All recent comments on applications from Penrith City Council, NSW

No objections in principle, however currently water spills out from the wash bays creating a slip hazard on to the road where people have to walk to get to the shops. This could easily be fixed as part of these changes by installing a strip drain on either of the wash bays.

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, lavatory and garden tap 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 twelve (12) to ten (10) and a minimum of four (4) 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, walls and/or metal grille panel 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 southern side of Canberra Street integrated with crossovers;

No footpath or crossover Grade to exceed 1 in 40;

Additional fire hydrants installed at applicant cost, as required on site and in the footpath so that no part of each lot is more than 25 metres from any fire hydrant or in the alternate, one suitable fire hydrant within and then smoke detectors provided to EACH bedroom and upper level habitable room and interconnected with all others within the structure;

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

I wish now to address the local planning instruments in law directly.

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 (based upon each original lot prior to consolidation having frontage of less than 22m) 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.

Once more, I urge that the Responsible Authority determine the Application by way of Refusal.

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.

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.

The local infrastructure, roads and public transport are suited to more development in this area. The developer should have to provide funds for local road upgrades, on worship days currently there are many cars parked on the edge of the road and with no footpath people are force to complete with cars to access the address. As part of the plan they should have to curb and gutter the road and provide a shared path to the nearest bus stop.

Ooooh Penrith Council, think we have enough "BOARDING HOUSES" around Penrith!
Can't Greedy Delevopers build something else other than
"BOARDING HOUSES" or Large Ugly Highrise Phallic Complexes!

I wish to add to my existing submissions that if the Responsible Authority determines the application by way of Approval that this consent condition be added:

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.

Hope this won’t be like the rest of St Marys where you fight to drive a car down the streets Most houses have 2 to 3 cars and most new developments only allocate one spot.Which means everyone else park their cars on the street.
Creating a nightmare
People should not be paying council rates for such poor planning

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 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 not exceed a grade of 1 in 40;
That paved footpath be constructed upon the eastern side of Pages Road 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.

If these units will overlook the school playground and the school then they should not be given approval also will Morris House and the old stables at John Cram Pl be pulled down as this will be another part of Penrith’s history gone.

Sounds lovely- I always support local,small businesses!

Hope council approve . Don’t blame you ,children’s safety and your privacy are very important to really enjoying your home .

According to the Applicant in their Statement of Environmental Effects:

"The design currently sits in the building envelope however does not comply with council DCP
Figure D2 10. We believe that this should be exempt as only a section of the raked/angled
roof/wall that does not negatively impact the neighbour’s lot or cause large issues of
overshadowing of their property. We are asking for the exemption because the roof design is an
aesthetic choice that best matches the local area."

I submit that deviations from the Council DCP should only be allowed if significant community or environmental benefit is achieved. I submit that suitable environmental benefits can be incorporated by way of these conditions I propose:

That the skillion roof descend or drain towards the north;
That there be a photovoltaic solar power system installed upon the roof with rated maximum output of 8kW which supplies power only to the secondary dwelling and can feed into the grid via the connection of the secondary dwelling;
That there be a solar hot water system installed upon the roof with boosting by gas -- in the alternate the applicant install a heat pump type hot water system;
The applicant install ceiling fans to each bedroom and living, in addition to provision of air conditioning;
Applicant install at entry a lockable security grill door and window security grills at living and bedrooms to promote passive cooling opportunites at all times;
That clothes drying hoist area be positioned to maximize solar gain according to the winter solstice and a suitable shadow diagram produced to verify this outcome;
Windows of the bedroom to be amended to aluminium framed double glass panel to replace single panel;
That any kitchen rangehood be ducted to exterior;
Insulation R values raised by 50%;
Roof space be ventilated by rotating mechanical vents and southern, eastern and western eaves be fitted with louvred ventilation grilles;
That a allocated off street paved parking area solely for use by the secondary dwelling with a 7kW capacity charging point for electric vehicles be installed by the Applicant;
That the applicant integrate throughout the world the updated Building Code of Australia disability access standards agreed to by the State of Victoria in 2020 but which New South Wales failed to commit to;
That these measures be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsibile Authority.

I submit there is insufficient information about the vegetation proposed for the landscaping. I submit that only native canopy trees, shrubs and plants are to be used, be of the local indigenous ecological vegetation class, 2 at least canopy trees to be minimum 1.2m height that can exceed 5.0m height upon maturity.

Western boundary setback of the secondary dwelling exceeds building line of the original dwelling. I suggest consent condition that amends western setback to 1.2m however that is able to be mediated towards applicant's original western setback proposal if they are amenable to amendments encompassing the above conditions.

I do not consider that given the 24 month local weather data to date, and the issues of climate change and rising energy cost that the proposal of the Applicant responds adequately to contemporary community expectations.

