Absolutely crazy- the area is already busy with traffic from the prescho, public school and uni.
There is no need for another child care centre when there is one directly across the road.
This will also add more congestion on the street due to extended times for pick ups and drop off competing with the school.
What an excellent addition to the area for families who have both child care aged children as well as primary school children attending WCPS .
It won’t have any affect on the traffic in the area as others seem to think it will .
As for the bus lane , this could be used at peak periods to alleviate some of the congestion on Dunheved and Northern Roads particularly later in the evening from 4-6pm . All those cars that could use the bus lane to get to Jordan springs , Cranebrook etc without having to sit in a few kms worth of traffic on the roads previously mentioned.
There are 23 housing blocks on this section of Manning Street, so far 6 blocks for Childcare centre and 5 blocks for Boarding Houses.
THREE Childcare centre
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
Can Penrith Council and/or Penrith Planning Department please answer the following questions
Is this progress or destruction for Kingswood?
Since 2018 there would have been up to 60 Boarding Houses and about 10 child care centres approved in Kingswood.
How many affordable houses have been built in Kingswood?
There is no concern or consideration from Penrith Council for the increase in traffic, street parking or the safety of the children and pedestrians around the area.
I am personally really excited about this idea of having a privately owned centre close by to the school so that it makes drop off quicker. I believe it will be a fantastic addition to the area. I don't see there being an issue with parking as there will be parking facilities included with the development and it will only be prodominantly during early morning and late arvo that people will be going to be parking at the facility. It won't affect the school drop off or pick up parking at all.
I believe more needs to be addressed about the bus way and making it harder for people to drive through here as this is an ongoing issue. Maybe some camera that will catch non bus vehicles in the act and they are instantly issued a fine or an electric gate that the the buses only have access to.... just a few ideas off the top of my head.... The camera would also assist with recent issues of people letting off fireworks in the section as well.
This is residential street this will add more traffic and cars parking in our street. There is already childcare at the end of the street. Where will the carpark be for them to pick up there kids. You have already let a share house be built in our street plus the extra cars who cut through our street using the bus only street when it's illegal and nothing is done to stop them using it.
This address is very close to the front gate of the Kingswood Public School. The entry gate to the University of Western Sydney (UWS) campus is not far off either.
This area already has heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic, especially during morning and evening peak hour, with people travelling to and from Kingswood Public School and the UWS Campus. A majority of the Pedestrians include local school children and families walking to and from school. Any increase in vehicular traffic, especially going in and out of this address more frequently, could lead to be a potential hazard for pedestrians walking to and from school.
The traffic report included with the application has the data collection date as 1st February, 2022. This was the first day of classes for the 2022 Academic year at Kingswood Public School. Based on a staggered opening of classes approach and COVID distancing rules in place at the time, all classes at Kingswood Public School were not running on this date. Also it can be reasonably assumed that the classes that were in operation would not have been at full strength on the first day. I believe courses at UWS campus also start later in the month of February. Hence traffic data collected on this date may not represent a true picture of current vehicular traffic in this area.
Council has already approved another childcare centre (with place for 100 children), at 26-28 Manning Street, Kingswood, which is around 6 houses down the road.
Consider the increase in traffic that centre is going to generate when it becomes operational. Is there a need for another childcare centre in this area?
Any multi-storey structure at this address will overlook into the Kingswood Public School. Not sure, but should this be a cause for concern.
Requesting council to take these concerns into account, while considering this application.
