All recent comments on applications from Penrith City Council, NSW

The canary island date palm should be able to be removed should the applicant seek its removal. I urge Council to expedite the granting of such a permit in the event it is sought by the Applicant.

The canary island date palms of Greater Western Sydney are frequently inhabited and used as a food source by the white ibis bird, though they are not native plants.

Inhabitation, roosting and breeding of the white ibis bird will adversely impact the health, hygiene and amentity of the proposed site and surrounds including public realm, through offensive odour, noise, and deposition of bird faeces upon the surroundings generally.

I would urge Council and the Applicant to collaborate with a view to removing the canary island date palm and arranging replacement with suitable native trees, of an advanced state eg minimum height exceeding 1.2 metres, whose height exceeds 8.5 metres at maturity and whose canopy sizes exceeds 16 sq metres.

The proposed use would have unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts upon surrounding sites and the public realm unless a condition was imposed that the illuminated sign be controlled by means of a regularly adjusted timer so as to not operate between one hour after sunset and one hour after sunrise daily.

The community benefit of operating the LED sign is not outweighed by the amenity and environmental concerns and the need to manage its hours of operation to protect amenity in public realm and surrounding sites.

Should the proposed conditions on hours of operation be not amenable to the applicant I urge that the proposal be refused.

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

The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the topography of the site and surroundings.

The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the dimensions and existing structures on the site and constraints of the site.

The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the site's extremely short frontage and curvature of frontage.

The proposal will result in unacceptable internal amenity for its occupants.

The proposal fails to contemplate contemporary best practices in energy and water efficiency and sustainability. The proposal fails to provide hot water services that are solar or heat pump heated only. The proposal fails to provide for sufficient passive cooling and heating and design in order that minimal energy consumption is only required at any time of year to avoid poor internal amenity for occupants.

The subject site is an irregular and wedge shaped block accessed from the street at its eastern boundary with a relatively narrow being in its east. The subject site has an average fall from the northern boundary towards its southern boundary between 0.5 and 1 metre.

The site's very narrow eastern frontage to the street is substantially less than 10 metres in length according to its curvature, and based on straight line shorter again and inappropriate for the use proposed.

The immediate context consists of a short narrow culdesac with detached homes on small irregularly shaped blocks, many with established mature trees, and accessed by another narrow local street and involving a circuitous narrow route to reach a local feeder roadway. Home's in the surrounding context are subservient to the streetscape and predominantly of single story.

The likely provision of twin or double crossovers will create excessive domination of the surroundings, reduce on-street parking, and create a poor integration of the facades of original home and new home with the surrounding context.

The height of the proposed structure will create overlooking concerns for the private and secluded spaces of surrounding sites and also the private and secluded open spaces of the original home.

The proposal and its proposed use, in conjunction with the existing use, contains insufficient parking provision for occupants and visitors and would create negative amenity impacts upon the public realm and surroundings.

Due to the surrounding topography the proposal when completed would become prominent in views from the public realm and surrounding sites both in the same street and surrounding streets.

The minimal setback of the proposed works will create domination of the surroundings and overlooking of the residential site to the north, and impacts upon amenity at night through reflected glare as well as light emitted at windows, and if approved should be with a condition that only low reflectivity external finishes be used.

The removal of vegetation will respond negatively to the surrounding context and given the height of the proposed work, increase the spill of emitted and reflected light in the neighbourhood.

The facade and external finishes colours of the proposal will create unacceptable reflectivity of light and adverse amenity impacts upon the surrounding sites.

The distance of the proposal's facade from street, and the potential for twin or double crossover will make the proposal dominant when viewed from the street and within the streetscape.

The height of the proposal will create unacceptable surrounding acoustic impacts due to its use.

There is insufficient permeability in the proposal and a lack of contemplation of permeable paving and ground finishes for the subject site.

