All recent comments on applications from Inner West Council, NSW

I'm supportive of this development but I would ask Council to please reconsider the original proposal. It is far more practical and will result in two additional homes for people in our great city. This is incredibly important during a housing crisis.

I'm supportive of the development. Would be even better with more homes in it like the original proposal, so more people could be housed. We also don't need so many parking spaces, this is walkable to light rail and in the middle of the high street.

I support this proposal, which brings much needed housing to the area in the midst of a housing crisis, with one reservation regarding accessibility. If I am reading the designs correctly, appears the building itself is not accessible, as there are stairs leading to the main entrance. This could be rectified with a minor design change. I refer you to Action Area 5.4 of the Inner West Council Disability Inclusion Action Plan and 2.4.2.1 of the Operational Plan, in which council must advocate for increased level of accessible housing in development applications including gold or platinum outcome. Otherwise, the inclusion of two three bedroom units means more families with a disabled family member will be able to rent in the Inner West.

I support the removal of these trees, as the arborist has determined these self seeded trees on top of a heritage wall are a threat to life due to the damage they are doing to the stone wall.

Dear council,

Please return this proposal to the original higher number of units, and remove the needless parking requirements. We are in a housing crisis, losing two homes in that context is a poor outcome. The original proposal with more homes and fewer parking spaces represents a better outcome.

Thank you

I am in favour of this application as it adds additional vibrancy to the area.

If it is deemed the trees must be removed for safety reasons, then I request the council replace them with natives that will provide adequate shade and enhance the area.

Having read the Statement of Environmental Effects, please ignore my previous comment. Noted that the arborist report shows the trees present a risk to life, are damaging the quarry wall, and have low landscape retention value. It is critical that trees only be removed when absolutely necessary (eg not for the bus stop at Sydenham per a comment above) but it appears that if the report is accurate then these 8 sadly may need to go.

Trees are precious assets. Removing 8 trees to accommodate a bus is unacceptable.

To the IW Council:
I am horrified at this proposal.

525 Illawarra Road Marrickville NSW 2204 - Removal of eight trees located on or adjacent to the quarry wall.

Please DO NOT remove these eight trees located on or adjacent to the quarry wall. Our suburbs do need the shade, the oxygen, and the protection of the trees. Birds also need trees to survive.

Proposing the removal of trees to accommodate buses is an act of environmental vandalism which should not happen in our municipality.

IW Council: please reject this application forthwith. We must preserve trees and greenery at all costs. These trees have been providing shade and other benefits to the residents and passersby for many, many years. They are the deposits of oxygen, shade, and beauty that our towns need.

Do not destroy, with the stroke of a pen, the blessings that nature gave us and will continue giving us for generations to come.

Please consider the environment. Thank you
Silvia Levame, 29-02-24

Why are these trees being removed? The Council should be more proactive in preserving the tree canopy such as it is in the Inner West - too many developments going to the curb, too many houses with gardens being demolished for buildings that leave no room for trees, too many trees removed unnecessarily such as the 2 old melaleucas on the corner of Burrows Ave & Railway Rd in Sydenham that NSW Transport want to remove for a bus layover that could go in 3 other identified locations.

Please do not remove any trees unless they are being replanted and replaced we need green life in our cement and tar heated streets.

Thank you

I object to this DA. The building is out of scale and out of keeping with the local area.
It will cause increased traffic and congestion, particularly with the only access via a small side street. There is also inadequate parking provisions, which will impact local residents.

I object to this development. My reasons for objection:

1) It is oversized and disproportionate to the area. A four storey building in a 1-2 storey residential area is well out of character and will look obviously so. It
2) It adversely affects privacy and sunlight for neighbouring residents.
2) Increased traffic in an area with already insufficient parking.
3) Lack of green space - this development is devoid of sufficient green space. It will be completely incongrous with the area

I would support this proposed development on the basis of its amenity and character. This development proposes to allow more non-residents to become residents, and amenity and local character preferences of non-residents over their developed or undeveloped local non-residences needs to be acknowledged, as well as those of current residents and heritage residents, in the development assessment of local residential development in a heritage area. As a character, and a resident of the highly developed inner west, I would urge Council to allow the local development of this kind of amenity right to the outer boundaries of inner west residences, which is appropriate and characteristic for highly developed heritage inner-urban areas.

To whom it may concern

I am writing to object to the Development Application for the proposed four storey building at 176 New Canterbury Road, Petersham. I understand the need for additional housing but this proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site and not appropriate for Allans Avenue and will negatively impact the residents of Allans Ave.

My objections are as follows:

1. Height and Scale of Building Excessive for Site - Allans Ave is a residential street with all homes one or two storeys high. The proposed four storey development will have no set back and will tower over the street and neighbours and will be completely out of character.

