All recent comments on applications from City of Canada Bay, NSW

This is a bad proposal of no benefit to the local community and out of keeping with existing surrounding usage. The previous service station served the local community and those who were passing on Lyons Road for fuel and as a convenience store.

The Woolworths proposal will bring more traffic and congestion from outside the area to an already overly busy section of road.

The proposed entry and exit points on the corner of Barney Street are likely to cause problems to other traffic and pedestrians, and of course the residents of Barney and adjacent streets. I doubt that pick up drivers will all follow the neatly laid our entry and exist routes proposed. I also don’t see how the developers would deal with the change of levels from the road to the site at that point.

Woolworths staff are another potential issue - where will they park? There is no provision or room for staff parking on site and expecting that all staff, for ever more, will catch public transport is not tenable. They will park in local streets which are already crowded with the cars of staff and patrons of local eateries and visitors to Scalabrini Village, and of course, local residents. Roads such as Hampden Road near Lyons Road already attract the cars of commuters from further away who drive there to catch city buses.

In summary, as a local resident I consider it an inappropriate development out of keeping with surrounding usage, not just of no benefit to the local community but a significant negative to that community

I oppose the proposal for additional stories to this development.

It's not in line with the character of other lower rise apartments in the area.

Infrastructure and traffic management isn't being addressed appropriately. Cnr Pomeroy and George St is already congested at peak hour.

Consider future developments in the area:
25 George St (174 dwellings)
Rothwell Avenue - Eloura (88 dwellings)
1 King St - Bilbergia (600+ dwellings)

With only one entry/exit point for current residents off George St north of Pomeroy St, it spells trouble and alarming that there is no information on how this will be managed.

I am writing to vehemently oppose the development proposal for 25 George Street, North Strathfield under DA2024/0064. As a resident directly affected by this development, I find it utterly unacceptable due to the severe negative impacts it will impose on our community.

Adding three additional storeys is an egregious violation of our privacy and local ambiance. The proximity and height of the new construction will allow residents in the new units to peer directly into our homes and gardens, destroying the privacy that we currently enjoy. This is a direct assault on the quality of life that we have fought hard to maintain in our neighborhood.

The proposal to reconfigure the basement to add 50 car spaces is a band-aid solution to a much larger problem. This will inevitably lead to a significant increase in noise pollution from construction and post-completion vehicle movements. Our once peaceful neighborhood will be transformed into a hub of unending noise and chaos, completely out of line with the City of Canada Bay's own policies on minimizing noise impacts.

The traffic implications alone are a nightmare. The influx of vehicles from the added residential units will congest our streets, increasing our daily commute times and significantly lowering road safety. This is particularly alarming for the safety of our children and elderly residents. The fact that this could be approved without considering the substantial increase in traffic and pollution is shocking and irresponsible.

Moreover, the sheer audacity to block our cherished public views with an additional three storeys is offensive. These views are not just amenities but are essential qualities that define the character and value of our neighborhood. Your proposal to snatch them away is nothing short of robbery.

I am also appalled at the potential for even worse parking scenarios. With the new additions, finding parking will become a daily struggle, exacerbating stress and reducing the quality of life for all residents.

This development is not just a plan on paper; it threatens to disrupt and permanently damage the fabric of our community. It is clear that this proposal is grossly misaligned with the City of Canada Bay Development Control Plan's objectives to protect and enhance our community.

I urge you, in the strongest terms, to reconsider and ultimately reject this destructive proposal. We expect and demand a decision that respects the well-being and preferences of the community residents.

I am expressing my vehement opposition to the proposed development plan DA2024/0064, which seeks to add an unwarranted five additional storeys to the structures under construction at 25 George Street. This proposal is unacceptable and must be rejected outright for a multitude of pressing reasons.

1. Unmanageable Traffic Congestion: The proposed addition will only worsen the already dire traffic situation at the George St and Pomeroy St intersection. Relying on outdated traffic studies from 2015 and poorly timed site visits does not justify such a significant change. It is evident that the true current traffic conditions have not been adequately considered.

2. Grossly Insufficient Parking: Providing merely 176 parking spaces for 186 units is a recipe for chaos. This will inevitably spill over into overcrowded street parking, exacerbating congestion and possibly leading to hazardous situations.

