dan Street. Such lengthy
delays are unacceptable.
9.Burnett Street is a major road to and from Parramatta and for the use of the
M4. As such it has continuous traffic in peak times. Serious safety issues have
already been identified. A number of accidents have occurred at the corner
of Dan and Burnett Streets including at least one fatality.
Please consider the residents of Dan Street and reject this ill-conceived development. There must be other areas more suitable for a childcare centre.
Yours faithfully,
Rosa Ventra
I am writing as a owner of 19 Dan Street Merrylands and wish to express my objection to the DA for the childcare centre at 20 Dan Street Merrylands on the following grounds:
• Dan Street is a quiet residential street ending in a cul-de-sac, with predominantly single story dwellings that would be totally overpowered by the scale of the proposed 53 place childcare centre consisting of two stories above underground car parking
• Dan Street is a narrow street which reduces to a single lane of traffic when cars are parked on either side of the street. There is already traffic congestion at certain times of day, primarily morning and evening
• the noise and air pollution caused by the extra traffic to the childcare centre both morning and evening will be excessive
• human nature means that parents will not use the underground parking when they are able to double park to drop off their children, totally congesting the cul-de-sac. I know first hand what happens as I currently live next door to two child care centres in a street which is much more accommodating than Dan Street.
• Burnett Street is a major through road during peak hours which makes it extremely difficult making a right-hand turn into Dan Street and making a right-hand turn from Dan Street into Burnett. There are already delays for residents entering or exiting Dan Street peak times which will be the only compounded by additional traffic
• there has already been at least one fatal accident on the corner of Dan and Burnett Street
Please consider the residents of Dan Street and reject this application
Brian Roughley
I must express my concern with this development proposal with the ability for a small cul-de-sac street to be able to handle the increased amount of traffic that would be encountered with parents coming and going to drop of their children in a street that is already struggling with traffic in the mornings. It would also be even more of a challenge for the garbage trucks to get their trucks around the cul-de-sac when collecting the waste bins which is also a current problem for them.
This proposed development of a Child Care Facility in the small residential Dan Street cul-de-sac is not in the best interests of the residents of Dan Street.
As Dan street residents for 40 years, we cannot stress enough how serious our concerns are about this proposed development and are perplexed how a two-day study can give a true, proper and accurate indication of the specific traffic flow patterns and challenges this cul-de-sac endures.
Figure 6 of the Traffic and Parking Assessment depicting Dan Street and Burnett Street is definitely not what we witness and experience routinely daily.
Our daughter lodged a complaint to Council on our behalf earlier this year citing the dangers residents face due to the repeated infringement of cars street parking on BOTH sides of Dan Street and within a ten-meter distance of the Dan Street/Burnett Street intersection.
We also spoke to Member for Parramatta Ms Julie Owens about this and despite the fact that line marking has been applied to the street indicating an exclusion zone for parking, this has done nothing to eradicate this danger. Residents from Burnett Street and overflow parking from those using the tennis courts and amenities in Burnett Street, continue to park in Dan Street.
The obvious risks and dangers are that one cannot safely enter or exit Dan Street when this practice occurs as entering traffic is faced with only a single lane and car width to travel up the street. As often happens, a car attempting to exit Dan Street is coming the opposite direction creating an impasse for the entering vehicle. This is extremely dangerous as in many instances, entering vehicles are required to break at the Dan Street corner entrance as no available space exists to pull over kerbside due to parked cars occupying the space. The resultant situation is one whereby a vehicle entering Dan Street may have half entered Dan Street yet have half of the vehicle overhanging the northbound Burnett Street laneway and thus representing a potential traffic hazard for the northbound traffic flow on Burnett street which is regular and frequent in volume. I have personally sighted northbound Burnett Street traffic faced with such an encroachment swerve partially and/or fully over the marked centre lines into the southbound Burnett lane to avoid the obstruction which is a highly dangerous practice not to mention illegal.
Conversely, when vehicles are waiting to exit Dan Street onto Burnett Street, one risks being hit by other entering vehicles, again, as there is only a single car with/lane with to enter and exit. Sadly, Dan Street residents have become accustomed to this infringement but the greatest risk if for cars attempting to enter Dan Street who are unfamiliar with this practice occurring within the street. It is worth noting also that cars entering the street tend to do so at unacceptable speed due to the Burnett street speed limit and the volume and traffic that flows on that road being a main route to Parramatta and the M4 on ramp.
