All recent comments on applications from Penrith City Council, NSW

To Ashley The DA applications are approved or refused by Penrith Planning Department, yes there are policy and guidlines from the NSW State Government. Penrith Council started this problem in Kingswood when they change the zoning in Kingswood to R3.

It appears that most people commenting here don’t realise the boarding houses in the area are ALL approved by the state government, not by council. Council will pass on your objections to the state government, but has no say in the matter!

With the 2 lots that Wendy Spinks advised that this application will actually include - It is for a 95 room Boarding House. That is outrageous. Absolutely No Penrith City Council.

Im adding my disbelief to the comments.
I feel like we have no voice or say in what happens in our area.
7 boarding house in Manning and Edward Street .another going up on the corner of Edna Street and a small laneway. Trying to get out of Edna street now is a joke. Concrete trucks blocking the road. Guys sitting on the road beside trucks having lunch blocking access. It is a joke. 49 years of paying taxes and this is how we are treated by Council, having homes overlooked by who knows who, our privacy taken away from us. I’d like to bet that not one councillor either here with the State Planning have this problem in their area or street.

A boarding house complex is the last type of structure Kingswood wants or needs, especially one of this size. Our area needs developments that will enhance its liveability and desirability for families, not detract from it. Opposite the hotel! On the direct route to the train station.

Come on Penrith City Council. If this development gets approval then as a council you are tacitly stating that Kingswood is the go-to area for those in the Penrith community that are "less desirable". That is an insult to those that live in Kingswood, the majority of whom are decent, hard-working people.

I want to live in an area that is safe, and where my children can walk to the train and out and about without me feeling uneasy. I'm sure you'd want that for yours, too. This development must not go ahead. No. Absolutely no.

Just had a look at the proposal for 2 a Bringelly Road, Kingswood NSW 2747 on the DA Tracking site on the council page. This DA is for both 2 a Bringelly Road KINGSWOOD NSW and : 31 Santley Crescent KINGSWOOD NSW 2747. This building will cover both sites, a big L shape. Where is the affordable accommodation families

No Kingswood does not need another Boarding house. Remember that there is an election on the 4 December 2021. We have a chance to vote for an Independent in the East Ward. This could show the Labor and Liberal Councillors that we had enough. Maybe then our local Liberal member Stuart Ayres will speak up for the residents of Kingswood to the NSW Planning department of his party. The next State election is due in early 2023.

To even contemplate putting another boarding house in Kingswood is a slap in the face to those of us who live in the area. The suburb of Kingswood currently struggles with high crime rates and substantial drug abuse (as evidenced by the presence of used syringes in areas such as Doug Rennie Field and in the gutters). Whilst I understand the importance of boarding houses as a tool to assist those who are transitioning from Incarceration, rehabilitation facilities, or adverse personal circumstances, is there not enough evidence to support that these “ghetto” style accommodations breed dysfunction and cause a greater level of detriment to the surrounding community? The building may be shiny and new, but the people who will live in it sure aren’t, and I for one value the safety of myself and my young family over all others. I implore you to consider the greater Kingswood community, a lot of whom are hard working and law abiding individuals, who already deal with criminals, addicts and such on a daily basis and do not need to have greater safety concerns than are already present.

Absolutely not! Kingswood already has more then enough boarding houses.
Penrith City Council you need to start thinking about the residents of Kingswood and dont let this suburb be turning into the Boarding house capital of NSW. There are already more then enough in the suburb - a number of these constantly have room for let signs out the front so they are not being used as it is. Plus there are already a number of other that have been approved and are currently in the building phase. And not to mention the number which have already been sold after construction due to then being vacant
If there is such a high demand for them start putting them in other suburbs in Penrith and stop the cluster in Kingswood.
Penrith City Council you need to start putting the time, money and effort into supporting the current community in Kingswood and stop turning it into an area that people dont feel safe in and want to leave. It seems that other suburbs are looked after but its easier for the Council to turn a blind eye to Kingswood

Kingswood does not need any further boarding houses. This is only going to bring Kingswood down further, create more drug problems and opposite a pub, not the most clever idea

This is a terrible idea. The project is completely at odds with the investment in the area to improve its amenity for the community such as the upgrade of the main town centre and train station.