3. Loss of Privacy and Disruptive Visual Impact: The extra storeys will drastically invade the privacy of existing residents and create a sore thumb in the landscape of our community. Such a towering structure is completely out of place in our predominantly low-rise neighborhood.

4. Increase in Noise and Pollution: More residents and more cars mean more noise and more air pollution. The higher structure will trap and amplify noise, significantly degrading our living environment.

5. Destruction of Community Harmony and Streetscape: This development is too large, too dense, and utterly misaligned with the character of our area. It threatens to fundamentally disrupt the harmony and aesthetic of our community.

6. Serious Building Safety Concerns: There is a genuine fear that adding more floors could compromise the structural integrity of the building. We have seen the disastrous outcomes of such oversight in other developments—risks we cannot afford to repeat here.

7. Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight: The taller building will cast long shadows, depriving neighboring homes and gardens of vital sunlight, especially during the winter months.

This proposal is a clear overreach, likely driven by profit motives without a genuine concern for the impacts on our community. The structural risks and community disruptions it poses are too severe to ignore. We demand that this development be reassessed and ultimately halted to prevent a future blight on our neighborhood and serious risks to its residents.

I am reaching out to convey my reservations and objections regarding the proposed Development Plan DA2024/0064 at 25 George St.

This proposal, which seeks to extend the building by five additional levels beyond the originally approved plan, raises several significant concerns for my family, who reside at Apartment 23A George Street.

Our primary concern revolves around the potential impact on traffic flow in the area. The proposed increase in building height, coupled with inadequate parking provisions, could exacerbate traffic congestion, posing safety risks and inconveniences for local residents such as ourselves.

Additionally, we are deeply troubled by the prospect of the proposed development overshadowing our building, which would result in a diminished quality of life due to reduced natural light and compromised privacy. As long-standing residents, these elements are integral to our residential experience, and we fear that their erosion would significantly detract from our enjoyment of our home.

Moreover, we are apprehensive about the potential adverse effects on the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood and the potential depreciation of property values for surrounding buildings, including our own.

In light of these concerns, we vehemently oppose the proposed Development Plan DA2024/0064 and implore the Canada Bay Council to conduct a thorough evaluation of its implications.

It is imperative that the well-being and interests of existing residents and property owners be given paramount consideration in any decision-making process.

We respectfully urge the council to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the proposed development and to take appropriate measures to address the legitimate concerns voiced by members of the community.

I want to raise a strong objection to the proposed Development Plan DA2024/0064 at 25 George St, which is adjacent to 23A George Street, where I currently live.

The developer's proposal to add five additional levels beyond the originally approved plan is alarming. This significant increase in height raises several issues that deeply concern us as residents and property owners.

The potential impact on traffic is a major worry. With additional levels, and insufficient parking (less than one space per apartment - 176 car spaces for the proposed 186 total apartments), there will likely be an increase of local residents and visitors, leading to a much higher level of traffic congestion in the area. This could lead to safety hazards and would lead to further inconvenience for residents on George St who are already experiencing high levels of traffic.

The proposed development threatens to overshadow our building, resulting in a loss of natural light and privacy for the us occupying the residents of 23A George St. We have a large, private courtyard area that is within six metres of the building, and privacy and sunlight are essential aspects of our living environment. We fear that these will be heavily compromised if the development proceeds as planned.

Furthermore, the increase in height could significantly alter the aesthetic appeal of the area and negatively impact property values for surrounding buildings, including my apartment, and numerous other apartments in the 23A George Street block.

I'd urge the Canada Bay Council to carefully consider the implications of this development. It is crucial to prioritise the well-being and interests of existing residents and property owners in the community.

As a neighbouring resident to this property, I wish to raise my concerns for this application. The impact on street parking and traffic will be noticeable and significant for all residents of this area and would undoubtedly cause disruption. There are event parking restrictions on the street as it is and a growing problem with the build up of vehicles at the Pomeroy St intersection lights in peak hour and school zones.
The privacy, noise, shadowing and aesthetic concerns compound this and make it additionally inconvenient to and to the detriment of neighbours. Considering the existing inconvenience and hazards being presented and tolerated during the construction works, this feels inappropriate. Please reconsider.

