All recent comments on applications from Penrith City Council, NSW

I agree with M Young there are not the infrastructure in the area to accommodate all these residents. There has still no mention of any new recreational areas which are needed. This development should comply with existing regulations.

I think it is unreasonable to build a 31 story building in an area where the current maximum height is around 10 stories. I think the height of the residential towers should be in keeping with the average height within the estate to ensure current residents aren’t completely overlooked and to prevent views from being completely obscured. Additionally, with that number of additional residents moving into the area, what is being done to ensure current and future residents have access to sufficient parking, particularly considering the station car park is now a park and ride? 31 stories is too many apartments to cram into an already dense population area.

Bit silly really as All that area is part of the Nepean River Flood Plain !
Sure your insurance company will be willing to insure you!
Lol lol

Stupid area to place a day care.

There is insufficient information regarding waste management and the reuse of materials from the site.

There is insufficient information regarding any investigations of the soils and existing structures upon the site for any hazardous substances, acidity or alkalinity.

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

The proposal will dominate the streetscape and the preferred neighbourhood character is where structures and associated works are subservient to the streetscape.

The lack of sufficient setbacks, particularly at the site's western and southern boundaries, will dominate the surrounds, create excessive visual bulk, and cause unacceptable overshadowing impacts to sites that are west, south-west and south of the subject site.

The attachment of the granny flat dwelling to the double story dwelling proposed will be excessively dominant for the context and create uancceptable internal amenity outcomes for the occupants of both dwellings. The proposal should be refused on an early basis upon that ground only, and the applicant directed to resubmit with each dwelling being separated from each other.

The proposal has due to the street's length, not demonstrated proper parking provision for occupants and visitors so that surrounding amenity is not negatively impacted.

The use proposed is of an excessive intensity for the site and surrounding context.

The installation of air conditioners within the boundary setback areas will generate excessive noise and amenity impacts unless they are high efficiency rated models of the inverter type.

The proposal overall contains insufficient permeability and does not respond positively to water sensitive urban design and the need to avoid inundation of neighbouring sites and avoiding altering or obstructing the direction, volume and velocity of overland water flows.

The proposal and uses proposed will generate unacceptable acoustic impacts upon surrounding sites. The structures proposed are not accompanied by suitable evidence that due to proximity of the M4 Western Motorway that the future occupants will be protected from unacceptable acoustic impacts.

There is not a demonstrated separation of entries and paths at the site for each of the dwellings so that pedestrians to not have to access the site via motor vehicle entry routes.

There has been insufficient contemplation of the best practices in environmental sustainability and energy efficiency and the following conditions are sought if approval is forthcoming:
readiness of the allotted parking areas for rapid electrical vehicle charging;
heat pump or solar hot water systems only;
outdoor laundry drying areas and hoists for each dwelling demonstrated by shadow modelling based upon the winter solstice that maximum solar access for each clothes hoist achieved;
Ceiling heights within to be not less than 2700mm above finished floor level throughout;
inverter type airconditioning only due to energy efficiency and the need to reduce noise

Insufficient measures are proposed regarding overlooking of adjacent sites from the double story dwelling within the proposal.

The granny flat does not demonstrate sufficient provision for future accessibility upgrades and its design if to be approved should be amended to provide accessibility upgrade opportunities according to the latest NCC at its best practice level.

The walls, facade, and their colours and finishes of the double story dwelling lack articulation, will dominate the streetscape, and respond negatively to the surrounding context.
;
Insufficient measures and information provided regarding stormwater management so that concentrated stormwater discharge from the site is eliminated or minimised. Request the responsible authority to impose conditions if approval is forthcoming, such as:
each dwelling to have rainwater tank of 3000 litres and plumbed to lavatories, garden tapware and laundry supply;
spoon drain where the crossover joins the site boundary together with bunded area of driveway and stormwater discharge of stormwater landing on the ground and driveway to an on-site detention system.