2. Increased Traffic - Allans Ave is a very narrow street and does not have the capacity for increased traffic from a four unit development at that end of Allans Ave. It would considerably increase the danger to pedestrians and vehicles on the street. Drivers frequently have to reverse back when confronted by a vehicle coming in the opposite direction. We already have issues with some of the businesses in New Canterbury Road double parking or parking in no parking zones at that end of Allans Ave adding to the congestion of the street and making it difficult to enter or exit the street. This proposed development would further exacerbate this problem.

3. Insufficient Parking - The proposal to have only four car parks for 4 units is not adequate. Residents of Allans Ave already have considerable difficulty parking in the street or surrounding streets and the extra vehicles that would come with this proposed development has not been allowed for.

4. Insufficient Waste Bin Area - A development of four units will require twelve waste bins, eight of which will need to placed on the road each week, given that there is no footpath. All waste collection will have to take place on Allans Ave as it is not possible on New Canterbury Road. This will create a hazard and make it difficult for vehicles to travel along Allans Ave.

5. Green space is lacking in this development proposal which is effectively on Allans Ave. This is completely out of character with the street. The proposal is to develop the property to the very boundary on all four sides and remove the existing property’s courtyard area of some 60 square metres, with resultant heat island effects and reduction of amenity of the neighbourhood, and should not be allowed.

I believe this development proposal should not be approved because of the objections outlined above. It proposes an overdevelopment for a site of its size, is incompatible with the character of the street on which it will sit (Allans Ave) and will present numerous problems for the residents of Allans Ave including parking and traffic congestion, danger to pedestrians and motorists and waste collection problems, and it will detract from the amenity of the street.

We appreciate you considering the issues raised.

Regards
Tania Elliott & Peter Shura

I wholeheartedly support this development application, as a long term resident of New Canterbury Rd. We are in a housing crisis and a modest 4 storey block is exactly what is needed in the area. This proposal matches the character of other blocks built on the corner of New Canterbury Road and Audley Street. As these existing buildings have demonstrated, complaints about traffic and parking in the area are unwarranted.

As a disabled person living in the Inner West LGA, I urge you to adhere to Action Area 5.4 of the Inner West Council Disability Inclusion Action Plan and 2.4.2.1 of the Operational Plan, in which council must advocate for an increased level of liveable housing in development assessment considerations including with a gold or platinum outcome.

The need for housing is far more urgent than any quibbles about character or traffic, especially for disabled people

I support this development in Petersham. As a local resident more low density housing of this nature is desperately needed, and a four story development balances the need for maintaining character on the street with larger developments.

This is a modest development by any design and the allowance for ten bedrooms - shifting away from the dominance of 1 bedroom apartments in the inner west - is another huge plus, larger apartments are the push we need.

We are in then middle of a housing crisis at the moment, I urge the council to approve the development.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to object to the development application for a proposed four-story building at 176 New Canterbury Rd, on the corner of Allans Ave in Petersham.

While the application’s address is on New Canterbury Rd, its façade and entry points are on Allans Ave, which will be most affected by the development.

I live on Morgan St, directly opposite Allans Ave. I never drive on Allans Ave, because it is a tiny, narrow, dog-leg street, and car access is difficult, so I leave it to the residents though I walk up and down it frequently en route to the station or shops.

Most of the houses on Allans Ave are single-storey, with a handful of two-storey dwellings. The street is like a quaint back lane. A four-storey building would be wildly out of scale and character with the existing low-rise streetscape and would completely dominate the surrounding buildings.

As mentioned above, parking and driving on Allans Ave is already difficult. On Morgan St, where I live, parking is also at a premium, with spillover from residents of other nearby streets making it often difficult to find a park. The proposed four-unit, 10-bedroom development allows for only four parking spaces. This is clearly insufficient for the number of residents and vehicles that will be attached to the property and will only exacerbate the existing congestion issues.

I note that letters of support for the development appear to come from people who are not residents of the immediate area. I absolutely support increases in urban density. However, these changes need to be made with consideration to existing residents and streetscapes.

I therefore ask you to consider the proposal in that context.

Thank you
Fiona Gillies
Morgan St, Petersham

I support this proposal. It is modest at 4 stories, and provides some much needed additional housing during a housing crisis.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I am writing to object to the Development Application for the proposed four storey building at 176 New Canterbury Road, Petersham. My objections are as follows:

1) Although the address of the building is on New Canterbury Road, there is no entry to it from that address, rather the building’s facade is on Allans Ave and all entry to it (including vehicular) is on Allans Ave, where it will have its major impact. It is essentially a development on Allans Ave with an address on New Canterbury Road and I believe Council should treat it as such.

2) Allans Ave is a residential street with twenty six houses, almost all in Victorian and Federation styles, and one or two storeys high. Where later upper storey extensions have been built they are set back from the street to preserve the character of the street. The proposed four storey development will have no set back and will tower over the street and be completely out of character with the it. I believe this contravenes the building height controls which apply to Allans Ave while the size / scale is well outside the bounds of appropriate development on Allans Ave.