I seek to add to my proposed conditions should the development application, which I prefer to be refused, is to otherwise be ultimately approved. Contemporary environmenal standards should have these consent conditions added:
That the waste bin storage area be roofed, walled with its lower wall in brick, and be graded and paved so that bin cleaning waste run to a drain to be placed within the bay that is connected to the sewer network and that no water associated with bin cleaning can drain outside the bin bay;
Driveway and parking bay pavement is to be finished in suitable non-slip coatings which in designated parking bays are also impermeable;
Under no circumstances is waste bin cleaning to be undertaken in any place where the leacheate and waste water is tipped upon the driveway, crossover, gutter or the road reserve at any time;
An anti-vandal tap to be provided within the bin enclosure for bin cleaning purposes;
That the concrete paving within bin enclosure be finished with proper non-slip and impermeable material coating so that the concrete may not accumulate stains, odours or residues of waste leachate;
That bins within the waste storage area be cleaned at least once monthly by a professional service along with the walls and floor of the waste bay;
That the waste bin storage area have suitable screening and a door so that non-residents, birds and vermin are prevented from entering the bay;
That the owners corporation is to not allow the bins to be filled to overflowing (defined as that the lid of the bin is not able to be properly closed) and if it finds this occurs it is to schedule additional collections and/or increase the number of bins supplied to it as necessary and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;
That the owners corporation promptly have professionally removed from the bin bays and at its own expense, any articles of waste or abandoned goods deposited therein or within the strata scheme or road reserve adjacent to the strata scheme, of unknown origin and which are of a type that are not accepted by the waste service in its general bins eg vehicle parts, electrical/electronic items, mattresses, furniture, tyres, building materials, personal effects which cannot be accommodated within a bin, construction waste, chemical or gas container, rock, brick or other items that council advises are to be not placed in general bins;
That the door for the waste bay be automatically self closing and locking and only openable with a key which may be distributed to residents - so as to prevent birds, vermin, and non-residents from entering or occupying the bay and accessing the bins at any time;
That no motor vehicle washing to take place upon the site, and this be included as appropriate in any directions to all owners and occupants, except in a designated graded and bunded bay where a drain is provided that carries car wash waste to the sewer network and under no circumstance are motor vehicles to be washed upon any other parking bay or the driveway;
That the owners corporation maintain all of the above in a satisfactory condition and effect any repairs promptly;
Its a joke people payed money to live in a decent area. Good on you council.
Looks like Penrith is becoming the City of Flop Houses & Child Care Centre!
What the...........
Come on council you can do Better
In my opinion, this appears to be a huge over-development of the site and potentially adding far too many cars to a very quiet street.
In my opinion, this appears to be a huge over-development of the site and potentially adding far too many cars to a very quiet street.
We get high winds in our area and 4 of the homes bordering the property have swimming pools.
The planting of the gum trees along our fence line will probably result in leaves and branches falling into our pools. Also there is a risk in the high winds that a gumtree could blow over onto one of our properties. This has happened in the past and trees had to be removed.
Another one? Aren't they building one on Cambridge Street? 113 Cambridge Street? And there was a recent one built on the corner of Sandringham and Victoria Street.
I agree with Vivienne we need more recreational areas within the estate. Our one and only park and nearby oval is very well patronised and at times very crowded.
It is not ok to build all these residential apartments and provide no recreational areas for the residents.
Should not be able to proceed until conditions are imposed:
That a certificate has been obtained that any fill to be deposited in the excavation that:
States the origin of the fill;
That the soil and fill has been analysed appropriately so that it does not contain any environmentally hazardous materials;
Fill density and volume is sufficient in order to ensure ground stability and also consistent with ground character and soil quality as far as practicable;
A report from a suitably qualified environmental consultant is obtained to certify the matters herein;
That the excavation is not used to bury any other demolition waste, hazardous construction or industrial waste nor other waste;
That natural ground level including any fall in the site is restored;
That any truck etc conveying the fill has been appropriately rinsed and cleared of residues from previous work so that it's free as much as possible of any hazardous materials residues from earlier jobs;
That the deposition of fill is supervised by am environmental consultant or building surveyor to the satisfaction of Council.
That there is also a responsible waste management plan for the disposal of the demolition waste that identifies a plan for its removal, site management, and the destination of its disposal.
Apart from all the High Storey Buildings in the plan (within Thornton) can there be a Recreation area with Basketball / Tennis Courts?
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.
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 traffic of motor vehicles generated by the proposed use will unreasonably and adversely impact residential and public realm amenity and pedestrian safety.
Sydney Street is not a State Road and ill suited for commercial uses. The proposed use would appropriately be suited upon a State (Transport for NSW) Road.
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 includes removal of environmentally significant vegetation from the site and the road reservation.
The road outside the site has traffic control and calming devices erected upon the road pavement.
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.
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.
The proposals structures contain excessive visual bulk and residential overshadowing beyond the site's southern boundary at the equinox.
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.
The length of Sydney Street and surrounding streets are used by numerous children to walk to and from local schools.
I would urge Council to refuse this proposal.
In the unlikely event this proposal is approved I urge these conditions to be imposed:
Reductions on numbers of children attending;
No double crossover;
Left hand turns only allowed for vehicles exiting the site;
No vehicle travelling north upon Sydney Street shall be permitted during school speed zone times to turn right to enter the site;
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 agree with Shauna-Marie Wilson's observations 100%
That the height, scale, lack of articulation and massing of the proposal will dominate the surroundings and not respond positively to the context.
That the front boundary setback area is insufficient for a positive response to context and amenity and that theo facade height and design will dominate the surroundings in a context where development is to be subservient to the streetscape.
That the proposal provides for insufficient site permeability.
