Lot 267 Peronne Road Edmondson Park NSW 2174, Australia

Objection to Development Application No. DA-427/2018

1. Negative impacts on the value of my property

2. The buildings will be contrary to the Suburban character area statement in the Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008: Part 2.11 Edmondson Park. Peronne Road is located in a Suburban area. Page 15 of the Development Control Plan states that Suburban areas are to be predominantly low density residential areas characterised by 1-2 storey detached and semi-detached homes.

3. The large number of residents in the buildings will also lead to increased street traffic on Peronne Road. This is particularly concerning as there are families with small children who reside on Peronne Road and these children are often seen riding bicycles or playing on footpaths and driveways.

4. Moreover, Peronne Road is a narrow road. It has little room for street parking. When residents do park on the street, the potential for motor vehicle accidents when other cars are driving through the street is high. This problem will be exacerbated by the proposed development, as residents of the 51 apartments (and their visitors) will use parking along the street. This will create more unsafe and inefficient circulation of traffic, particularly in peak hours when individuals are in transit to Edmondson Park railway station. I believe the insufficient road capacity and potential for traffic hazards means the proposed development should not be approved.

5. The proposed development is for a total of 51 apartments. This will lead to additional noise on Peronne Road. The proposed development will therefore interfere with my quiet enjoyment of my property. It will also have detrimental environmental impacts in the form of noise pollution.

6. Finally, construction of the buildings would also create excessive noise. Because of this combination of environmentally unsustainable noise and air pollution, I believe the proposed development application should not be approved.

In line with previous objections from John Hua, and besides the obvious fact that this is in direct contravention to the council aims around how the council sees the development of Edmondson park whereby higher density developments be concentrated around the train station and gradually to lower density developments further away. I fail to see how 50 units can be approved given that it is not lower density, there is no precedent to there being apartments built in the surrounding streets, the land developer and his son making no disclosure of the fact that the land would used for apartments when asked clearly deceiving purchasers of the land. There has been no traffic study has been conducted given the roads are not operational or fully buikt and so the application cannot be fully assessed on the impact to surrounding residents. The roads from Perrone road will be used as thoroughfares to access the local supermarkets and were not designed for large volumes of traffic flowing through. At peak work hours this may equate to an additional 50 cars flowing through the streets to access Camden Valley Way and Croatia Avenue. This is the best case. An average case will be 100 cars given apartments generally have a younger demographic. Compounding the situation is the local infrastructure has not developed to cope with this influx. The local facilities at the train station are already at maximum capacity and this is not even taking into account the completion of New Breeze Bardia and Frasers Ed Park. The high density zones are already served by the developments around the train station where it makes sense. Our area is primarily a residential area for homes not apartments. Purely a blatant developer cash grab from the real estate place near Aldi or his dad (cant name names legal stuff and all)

I agree with the comments above: that there would be a busy street in terms of parking and safety. The streets are too narrow and that would suggest that there would be overcrowding with so many people in such a small street and it would be difficult to find a parking spot too. There would also be a more dangerous environment for kids and residents as there are more people and more cars on the street.

I agreed with all objections listed above.
In particular, the traffic generated by the 50 plus apartment is highly unsustainable and dangerous for young kids like mine.
Streets are too narrow, cars are already parking on the nature strip particularly behind the shopping centres.
There's already lack of local recreational parks and amendities within Edmondson Park estate for the current population.

When the land was sold to us from the developer, who is also developing these units, we were told that the vacant block was going to be parks. this is clearly no longer the case and we are concerned that the development will impact our quality of life. many of the residents would not have bought in this area if we knew of this deception.

I agree with the objection as listed above. Should the proposed development be advised to me prior to purchasing/building of my home, I would have considered buying elsewhere. This deeply affects my property value. The streets are already quite narrow and this will cause an overcrowding issue.

There has been many close encounters with vehicles accidents at the intersection where Kingsbury meet Perrone Rd due to the high traffic activity in the area. With the building of the apartments it would only add more stress in this.

Considering this was never on the original plans for this community feel this is deceitful by the conuncil/developer to propose such a development.