3) The increased traffic from a four unit development at that end of Allans Ave will considerably increase the danger to pedestrians on the street. The boundary of the proposed development is situated immediately on the edge of the road in the narrow part of Allans Ave i.e. that section between New Canterbury Rod and the dogleg bend at 25 Allans Ave. There is no footpath on that side of the road, and a very narrow one (a ledge) on the other, so that pedestrians have to walk on the road on that part of the street as they go to and from New Canterbury Road. Vehicles entering and leaving an underground car park with no visibility straight onto the road will present a considerable hazard to pedestrians who have no choice but to walk on the road.

Allans Ave is a narrow street - there is no room for vehicles to overtake or pass. Drivers frequently have to reverse when confronted by a vehicle coming in the opposite direction. A multi vehicle car park in this position with no visibility on exit presents considerable dangers to pedestrians as well as motorists and will create ongoing inconvenience for traffic in both directions. Residents have long been opposed to making Allans Ave a one way street.

4) Parking is an important amenity for the residents of Allans Ave that is threatened by this proposed development. The proposal to have a four car car park in a development with four units means that the cars that cannot fit into the car park will park on the street, along with those of visitors, tradesmen etc. Residents of Allans Ave already have considerable difficulty parking in the street which is also used by commuters, shoppers, frequenters of the pub in New Canterbury Road, etc - every other street between Allans Ave and Lewisham Station has parking restrictions, and there is no parking on New Canterbury Road for the residents of this proposed development, even though that will be their address.

5) Waste servicing for the proposed development has not been considered in this application. A development of four units will require twelve waste bins, eight of which will need to placed on the road each week, given that there is no footpath. All waste collection will have to take place on Allans Ave as it is not possible on New Canterbury Road. It is inappropriate and unfair for a proposed property development on Canterbury Road to regard it as convenient to take up parking and road space in Allans Ave for their waste collection because they have not allowed for it.

6) Visual Privacy requirements have not been met with this development proposal.. Because there is no setback from the road for the balconies and there is no footpath to provide a buffer, balconies will be no further than 350 mm from passing traffic and pedestrians.

7) Green space is lacking in this development proposal which is effectively on Allans Ave despite its address being on New Canterbury Road. This is completely out of character with the street. The proposal is to develop the property to the very boundary on all four sides and remove the existing property’s courtyard area of some 60 square metres, with resultant heat island effects and reduction of amenity of the neighbourhood, and should not be allowed.

I believe this development proposal should not be approved because of the objections outlined above. It proposes an overdevelopment for a site of its size, is incompatible with the character of the street on which it will sit (Allans Ave) and will present numerous problems for the residents of Allans Ave including parking and traffic congestion, danger to pedestrians and motorists and waste collection problems, and it will detract from the amenity of the street.

Thank you for considering the issues raised,

June Simpson

Would council grant a higher FSR? This would be positive for a growing family in Balmain if they could gain a bit more space.

To Whom It May Concern,

I request that this DA be rejected and revised in accordance to the following points;

1. Destroys Allans Avenue's character:
Allans Avenue is comprised of low-rise residential houses, with most buildings being either one or two stories. A four-story building would be visually eye sore and out of scale with the existing streetscape. The proposal contradicts the established urban design of Allans Avenue, of all existing single-story or set-back second-story dwellings that maintains a low-rise character. The size and scale of this DA will damage the unique and historic charm of the avenue.

2. Inadequate parking provisions:
The proposed 4 parking spaces, which is grossly inadequate compared to the potential number of residents and vehicles using the property. Allans Avenue already experiences parking congestion and traffic management challenges as a two-way street with parking on both sides, but room for only one car at a time. This development will exacerbate these issues, leading to increased competition for street parking, potential spillover onto surrounding streets and increased congestion.

3. Lack of green space: Buildings in Allans Avenue are subject to maximum floor space ratios which ensure adequate green space is provided for residents and the environment. This development proposal lacks adequate, distributed green space, which is out of character with the street and the established FSR regulations and depriving future residents of access to vital outdoor areas. The absence of green space will contribute to urban heat island effects and reduce the overall amenity of the development.

This DA’s scale, design, lack of adequate parking and green space offends and damages the established character and needs of the neighborhood. Approving this application would set a dangerous precedent and threaten the unique amenity of Allans Avenue.

Do not proceed with this DA.

Thank you,

Karen

I am writing to express my strong support for this application.

The proposed plans are of high quality and the building will contribute positively to the streetscape and amenity of the area.

It is in line with both federal and state govt initiatives to build many new homes in 5 years in transport appropriate areas that already have infrastructure and suitable amenities .

I ask that you approve it as quickly as possible.