That the tree removal is not an appropriate response to the context, the need to protect environmental values and biodiversity. If the proposal is approved, the removal of native trees should be refused consent, even if this would reduce the site's yield for the Applicant and that the Applicant would need to obtain approval for amended plans.
Only non native trees are appropriate for removal.
That the proposal contains insufficient deep soil zones and suitable landscaping.
That the proposal does not specify only native planting and fails to include an acceptable number of advanced native canopy tree plantings that are of minimum height 1.2 metres an potted size of minimum 300mm.
That the proposal creates excessive visual bulk and unacceptable overshadowing impacts at the spring equinox.
That the proposal fails to include best practices In water sensitive urban design.
That air conditioning to be installed within or near to the boundary setback areas will have unacceptable acoustic impacts on neighbouring sites within the proposal and beyond the boundaries, due to not being of a very high efficiency inverter type. The applicant has not demonstrated by an acoustic report that based on anticipated need for use, frequency and hours of use including at night, that air conditioning units and installation location selected will not have unacceptable acoustic impact on occupants within and surrounding each dwelling.
The applicant had not demonstrated satisfactorily by a suitable consultant's report that external lighting within the proposal will not unacceptably impact the amenity of neighbouring (within) and surrounding residents.
There is insufficient geotechnical information and investigation regarding the site, existing structures, soils, materials deposited upon the site in the past, and and any hazardous materials within.
That the proposals colours, materials and finishes will dominate the surroundings and respond negatively to the surrounding context.
That insufficient parking has been provided for occupants and visitors according to the B99 vehicle standard, so as to reduce amenity impacts upon the surrounding sites.
That garage and parking spaces within the proposal cannot suitably accommodate B99 motor vehicles and therefore this increased the risk of surrounding amenity being negatively impacted if residents and visitors regularly have to park on the street when spaces within barely meet the B85 standard.
That parking and traffic modelling submitted is unrealistic as it does not use the B99 vehicle standard.
That safe vehicle circulation within as well as every to and exit from the site, has not been satisfactorily demonstrated by a traffic engineer and using the B99 vehicle standard.
The proposal fails to demonstrate a quality integration with the road reservation according to contemporary best practices and the Austroads standard due to lacking a replacement footpath width of 1200mm and with crossfall of those paved areas specified to be below 2.5%. Such works if the proposal is approved should be arranged at the Applicant's expense and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The proposal fails to address the appropriate dealing with overland water flows by not unreasonably impacting surrounding sites as they will be obstructed, diverted and have their direction, volume and velocity altered.
Stormwater plan does not prevent the driveway rainfall water entering the crossover due to lack of a spoon drain at property boundary that is connected to a suitable onsite Stormwater detention system.
The stormwater plan does not acceptably respond to the site and surrounding topography so that sites within and surrounding the proposal are not inundated during a sustained heavy rainfall event.
Noting overall annual precipitation history and the size and use of each dwelling proposed, rainwater tank sizing is insufficient and needs to be a minimum of 3000 litres per lot with alternative water supply to all WC, laundry and yard taps.
That the proposal does not include either strata by laws that ban car washing within or, a designated car washing area architecturally designed so that no water or spill from vehicle washing may enter the stormwater network.
The proposal fails to contemplate best practices in energy efficiency and sustainability via building design, appliance selection, materials, colours, and orientation.
That the window designs of the dwellings provide poor internal amenity, fail to meet the need for excellent ventilation and passive cooling, they provide insufficient natural light, and fail to address the needs to reduce overlooking as well as maintain appropriate passive surveillance.
Window coverings selected fail to provide appropriate access to natural light while maintaining privacy of occupants and the ability to control climate due to not being of the semi transparent and blockout double roller blind type.
On balance the proposal represents an inappropriate planning outcome and the responsible authority is urged to refuse it unless it is substantially amended to address the various concerns listed.
That the height, scale, lack of articulation and massing of the proposal will dominate the surroundings and not respond positively to the context.
That the front boundary setback area is insufficient for a positive response to context and amenity and that theo facade height and design will dominate the surroundings in a context where development is to be subservient to the streetscape.
That the proposal provides for insufficient site permeability.
That the tree removal is not an appropriate response to the context, the need to protect environmental values and biodiversity. If the proposal is approved, the removal of native trees should be refused consent, even if this would reduce the site's yield for the Applicant and that the Applicant would need to obtain approval for amended plans.
Only non native trees are appropriate for removal.
That the proposal contains insufficient deep soil zones and suitable landscaping.
That the proposal does not specify only native planting and fails to include an acceptable number of advanced native canopy tree plantings that are of minimum height 1.2 metres an potted size of minimum 300mm.