The proposal will generate an unacceptable discharge of stormwater due to its lack of on site detention and the overall increase in impermeable areas in the site and the lack of suitable rainwater capture and storage for both the new dwelling and the original dwelling indeed if approved conditions of consent should require minimum tank storage of 3000 litres for the existing dwelling and 2000 litres for the secondary dwelling with both connected to lavatories, gardens, and laundry supply.

Consent conditions if approved should require on site detention of rainwater unless permeable external paving and ground finishes are provided.

Overall its this submitter's view that the proposal is an inappropriate planning outcome.

More information is required for the submission. Lack of information has been provided supporting the submission. Please provide the public with the relevant supporting evidence that supports this submission.

Good day.

There has been a lot of talk among local Caddens and Claremont Meadows people once the notion came out publicly last week regarding this development. We have no infrastrucure in schooling (all at full capacity for primary schools), no local high schools in the immediate vicinity. Not enough exit points for driving out of the area and around school and TAFE/Uni peak times, this creates a problem with long line up in traffic trying to get around to work, schooling etc.

I don't believe much consideration has been given to the overall aesthetics of the land and environment at all with this development. There also appears to be an alienation of anyone whom is not in the immediate vicinity of the shopping centre as the car park area appears in the development to be wiped from the existing structure to house some of the new buildings.

Thank you for your time reading my say on this application.

Common on council, you have refused narrow Centres without the minimum frontage of 22m, do not let your justice go for this 18.5m narrow site opportunist. Case law frontage is the frontage but not frontages!

Prior to accepting this DA, Could you please ensure the connector road is completed prior. Some resisents have been waiting over 5 years for this road. It's about time the council stepped in. It's getting beyond a joke

For a $284 million development, shouldn't you providing some more information? We have no idea of height of buildings, size of apartments, size of retail, parking, accessibility for disability residents and visitors, who is doing the development, when, and what the aesthetics, landscaping, and green and clean environmental effects are.

So I guess the only thing I can say is, don't approve it. If you know more than us, then please share! If you do not know more than us, then you cannot possibly approve!.

Are these being build for student accommodation needs, low income housing, NRAS, essential personal, or general housing?

To adequately cater for 564 apartments, what additional transport and education infrastructure has been planned? All of the local schools are full to overflowing.
What new public schools and OOSH / childcare facilities are on the agenda before more housing is pumped through the rubberstamping department?

Another development application for a Co/Living housing. This is the new name for boarding houses.
I think that Penrith Council and Penrith Planning department should answer the following question before approving any further Development applications for Co Living/Boarding Houses/Student accommodation and Child Care Centre in Kingswood;
What is the aim of the current Local Housing Strategy for Kingswood?
Where does Co Living Housing Development fit in with the Local Housing Strategy for Kingswood?
How many Boarding houses/Co Living housing/Student accommodation and Child care centre are too many for an area?
What is the current total number of Co Living/Boarding Houses/Student accommodation and Child Care Centre approved and built in Penrith LGA?
What is the breakdown of Co Living/Boarding Houses/Student accommodation and Child Care Centre per location/suburb?
This site will have 29 rooms, that could accommodate 2 people. There could be up to 58 people on this site with only 6 on site car spaces.
Why is onsite parking reduced from 0.5 to 0.2 per room for Co/living housing?
No site parking requirements should be assessed by the number of people per site, not the number of rooms. People drive cars, not rooms.
This will increase the number of cars parked on the street.

This proposed development is in the middle of a residential street. It will cause traffic congestion into and out of this driveway and street. Also how much yard privacy are the residents going to have either side of this building.
Do you want to live next door to this proposed building?

Absolutely not. Basement car parking or not, this street is ridiculous at the best of times and guaranteed, no one will use the basement parking because they will have to pay, and they will start blocking everyone's driveways instead. Just like hardly anyone uses the hospital parking on Derby St on the corner of Somerset St.
There's plenty of other places for a building like this, just NOT in Stafford Street in the middle of a residential street. Take it somewhere else.