I agree with those comments.the area is overdeveloped.developers are very deceptive when selling lands.

The law is clearly not here to protect the citizen because the developer is able to act without integrity and there is no clear accountability. What would happen to the institution that we all uphold that keeps the Australian society in order if this has been allowed when there is clear deception because of the lack of statistically significant community consultation. This should not be permitted and whoever is the incumbent approver or whoever executed the signature to this application should be liable in the future and should be sued to imprisonment.

I agreed with all of the above comments. This development is out of the neighbourhood characteristic, where the area is surrounded with individual houses only. As mentioned on many previous posts, the size of the streets are too narrow to handle high traffic and given the proposed plan intended have one way entrance to and from the building car park, this would cause heavy traffic and noise during day/night. I object to this proposal.

By looking at the Design of the 51 units and there street access, i am not convinced that the council will accept development proposal. the development looks ugly, , especially it is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity. The Nivelle road and the other 2 streets will be effected, the street appearance which is low density housing will be destroyed by the multi story development.. some of my major concerns are as following.
1. Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, noise, disturbance, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc..
2.Visual impact of the development from my house. i spend alote of money to find a piece of land to build a house in a low density area. let alone the multi unit development hardly 35 meter from my house.
3. The 51 unit development effect character of the neighbourhood, the council should consider this before granting any permission.
4.The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity.
5.The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners, which should not be taken lightly by council.
6.The development would adversely affect safety and the convenience of road users, which are mostly kids ridding cycles. The inherited accident risk associated with that should be addressed with the consent of all neighbours before granting approval.
7. We all expect the council to cater for the extra cars driving pass our house let alone parked on our streets will create mobility hazard. i except the council to provide us the solution for that before passing the application for formal approval.
8. there was no information in your Local area plan for such development to accrue in such close proximity of low density housing, which is on both side of this proposed development application.

I object the development. Please refer to John Hua's comment. Thanks

Objection to Development Application No. DA-427/2018

I totally agree with the objections raised by others. The proposed unit development will be contrary to the Suburban character area statement outlined in Page 15 of the Development Control Plan states of Liverpool council. Our area is meant to be predominantly low density residential areas characterized by 1-2 storied detached and semi-detached homes. The developer and real estate agent have not disclosed about this proposal for units at the time of sale of the land. Otherwise I would not have purchased this block! The relatively high price what we paid for the block is for being able to live in a quiet street in a low density area with reduced traffic and noise pollution.This area has very narrow streets typical for the low density areas where there is only room for a car to get thru while there are parked cars on either sides of streets. This is the current situation with the home occupancy rates of less than 10% in this estate where homes are being built, additional 51 units with their visitors using off street parking and the demography of units being young families with school going children is more likely to create a bottle neck of traffic delaying efficient flow in and out of Camden valley way. The local shops next to Aldi will also attract additional traffic from surrounding suburbs in future.The high density zones are already served by the developments around the train station which is the expected and sensible plan for any development. The local facilities at the train station are already at maximum capacity even at this very early stage of development of Edmondson Park with homes yet to be completed. The proposed development is overbearing and out of character for multiple reasons that would adversely impact the limited infra structure, traffic , safety of pedestrians and life style. I vehemently oppose this development proposal.

The objections have been already raised and I support them too.
If council still decides to go ahead with the development, they should allocate more open space/park area, more station parking, widen the streets around the proposed building to accommodate more traffic and parking, increase bus services to the area and more schools.
However, the locality is clearly overgrown and current infrastructure doesn't support it.
Thanks

I agree with all the points made and object to the new development.

I agree with all the comments made above and object to the New development

I wish to express my concerns regarding DA-427/2018 at LOT 267 DP 1200043 and LOT 267 Peronne Road, Edmondson Park.

We bought our piece of land in 2016 with the thought that this is purely a low density residential property of one or two storey buildings. The proposed land structure encroaches on the privacy of my property. It will also decrease the valuation of my property.

I hope you take my objections into consideration regarding the development.

This stinks of corruption.
All residents should push for a thorough investigation.
Get ICAC involved.
Dont let them get away with it.