There is insufficent landscaped area particularly deep soil zones and insufficient provision for canopy trees and vegetation of the local native ecological vegetation class. Request responsible authority to impose conditions if approval is forthcoming that

all vegetation be of native indigenous ecological class;
increased deep soil zones in the boundary setback areas;
minimum 2 canopy trees provided that are minimum potted size of 400mm and height of 1.2 metres when installed and that any dead, diseased or broken canopy tree be replaced with like type.

That no garages or carports be erected forward of the facade of the home either now or in the future, and that this be imposed as a condition even if so erecting that structure would be an exempt development.

Overall and on balance, the proposal is an inappropriate planning outcome and it is submitted that it should be met with a determination of refusal.

Same as all people in power have a dream and a bank account. so is this the next Mt Druitt.

Penrith City Council have already confirmed more Boarding houses will be built in Kingswood regardless of what is happening here or what residents say. Their reasoning is it so close to public transport, health and education. Yet everything can be accessed by public transport in any suburb. The council dont care about the community or residents or what is actually happening here. Its easier for them to just keep approving these instead of actually listening to what the community is saying and fixing the problem.

Due to this project there won’t be any growth to Kingswood
The students coming to university will be scared due to heavy drug uses in boarding houses
The commuter’s going to station will be effected please stop giving permission

HELL NO!! Kingswood residents already are struggling with crime, drugs, robbery, assaults, drug users fighting, dirty needles everywhere, drug dealing on a regular basis cars being broken into and more. You don't have to deal with the problems daily like we do and you want to put one on Bringelly and one on Park Avenue in Kingswood. We had three car broken into, our neighbour was assaulted and robbed all in three days and I am regularly telling drug uses to stop using in our car ports and stair unit stair ways, leaving dirty needles, passed out in our car ports and unit stair ways and worse of all using car posts as their public toilets (so pissing and shitting). Start by cleaning up Kingswood and get rib of the housing that already exists and make it residential retail property. You are destroying Kingswood and the good people that live here live in fear of houses and car being broken and everything I have mentioned so far so junkies and scum can sell our stuff to get their drugs and do it all again. Stop and think at what you are doing you are making things worse not better for all the good residents that live in Kingswood.

You have to be kidding more traffic in the area .This traffic will come out at Jamison Rd at the new entry & exit road . We really need to block the road coming straight into Harris Str only & allow a left & right hand turn ONLY at the lights that are being installed at the exit near the Royce for the safety of all residents in this suppose to be low traffic area . We won't beable to get of our driveways .you want to buy my house Panthers ?

Honestly, the block of land floods like no tomorrow. And the traffic trying to get in and out on Victoria street is unbelievable. Putting a daycare across the road from a post office is a really silly thing to do. Parking alone is horrible within itself. I am so thankful I cut my loss with that block of land and moved.

I will definitely object to this as this site already causes pollution in the area. Depending on the direction of the wind the smell from this site is disgusting and you can even taste it . From previous experience, this submission is just waste of my time as money and big business seems to be favoured by this council over the “little people “ to whom the council is supposed to be working for.

The proposed height, setbacks, massing and design of the building will dominate the surrounds and will not positively respond to the surrounding context.

The proposed setbacks design and massing of the building will unreasonably impact upon the character of the area.

The proposal fails to respond to off site amenity of surrounding properties, resulting in unreasonable visual bulk and overshadowing impacts.

The proposal would result in unacceptable internal amenity.

The use and buildings are of a scale and intensity which will result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties.

The scale, lack of setbacks and lack of landscaping all contribute to an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal fails to provide adequate landscaping opportunities and ensure suitable maintenance of native vegetation.

Insufficient information provided regarding geotechnical issues and any investigation of the site, existing structures, soils, and any materials deposited upon the site in order to identify any contamination and hazardous materials.

It has not been demonstrated, or supported by swept paths undertaken by a qualified Traffic Engineer, that vehicles can safely enter and leave the site without adversely impacting traffic flow and safety along Sydney Street.

Insufficient vehicle access, entry, exit and circulation within has been demonstrated using the B85 and B99 vehicle standard.