Dear Penrith City Council, I have lived in Werrington County for 44 years. Our children went to the Werrington County School back in the day but did not attend Namatjira Child Care they went to Werrianda Child Care people choose other Child Care Centres in their local immediate area so we have a lot of pre- schools/ Child care in Werrington/Werrington County/Werrington/Downs Our pre- School here if you look them up are Werrianda Child Care, which has Vacancies, Namatjira Child Care has Vacancies and is near Werrington County School - for our Residents Children- but they also often utilise other centres in our local area also - we also have The Learning Jungle Victoria St,Werrington, Yoorami Children’s Centre Werrington, to choose from. If you live in Werrington or Werrington Down or County you have these options as well as V Happy Family Daycare & Pre- School - I have not search through all of these but the two I have had vacancies, so I suspect some of the others would have vacancies as well. So I feel we have enough Child care facilities in our suburb Werrington, Werrington County, Werrington Downs which serves all out needs we do not need any more, housing seems to be the big problem , just an ordinary house for someone to buy - your first home or your forever home. I feel this child care centre would be better served in Jordon Springs with new schools going up there and a growing population in there . The last thing Werrington/Werrington County/ Downs wants is more traffic streaming through from Jordon Springs to drop of children at daycare when they could use a facility in their own suburb as other Suburbs do and as we do. When the residents bought in Jordon Springs they knew where the entrances and exits were to the suburb- and how long the drive was - as we did when we bought in our area as is our drive out - and in . I feel we are not in need of another Daycare/Child Care Centre it would be better in a growing suburb like Jordan Springs Thanks for reading my thoughts on the matter Lesley Hudson

Dear Penrith City council, I have lived in Werrington County 44 years. Our pre Schools here if you look them up Werrianda Child Care has Vacancies, Namatjira Child care the list in Werrington You would already know as council and just these two I have looked up have vacancies I haven’t looked the others up on Victoria Rd, bet I suspect they would have vacancies as well. I feel we have enough child care facilities for our area already. This child care centre would be better served in one of the newer areas such as Jordon Springs a growing area. The last thing we would want, or need here is more traffic coming in from another area to our little suburb via Dunheved Road if this is the idea and I feel we are not in need of another pre- school for our area - thank you for reading my submission Lesley Hudson.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The proposal will create excessive visual bulk and unreasonable public realm amenity and overshadowing impacts.

The light colours of the southern facade treatments and proposals for roller shutters of any business premises, are of excessive reflectivity and will cause unacceptable scattering and reflection of lighting from the Carpenter Street road reserve to the residential sites on the south of the street and beyond.

The external lighting of the proposal has not been assessed by an environmental consultant as being of minimal impact, managed by appropriate timing, and being of a type and nature as well as colour temperature that will avoid unreasonable amenity impacts upon the surrounding sites and public realm.

The lack of quality design and facade treatments and articulation elements will provide poor street level activation and a positive public realm amenity response.

The lodgment date of this proposal indicates that the applicant anticipates it to be controversial and may like to minimise objections - though they would probably say that I'm embarking upon speculation with that view.

The basement carparking aspect of the proposal and location of its entry and exit points and crossover construction within the road reserve will create unreasonable amenity impacts within the narrow Day Street, given that parking is currently allowed on the eastern side of Day Street and the existing uses.

The overall proposal will generate unreasonable amenity impacts upon surrounding residential sites based on acoustic, traffic and pedestrian safety.

The light likely to be emitted by the proposal and its structures and uses will create unreasonable surrounding area amenity impacts.

Insufficient acoustic consultants reports have been obtained about the significant and unreasonable amenity impacts to surrounding sites and the public realm that would result by acoustics and the failure to attenuate their impacts given regard to likely sources such as business activity, traffic, air conditioning units, exhaust facilities and refrigeration plant for any food service businesses.

During the hours past sunset, the lack of contemplation of suitable acoustic attenuation and treatment of food service plant such as exhaust and refrigeration equipment will generate unreasonable amenity impacts within the private open spaces and habitable rooms of homes in surrounding sites.