Industrial projects like this are big detractors to the gentrification of the town.

I am very concerned as to where driveway access will be to this development. It is right on the corner of a very busy area with trucks using entrance to the shopping centre which take up a lot of the road when they operate.

Water Street is a very dangerous street with already one fatality on it. Especially in mid summer with the sun shining directly in your face. A dangerous curve in my opinion that does not warrant such a development on the corner.

The proposed height, setbacks, massing, building material choice, colour of finishes and design of the buildings combined together will dominate the surrounds and will not positively respond to the surrounding context.

The proposed setbacks design and massing of the buildings combined together 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.

There are no shadow diagrams and insufficient information from the applicant to counter my experiences view that the proposal will create unacceptable solar access impacts and overshadowing especially to land adjacent to the site's eastern boundary.

The application should not determined in favour of approval unless the applicant proves by submitting shadow diagrams modelled upon the winter solstice and spring equinox, for the hours of 0900-1500 that must prove there is no unacceptable overshadowing impact.

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 consistent with the areas character, it may include due to insufficient information provided non native vegetation that may become environmentally invasive and it fails to ensure ensure suitable maintenance of native vegetation including shrubs, small plants and trees indigenous to the area.

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 contemporary best practice environmentally sustainable outcomes in context of glazing, insulation, building and roofing materials, 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 provides for excessive energy use due to excessive thermal loads, building material choices, and the lack of specification of contemporary best practice sustainability including but not limited to solar hot water, on site solar power generation, very high efficiency air conditioning, the insulation R value being not of a suitably high rating in walls and ceilings, lack of ventilation of roof space via louvres in eaves and mechanical ventilation at ridgeline, use of tiles as opposed to steel roofing, excess use of brick for external walls that are oriented between 270 and 90 degrees magnetic azimuth.

Lavatories lack best practice sustainability and it's sought if the projects approved that a condition of consent is imposed to fit only 6 star lavatories from a recognised supplier, in conjunction with the Drainwave device or a suitable equivalent.

Proposed capacity for rainwater capture is considered too low based on annual precipitation data for the region, the number of bedrooms in each dwelling and it's not considered contemporary best practice unless pressurised and delivers rain water to laundry and garden supply and lavatories including a tap at the front area suitable for using the rainwater for motor vehicle washing by residents. I would contemplate as appropriate a minimum capacity of 3000 litres per dwelling.

Dark coloured tiled roofs and wall bricks indeed the use of extensive bricked areas on the western and northern aspects detract from the areas character, fail to positively respond to the surrounding context, contribute to domination of the surrounds and fail to ensure an outcome that pursues contemporary best practice sustainability in terms of thermal efficiency of the structures.

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 does not adequately contemplate sufficient waste disposal and it's submitted that as a minimum there be provided in a lot unless it's occupied by its owner, a 120 litre weekly general or 240 litre fortnightly general refuse service, together with standard recycling and green/food waste to be provided to each lot as condition of consent.

The proposal had not adequately contemplated suitable external lighting to avoid spill of light affecting other occupants within the site and lots neighbouring the site.

The proposal does not adequately deal with contemporary best practices in water sensitive urban design to eliminate runoff from the site into local stormwater networks especially with regard to gradients of paved surfaces, creating bunded areas in the paved sections to redirect precipitation flow and the concept of directing excess precipitation into a suitable permeable and landscaped area with pollutant screens so that litter of leaves and other litter does not enter the stormwater network and the landscaped area referred herein and not provided should be able to filter site pollutants such as leaked motor vehicle fluids and waste water generated from bin and motor vehicle washing.

The proposal does not adequately contemplate water sensitive urban urban design so as to avoid inundation of neighbouring properties due to rain and the development diverting any overland water flows.

The proposal does not provide any paved areas upon whole of the verge for the thoroughfare of pedestrians.

Development consent should be refused by the Responsible Authority, or in the alternative rigorous consent conditions imposed that contemplate the matters raised in my submissions.

The proposal does not adequately respond to the need to protect nearby riparian areas and natural watercourses from the entry of pollutants.

Insufficient information has been provided regarding environmental impacts upon Overland water flows, neighbouring land and natural watercourses.