Objection to Development Application No. DA-427/2018

The original town plan did not indicate that any units would be placed in this low dencity housing, which will be distroyed by the multi story development.

If this was indicated in the town plan at time of purchase I would have reconsidered purchasing in what i though would be a quiet residential area.

If this does pass through council, the residents would be pussing for an investigation as this stinks of corrution.

Furthurmore, the large number of residents in the buildings will also lead to increased street traffic on Peronne Road. This is particularly concerning as there are families with small children who reside on Peronne Road and these children are often seen riding bicycles or playing on footpaths and driveways.

Objection to Development Application No. DA-427/2018

I am writing on the behalf of my neighbour Mario Biordi of 6 Lorraine Road as he does not know how to use the internet.

He objects to the development due to the large number of units and our area being a lower density area

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. IT WILL DESTROY THE FREE FLOWING LOW DENSITY HOUSING COMMUNITY CONCEPT. AND WILL CONSIDER TAKING ALL NECESSARY ACTION TO STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING. COUNCIL SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN ACCEPTED THIS PROPOSAL IN THE FIRST PLACE, KEEPING IN MIND ITS A BIAS APPROACH FROM THE DEVELOPER WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE SELLER OF THE LAND WITHOUT MENTIONING THAT HE WILL BE PUTTING UP MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING NEXT TO OUR LAND. NOT HAPPY ATALL

For the attention of Mr Glenn Ford and George Nehme, planning officer

Dear Mr Glenn/George Nehme,

Reference: DA-427/2018
Construction of three x 3-storey residential flat buildings containing a total of 51 apartments over one level of basement car parking.

I’ve submit my objection to this proposal via email on 09 July 2018 and confirmed Liverpool council acknownleges that has received my email on the same day.

I have examined the plans from eplanning web site

http://eplanning.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=361492

And I know the site well. I agree with all above objections strongly to the development of 51 apartments in this location.

If this application is to be decided by councillors, please take this as notice that I would like to speak at the meeting of the committee at which this application is expected to be decided. Please let us know as soon as possible the date of the meeting.

Please note that our comments is in respect of the proposed development. While we have taken every effort to present accurate information for your consideration, as we are not a decision maker or statutory consultee, we cannot accept any responsibility for unintentional errors or omissions and you should satisfy yourselves on any facts before reaching your decision.

Hi,

I strongly object to this proposal of constructing 51 units in a low density area. This plot of land when we purchased our properties was marketed as a park. And instead of park, apartments coming up would affect our quality of life. With so much noise, traffic and on top of that the narrow streets cant take the added cars from 51 units and their family/friends.

Current infrastructure of Edmondson Park doesn't even support the existing houses and families. There is insufficient parking near station/no parks etc for kids.

I hope you take my objections into consideration regarding the development.

Hi

Please note that the acoustic report attached to this development is flawed. it does not seem to take into account that traffic will be flowing into the roads lorraine, nivelle and somme where the calculation used a road width of 20m. our road is only 15m wide and i believe our roads are classifed as local rather than sub arterial. The setback is only based on a distance of 4m however this cannot be the case given the proximity of the units driveways to the adjoining house already there. it also assumes traffic will travel in a single direction but should realistically be in two directions as the entrance will be via the smaller roads to the apartments. The existing land use argument in the traffic analysis is also flawed as our zone is not predominantly rural anymore therefore expected traffic increase predictions cannot be accurate

thanks

I would like to object to the proposal to construct 51 units in this small piece of land. The structure if approved will cause increased traffic, encroach on our privacy and reduce the valuation of the nearby properties.

I hope you kindly consider our concerns regarding this development.

I strongly object to this proposal of constructing 3-storey residential flat buildings comprising of a total 51 apartments. As mentioned by other submissions, the subject land of this proposal was marketed as a park during the time of purchase. There is already growing signs of congestion acorss Edmondson Park as more and more buildings are being constructed and residents move in. This proposal will significantly increase the congestion and irritate the residents of Edmondson park

Objection to Development Application No. DA-427/2018

Refer to John Hua

This proposal is beyond ridiculous and I will do everything in my power to ensure this does not go ahead. I have already referred the issue to several media outlets, therefore expect to field calls from media personnel.

