23 Templeton Crescent Moorebank NSW 2170, Australia

Templeton street is a narrow residential street, this DA does not specify the number of residents as such the potential for this development to increase in street parking is unknown. Further, there are no current plans to increase public services in the area such as mobile ike phone reception, community facilities including shopping centers, energy companies have previously stated that supply issues exist in the area. A boarding house would either increase through traffic use by guests or place increased demands on pre existing limited public transport options. Neighbouring properties are predominantly single level. This development is not suited to the area and should not be approved.

Statement of Effects addressed concerns. Clearly shows the number of residents, that a manager would be there and that the facilities will be safe and secure :)

It is nice to see environmentally sustainable, affordable housing being offered in the area rather than just excessive 'mansions' for small families. Especially nice to see bike parking.

I believe this development has the potential to be a great benefit to the community - providing especially important accommodation for the needs of students at local schools and university campuses. I know many who will benefit from a furnished room in a safe environment where communal areas allow the development of social networks. :)

However, I would like to see a floor plan as the inside communal area sounds very small.
Are the size of the kitchenettes in rooms sufficient for most needs?
Would people end up using the external communal areas more than internal?
Is there any need to review fences and boundary plantings to minimise noise travelling to neighbours if so?

This Application should NOT be approved. I presume any positive comments are from individuals in some way connected to the Developer, as the Residents stand united in the absolute objection to this Boarding House.
This development in NO way is desirable or suitable for this quiet residential Crescent. There are many options locally for students and the like,(who would find this appealing), with Liverpool / Warwick Farm apartment living, the University at Milperra also has on site boarding. Templeton Crescent is a quiet, narrow family friendly Street, full of long term residents, many who have lived here since the 1960's. The immediate local infrastructure is not adequate for such a dwelling. We work very hard and pay a high price for our standard of living, one of which we are not willing to compromise.

I am writing to object to the proposed boarding house at 23 Templeton Crescent, Moorebank (DA-612/2018).
This would NOT be a development that represents our long term, family friendly, majority home owned Crescent and definitely out of character for our area.
With 22 extra residents’, parking would become chaotic and dangerous for drivers as on street parking would be used and become a one vehicle lane for driving in and out of the street. More cars would mean dangers for pedestrians and the large number of children that walk past daily. There are currently no footpaths on either side of the street and therefore families are using the road due to driveways or uneven ground.
I’m also concerned about the overshadowing of our homes and the privacy with the outside area/balcony looking over the surrounding backyards.
The excavation of the basement carpark damaging all adjoing home foundations and if there would be enough deep soil remaining on the site area.
The water pressure in our whole street is not sufficient and I presume will only get worse with this boarding house accommodating 22 people.
There is not sufficient public transport in the area. There are buses close by, however I know of neighbours walking further away as they cannot get a seat because of already full buses. I work in the city and use the closest train station, Holsworthy and if I am not at the station by 7.30am I am in dangour of not getting a carspace.
All our local schools are already at capacity. Nuwarra Public School has had to get a demountable this year to accommodate the growing surrounding suburbs.
The local shopping centre is ridiculously overcrowded as it is now and I need to circle the carpark several times to find parking or be there at 7.30am.
Our family consists of young children and due to the changing residents of a boarding house we would not be familiar with our neighbours and restrict when they are outside.
I am concerned with the additional noise, the waste, the landscaping and security. Will these form part of the on-site managers role? Who will oversee this role?
To date we have not been notified from Council this application has been submitted and ask that this development application not be approved.

Dear Sir/Madam
It it very concerning that someone has put an application for a two storey, 11 rooms, boarding building to be built in such a small and tight street in between ordinary houses.
We have poor public transport to the area, an overcrowded shopping village and are not close to any universities or colleges.
We also suffer from poor water pressure, poor internet connection and no gas pipes.
I am strongly opposing this application due to poorely thought out idea, especially regarding planing and consultation.
It will highly increase traffic in an already tight street and endanger residents and families due to less space and increased traffic.
What kind of a boarding house are we also to be expecting? Is it for students? For homeless? For underprivileged?
Who is going to compensate the families for the potential loss of property value?
Therefore I ask the council for this application not to be approved.