The proposal as submitted would increase the volume and velocity of Overland water flows without suitable consent conditions.

I submit there should be a number of consent conditions added, in the alternate the application refused by the Responsibile Authority.

Request consent condition that the paved area be bunded with Cement to prevent flows of water onto the roadway and adjacent land and ultimately divert the precipitation into the bio retention area I propose as a consent condition.

Request consent condition that a suitably landscaped bio retention area be developed by the applicant for the filtering of gross and micro pollutants.

Request consent condition that precipitation upon the roofs of structures be managed and retained in a suitable system for non potable uses within such as cleaning and lavatory flushing.

Request consent condition that any drain covers for the detention system be fitted with gross pollutant screens with gaps not exceeding 10mm in order to prevent entry of litter, leaf and other objects.

Request consent condition that no cleaning, maintenance, or other activities take place upon the premises that result in the discharge of waste, that is not stormwater, into the system.

Request consent condition that stormwater collected be managed in a suitable system for non potable water uses within such cleaning and lavatory flushing.

In the event that the consent conditions are not agreed to by the Applicant, I request that Council issue a notice of determination with an outcome of Refusal.

The boarding houses in Manning street would only be 80 to 100 metre from the proposed Child care at 26 to 28 Manning street, Kingswood. Approval has be given to build a boarding house next to a Child day care in Kingswood, nowhere is safe in Penrith.

I bought a lot here Major Tomkins Parade, Werrington NSW 2747，when will settle？ the developer said will be in next year

So is this Childcare Centre anywhere near All the Flop Houses on Manning St?
Would be interested to know?

Don't forget people the Council Elections in December!
We the People have the Power! ✊

Another development application for a boarding house for Penrith/Kingswood

I think it is about time that the Penrith Council General Manager, Warwick Winn, Penrith Councillors and the local state Member Stuart Ayers tell the residents of PENRITH what PLANS THEY HAVE FOR PENRITH IN THE COMING YEARS. Are we going to become a dumping ground or is there someone who can lead Penrith into the future? This can only be done if we have leaders that are thinking of the residents, not just their next job. Changes will need to be made, but currently communities are being destroyed. Progression is good but congestion and destruction of neighbourhoods is not good for the future. Affordable accommodation should be available for singles, couples and families. But there is a problem when a room in a Boarding house is the ONLY affordable option that can be offered to people in need.

Unfortunately I Moore. Even if you find a councillor who agrees with you , it’s only to get your vote. We registered so many complaints for the boarding houses gone up in Manning Street , and and now Edna St . We Had assurances from a councilwoman that it was disgraceful and that she would do the best She could for us only need to be told after she was elected that its progress so unfortunately Nobody cares on the Penrith Council. They are not listening listening.

The over abundance in Penrith & its environs, of so called " boarding" houses is quite worrisome: seems as if the Penrith residential area has become a dumping ground for these type of rabbit warrens built hastily and shoddily to house the marginalised and vulnerable people in our community.To herd them altogether in these type of dwellings is an insult to them and also to the long term residents of the streets where these ghetto like buildings are built with no consultation with neighbours whatsoever. There is minimal or inadequate care for these people in these buidings ,no caretaker to make sure their needs are met or that safety issues are seen to. I definitely will be voting for a councillor who listens and acts on these concerns from the citizens of Penrith.

Totally agree!
We have enough Flop Houses in the PENRITH LGA!
It has to Stop Penrith Council with st Dominic's & Hungry Jacks across the road!
There is a Council Election in December?????

Very disappointed in Penrith City Council if this application is approved. Right across the road as well from a school and within the area of a childcare centre application that has also been put forward to the Council for approval. This application has already been rejected once.
There are already an increasingly large number of boarding houses in the area - all single rooms - which when looking at this plan it again is for single room occupancy. How many more do we need? All of the applications put through Penrith City Council for boarding houses are all single room occupancy.
Where is the assistance to help families? And also what about the boarding houses in Kingswood that constantly have rooms available signs out the front or that have now been sold off because they are not being used?
There are far too many already in the area and clustering is already becoming an increasing issue.
Have a thought for the residents that live in the community already.