There is a clear safety issue on perrone road if this goes ahead. A single car cannot pass without being held up with ongoing traffic. Increased traffic cannot be justified.

Regards
Miki

I totally agree with the points highlighted by the resident of Edmondson Park

we invested our lively hood to to purchase property here to live in peaceful neighbourhood.

we dont need apartments that destroys the free standing dwellings above 2 story

also with recent experience of not enough facility availble in terms of matching population growth...station has limited car spaces, where people are fined by council..what is this ??

I will do very thing in my power to ensure this is not going ahead. Resident of Edmondson park should be the one entitled to mark this decision. NOT THE DEVELOPER, "WHO even refuse to pay for the fencing " just an money making business

I highly objection to Development Application No. DA-427/2018 there will be too much noise and also the street is narrow for 51 unit in small area this will concern for a lot of families with small kids like mine and they need Park not 51unit. Its a low density area housing.

With an incoming oversupply of apartments do we really need more apartments ? Do we want to live near a block of people that we will hardly know or do we want to live next to neighbours that are invested in the community. https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/sydney-rents-fall-as-vacancies-hit-highest-level-on-record/news-story/251d10c938ee03789a7da4c25f58511c

keep your objections coming in !

JAMES

I strongly object to this developmet and agree with the many valid points raised by other concerned residents. It is a clear viilation of the planning guidelines and very unethical conduct of the land owners who are also the developers and by conflict of interest also the real estates selling off the nearby properties. They have a conflict of interest and bias and have and never were forthcoming about this proposal.

I Purchased two properties in peronne road and currently own and reside in Peronne Rd. I paid a premium for my properties and built a home of my dreams with the hope of living in a quiet neighbourhood. I particularly chose this part of Edmondson park with its distance from the town centre and train station to live amongst other normal family homes. I did not want to live near the terraces, units and congestion which brings traffic, noise, congestion etc.

My family, neighbours and I are already experiencing several traffic and noise issues and witness a vehicle collision at Kingsbury and Peronne Rd on occasions. I am concerned that Peronne Rd will become a major thoroughfare and the traffic will increase significantly with the development of these units.

At the time of purchase, the Land developer disclosed that Peronne Rd would end (no through road), and be a relatively quiet street, and they very well never mentioned units at the end of the street. This has not turned out to be the case to the disappointment of several land owners.

I am a civil engineer with some town planning and infrastructure background and I strongly suggest that council consider the implications on traffic, safety, and other financial implications on residents and home owners who may suffer a loss of property valuation as a result of this development.

Lets keep this part of Edmondson park a family orientated area with regular homes on land, and keep the units closer to the town centre as planned.

there is a flaw in the town planning published April 2018. it is expected children between 0-4 to be playing in the back yard. However with 51 apartments, there wont be backyards for these kids to play. there is no open space planned other than the Cabramatta Creek corridor. Seriously this is not acceptable.

I agree with all the points made and object to the new development.

Liverpool Development Control Plan 2008
Part 2.11
Land Subdivision and Development in
Edmondson Park

https://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/111838/Part-2.11-Land-Subdivision-and-Development-in-Edmondson-Park-PDF-copy-linked-to-webpage-18-April-2018.pdf

The vision of Edmondson Park is to create a primarily residential neighbourhood located and focused around neighbourhood centres or the Town Centre

Character Area Statements
-------------------------
Development is sited on land classified as Urban Transition (Zone R1, 17 & 21dw/Ha)

As stated in the document
Buildings are predominantly 2 storeys, with potential for 3 storeys along parks, adjacent to ‘Urban’ Character Area

Objection - The development is not situated on land that is adjacent to Urban character meaning that the 3 level development should not be permitted

Public Transport
-----------------
Please note that no bus routes are planned for the road the development is situated on and planned bus routes are not close by

Street Network and Access
-----------------------------
To provide an attractive residential street environment.
To provide for the safe and efficient circulation of traffic
To create a high quality safe environment for walking and cycling