The proposal does not respond adequately to the statements by the Responsibile Authority in the 24 months to date, in media and upon its web sites, regarding extremes of weather, summer temperatures that have exceeded 50⁰ in recent years, and climate change. I submit that media comment by the Responsibile Authority can be used to provide global guidance to matters of planning and development control.

The proposal is a mediocre, unadventurous proposal that fails to contemplate contemporary best practices and as seen in the Basix section seeks to merely, at times barely, meet minimum requirements rather than respond to the community expectations and offset the 2 areas in which the applicant fails to strictly comply with the DCP.

It is clearly a build-to-rent structure designed for minimal cost in order to purportedly meet requirements rather than respond to the the community's expectations of excellence in internal amenity, livability, comfort and high energy efficiency so one can live a busy comfortable daily life without excessive carbon footprint and energy costs.

I do not believe the applicant's proposal is an appropriate planning outcome without substantial amendments and if the applicant is opposed to the amendments that they either be added as conditions by the Responsibile Authority or in the alternate, that the proposal be refused approval by the Responsibile Authority.

What- yet another pharmacy on High St?

Objections are made to the following modifications, and it's sought that the responsible authority issue a determination of refusal:

GROUND FLOOR EXTERNAL WALLS CHANGED TO 270mm DOUBLE BRICK WALLS IN
LIEU OF 240mm BRICK VENEER WALLS.
2. GROUND FLOOR INTERNAL WALLS CHANGED TO 110mm SINGLE BRICK WALLS IN
LIEU OF 90mm STUD WALLS.
5. FIRST FLOOR EXTERNAL CLAD WALL CHANGED TO 240mm BRICK VENEER WALL

I rely on these grounds and others that the proposal requires more detailed scrutiny before any approval to proceed.

The upper level external wall finishes and materials proposed will dominate the surrounds and respond negatively to the surrounding context.

The changing of ground floor walling to more extensive use of brick will produce unacceptable internal amenity and not respond appropriately t to environmental and energy efficiency needs in line with best practice.

The overall height, scale and massing of the building will dominate the surrounds and respond negatively to the surrounding context.

The lack of sufficient setbacks produces an outcome that will dominate the surrounds, fail to integrate built form with context, and not be subservient to the streetscape as contemplated within the meaning of the requirements of planning Overlays for the site.

Insufficient information has been provided on vegetation types for landscaping and the maintenance of suitable native vegetation of local provenance.

The proposal fails to respect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area, fails to demonstrate integration with the surrounding urban environment, and fails to protect significant vegetation on the site.

The proposal fails to respond to and achieve local planning and environmental objectives as it does not seek to retain any existing canopy tree, and the building envelope location, scale and setbacks do not provide sufficient space in its surrounds to enable the planting of canopy trees, or provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping or canopy tree planting between the front, side and rear of the building envelope and the boundaries.

Request consent conditions to be added in event of approval:

(1) Electrical infrastructure to ensure car parking areas are ‘electric vehicle ready’,
including:
(i) One or more distribution boards within each car parking area with
capacity to supply a suitably installed, 1 x 7kW (32amps) electric vehicle charger for each parking
space.
(ii) A scalable load management system to ensure that electric vehicles are only
charged when the building electrical load is below the nominated peak demand.

(2) Rainwater harvesting storage of 3000 litres with connection to garden taps, lavatories and laundry supply. The documents to date specify a smaller tank and no connection to laundry

(3) Roof design amended to a northern oriented skillion Steel roof in order to maximise solar access for renewable energy to respond to climate change.

(4). Provide only gas boosted solar or electric heat pump boosted solar hot water systems.

(5) Ceiling fans provided to each habitable room.

(6). Driveway pavement design to channel precipitation falling upon driveway into garden within rather than the road, there place a drain for overflow linked to stormwater detention that has screening not exceeding 5mm gaps to prevent entry of litter and leaf matter to stormwater network.

(7). That only native vegetation be used in landscaping including 2 canopy trees of 1.2 metre minimum height and potted depth over 300mm with each to be of the local indigenous ecological vegetation class and replaced in the event of death

(8). Upper level walling to be clad with suitable material and brick not used.

I support this development as it will create more jobs and more opportunities for young families to enjoy a good time together.
Much better than having factories or big blocks of units.
Welcome to Hungry Jacks and Al Jannah.

I object to certain aspects of this development:-
1. The increased traffic on Andrews Rd and Laycock St which the current infrastructure will not be able to handle (it can't currently - lots of accidents and near misses already happening, along with increased large truck traffic). There need to be traffic lights or a roundabout installed to handle traffic flow.
2. The development operating 24hrs a day will adversely impact the residential homes that back onto it in Waterside Estate.
3. The 24 hour operation is likely to result in increased crime and anti-social behaviour in the area and neighbouring residential estate of Waterside.