Traffic builds up at busy times making exiting the street almost impossible.
You may be aware that a fatality occurred July, 2017, on the corner of Dan & Burnett Streets, with Dan Street being closed offs ago for many hours whilst the emergency services conducted investigations and made safe the intersection.
Noting the proposed use of the premises as a Child Care Facility within this cul-de-sac, it poses the obvious question of how children would be made safe entering a street where such a fatality has occurred and street parking is allowed to continue lest an emergency of this scale occur again?
With many residents parking cars on Dan Street already, where will the overflow of car parking for the Child Care Facility park, especially on days when there is a function? It is worth noting that many of the Dan Street residents are tenants with many family members and vehicles that are parked on the street as the driveways cannot accommodate them.
Physical construction of a Facility such as this in Dan Street would make any resident’s life extremely difficult. There is currently insufficient road width for passenger vehicles let alone large scale and oversized trucks and earth moving equipment to enter the street. It will make it extremely difficult for residents to access their properties.
We compel the Council to consider the facts in respect of the proposal taking into full account the premises and Dan Street conditions as outlined to arrive at a logical and common-sense determination not to approve this application.
As a rate payer, the peace of mind and safety of the residents needs to be considered particularly in light of the tragic loss of life that occurred on this corner.
Ken & Robyn Stafford
Further to my objections to the proposed development at 20 Dan Street. There is no Emergency Evacuation Plan attached to this application.
With 53 children and staff how can the children be safely marshalled on the street as there isnt an area big enough or safe enough at the back of the building structure and in the front only the road and neighboring houses.
Its not good enough for the application to say that a Emergency Evacuation Plan will be prepared prior to the commencement of operations.
There is NO Safe Area to Marshall BABIES and SMALL CHILDREN.
This prosposal cannot be supported in this Street.
There are multiple child care centres that are struggling to meet occupancy demands year after year within 5 kms of this Centre. The traffic is also awful around this area and another Centre would add to more congestion. There is no point allowing another Centre that is going to sit empty. Please look into the need of care for the area and stop allowing new centres to be constructed.
This is NOT something that is required in a small residential street.
This is a narrow street with cars parked on both sides, with passing and exiting from our own driveways challenging. The turning circle where this development is located is small with the 2 townhouses next to 20 parking their cars out from the driveway, although they have parking available on their property, as well as parking on the nature strip.
How can children be dropped off in a safe environment....they can't.... the congestion is not satisfied by the traffic report in the application. The Garbage Trucks also have enormous trouble turning in the circle on pick up days.
Getting into and out of Dan St is a challenge due to the cars parked either side and the traffic in the morning on Burnett St when it can take up to 5 minutes to turn left due to the traffic going up the hill. The same is in the afternoon trying to get into Dan Street.
I have photos of the parking and am willing to provide them .
This cannot proceed!!!! Dan Street is a small, very narrow cul de sac, already suffering under the high volume of residential traffic, and you are looking at putting in this enormous additional development, with considerable additional traffic, at the very top of the street.
Dan Street has many, many near misses and sadly we have suffered fatalities at the street entrance. We have residents from Burnett Street using it as a parking lot, and making the task of turning into and out of Dan Street, onto the very busy Burnett Street, a high risk exercise.
The small, narrow road cannot take this additional traffic and the residents do not want this in such a small, crowded street.
How can this be allowed to progress, when residents are not even able to knock down and re build a town house on an existing block?
I urge the council to consider how the construction of yet another child care centre in Merrylands will affect the community. Noise levels for residents increase, as well as traffic congestion.
Please also consider that there is already an oversupply of child care centres in the area- there is no need to add an addition centre whilst also impacting the living environment for local residents.
Honestly this has become a joke there is aready 4 centres on the street three built one da approved not long ago right across the road Fromm 11 hilltop road its aready crazy with traffic and the street design is looking horrible this will be the fifth centre it’s a beautiful heritage home why destroy the house to put a centre there’s more then enought aready I think it’s time to move street is chatioc and is dangerous as it is
To whom it may concern,
I agree that there is already an oversupply of child care centres in this vicinity who have been pre-existing for many years in less than 1 km of this application.