Separation of circulation and access paths for motor vehicles and pedestrians has not been properly demonstrated to ensure safety of pedestrian residents and visitors.

Insufficient deep soil landscaped zones are provided.

Insufficient permeability is provided.

Insufficient rainwater storage per dwelling is provided in context of the number of bedrooms and annual precipitation data, I contemplate a minimum of 2500 litres per dwelling.

BASIX certificate does not specify suficient number of light fittings that are "dedicated" ie that they are capable of only accepting or being operated as LED.

Lack of proper parking provision will adversely affect amenity of residents and surrounding area.

Insufficient acoustic study information has been provided regarding acoustic impacts upon residents, neighbouring sites and the public realm.

The proposed use and development, having regard to the site and surrounding area, would represent an inappropriate planning outcome.

The proposal has not dealt adequately with best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of energy use, internal amenity, solar access, water use and runoff of precipitation from the site.

The proposal has not dealt adequately with proper parking provision for residents and visitors to avoid unacceptable amenity impacts to its occupants and surrounding area residents.

The proposal has not dealt adequately with contemporary best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of energy use, rainwater capture in context of local annual precipitation, preventing entry of litter to stormwater drains through suitable pollutant traps and screens, internal amenity, light pollution and spill from the development and protecting residents from off site sources of light spill, solar access, water use and runoff of precipitation from the site.

The proposal has not dealt adequately with the management of vehicle and bin washing upon the site and the impacts of the discharge of associated waste into the stormwater network.

The proposal has not adequately dealt with the separation of pedestrian entry from motor vehicle entry routes.

Insufficient information has been provided to enable a comprehensive assessment of the proposals impact on internal amenity and neighbouring dwelling amenity through the creation of light, noise, odour, access of non-resident a, birds and vermin to waste stored in site areas and litter as well as contamination risks and impacts on existing and neighbouring vegetation.

To add to the previous comment, there are no other two storey dwellings on this street. It would be an eye sore and unaesthetically pleasing, as well as questioning the privacy and noise of neighbouring homes.

Having a Childcare centre on Cambridge Street is going to add more traffic. Do we not already have a Childcare Centre in College st?

Traffic issue with an additional dwelling will create parking issues

While more child care centres are required. The location will bring additional traffic and parking issue to an already busy street. Kids acdamey on factory road is a good example of the extra street parking a child care centre will bring to the area.
Traffic issues during construction and ongoing are a major concern

I object to the tree removal aspects of the proposal.

The proposal fails to protect environmentally significant vegetation.

The proposed development will discharge excessive amounts of concentrated stormwater into the public realm via driveway and crossover, and also into the stormwater network.

The proposal has not demonstrated a traffic management plan and study and it is a proposal that will by additional motor vehicle traffic create adverse amenity and public safety impacts upon the public realm and the surrounding neighbourhood.

The street upon which the proposal is sited is a narrow local street, with a history of detached housing and only a very recent significant growth in medium density housing. I would have with the benefit of hindsight submitted to council that the surrounding zoning of R3 allows overdevelopment and is an inappropriate planning outcome, and that only R2 zoning should have been pursued for the length of Adelaide Street. The State Environmental Planning Policy is a concern as it allows the imposition of inappropriate medium and high density development locally and denies the local community the abilities to have a say in their surroundings, the future vision of the area, the uses of land and to what extent context should in this writers view be given greater weight than emerging character.

The proposed development fails to contemplate best practices in contemporary water sensitive urban design including diverting stormwater onsite to rainwater tanks and into landscaped areas.

The side and rear setbacks are insufficient.

The proposal and its lack of landscaping will dominate the streetscape in a context where the local character is structures and works overall that are subservient to streetscape.

The works and use proposed is an inappropriate planning outcome.

The facade, colours and finishes of the proposed structures will dominate the surrounds and public realm and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The overall structures will generate excessive visual bulk which will adversely impact the amenity of neighbouring sites and the public realm.