I object to this development located at 1 Renshaw street Cranebrook for the following reasons:-
1. The increased traffic on Andrews rd which the current infrastructure will not be able to handle.
2. The development operating 24hrs a day will impact the residential homes that back onto Andrews and the residential homes at waterside that also back onto it as a majority of these homes have their bedrooms located on the Andrews rd side.
3. Penrith does not need more fast food outlets. It promotes Obesity and addictive health issues.
4. It will increase the crime rate within the area.
5. There is already 3 childcare centres on Renshaw street Cranebrook.
6. There are already 2 fuel service stations on Andrews rd.

I request consent condition added that the Applicant provide concrete footpath wholly in the nature strip reservation adjacent to the frontage of the development on Sydney Street, together with barrier/channel kerb to Australian Standards and maximum footpath crossfall of 1:50, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

This work is to be arranged by and completed at the expense of the applicant and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

Insufficient information and no visual modelling is provided regarding solar access and overshadowing with both based on the spring equinox.

Insufficient information provided regarding site management of reuse, recycling and waste management and a lack of disclosure regarding investigation into the site and any existing structures or the ruins to identify hazardous materials.

Insufficient information provided regarding the plan and the homes floor elevation responding to local risks of flooding and overland water flows.

Insufficient Information provided regarding the modelling of risks of the proposal diverting and/or increasing overland water flows and increasing inundation of adjacent lands during high precipitation events.

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 had not dealt adequately with sufficient measures for passive or low energy heating and cooling.

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 preparing the site for the parking and charging of electric vehicles.

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.

Insufficient information has been provided on vegetation types for landscaping and the maintenance of suitable native vegetation of local provenance.

The proposal fails to respect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area, fails to demonstrate integration with the surrounding urban environment, and fails to protect significant vegetation on the site.

The proposal fails to respond to and achieve local planning and environmental objectives as it does not seek to retain any existing canopy tree, and the building envelope location, scale and setbacks do not provide sufficient space in its surrounds to enable the planting of canopy trees, or provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping or canopy tree planting between the front, side and rear of the building envelope and the boundaries.

Request consent conditions to be added:

(1) Electrical infrastructure to ensure car parking areas including those at the original home, are ‘electric vehicle ready’,
including:
(i) One or more distribution boards within each car parking area with
capacity to supply 1 x 7kW (32amps) electric vehicle charger for each parking
space.
(ii) A scalable load management system to ensure that electric vehicles are only
charged when the building electrical load is below the nominated peak demand.

(2) Rainwater harvesting storage of 3000 litres per dwelling, with connection to garden taps, lavatories and laundry supply.

(3) Roof design amended to a northern oriented skillion Steel roof in order to maximise solar access for renewable energy to respond to climate change.

(4). (i) Provide only gas boosted solar or electric heat pump boosted solar hot water systems.
(ii) if hot water is powered by electricity, that it be controlled by a scalable load management system so it only received supply when the building electrical load is sufficiently below the nominated peak demand.

(5) indoor ceiling heights increased to 2700mm from floors and ceiling fans provided to each habitable room.

(6). Driveway pavement design to channel precipitation falling upon driveway into garden within rather than the road, there place a drain for overflow linked to stormwater detention that has screening not exceeding 5mm gaps to prevent entry of litter and leaf matter to stormwater network.

(7). That only native vegetation be used in landscaping including 2 canopy trees of 1.2 metre minimum height and potted depth over 300mm with each to be of the local indigenous ecological vegetation class and replaced in the event of death

(8). Exposed western walling to not be clad of brick

(9). External lighting designed to minimise spill beyond the property boundary.

(10) that according to NABERS and certification by a suitably qualified professional, the new home be constructed with a 7 star energy efficiency rating in order to meet the conditions of consent.

It would be preferable that collaboration between the applicant and responsible authority integrate all or much of the proposed consent conditions into a final planning outcome and in the event that no agreement is forthcoming from the applicant that the responsible authority endeavour to refuse the application or in the alternate determine it approved with conditions imposed.

As the original proposal has not adequately responded to climate change, I request the amendment be determined by way of refusal unless the applicant agrees to various consent conditions.

Request consent conditions to be added:

(1) Electrical infrastructure to ensure car parking areas are ‘electric vehicle ready’,
including:
(i) One or more distribution boards within each car parking area with
capacity to supply 1 x 7kW (32amps) electric vehicle charger for each parking
space.
(ii) A scalable load management system to ensure that electric vehicles are only
charged when the building electrical load is below the nominated peak demand.

(2) Rainwater harvesting storage of 3000 litres with connection to garden taps, lavatories and laundry supply.

(3) Roof design amended to a northern oriented skillion Steel roof in order to maximise solar access for renewable energy to respond to climate change.