There is not environmental reports addressing the impacts of odour from the intensification of hospitality and food service uses in the proposal.

There is currently a liquor store use in the site whose entry is in the site's western boundary. This would be an incompatible use in the same premises as a child care centre, and indeed if such a use was to be retained or provided for it would only avoid unreasonable amenity impacts if its entry was upon the site's southern boundary along Carpenter Street.

Currently though, the northern road reserve of Carpenter Street that is also east of Day Street is an activated public realm used for the gathering of local young people and children, and there is a concern submitted that any liquor store use is an inappropriate response to the context whether is entry is sited at the proposals eastern or southern boundary.

The proposal fails to integrate suitable disability and wheelchair access to all of its upper level in accordance with the relevant standards and this is submitted as another reason for refusal.

The proposal fails to provide sufficient analysis from a traffic engineer with reference to B99 vehicles, swept path analysis, entry and egress, management of conflicts between pedestrian and motor vehicle movements, all within and outside the site and also contemplating key routes for site access.

I consider these impacts cannot be mitigated except if the crossovers associated with the proposal were placed in Carpenter Street, or in the alternate if significant local traffic controls and works in the surrounds were implemented after a Traffic Engineer's review, this would be unacceptable as the measures in mitigation would be imposed at the community's (via Council) expense while the community of Day Street and Muscio Street residents contend with impacts of increased traffic and its pedestrian safety and acoustic impacts.

Part of the local context is several small shops that have a significant attendance by customers who travel by walking, as well as by driving.

Carpenter Street, though a popular local thoroughfare, it must be mentioned that it is not a feeder nor arterial road, indeed it has a speed limit of 50kmh and its responsible authority is the Council.

At the equinox, the land west of the subject site will experience substantial overshadowing prior to late morning and unreasonable amenity impacts noting the context. Also the northern road reserve of Carpenter Street will experience unreasonable amenity impacts due to the overshadowing and the proposal fail to positively activate the public realm.

The lack of meaningful landscaping in the southern portion of the site that is contiguous with the road reserve will fail to positively activate the public realm and contribute to negative amenity impacts.

The provision of a centre based childcare facility on the building's first floor does not respond appropriately to modern accessibility and DDA standards, unless an elevator linking the carpark, ground and first floor is provided with internal dimensions of more than 3 square metres.

While some growth in this local commercial centre is desirable, the proposal overall does seem a rather heavy impact upon Day Street, if the whole of Day Street and the surrounding streets are considered in the local traffic context.

The overdevelopment of the site and its subsequent impacts has the potential to contribute to dereliction of the neighbourhood centre, fail to provide quality activation, and generate poor public realm amenity.

The proposal, particularly the parking entry and crossover locations, fails to positively respond to:
Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre
1 Objectives of zone
• To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.
• To provide retail facilities for the local community commensurate with the centre’s role in the local and regional retail hierarchy.
• To create opportunities to improve the public domain and encourage the integration of centres with public transport and pedestrian networks.
• To ensure that development reflects the desired future character and dwelling densities of the area.

The proposal fails to address water sensitive urban design and will result in an unacceptable discharge of concentrated stormwater into the local stormwater network.

The car parking and waste areas if approved need to have floor drains connected to the sewer network vis a vis stormwater in order to avoid the unacceptable entry of pollutants into the stormwater network.

The traffic to be generated by the proposal is excessive for a neighbourhood centre site on a local street, and would be appropriately sited upon a major feeder, arterial or regional road or within a major commercial centre. On balance the proposal is an inappropriate planning outcome.

Due to the significant number of concentrated (peak period) motor car trips likely to be associated with the proposal's implementation, and the location of site access and crossover dimensions, the proposal as is appears an inappropriate planning outcome for the site and context and should be refused.