I'm a resident of 23A George St. The overshadowing from this project really concerns me. The shadow diagram from Urban property shows that during the days in mid winter, most of the outdoor public area of 23A will be cast in shade by the three massive apartment buildings at 25 George St. This situation isn't good as we need sunlight for outdoor activities especially for our kids and elderly.

I think this is neat 👍 good to see the land near the train station better utilised. Very appropriate to see increased density as metro will be available south of this site eventually.

The area should already have more density seeing as its sandwiched between 2 stations so this density is long over due

I’d like to lodge my strong objection to DA2024/0064. The developer Urban Property is attempting to add an additional 3 stories to the street-facing building and one extra 1 level to the other 2 buildings. This would result in 41 more units to this already high-density complex.
The expansion will lead to a complex with scale and density significantly exceeding that of surrounding properties, the drastically increased population which will inevitably have adverse effects on the entire surrounding neighbourhood.
As George Street is only one way out, the intersection of George St and Pomeroy St will face deadlock due to drastically increased traffic, especially during business hours. It takes 15mins more just try to make out of George Street onto Pomeroy St, no matter you want to turn right, left or go straight, sometime the traffic will line up 600m far, reaches Conway Ave roundabout.
With No1 King Street business(400 users+ )was rent out and re-open soon and the completion of 80 unit+ on DA2019/0160 at Rothwell Street in finishing, I can only see this gets worse, and it will for all the residents on George Street, experience longer delays out of acceptance with no foreseeable plan to upgrade the infrastructure.
Also, George St will be overcrowded with cars parked on the street with insufficient parking space from this Project. So please consider the feelings of our community. we need prevent the developer from jeopardise our community and ignore our voice, only targeting to maximize their own profit.

I'm here to raise my objection to this proposal, the expansion will leads to a complex with scale and density significantly exceeding that of surrounding properties, the
drastically increased population which will inevitably have adverse effects on the entire surrounding neighborhood.
The intersection of George St and Pomeroy St will likely face deadlock due to drastically increased traffic with no foreseeable plan to upgrade the infrastructure. George St will be overcrowded with cars parked on the street with insufficient
parking space from this Project. other concerns including loss of Privacy, Overshadow and Visual Impact to the surrounding buildings / Increased Noise and Pollution / Disruption to Community Harmony and Streetscape / Plus concerns about Building Defects since the developer wants to stack the additional levels on top of the foundation that has been built already.

I raise concerns at the late change to the development proposal adding a considerable number of new units to an already high-density development. I question the structural integrity of the building adding so many more units when the foundation has already been built and laid for a lower number of units.
The current Pomeroy/George St intersection is currently the only roadway into and out of this section of North Strathfield/Concord West, west of the train line. The stretch north of this intersection is already crowded with existing blocks of apartments. This already suffers from heavy congestion during peak hours and it is not uncommon to have cars backed up George St all the way to number 25. With the addition of 186 new units, plus the new development taking place on Rothwell Avenue, the street traffic and parking will become disastrous and all residents, visitors and business owners in this area will be negatively affected.
The proximity to the boundary line and height of proposed new floors will completely overshadow the shared facilities and gardens of neighbouring block 23A, with a blocked outlook, common grounds in shadow, and effectively an echo wall affecting quality of life for residents.

I reside in a unit at 23 George St, situated adjacent to the newly developed building currently under construction. Our daily view includes observing the ongoing construction work through our windows. The recent proposal to add 1-3 additional storeys to all three buildings has come as quite a shock. Despite the completion of the basements some time ago, it's perplexing how the development plan could be altered after the foundation work has been completed.

Initially, our primary concern with the original plan revolved around potential sunlight deprivation. We conducted multiple overshadow simulations, and while the results barely met the minimal requirement, the addition of three extra storeys would cast us in shadow 24/7, 365 days a year. This prospect is deeply troubling to us, and we urge against its implementation.

Furthermore, the issue of traffic congestion is a significant concern. George Street serves as the sole ingress and egress route, with no alternative exits available. The street is already heavily congested during peak hours and weekends, exacerbated by ongoing construction projects in the vicinity.