(4). Provide only gas boosted solar or electric heat pump boosted solar hot water systems.

(5) indoor ceiling heights increased to 2700mm from floors and ceiling fans provided to each habitable room.

(6). Driveway pavement design to channel precipitation falling upon driveway into garden within rather than the road, there place a drain for overflow linked to stormwater detention that has screening not exceeding 5mm gaps to prevent entry of litter and leaf matter to stormwater network.

(7). That only native vegetation be used in landscaping including 1 canopy trees per dwelling constructed, installation of 1.2 metre minimum height and potted depth over 300mm with each to be of the local indigenous ecological vegetation class and replaced in the event of death

(8). Exposed western walling to not be clad of brick

(9). External lighting designed to minimise spill beyond the property boundary.

(10) that according to NABERS and certification by a suitably qualified professional, the home be constructed with a 7 star energy efficiency rating in order to meet the conditions of consent.

It would be preferable that collaboration between the applicant and responsible authority integrate all or much of the proposed consent conditions into a final planning outcome and in the event that no agreement is forthcoming from the applicant that the responsible authority endeavour to refuse the application or in the alternate determine it approved with conditions

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

Insufficient information and no visual modelling is provided regarding solar access and overshadowing with both based on the spring equinox.

Insufficient information provided regarding site management of reuse, recycling and waste management and a lack of disclosure regarding investigation into the site and any existing structures or the ruins to identify hazardous materials.

Insufficient information provided regarding the plan and the homes floor elevation responding to local risks of flooding and overland water flows.

Insufficient Information provided regarding the modelling of risks of the proposal diverting and/or increasing overland water flows and increasing inundation of adjacent lands during high precipitation events.

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 had not dealt adequately with sufficient measures for passive or low energy heating and cooling.

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 preparing the site for the parking and charging of electric vehicles.

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.

Insufficient information has been provided on vegetation types for landscaping and the maintenance of suitable native vegetation of local provenance.

The proposal fails to respect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area, fails to demonstrate integration with the surrounding urban environment, and fails to protect significant vegetation on the site.

The proposal fails to respond to and achieve local planning and environmental objectives as it does not seek to retain any existing canopy tree, and the building envelope location, scale and setbacks do not provide sufficient space in its surrounds to enable the planting of canopy trees, or provide adequate opportunities for meaningful landscaping or canopy tree planting between the front, side and rear of the building envelope and the boundaries.

Request consent conditions to be added:

(1) Electrical infrastructure to ensure car parking areas are ‘electric vehicle ready’,
including:
(i) One or more distribution boards within each car parking area with
capacity to supply 1 x 7kW (32amps) electric vehicle charger for each parking
space.
(ii) A scalable load management system to ensure that electric vehicles are only
charged when the building electrical load is below the nominated peak demand.

(2) Rainwater harvesting storage of 3000 litres with connection to garden taps, lavatories and laundry supply.

(3) Roof design amended to a northern oriented skillion Steel roof in order to maximise solar access for renewable energy to respond to climate change.

(4). Provide only gas boosted solar or electric heat pump boosted solar hot water systems.

(5) indoor ceiling heights increased to 2700mm from floors and ceiling fans provided to each habitable room.

(6). Driveway pavement design to channel precipitation falling upon driveway into garden within rather than the road, there place a drain for overflow linked to stormwater detention that has screening not exceeding 5mm gaps to prevent entry of litter and leaf matter to stormwater network.

(7). That only native vegetation be used in landscaping including 2 canopy trees of 1.2 metre minimum height and potted depth over 300mm with each to be of the local indigenous ecological vegetation class and replaced in the event of death

(8). Exposed western walling to not be clad of brick

(9). External lighting designed to minimise spill beyond the property boundary.

(10) that according to NABERS and certification by a suitably qualified professional, the home be constructed with a 7 star energy efficiency rating in order to meet the conditions of consent.

It would be preferable that collaboration between the applicant and responsible authority integrate all or much of the proposed consent conditions into a final planning outcome and in the event that no agreement is forthcoming from the applicant that the responsible authority endeavour to refuse the application or in the alternate determine it approved with conditions imposed.

This boarding house has 88 rooms x 2 lodgers per room equals 188 lodgers plus 8 rooms x 1 lodger per room plus a mangers room equals close to 200 people in boarding rooms plus the business people to add to this absolutely horrible building.
They will be allowed to drink alcohol in the rooms so when they need more alcohol it is a short walk across Bringelly Rd to the Kingswood hotel to get more alcohol.
This boarding house should be refused by the Penrith Council

Don't worry Penrith Council is spreading the boarding houses around!
The old house across the road on the corner of Markham & Cox Ave is right at this moment being bulldozed to make room for a 2 story 12 Room flop House!
Council Elections on the 4th of December!!!