Application DA-612/2018)

I wish to express my objections to the proposed boarding house at 23 Templeton Crescent, Moorebank (DA-612/2018). My main concerns are:
The building of a boarding house will place huge pressure on the street in relation to traffic flow and parking. The street is narrow and won’t allow for cars to adequately pass one another without it being dangerous.
Bus transport in Moorebank is already at capacity. The buses that are on the 902 bus route, that goes to and from Liverpool, are full. My family members have had to change routes to the M90 to get to and from Liverpool.
The water pressure in Templeton Crescent is inadequate at present. At present if we have our washing machine operating we can barely get water to run out of tap in the kitchen or bathroom. I presume this situation will worsen with another 22 residents in the street.
I feel for any person having to rely on this sort of living accommodation. The boarding house doesn’t allow for its residents to have adequate time away from their room. It doesn’t allow for them to spend quality family time with one another or guests. Where will they all sit to get some fresh air, have a barbeque, kick a football? All things that are imperative to good mental health and family time.
The Moorebank Shopping centre is currently unable to service the needs of its community. The building of more medium density dwellings will add further pressure to an already under pressured shopping centre.
I have concerns for the foundations of the adjacent homes and road way by the building of an underground car park. I am concerned that after the excavation of the basement carpark there will not be enough deep soil remaining in the area.
This Development should be rejected.

Objection Re: 23 Templeton Crescent Moorebank
(DA-612/2018)

I am writing to object to the proposed development of a boarding house in our street.
Templeton Crescent is a small residential street with limited off street parking and no existing footpaths. Infrastructure in the area has not kept pace with the rate of development. Residents are already experiencing problems with local traffic, poor public transport, overcrowded schools and shopping village. In addition, our water pressure is poor and our NBN service is grossly inadequate. I am also concerned about how a boarding house would impact our community in general. Moorebank has long been a desired location for families to reside because it offers a strong sense of community values and we would like to keep it that way. In the interest of the Moorebank community, please reject the DA.

I am writing to completely object to the proposed development of a boarding house in our street at 23 Templeton Crescent Moorebank
(DA-612/2018)

Templeton Crescent already suffers from poor NBN internet connections, main Water Pressure issues, poor cracked roads, no footpaths and a poor ratio of street lights and on top off this stranded shopping trolleys.
Approving this DA will only cause more congestion build up in our narrow street. This extra activity and traffic in the street will not only cause residents to have a lower quality of life, it is also hazardous for pedestrians and children.
We will suffer on top off our already existing issues.
What will happen to our everyday needs, if we get any more congestion in the area. What will happen if our NBN internet goes down how will our residents who do not use a mobile be able to make a call or receive calls if there is an emergency and land lines are down due to congestion or outages?? We are already crowded.

I Totally believe in affordable housing for our community but what about the existing residents that have lived in the street for many years and have had to put up with all these issues. This development is not something that can be just put into place without any thought going into its surroundings and Templeton crescent is far from the right place.

Please keep our issues in the street to a minimal and keep our quality of life decent and reject this DA.

I wish to object to the proposed development of a boarding house in 23 Templeton Crescent Moorebank (DA-612/2018).

There is a trend of over development in Liverpool and surrounding areas. The proposed Moorebank intermodal/s as well as many high rise and multi story dwellings in an area where traffic, busses, shopping centres and railway car parks are already at or above capacity. Better planning needs to be looked at for the entire area and all multistory dwellings need to be stopped particularly in narrow residential streets that cannot cope with this increase in residents and their vehicles.

Objection to DA-612/2018
This proposal will completely change the lives and amenity of all the residents living in this little narrow cresent. The boarding house will have the capability to home 22 borders plus 1 manager and as most people these days own a car this could mean there could be up to 23 car parking spaces needed if all the residents have a car. The proposal has only made allowance for 7 car spaces and a few motorbike spaces. This could mean that 16 cars could end up being parked on the street. This would result in the street being swamped with cars and complete chaos will abound with the overcrowding of this once little quiet Cresent.
This proposal is a cruel blow to the residents that have lived in the area for over 30yrs. They are now having the worry that their homes and lives being compromised by this change to their amenity.

Dear Sirs,
I am writing to you with reference to Development Application DA-612/2018 for the proposed Boarding House at 23 Templeton Crescent, Moorebank, 2170.
I wish to make it clear that I object to the development proceeding, as per the following points outlined below.
These points are in no particular order or importance, but overall I believe that they add up to a series of concerns that should not allow the development to take place.