Objection - With the driveway sloping up to the street, visibility is impaired should small children be crossing across the apartment driveway entrance
Also please note that the driveway to the development is on streets designated as a Park street, not a collector street
Park streets are used primarily for people to get from park and other recreational area
Note that the traffic analysis incorrectly classifies Hartlepool road as a collector street, it is a Park street
It also has no mention on the impact on the entrance to apartments which are on the local streets of Lorraine Road
Given that Hartlepool will be a park street which is effectively a 2 lane road based on Figure 14, this will be a congestion point in the future,
even now the roads are congested due to numerous cars being parked on the side due to lack of council parking bays
It is my view that council be providing parking bays.

Laneways and Garage Connections
-------------------------------
Corner lots on collector streets are to have access from the street perpendicular to the collector street.

Objection - Given that the development does not front a collector street, Control 11. does not apply
The driveways can be relocated to the front of the development and not into side streets I refer to Figure 19 of the controls documents.

It is my view that an entrance to the apartment complex impacts the residential streetscape as shown in Figure 18.

Safety And Security
-------------------
Driveway entry-exits are to provide adequate sight lines to adjacent footpaths, streets and cycle ways. Shared driveways are to be used wherever possible.

Objection - it is in my view based on the 3D drawings that the driveway will not provide clear line of sight especially when traffic is leaving and entering at the same time

Site Planning
-------------
To ensure privacy for residents and neighbours.
The siting of windows of habitable rooms on the first floor shall minimise
overlooking to the principal private open space of neighbouring properties.

Objection - Based on the 3D renderings the apartments have a direct view into the adjacent neighbouring property. By the second floor, any privacy will be lost
The communal space is adjacent to existing property will mean that acoustic privacy is lost
The compliance document supplied by the developer suggests that orientation of the building maximises privacy, i would suggest that with all the unit windows, this is the direct opposite.
Also based on the compliance document apartment buildings should have increased separation of 3m when adjacent to zones permitting lower density, given my street is classed as suburban and not urban transition, this requirement needs to apply.
Setbacks
---------
Rear setback for multi dwelling housing 3 storeys and above is 8m

Objection - Rear setback as tabled for urban transition area for multi dwelling property is 8m for 3 storeys and above, the development has a setback of 6.760m

Building Design
----------------
To discourage garages and in particular garage doors, from visually dominating the streetscape
Driveways should avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect by curving and siting of buildings, which create a driveway form with the divided carriageway separated by soft landscaping.

Objection - If you look at the 3D rendering the driveway is directly visible from the street and has a gun barrel effect and in my opinion the garage door will be visually dominating based on the 3D renderings

Internal Design of Dwellings
----------------------------
Objection - There are no floor plans in the development application to determine orientation of windows, cross ventilation and other design issues. We're having to take the developers word.
Also 12% of units will receive no sunlight in mid winter. That is just depressing.

Waste Management
----------------
Waste disposal facilities shall be provided for development. These shall be located adjacent to the driveway entrance to the site.
Not be located adjacent to an adjoining residential property

Objection - The plans are not clear as to where the waste disposal area is during garbage nights, logically given the basement floorplan, the bins will be moved out to our street and place adjacent to existing properties
This seems to be in contravention of the waste management control that the waste disposal facilities are not adjacent to dwellings.
The developers compliance documents says garbage collection loading and servicing are screened, nothing in the design suggests this.

Privacy
-------
To locate and design buildings to meet projected user requirements for visual and acoustic privacy and to protect privacy of nearby residents.
To avoid any external impacts of a development, such as overlooking of adjoining sites.