That the proposal creates excessive visual bulk and unacceptable overshadowing impacts at the spring equinox.
That the proposal fails to include best practices In water sensitive urban design.
That air conditioning to be installed within or near to the boundary setback areas will have unacceptable acoustic impacts on neighbouring sites within the proposal and beyond the boundaries, due to not being of a very high efficiency inverter type. The applicant has not demonstrated by an acoustic report that based on anticipated need for use, frequency and hours of use including at night, that air conditioning units and installation location selected will not have unacceptable acoustic impact on occupants within and surrounding each dwelling.
The applicant had not demonstrated satisfactorily by a suitable consultant's report that external lighting within the proposal will not unacceptably impact the amenity of neighbouring (within) and surrounding residents.
There is insufficient geotechnical information and investigation regarding the site, existing structures, soils, materials deposited upon the site in the past, and and any hazardous materials within.
That the proposals colours, materials and finishes will dominate the surroundings and respond negatively to the surrounding context.
That insufficient parking has been provided for occupants and visitors according to the B99 vehicle standard, so as to reduce amenity impacts upon the surrounding sites.
That garage and parking spaces within the proposal cannot suitably accommodate B99 motor vehicles and therefore this increased the risk of surrounding amenity being negatively impacted if residents and visitors regularly have to park on the street when spaces within barely meet the B85 standard.
That parking and traffic modelling submitted is unrealistic as it does not use the B99 vehicle standard.
That safe vehicle circulation within as well as every to and exit from the site, has not been satisfactorily demonstrated by a traffic engineer and using the B99 vehicle standard.
The proposal fails to demonstrate a quality integration with the road reservation according to contemporary best practices and the Austroads standard due to lacking a replacement footpath width of 1200mm and with crossfall of those paved areas specified to be below 2.5%. Such works if the proposal is approved should be arranged at the Applicant's expense and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The proposal fails to address the appropriate dealing with overland water flows by not unreasonably impacting surrounding sites as they will be obstructed, diverted and have their direction, volume and velocity altered.
Stormwater plan does not prevent the driveway rainfall water entering the crossover due to lack of a spoon drain at property boundary that is connected to a suitable onsite Stormwater detention system.
The stormwater plan does not acceptably respond to the site and surrounding topography so that sites within and surrounding the proposal are not inundated during a sustained heavy rainfall event.
Noting overall annual precipitation history and the size and use of each dwelling proposed, rainwater tank sizing is insufficient and needs to be a minimum of 3000 litres per lot with alternative water supply to all WC, laundry and yard taps.
That the proposal does not include either strata by laws that ban car washing within or, a designated car washing area architecturally designed so that no water or spill from vehicle washing may enter the stormwater network.
The proposal fails to contemplate best practices in energy efficiency and sustainability via building design, appliance selection, materials, colours, and orientation.
That the window designs of the dwellings provide poor internal amenity, fail to meet the need for excellent ventilation and passive cooling, they provide insufficient natural light, and fail to address the needs to reduce overlooking as well as maintain appropriate passive surveillance.
Window coverings selected fail to provide appropriate access to natural light while maintaining privacy of occupants and the ability to control climate due to not being of the semi transparent and blockout double roller blind type.
On balance the proposal represents an inappropriate planning outcome and the responsible authority is urged to refuse it unless it is substantially amended to address the various concerns listed.
How many more can we seriously get in this area? I am over Council using the same excuse - its close to education, health and public transport - so is everywhere in Penrith. What about the community that is already living here? Absolutely no consideration to the residents
Currently there are eight boarding houses within 500 to 600 metres of this site. Six of these boarding houses currently have “For Lease” signs out the front. These six boarding houses have never been fully occupied by tenants at any stage over the years. These boarding houses are not designed to help reduce the number of families currently waiting for housing. Maybe it is time the Penrith Council looks to improve their region, rather than take the quick money from developers who are looking to financially gain from these projects, which degrade previously great family friendly local communities. Most boarding houses would be funded by tax concessions. The developers are capitalising on the zoning the Penrith Council has approved and destroying previously safe and friendly neighbourhoods with the boarding houses being constructed around Kingswood.
Council get richer developers get richer Kingswood gets Shafted.
Ooooh look just what the people of Kingswood need another FLOP HOUSE!
PENRITH COUNCIL YOU GOT TO DO BETTER!
BUT MONEY IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA
I am the current owner of 6 grafton place and would like to see the proposed building plans. I have been away and have only just received the notification of this development.
I am concerned that the proposed two story dwelling will impact my backyard privacy and would like for you please contact me ASAP so I can see my options. As I will soon be returning to live at this address.