Point 1:
I wish to draw to the councils attention that, despite the developer providing some meticulously well drawn and visually impressive drawings in their submission, none that I have found actually contain plan views of how this building is to be layed out on either the ground or first floors. The nearest that I have found to some sort of plan outlining the contents of the boarding house are drawing number Project CD1436, Drawing DA02, Issue A, which provides the reader of what is essentially an open plan view of each of these floors.
Reading the many documents attached with this submission, I have gleaned that the rooms (that are not shown) are to be in the vicinity of around 22m2 each, allow for accommodation for 2 people, have enclosed kitchenette, bathroom and toilet facilities, as well as laundry equipment (no common laundry will be provided).
I see dotted about on each of these views a series of terraces and balconies, with only my imagination to make connections to any actual inhabited rooms that may or may not be joining to them. Nothing is indicated as to whether these rooms will share common proportions, whether they will be approx. 4. 5m x 5m, of whether they will be 10m x 2m.
As well as no floor layouts, I cannot find where any document addresses egress from the building in the event of fire, where the emergency exits are to be, and whether the building (which may have up to 22 non related occupants) will be fitted with a master key system allowing the manager to access each room to assist in evacuation in the event of fire. As far as I can see, no mention is made of any fire control systems or the placement of hydrants or smoke detectors, nor can I see where any marshalling points have been nominated. Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects page 44 touches on these points to achieve Fire Safety Certification but I cannot see physical evidence in a drawing or master plan on how it will be done, other than a document saying that they will do it.
I am mystified how a submission for a development application for a building that could contain up to 22 people can be so light on the information regarding their safety in the event of a fire, as it can also be so light on information on the physical layout of the rooms in what will be one of the more densely populated buildings in the street should the approval proceed.

Point 2:
Further to point 1, I note from the Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects page 18 that this unknown layout shall have a north facing common area which shall receive more than three hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in winter.
This gives us a hint that this communal area that is not shown on any plans is at least adjacent to the northern wall, but again this is just an educated guess. Reading a bit further down to page 19, I see that this proposed communal area (not proposed for the first floor but only for the ground floor), will have a massive area of 5.96m2, and it will adjoin a 39.32m2 communal terrace. My assumption is that the communal terrace will be exposed to the elements. I find it difficult to conceive how a potential 22 occupants of this boarding house, on perhaps a rainy day when they are sick of being in the confines of their own shared rooms, will make use of such a tiny area. Just a straight division means that they would each have 0.27m2 each to stand on should they all decide to be “communal” at the same time, which is the equivalent of everybody standing on a carpet tile a tad over 50cm square each.
Page 43 tells us that this communal area shall also have a couch, coffee table, and tv/dvd facilities. Very cosy. Very communal.
Again, what does this look like? Who knows, the drawings do not tell us. All I can foresee is that the occupants will be spending the time either in their rooms or outside in the external communal areas or front / back yard. I am concerned that too much is being left up to the imagination.

Point 3:
I refer now to the Redacted Traffic Swept Paths Document. This obviously thoughtfully prepared document outlines a number of scenarios of how the vehicles are to occupy and go through the physical motions of parking a vehicle on site. I note in the Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects page 19 that 7 spaces are to be provided for the 11 boarding rooms, exceeding a nominated ratio of 0.5 for every room. Given that one space is nominated as the managers space, that would bring the number down to six spaces for 10 rooms, still within the stated ratio. I do not believe that the managers room and parking spot should form part of what is the boarding house, as this will be occupied I presume by a person who shall be part of the employ of the holding company and therefore a permanent resident, not technically a boarder as such.
My concern is with the handicapped parking spot. It seems strange that the area nominated for this is one of the narrowest car parking spots in the complex, which in itself goes against the usual norms of increased area for things such as wheelchair access etc.
This parking spot has been included in the ratio of rooms / parking spots, which gives the impression that it is not there as a handicapped parking spot for a visitor, but will be allocated to a boarder. The fact that it will be only accessible from going through the security door virtually negates it from being used by a handicapped visitor to the site.
I therefore feel that this handicapped parking spot has been included as a token gesture, as, other than a lift to the imaginary lobby and first floor (that we have no drawings of), nothing else in the basement parking area has been designed for the use of a handicapped person with a physical disability. If it is a requirement of the council to have such a handicapped enabled site, I come away with the impression that this parking spot should be elsewhere and not included in the basement parking zone.
Other than the lift (which you would not or should not use in the event of a fire or emergency, no other access ramps have been provided to egress the building for the use of the handicapped person who has just parked their car in the parking area, with only the stairs and the security gated 1:4 driveway,( which exceeds the Maximum Slope For Wheelchair Ramps Ramp Guidelines and Regulations angle of 1:8 maximum) being the only methods of escape.