Objection - The communal areas are right next to existing dwellings causing increased acoustic disturbance and privacy is compromised due to height of the development.
In the compliance document submitted by the developer, the developer has stated that the driveway is 3m away from bedrooms, this is not the case as it is within that distance for adjacent properties

I totally agree to the points raised above.
However, i am more upset with the council:
1: The letter sent out, stated for 51 units at Perrone Road. What the letter fails to address is that it affects 3 other perpendicular streets at the same time( Neville Road, Somme Ave & Lorraine Road). So the development runs along 4 streets. Its only when one goes online, then will realise what happening
2: Only half of the residents on these 4 streets have been sent letters. As the council believes that it only affects the first 4 houses to the development immediate. This is a perfect case of corruption by council and developer.
3: No attempts has been made by the council to provide any open space and park within this area. Look on the other side on Braidewood Drive. There are 3 parks and they are big.
4: I always thought why was Hartlepool road never connected all these years. Well the answer is pretty clear now, the developer was waiting all this time when all the 4 perpendicular street properties to be sold and constructed then make his “very smart move”.
5: The developer has sold all these land to us at a premium price. All properties in the 4 street worth more than $1million dollars each. And now he plans to put shoe box apartments here. Totally devaluing our properties and also did not let Hartlepool road connect. What a selfish human being. I am not being disrespectful like the criteria asks but what else do we call this developer.

Objection to Development Application No. DA-427/2018

In line with previous objections from John Hua and the rest of the concern of the residence that will be affected I too would like to object to the development of units as we have just recently found out about these units.

I would also like to bring to your attention that the Principle owner of Graceland John Pierobon who sold me my land at the end of 2018 had mislead us. Despite that fact that we asked him THREE times about what was happening to the vacant land two houses down he told me and my family that the land will be sold off for dwellings. He intentionally gave his false information knowing very well that the sale of the land would have not gone through had we known about the development of units that he had submitted for approval back in May 2018 early to when we purchased this land. This is a serious crime and Council should not be seen as supporting people and companies of this kind.

Below are my families concerns and mine and ask that you please take these in consideration along with all other residence objections.

1. Lack of privacy / Overlooking- We won’t be able to feel free at our own backyard and feel insecure that someone may be watching you. We were hoping to put a pool and there is nothing worse in sunbaking knowing that someone from the high floors of the unit is watching you. Not to mention yelling or making noises.

2. Traffic congestion- These 51 units will bring an increase in traffic and as the streets were the units will be build are already congested and narrow the traffic generated will not safe and will bring major inconvenience for the existing street networks and owners of dwellings already build.

3. Lack of Car Parking- As per above our streets are already congested and the fact that our streets are already narrow it will become extremely dangerous and increase of accidents as it will be difficult to drive through. Not to mention that owners of the existing homes build there will may not be able to park their cars in front of their houses.

4. Overshading and loss of daylight – With these units been built there could be a possibility of overshading and light. This could have a major impact on the houses near these building and will cause major inconvenience.

5. Visual bulk of building – A 3 storey unit will impact on the outlook of neighbours and dominate our private open space. There is nothing worse in sitting outside trying to enjoy your time after a hard days work and then to see units on the side. Our lives are so hectic and when I want to rest and enjoy my time by sitting outside will no longer be possible in having these units sitting on top of us. This then leads me to our next concern.

6. Loss of view/outlook- Bulky development will impact on the outlook from a neighbouring property.

7. Negative impacts on the value of my property

8. Criminals of this kind should not be supported by the council as it goes against the values and mission of the Liverpool Council.

As you can see above we want to strongly object and raise our concerns around noise, traffic, parking, loss of views and privacy.

Hi Glenn,

Would you be able to provide an update as to what is happening with the approval for this development ? However it has been a year since many many local residents lodged their objections. I also contacted Charishma Kaliyanda about this development. Lina Kakish mentioned in one of the correspondence to Charishma that application would be presented to Council's Design Excellence panel on Sept 13 2018. What was the outcome of that ? Lina also mentioned that due to the number of objections, individual objectors would receive an invitation to attend and speak at the future LPP meeting. I have not received any invitations yet. Lina also mentioned that the application would be finalised by the first half of 2019. Also can we disclose objections from other residents, i understand that currently it is not shown for privacy concerns, but surely you can just redact the submitters name etc. Without this being present in the planning portal how can we as a community know the true scale of the objections ?
We are having to use sites like planning alerts https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/1007712 to see other residents concerns.

Thanks

Adrian