Due to lack of suitable oversight by a number of dodgy private certifiers colluding with builders of build-to-rent homes to circumvent proper standards, cut corners, and the lack of sufficient oversight with effective enforcement remedies, it has become necessary to protect the community from poor designs, adverse environmental impacts and unacceptable internal amenity for someone to request the responsible authority add suitable consent conditions and make a determination of Refusal should the Applicant not undertake to comply:

That only vegetation of the local indigenous ecological vegetation class be planted.

That 4 canopy trees of the local indigenous ecological vegetation class be installed, with minimum potted size of 300mm and height over 1.0 metres, of species whose height shall exceed 8.0 metres upon maturity.

That due to low annual precipitation and the need to increase environmental sustainability in a climate change context, an alternative water system be provided including tank of 3000 litre capacity and plumbed to lavatories, laundry and garden taps of the new dwelling.

That the secondary dwelling have glass panelling provided in its external entry door with a total area of at least 25% of the doors size.

That only a "heat pump" or gas boosted solar hot water system be installed.

That a suitable completed antenna system be installed with connection to one outlet within for reception of all of the free television channels broadcast in Sydney.

That window coverings be provided included roller screen and roller blind and all windows with a western aspect have secondary or double glazing added.

That mechanical ventilation of kitchen must be by externally ducted rangehood only.

That glazed areas of the habitable rooms be increased by 100%.

That a paved access be provided from the secondary Dwelling to the footpath at the applicant's cost.

That an new air-conditioning system with a minimum performance energy efficiency rating of 5 stars according to current standards.

That insulation values in ceiling exceed R5.0 and within walls, exceed R4.0.

That the roof space is mechanically vented.

That western walls are not finished or clad in brick.

That the dwelling roof be finished in steel of a light hue, slope towards the north as a flat section, and have fitted a photovoltaic solar power system whose maximum output is rated above 8.0 kW.

That when a shower screen is opened there is a clear gap of at least 700mm.

That external lighting is of a type to avoid excessive glare impacting neighbouring residents and that the dwelling access path have also suitable illumination of high energy efficiency, low glare and designed to reduce fall risk at night.

That if a secondary Dwelling is not to be fenced that louvred privacy screens be erected with maximum gaps of 10mm between planks which are not exceeding 40mm width and affixed at a minimum total height of 1800mm above ground level with lowest panel not more than 100mm above ground level.

That the Washing Machine storage space be minimum 800mm wide and have no upper covering and provision made so that it's not necessary to connect machine waste to an under sink trap.

The proposed height, articulation, ground and upper level setbacks, massing and design of the buildings 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.

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 bio retention areas, suitable pollutant traps and screens, water sensitive urban design, 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.

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

The proposal does not adequately contemplate sufficient waste disposal and it's submitted that as a minimum there be provided in a lot unless it's occupied by its owner, a 120 litre weekly general or 240 litre fortnightly general refuse service, together with standard recycling and green/food waste to be provided to each lot as condition of consent.

The proposal had not adequately contemplated suitable external lighting to avoid spill of light affecting other occupants within the site and lots neighbouring the site.

The proposal does not adequately detail plans for the legal and responsible management and disposal of spoil resulting from excavation of the site including identifying the destination of the spoil, an investigation of the site and existing dwellings to identify asbestos and other hazardous materials as well as engaging a suitably qualified contractor to undertake spoil management, collection and removal.

The proposal does not adequately deal with contemporary best practices in water sensitive urban design to eliminate runoff from the site into local stormwater networks especially with regard to gradients of paved surfaces, creating bunded areas in the paved sections to redirect precipitation flow and the concept of directing excess precipitation into a suitable permeable and landscaped area with pollutant screens so that litter of leaves and other litter does not enter the stormwater network and the landscaped area referred herein and not provided should be able to filter site pollutants such as leaked motor vehicle fluids and waste water generated from bin and motor vehicle washing.

The proposal does not adequately contemplate water sensitive urban urban design so as to avoid inundation of neighbouring properties due to rain and the development diverting any overland water flows.

The proposal does not provide any paved areas upon whole of the verge for the thoroughfare of pedestrians.

Development consent should be refused or in the alternative rigorous consent conditions imposed that contemplate the matters raised in my submissions.