Traffic is already an absolute nightmare on Verlie street, struggling to get past vehicles parked on both sides of the road for the entirety of the day, having to carefully pull over and wait for vehicles coming the opposite direction to pass.
Most of the population of this area are elderly and the demographic does not meet the requirements of another child care in the area.
I would like to see this application get declined to be approved as use for a child care Centre.
There are already multiple childcare centres in very close proximity to this address. Another childcare is not needed in the area. There is an oversupply already.
Another service will add to traffic congestion especially as it is not a corner block and also be disturbing to neighbours who are living in the quiet street.
Please do not allow this to go ahead.
wow, 6 townhouses, that's a very aggressive development.
You need to complain to Council.
They do not read this forum.
1. The buildings do not follow with Section 6.1(Solar Amenity) of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010.
Shadow diagrams provided by the applicant show the buildings do not meet Section 6.1 Part D2. The new buildings reduce the solar access of adjoining properties and do not allow the stipulated amount of sunlight.
And the north facing windows of neighboring dwellings will have sunlight reduced between 9am and 3pm over a portion of their surface. This contravenes Section 6.1 Part D3.
Unit 1, 2, 3, 4, 3 Stanley Road's backyards will be impacted by this building plan. There won't have enough sunlight for the backyards which will reduce the value of the properties and cause people depression.
2. This new plan will impact on the residents living in unit 1, 2, 3, 4, 3 Stanley Road as the parking is too close to the backyards. And no information provided regarding compliance under Section 5.2 Noise.
The Acoustic Impact Statement is not available for people to review on the Cumberland Council web page.
3. The proposed attic essentially comprises a 3rd storage in contravention of Section 2.4 of the Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 which states a maximum of two storage above ground level.
The attic is much greater height than a typical roof and does not fit the form and appearance of a typical roof above the ceiling line. As much it is more reasonably described as a 3rd storage rather than an attic.
4. Too many townhouses (6) will be built on 1 Stanley Road. There already have many townhouses on Stanley Road Lidcombe and it will directly reduce convenience for people living on this street.
There is already an oversupply in the area. Please consider this before allowing any additional services to be constructed in the area. There is no need for another child care service. The council should focus on the quality of the ones already existing.
As a part of Girraween community, I protest against the construction of Boarding house at 96 Oramazi road.The safety and security of the community will be definitely compromised.Please, do not approve this project.
1. The application involves total demolition of the existing heritage building and destruction of the continuity of the remaining war service homes which have been carefully recognised, promoted and protected by Council.
2. The application includes many false/inconsistent and misleading/misrepresentative statements in an attempt to justify complete heritage demolition of the existing house.
3. The submitted heritage assessment is inadequate for Council's full heritage assessment. For example, by avoiding assessing the existing heritage building which is clearly evident, including visibly from the street.
4. The original building and its original form and configuration, including original roof and floorplan and wall, door and window and door placement, is clearly obvious from the street - both above and through the later front archways. The existing front archways are simply a modification (widening and extension) of the original front porch. Similarly, the existing rear extension is built from the original rear of the building.
5. The existing dwelling at No36 is substantially similar to - for example - No.20 Fullagar Road, and is as significant as every other house in the group.
6. While No.36 has been modified (more than No.20), the modifications do not preclude restoration in future, if desired by the current or future owners.
7. In any event, the original War Service Home building is recognisable, and its heritage is not diminished by the later alterations. If anything, the later alterations (open brick archways, aluminium framed windows, rear extension) are historically notable records of the changing circumstances, needs and architectural fashions after the original occupants moved on. The existing building at No.36 retains its heritage significance, both individually and as part of the group.
7. The dual occupancy of the adjoining No.38 Fullagar Road is a reasonable example of a dual occupancy that retains the heritage War Service home with compatible and appropriate additional development. No.38 is a better example or model for dual occupancy than the current proposal.
8. The current proposal for No 36 is for unreasonable and unjustifiable destruction of significant local and State heritage of the important War Service Homes group. The current development application should be refused.