This development is too high at present. To add 3 more floors and not increase parking is going to add more street parking on an already congested street. George street is already congested with traffic. There is no other way to get into or out of Concord West to the west of the railway. Please do not allow this to go ahead.

I raise concern over this amendment proposal which is to add 1-3 additional storeys across all three buildings. As Council should be aware and can see onsite, the basement has already been completed, with works already started on the above ground storeys with scaffolding in place. Presumably these works were underway based on the previously approved scheme, which had less apartments and storeys.

The increase in housing density as a need is understandable, but trying to activate extra units when the project is already well underway, raises strong concerns as to whether what is already built can support the weight of the new storeys, and whether it can be confidently signed off as structurally sound and safe.

Particularly in light of the press articles about Opal Towers, Mascot Towers and with Council taking on the affordable housing units post completion, the onus will be on Council to ensure whether the addition of more units can be safely done if they approve this amendment, so that residents can be safely assured and our council rates are not spent on fixing defects.

As to traffic concerns raised by other submissions already, this is echoed. I point out that the Traffic Impact Statement refers to the “most recent traffic surveys” completed in 2015, with site visits in October 2019. Thus the data is likely to be outdated, given there is significantly more traffic volume around George/Pomeroy and Underwood Road. The intersection works from the Victoria Avenue Public School DA are also cited as “are yet to be completed”, and with the addition of more density around the area, this will further exacerbate traffic issues given there have been no infrastructure upgrade works completed.

Pasquale (Lino) Caccavo
A well considered and noted response to key issues that address Woolworths selling points in their planning application.
I don't see or believe this development creates or delivers any "must have/nice to have" service to the immediate community. I base my opinion on the limitation of a service and stock available to walk up "local customers" , particularly the elderly or children.
What I do see is a Woolworths benefit that greatly improves their existing home delivery vehicles pickup away from stores that are predominately setup to receive stock and service walk in customers. I predict light commercial vehicle traffic will dominate the comings and goings at the site and the planning application should be addressed as a "Distribution Centre" in an E1 planning zone. An E1 zoning is intended for local neighbourhood sevices. Hmm

It is noted that the transport study in support of the application was dated September 2022. This is before the Rozelle interchange opened.

It is also noted that the recent parliamentary enquiry into the difficulties the Rozelle interchange created for both local and state roads in Drummoyne. In particular, the comments made by Mayor Michael Megna and Local Member for Drummoyne Stephanie Di Pasqua MP 's are taken into account upon making an assessment on behalf of our community.

The following comments are also made:

1. The transport study prepared by JMT Consulting is updated to: (a) take into account revised current traffic flows and journey times the traffic issues that plague Lyons road and surrounding streets in this area; (b) satisfy council that the local road systems including Bowman, Janel, Mary, Millar, Polding, Plunket and Gipps street will not be further impacted as a result of this proposal; and (c) takes into account the additional parking pressures put on local streets resulting from Frango's (corner Lyons Road and Barney Street) and the Scalabrini Village (who appear to discourage visitors from using their underground visitor parking).

2. The proposal places a heavy load on the intersection of Barney and Lyons Road. utilisation of the site in this way will congest that intersection at peak times and when the local businesses (Frango's etc) are operating at their peak operating times.

3. The proposed access/egress arrangements from Barney Street are complicated and offers a high degree of potential for vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian/cyclist accidents. How will council condition any approval to alleviate these risks?
Council considers the introduction of a no right hand turn from Barney Street to Lyons Road and from Lyons Road into Barney Street.

3. JMT's report (section 3.3) relies upon Woolworths on estimate of site utilisation (800-100) vehicles per day. JMT's report makes no attempt to verify the estimates. Council must assure community those estimates are both factual and reliable.

4. Section 4.2 of JMT's report predicts approach routes. All these approaches are narrow and congested. They all have cars parked along them for most of every single day. Placing more non-residential demand on these narrow roads, on top of the congested Rozelle Interchange induced rat runs is an unfair burden to place on local residents.

5. JMT's reliance on an "...excellent connectivity to the surrounding public transport
network, including bus stops on Lyons Road which is located approximately
50m from the site which provide access to a range of local and regional bus
services" is an irrelevant statement for a development application that is 100% reliant private vehicles. The statement should be struck from the report.