The proposed development is not suitable having regard to Section 4.15 of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Not all children 0-4 utilise daycare facilities. Knocking down a family home for a daycare centre when housing is hard enough to find. Cranebrook is the nearest suburb to jordan springs. Werrington county is a 15 drive away from jordan springs, if jordan springs has a need for a daycare, build it there plenty of vacant land and would be a much shorter drive. Not really convenient when parents will drop their kids at primary school in jordan springs then drive all the way to werrington county to drop kids at daycare. Imagine having this built next door to you, having to sleep during the day as you work nights, the extra traffic and parking on the street as no one will park underground it's tiny/inconvenient. More convenient to park on the road and walk in, underground only has 4 spots for staff with over 9 staff needed or more. How will you make it safe for children walking to and from school with the driveway and madigan drive with extra cars coming from here.

On 13 December 2022 I submitted a comment on Planning Alerts for a child care centre at 12-14 Manning Street, Kingswood for 86 children.
I am now submitting further comments for another Development Application within 100 metres.
3 Edna Street Kingswood DA22/1225 - for amalgamation with 1 Edna Street Kingswood. How and why should this be amalgamated with the boarding house/co living at 1 Edna Street, Kingswood that has already been completed.
Edna street is a dead-end street.
1 Edna Street, Kingswood -26 lodgers Boarding House
3 Edna Street, Kingswood -DA Submitted no information Boarding House/ Co living
6 Edna Street, Kingswood – 19 Lodgers Approved
12-14 Edna Street, Kingswood- a Co Living/Boarding house 38 lodgers- DA submitted
Manning Street
Three child care
4 to 6 Manning Street, Kingswood- 80 child care places - Approved
12 to 14 Manning Street, Kingswood – 86 child care places – DA Submitted
26 to 28 Manning Street, Kingswood - 100 child care places- Determined
5 Boarding houses
10 Manning Street, Kingswood - 12 lodgers
36 Manning Street, Kingswood - 26 lodgers
38 to 40 Manning Street, Kingswood – 44 lodgers
42 Manning Street, Kingswood - 20 lodgers
Edward Street
2 Edward Street, Kingswood- 22 lodgers
3 Edward Street, Kingswood- 13 lodgers
4 Edward Street, Kingswood- 20 lodgers
6 Edith Street, Kingswood – 28 lodgers
The area around Manning, Edna, Edith and Edward Street was a small affordable family friendly area, the majority of residents have lived in this area for 20 years, some as long as 40 plus years.
Listed below are some things that has increased traffic in and around this area in the Seven years from 2015 to the current year 2022;
1. Anglicare Caddens Retirement Village, with 164 dwelling’s,
2. Nine boarding houses within 300 metres of the proposed Child Care Centre, with another 3 to 4 boarding houses approved or propose.
3. Two Child care centre approved in Manning Street, the development application for a third child care centre all within 200 metres. There would have been a minimum Six child care centre built since 2015 around this area.
4. The building of Homes in Cadden, there would be anywhere between 400 to 800 new dwellings.
5. In 2015 Kingswood Primary School had 385 children enrolled and in 2021 there are 544 children enrolled, an increase of 159 children over the six years from 2015 to 2021. With further increase from the new families located in Cadden.
6. New shopping centre at Cadden.
7. There has also been an increase in the number of villa and townhouses built within this area.
In this area there has been an increase by 230 people in Boarding Houses. Traffic movement could be between 80 to 100 per day.
Now with the three-child care centre all within 200 metres from one another, a total 266 child care places. This could create up to 300 to 400 traffic movement a day.
The only access from Edith Street is via Edna Street or Edward Street, then all traffic from these three streets can only exit via Manning Street. There would be about 110 residents in this area
These numbers add to the traffic problem, safety of the children and pedestrians within the area and the destruction of a community.
Is this progress, destruction or just stupidity

According to Werrington County all persons QuickStats latest release 2021, 0-4 years age population is 244. And the only Childcare service provider in the suburb is Werrington County Children’s Centre which has the capacity of 15% of the population.

