54 Canberra Street, Oxley Park NSW 2760

Description
Demolition of Existing Structures and Construction of Multi Dwelling Housing consisting of 5 Dwellings and Strata Subdivision
Planning Authority
Penrith City Council
View source
Reference number
DA21/0992
Date sourced
We found this application on the planning authority's website on , about 3 years ago. It was received by them earlier.
Notified
137 people were notified of this application via Planning Alerts email alerts
Comments
2 comments made here on Planning Alerts

Save this search as an email alert?

Create an account or sign in.

It only takes a moment.

Public comments on this application

2

Comments made here were sent to Penrith City Council. Add your own comment.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal will dominate the surrounds and not respond positively to the surrounding context.

The colours and materials of external finishes to the structures within the proposal will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The proposal will involve an unacceptable removal of environmentally significant vegetation and fails to contemplate maintaining sufficient vegetation of the indigenous ecological vegetation class.

The scale of the proposal and lack of sufficient setbacks exclude the opportunity for meaningful landscaping that is consistent with neighbourhood character and responds positively to the surrounding context.

The scale, bulk and lack of landscaping including provision of canopy trees contribute to a lack of integration of the built form with the surrounding context.

The intensity of use of the proposal will respond negatively to the surrounding context.

Insufficient information has been provided regarding solar access modelling according to the structure orientation and spring equinox.

The proposal will create excessive visual bulk and fails to respond to the offsite amenity of the surrounds, especially land adjacent to the site's Southern boundary.

The scale and lack of sufficient setbacks create excessive domination and visual bulk along with unacceptable southern overshadowing impacts.

The extent of impermeable paving within the proposal will create unacceptable inundation risks of the surrounds, and increase velocity and volume of overland water flows.

The lack of articulation between ground and upper levels of the proposed structures will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The lack of proper parking provision for occupants and visitors will unacceptably impact upon the amenity of the surrounds.

The surrounds consist predominantly of detached homes on allotments exceeding 500m² with some loft style townhouses.

As is, the proposal is an inappropriate planning outcome without increased community and environmental benefits exceeding the minimum standard outcomes. I submit the Responsibile Authority should refuse consent or approve only with conditions. I propose these consent conditions:

That each dwellings water tank capacity be a minimum of 3000 litres based on annual precipitation data and bedroom numbers;

That each alternative water system provide water from the water tank to the laundry fixtures;

That each dwelling have an alternative energy system provided, with a photovoltaic generation system with peak output that exceeds 6kW;

That each dwelling roofs be reoriented to maximise solar gain of any current or future alternative energy systems which operate by way of photovoltaic panels;

That upper level ceiling heights be increased to 2700mm, ceiling fans fitted, and window sill heights not be above 1200mm;

That the EER of any air-conditioning device fitted be increased to a minimum of 4.0;

That only solar gas boosted or heat pump hot water systems be fitted;

That wall insulation values be increased to R3.0;

That ceiling insulation values be increased to R5.0;

That at least one parking bay associated with each occupancy be made ready for electric vehicle charging with a 7kW dedicated circuit and a charging point installed;
That each dwelling must be provided with a television antenna erected suitable to receive all television channels usually broadcast in the area;

That roof space be ventilated by a combination of louvred label fitted to gables and eaves and mechanical device fitted close to ridgeline and maintained and replaced as required to the satisfaction of the Responsibile Authority;

That outdoor clothes drying areas be oriented to achieve maximum solar gain according to diagrams submitted by the applicant modelled according to the spring equinox;

That crossovers and driveways throughout not exceed a grade of 1 in 40;

That the number of dwellings within be reduced from five (5) to four (4) and a minimum of two (2) visitor parking bays be provided and properly maintained as a condition of consent;

That paved footpath be constructed upon the southern side of Canberra Street, integrated with crossovers at applicant's cost to be completed before any occupation certificate granted;
Driveways not be constructed above natural ground level;

Driveways be designed so that precipitation is directed into stormwater detention tanks and not onto the crossover;

Grates for stormwater drains be fitted with mesh that has gaps not exceeding 10mm in order to prevent entry of litter and pollutants;

That future occupants be forbidden by the planning approval and any strata scheme bylaws, from washing, with any soaps detergents or chemicals, upon the driveway and crossover pavement, any bins, boats, trailers and motor vehicles;

That no future owner within may pave their courtyard, alter its ground level, excavate, deposit fill, erect retaining walls;

or erect a patio covering more than 25% of its area, without comprehensive supporting documentation and a requirement to apply for planning approval;

That the bin storage area be fitted with roof and walls and lockable gate, to prevent birds accessing and rummaging in the bins before any occupation certificate granted;

Visitors parking bays be marked by suitable signage before any occupation certificate granted;

Driveway and external lighting meet Australian standards and be oriented to avoid glare and spill beyond its target area;
That all future occupants have access to a complete waste service including food/organic, recycling and residual rubbish bins;

Paved areas in court yards not be constructed above natural ground level except as those shown on the plans accompanying the current Development Application;

All redundant vehicle access points must reinstate the kerb and not use rollover kerb;