Point 4:
Further to my concerns about the parking, I note in the 6 scenarios displayed by intricate drawings for the entry and exits of vehicles, that no drawing exists for a traffic plan to take into account possible problems that may occur in the day to day operation of the parking area. The Carpark, Ramp and Driveway Certification Document provided amongst the DA documentation provides a very vague compliance approval for the site, but does not extend to actual traffic management, beyond the need for convex mirrors.
For example, each of the 6 scenarios denotes a vehicle entering or exiting the parking area facing the normal way for driving. What happens in the event that a car is going down the ramp at the same time that a car wishes to exit the parking area. Will the vehicle that has just exited his parking space be expected to reverse (intricately in the case of some of the parking spots) back into the spot they have just exited from, or will the driver sitting on the 1:4 slope be expected to reverse blindly up the ramp and cede to the exiting vehicle. I note that the driveway widens out an additional 1.9m in the yard area. Is this expected to be used as a parking area, or is it a passing zone? If it is indeed a passing place and a car must reverse blindly back up the slope and then turn into this area, I believe insufficient space has been left for the vehicle to do this within the boundaries of the property, and therefore I do not believe that sufficient thought has been put into how this system could operate.

Point 5:
More on my concerns about parking, I wish to know whether restrictions will be made on the occupants limiting whether they will be allowed to own a vehicle. Even if you include the token Handicapped spot as a boarders parking area, the site has the potential to only accommodate 7 vehicles (cars). If everybody accommodated by the facility was to have a car, that would see 15 vehicles needing to be parked somewhere at night. 15 additional vehicles would see it stretch well beyond the properties external boundaries and encroach upon the boundaries of the neighbouring properties, and then some. While there is no law on where you can park, it is generally acceptable that any additional spaces be accommodated in front of your own dwelling, and in essence, except for the latter ill thought out development at no 15 Templeton Crescent, all homes in the street have frontages sufficient to take in any additional cars without impinging on their neighbours technical “space”.
I foresee this causing much angst amongst established residents, as well as the potential towards resentment to those who have been forced to park in the street by such a badly thought out development such as the proposed boarding house.

Point 6:
A final point on parking, and this also goes further on my point 5 above. It has been nominated in the documentation that the bins are to be located in the basement area, and are to be put out as required by the manager. 22 people have the ability to create a lot of rubbish / recycling, but I cannot find anywhere in the documentation that states what the bin to room ratio will be. A view of the basement shows 9 bins have been allocated spots, but does not state whether those bins are for rubbish or recycling (I have assumed that the green bins would not be included in the garbage room, but have nothing to back that assumption up with).
Assuming that all the bins shown are rubbish and recycling on a potential break up of 5 rubbish to 4 recycling, on the given Monday this would see the bins stretch for approx. 10m down the street (the councils preferred spacing for the bins is at about 1.2m centres to allow for the grabs to cleanly pick them up for emptying).
This 10m is approximately wider than the remaining frontage of the property if you take into account the driveway and the tree as impediments to the bins being picked up.
If you add to this the situation where the residents would also be parking the cars on the street because of inadequate site parking facilities, you see the stretch of the impact of the accumulation of the bins and cars going further beyond the property boundaries. In the scenario where the cars are already in place, I foresee that the bins would actually need to be placed on the road side of the parked cars to allow them to be accessed by the garbage collection truck.
More potential problems that will be caused by this proposed development and a point of potential angst for affected residents.