Both neighborhood suburbs Werrington Downs and Werrington have more and bigger childcare service providers to look after the very similar population.

Werrington County is the nearest suburb to the new Jordan spring east Village which has growing 0-4 years population whilst there is no center-based childcare currently.

The height, scale and massing of the proposal will be somewhat dominant for a local suburban shopping strip context.

The lodgment date of this proposal indicates that the applicant anticipates it to be controversial and may like to minimise objections - though they would probably say that I'm embarking upon speculation with that view.

The basement carparking aspect of the proposal and location of its entry and exit points and crossover construction within the road reserve will create unreasonable amenity impacts within the narrow Day Street, given that parking is currently allowed on the eastern side of Day Street and the existing uses.

The overall proposal will generate unreasonable amenity impacts upon surrounding residential sites based on acoustic, traffic and pedestrian safety.

I consider these impacts cannot be mitigated except if the crossovers associated with the proposal were placed in Carpenter Street, or in the alternate if significant local traffic controls and works in the surrounds were implemented after a Traffic Engineer's review, this would be unacceptable as the measures in mitigation would be imposed at the community's (via Council) expense while the community of Day Street and Muscio Street residents contend with impacts of increased traffic and its pedestrian safety and acoustic impacts.

Part of the local context is several small shops that have a significant attendance by customers who travel by walking, as well as by driving.

Carpenter Street, though a popular local thoroughfare, it must be mentioned that it is not a feeder nor arterial road, indeed it has a speed limit of 50kmh and its responsible authority is the Council.

At the equinox, the land west of the subject site will experience substantial overshadowing prior to late morning and unreasonable amenity impacts noting the context.

The provision of a centre based childcare facility on the building's first floor does not respond appropriately to modern accessibility and DDA standards, unless an elevator linking the carpark, ground and first floor is provided with internal dimensions of more than 3 square metres.

While some growth in this local commercial centre is desirable, the proposal overall does seem a rather heavy impact upon Day Street, if the whole of Day Street and the surrounding streets are considered in the local traffic context.

The proposal, particularly the parking entry and crossover locations, fails to positively respond to:
Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre
1 Objectives of zone
• To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.
• To provide retail facilities for the local community commensurate with the centre’s role in the local and regional retail hierarchy.
• To create opportunities to improve the public domain and encourage the integration of centres with public transport and pedestrian networks.
• To ensure that development reflects the desired future character and dwelling densities of the area.

Due to the significant number of concentrated (peak period) motor car trips likely to be associated with the proposal's implementation, the proposal as is appears an inappropriate planning outcome for the site and context and should be refused.

Surely Council will deny this development. We have enough boarding houses in Manning St, Edna Street, Edward Street. I know it has been said many times over the last few years but, surely consideration should be given to long time rate paying owners in these three streets. Council is turning this area into a less than desirable location.
D Coombes.

The subject site and adjacent sites, except for the schools site to the east, are zoned only for Residential uses. The applicant requests a commercial use and a significant intensifcation of the site.

The height, scale, massing and narrow setbacks will dominate the surroundings, especially the residential site adjacent to the site's southern boundary, and respond negatively to the surrounding context.

The intensity of the use proposed responds negatively and adversely to the surrounding context. This use would be appropriately located on a local feeder or arterial road capable of sustaining the traffic volumes to be created and the acoustic impacts of the centre's use.

The traffic of motor vehicles generated by the proposed use will unreasonably and adversely impact residential and public realm amenity and pedestrian safety.

Leonard Street is a narrow local road totally inappropriate for the use sought and the amount of motor vehicle traffic likely to be generated by the proposed use.

There has not been satisfactorily demonstrated by traffic engineers reports, using B99 vehicles, that the proposal has satisfactory swept paths and safe entry to, and egress from, the site.

The proposal does not demonstrate that it will not unreasonably have acoustic impacts upon surrounding residential amenity.