6. The traffic management system of heavy vehicles entering the site from Lyons Road is not detailed. There has been no attempt to address the conflicts generated by the intensified use of the Lyons Road/Barney Street intersection. Further, left unaddressed, this will push further local traffic demand onto the dangerous intersection of Millar Street and Lyons Road. The proposal must address the further impacts this development will place on this intersection.

7. The JMT comment that "the proposal would generate 760 fewer traffic movements per day compared to when the site operated as a Caltex service station" cannot be relied upon as the JMT report accepts Woolworths own estimate of traffic flows/demand. Further, the report also fails to address the traffic flows in the local streets that exited for Caltex. Without Furter modelling it is entirely within reason to forecast that local street will carry far mor traffic loads from the proposed use of the site than the Caltex service station would have generate.

I hope that council will be able to take these comments into its account on the assessment of this development application.

I’m a local resident and would recommend a metro supermarket with as much parking spots as possible (ie excavation). I am opposed to the ‘boot pick up’ / distribution aspects of this proposal. The impact of this on an already congested section of Lyons Rd would be intolerable to local residents, and the already impeded traffic flow on Lyons Rd between Barry St and Hampton Rd

This isn’t an actual supermarket. That would make sense.its a proposal for a distribution hub .so more cars out of area picking up groceries which could be delivered directly by Woolies anyway.Trucks, lorries, more cars , it’s a mini warehouse. Illogical and in no way benefits local shoppers or adds to retail diversity .Yes to a competitively priced local supermarket, NO to this proposal .

We do not need or want this proposal. There is already enough congestion along Lyons Road now without adding a Woolworths collection facility to add to it. This is of no benefit to the local community. A small Woolworths Metro supermarket would be of greater use by the locals.

Residents should also be aware that the Developer of units in Rothwell Ave have applied for a 20% height variation. Not sure of the number of additional units this is, but as Kate Campbell has noted, the traffic is already at capacity at peak times and weekends.

Correction - this site is not currently residential. The concerns in relation to the traffic and the interference to the local area are all that I ask council to consider. Thank you

The concern I raise in demolishing housing and replacing it with industrial (68) units is multifaceted. Firstly to demolish the current townhouses is in contrast to the current NSW State Planning policy of housing in and around transport hubs such as Concord West Train station.

Further a 68-unit industrial site would increase the road traffic, particularly at peak times. There is already considerable congestion and delays at the Pomeroy St x George St North Strathfield intersections, particularly at peak drop off and pick up time to McDonald College and OLA schools at the same corner, and with traffic entering leaving George St for the Victoria Ave public school. As council is well aware George St north of Pomeroy St is a one road in, one road out peninsula. There are no alternative routes out of the peninsula area. Traffic studies that have been conducted are out of date, or concerningly were conducted during school holiday period, providing a false narrative of the actual traffic issues. It is compounded when there is an event at SOP, as the Underwood Rd roundabout cannot cope with the congestion which leads to congestion further down at Pomeroy St and back up to George St and Concord Rd.

Finally, an industrial precinct of that size would interfere with the suburban landscape of that area of Concord West with likely increases in noise and pollution.

The concern I raise in increasing the number of units, thus number of occupants is an increase in the road traffic. There is already considerable congestion and delays at the Pomeroy St x George St North Strathfield intersections, particularly at peak drop off and pick up time to McDonald College and OLA schools at the same corner, and with traffic entering leaving George St for the Victoria Ave public school. As council is well aware George St north of Pomeroy St is a one road in, one road out peninsula. There are no alternative routes out of the peninsula area. Traffic studies that have been conducted are out of date, or concerningly were conducted during school holiday period, providing a false narrative of the actual traffic issues. It is compounded when there is an event at SOP, as the Underwood Rd roundabout cannot cope with the congestion which leads to congestion further down at Pomeroy St and back up to George St and Concord Rd.

If this is for the removal of 23 trees then that is a great number of trees to be removed reducing shade, and habitat. Until the details are posted though I acknowledge it is hard tomake a full comment. Please update when the detailed application and detail of all trees to be removed is available.