No double crossovers be constructed;

Applicant must remove redundant paved crossovers and fill with soil and grass so appearance is integrated with whole Frontage;

Applicant to build concrete footpath on eastern side of Pages Road;

No footpath or crossover Grade to exceed 1 in 40;

Additional fire hydrants installed as required on site or in the footpath so that no part of each lot is more than 25 metres from any fire hydrant;

All works to be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Shauna-Marie Wilson
Delivered to Penrith City Council

I wish to add to my Objection submitted in respect of the above proposal and in doing so, respond to relevant local planning instruments:

The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of State Environmental Planning
Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
­ The proposal is non ­compliant with Part 2, New affordable rental housing, Division 1 In­fill affordable
housing, Clause 14 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent of the State Environmental Planning
Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, specifically (1e) solar access. Clause 15 Design Requirements and
Clause 16A Character of the local area (the development is considered to be incompatible with the desired
future character of the local area).
Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010
(i) Clause 1.2 Aims of the Plan
­ The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of the plan in relation to the provision of orderly and economic
development, promotion of development consistent with Council's vision for Penrith, the safeguarding of
residential amenity, risk to human life and property, and ensuring development incorporates the principles of
sustainable development.
(ii) Clause 2.3 Zone Objectives ­ The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density
Residential zone, specifically:
­ The proposed townhouse development does not demonstrate that it enhances the essential character and
identity of the established residential area;
­ The proposed townhouse development does not ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved
and maintained; and
­ The proposed townhouse development does not ensure that the development will reflect the desired future
character of the area.
(v) Clause 7.4 Sustainable Development ­ The proposal is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable
development, specifically:
­ The proposed boarding house does not permit adequate solar access to the living areas and courtyards of
a number of dwellings.
2. The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 as it does not comply with the following provisions of the Penrith Development Control
Plan 2014 as follows:
(i) The application has not satisfied Council with respect to the requirements under Part B ­ 'DCP Principles',
specifically:
­ Principle 1: Provide a long term vision for cities, based on sustainability; intergenerational, social,
economic and political equity; and their individuality;
­ Principle 2: Achieve long term economic and social security; and
­ Principle 6: Recognise and build on the distinctive characteristics of cities, including their human and
cultural values, history and natural systems.
(ii) The application has not satisfied Council with respect to the requirements under Section C1 'Site
Planning and Design Principles', specifically:
­ The gun­barrel development and facade treatments is not considered to be a positive addition to the
streetscape character;
­ The application does not demonstrate how the building forms and building separation are consistent with
the height, bulk and scale of adjacent buildings of similar type and use; and
Penrith City Council - Notice of Determination Page 3 of 4
Version: 1, Version Date: 15/08/2019 Document Set ID: 8812609

­ The built form results in inadequate solar access to a number of living rooms and private courtyards.
(iii) The application has not satisfied Council with respect to the requirements under Section C6 'Landscape
Design', specifically:
­ The proposal has not demonstrated that suitable landscaping embellishment is provided across the site,
including tree buffers between the driveway, neighbouring buildings and site boundaries.
(iv) The application has not satisfied Council with respect to the requirements under Section C10 'Transport,
Access and Parking', specifically:
­ The proposal does not make provision for passing bays every 30m required under AS 2890.1; and
­ The proposal does not demonstrate adequate swept paths given that the vehicle manoeuvring conflicts with
landscape verges.
(vii) The application has not satisfied Council with respect to the requirements under Section D2.4 'Multi
Dwelling Housing', specifically:
­ The proposal does meet the minimum 22m lot frontage and width requirement;
­ The proposal does not make provision for 4m wide unimpeded open space corridors or 3m wide irregularly-
shaped garden courtyards between neighbouring buildings;

­ The proposed built form does not provide for sufficient articulation to reduce its overall bulk and scale;
­ The proposal is in conflict with controls requiring external walls to be a maximum of 5m in length between
distinct corners;
­ The proposal does not make provision for the required passing bays every 30m;
­ The proposal does not make provision for suitable landscape buffers between drivewys and dwellings and
drivewats and property boundaries;
­ The proposal does not demonstrate adequate solar access;
­ The proposal does not provide appropriate building separations;
­ The proposal does not incorporate any ground floor projections (stepped­in upper floors);
­ The proposal does not provide sufficient housing diversity; and
­ The proposal does not safeguard residential amenity or privacy for adjoining properties.
3. The development application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in terms of the likely impacts of the development including those related
to:
(i) negative streetscape and local character impacts;
(ii) noise, amenity and privacy impacts;
(iii) inadequate vehicle manoeuvring;
(iv) inadequate solar access;
(v) landscaping and site coverage; and
(vi) negative impacts on residential amenity.
4. The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 as the site is deemed not suitable for the scale of proposed development.
5. Based on the above deficiencies and submission received, approval of the proposed development would not
be in the public interest pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979.
6. The application is not satisfactory for the purpose of Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979, as the proposal is not in the public interest.

Shauna-Marie Wilson
Delivered to Penrith City Council

Add your own comment

BESbswy
BESbswy