The proposal contains insufficient deep soil landscaped areas, lack of provisions for native local canopy tree, shrub and garden plantings only.

The proposal does not demonstrate satisfactory parking and safe vehicle travel and circulation provisions within, according to a traffic consultant's report and modelled with a B99 vehicle.

Safe use of Leonard Street for access, as well as motor vehicle entry and exit from the site, has not been demonstrated to a high standard of safety by a traffic engineer.

The proposal contains insufficient site permeability.

The proposal will alter the volume, direction and velocity of Overland water flows.

The proposal fails to contemplate contemporary best practices In water sensitive urban design and avoid concentrated discharges of stormwater to adjacent sites and the public realm.

The proposal does not respond appropriately to the topography of the site and surroundings.

Any proposal to erect a double crossover for motor vehicle access to the site would severely and negatively impact pedestrian safety and road user safety.

I would urge Council to refuse this proposal and encourage the applicant to search for a more appropriate alternative site.

In the unlikely event this proposal is approved I urge these conditions to be imposed:

Reductions on numbers of children attending;
No double crossover;
Council provide a No Right Turn sign applicable to school peak times facing eastbound traffic on Carpenter Street which prohibits motor vehicles turning right into Leonard Street;
Council erect a No Right Turn sign applicable to school peak times facing traffic seeking to exit Leonard Street onto Carpenter Street;
Within 25 metres past the east and western boundary of the proposed childcare site, upon both sides of the road, that a No Parking zone be considered so that motor vehicles may not dwell except if in the immediate process of pickup and dropoff of passengers;
That separate pedestrian access and paths within be provided, with proper wayfinding, be amended to the endorsed plans;
Numerous canopy trees of the indigenous ecological Vegetation class be installed by the applicant within the site and road reservation at minimum height 1.2 metres and minimum pot size 300mm;
Boundary between site and crossover be laid with spoon drain linked to on site stormwater detention;
That footpath in the road reservation adjacent to the site's frontage be replaced by applicant at its cost, laid to to a 1200mm width and crossfall to not exceed 2.5%, with all work to be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

I don’t think I would like to be the neighbours next to this property. There is already a daycare centre at the end of the street and a community centre they could expand into that is barely used which would have adequate space, parking and facilities to extend the council daycare. Or spend the money on fixing the other council daycare that recently had a a tree fall down and damage it.

I’m unsure where the demand for a child care centre is when there is one directly across the road. The area itself is an aging area.
The werrington county public school newsletter, published Friday 16th December 2022 states, demographic changes in the area and generational change occurs. In 2020 there were 447 students enrolled. In 2021, there were 430 students enrolled. In 2022, there were 371 students enrolled. In 2023 we will have 335 students enrolled. This equates to 112 less children attending the school over a 4 year period.
With reducing numbers of students being enrolled in the school, I am really struggling to see exactly where the demand for this centre is coming from?
Perhaps this child care centre would be better suited to an area where schools and families with younger children are moving to and living in, rather than an aging area where primary school numbers are clearly on the decline?

I cannot believe that Penrith Council will give the approval for a day care centre at 12 Manning Street Kingswood. The amount of traffic in this area during and after school times is bumper to bumper. At peak times trying to turn at the Bringelly and Second Ave roundabout is a nightmare. Time for council to take up the interests of long time residents into consideration. Many have been forced to sell and move from homes they have lived in for decades. I know growth is needed but it is time for the council to look at other areas . Kingswood is now overcrowded with growth.
D Coombes.

I can't see a problem with another Day care Facility being built, the bigger issue here is the Bus Lane that is only available for Buses or emergency services. (Considering how often it is used throughout the days for these vehicles) Jordan Springs East Residents that practically back onto John Batman have a ridiculous travel to get from JSE to Dunheved Road Cannot see why this Bus lane isn't available for travel early morning /mid to late afternoon to eliminate congestion on Dunheved and Patker Street in peak times.