Point 7:
I have concerns over the infrastructure of the street and its ability to cope with the additional stresses placed upon it by the proposed development.
Water delivery and pressure is a primary concern. It is well known in our street that we suffer from low water pressure. The existing delivery system was most probably inadequately designed about 50 years ago, and I do not believe it is up to the rigour of coping with the increase in population density which will be bought about by the ill thought out rezoning of the area to R3. The pipes carrying the water, other than being inadequately sized for the initial requirements of the street 50 years ago, are also nearing the point of their useful life, to a point where they may fail at any minute. An urban myth within the street has always been that the pressure has also been turned down to alleviate this failure from occurring, and, although I have no proof, in the 16 years I have lived in the street, the subsequent but gradual reduction in the available water pressure, may put a little truth to that rumour which would be a cheaper option than having to replace the whole system, as they one day will probably have to.
I therefore believe that the proposed boarding house will impact badly upon this resource, with the additional burden it will place on an already stretched system. If, as the Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects document states, that this development will only be the start of similar in the street, perhaps it should fall to the council, or even perhaps to the developer, to future proof the street and provide funding to upgrade this infrastructure to suit not only this but future developments that the Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects envisages.

Point 8:
I wish to draw to the councils attention regarding infrastructure the serious disruptions and problems we have had in this street with regards to the implementation of the NBN, and also its predecessor, the copper wire cable system that services the street, particularly on the side of the road of the proposed boarding house. The pits on that side of the road have been providing grief to residents for as long as I have been living in Templeton Crescent, mainly due to their age and bad draining in times of wet weather, which has resulted in many outages for the copper cable system, and I believe is also hindering the implementation of the NBN as the system will require upgrading. My concern with the boarding house project, and indeed for any other project of similar ilk as promised by the development application, is that the additional burden of use that these developments will make on the existing system would see it fall over for all residents. Again, if, as the Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects document states, that this development will only be the start of similar in the street, perhaps it should fall to the council, or even perhaps to the developer, to future proof the street and provide funding to upgrade this infrastructure to suit not only this but future developments that the Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects envisages.

Point 9:
With reference to Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects page 20, I am offended by the presumption of “general public fear” that undesirable people will occupy such a development as that proposed. To me, this is setting the scene for the objection to be because of the local resident bias against those who occupy it, and by inference, seems to give the impression of some sort of moral superiority of the developer over those local residents who oppose its construction. Its inclusion in the development application seems to more vindicate the local residents who shall oppose such a development by in a way acknowledging that the development they propose will not be as harmonius and wonderful for the local community as their development application espouses, and they are trying to colour these objections by citing bias.
I want to point out that this is not a development that will be good for the local area, but not necessarily for the reasons that the developer has in their application, but more for the fact that it is more going to provide ongoing problems for the existing residents in its bad planning, vague development application, and stretch of local infrastructure. The residents of the proposed boarding house may all indeed turn out to be very nice people, but the sheer increase that those numbers will bring to the streets population all add up to what is my rejection to it proceeding.

Point 10:
Further to my above mentioned points of objection, I wish to advise that I shall be also pressing council to revise the planning laws that were foisted upon this community with little or no consultation during a time when the council was in administration. The decision to zone the area R3 with little or no forward planning or consultation with the community on how this can be achieved with the resultant improvements in infrastructure and services smacks of being biased towards sections of the developer community, with whom those in the council making the decision to re zone it may have been unduly influenced. The total character of the area is in danger by being overtaken by this ill thought out rezoning, and it is annoying and dismaying to me that these people are in essence destroying the community and area in which I chose to live and raise my family.
The Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects statement of inevitability that the whole street will eventually be re developed with constructions such as the proposed boarding house show to me that the development is not in keeping with the existing character of the area, but is more in the forefront of a total changing of the character of the area, and that alone to me is something that I strongly object to.

I am writing to object to the proposed boarding house at 23 Templeton Crescent, Moorebank (DA-612/2018).
This street is a family orientated area with some properties having third generation families. Having a boarding house, which would be no different to having a motel, is not in keeping with what the residents have grown up with. Having this development would also impact the residents nearing or just retiring, on their future plans, such as myself, where I had intended to stay.
The ratio of residents to parking spaces on the development would mean that there would be an increase in vehicles parked in the street, and Templeton Cres being a narrow street would be greatly impacted by this. Council services such as garbage collection would be hindered, and with vehicles blocking access to the footpath, bins will invariably be left in the street for collection.
Infrastructure such as power and water supply are already at their limit. Problems with off peak service not switching at night and poor water pressure, which will be worsened by the increased population in the area, not just the street.
There are no tertiary education institutions in the area that would warrant this type of accommodation and public transport is inadequate at present to cope with the current demand.
The nearby commercial area for shopping is already at maximum capacity, with parking very difficult to find if not impossible.

Council needs to take into consideration the existing residents in the street, that have had the rezoning of the area thrust upon them with no consultation with the residents