The height, massing and scale of the proposed works will dominate the surrounds and public realm and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The proposal contains insufficient deep soil zones for landscaping and fails to contemplate meaningful landscaping that provides a buffer for the works and fails to respond positively to the surrounding context.

The proposal fails to name vegetation including botanical name, common name, quantity, height at maturity and planted sizes.

The proposal fails to maintain sufficient levels of native canopy trees in keeping with neighbourhood and local character in that there are not native canopy trees of the indigenous vegetation class proposed, no native canopy tree planting is proposed that will be aligned with the context regarding height upon maturity and size of canopy.

The proposal fails to demonstrate sufficient vehicle circulation and appropriately sized parking spaces within so that all motor vehicles may enter and exit in a forward direction using modelling demonstrated by the B85 vehicle standard.

This writer is concerned about the prospects of a double crossover being provided for motor vehicle access to the site and requests if the proposal is determined for approval that no double crossover is provided.

The writer requests that if proposal is approved, DDA Compliant footpath in the road reservation be installed at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The proposal fails to provide sufficient separation for arrival and throughfare through the site of centre clients and staff who are not parking motor vehicles within.

External lighting within will dominate the surrounds and adversely affect public realm and neighbouring site amenity due to excessive light spill generated, and suitable conditions need imposition regarding lamp post height, lamp type, lamp illumination scope etc.

I urge the responsible authority if the works are approved, to implement where any street parking is available outside the site to develop no parking zones or in the alternate a 10 Minute timed parking zone in order to promote efficient vehicle turnover.

I submit that for the site and context the overall proposal is an inappropriate planning outcome and the responsible authority should determine by refusal.

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 responds negatively to the site's topography and I know that from the eastern to western boundary there is a surveyed fall of at least 3 metres.

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 outside the property, integrated with crossovers at applicant's cost to be completed before any occupation certificate granted;

Crossfall of footpath and other areas of pedestrian circulation to not exceed 2.5% and no pedestrian path shall have a gradient exceeding 12.5%.

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;

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.

I don’t see any provision for a playground. The current playground is used constantly and I fear that it would not cope with the additional families who would be accommodated in the new appartments.
Also why isn’t The Crescent continued down through the area to meet up with Lord Sheffield Circuit. Don’t be fooled if council think that people would walk to the station via the pedestrian path. The people who currently drive to the station via The Crescent and Mountain View Crescent live further away than you think and guaranteed they will still travel by car to the station to catch a train.

I greatly support this application as it fits with the ongoing CBD rejuvenation. I support greater density of housing in the inner ring of Penrith, supporting more business opportunities, the growing sense of a Penrith nightlife and other opportunities. I especially think it’s important that it opens up a much needed direct pedestrian link between Mountain View Cres, the station, and the rest of the CBD, opening up parts of Lemongrove and the areas north of lemongrove rd for commuters and reducing car dependence for travel to and from the station.

Extension of the toilets good idea.....but More Poker Machines not a good idea!
STOP the EXTENSION OF THE GAMING ROOM!
BE RESPONSIBLE PENRITH COUNCIL!

I object to the second dwelling on the property. It creates more heat , more traffic with additional car and adds to the congestion in the street already . The traffic in the area is absolutely horrendous and squeezing more people in will only add to this.

Seriously, Penrith Council what are you doing to our suburb. I have lived here since 1972 and have seen the decline of this once family friendly street. We do not need a childcare centre in such close proximity to Boarding houses. Manning, Edna, Edward and Edith street are already suffering from overbuilding of huge boarding houses . Traffic is becoming a problem. Please no more . It is time to consider the needs of those who have paid taxes over decades rather than the greedy investors.

A second Childcare Centre application has been lodged for 2-4 Manning St as well.

Bus route, Newmarch House Aged Care Home, University students street parking, multiple boarding houses with insufficient parking on site, parents parking for Kingswood Public School pick up and drop offs and now 2 large childcare centres....really Penrith Council?? So much for moving into a 'quiet' street 14 yrs ago...it's a nightmare now!