47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066

Boarding House, Manager's Residence & Commercial Suite

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 3 months ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Lane Cove Council, reference 1/2021)

29 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Laura Hale commented

    There is already a significant bank up of traffic in the area in the evenings. It takes me and my son 40 minutes to get from one side of lane cove from his daycare to the other in lane cove west and adding another high rise which seems particularly high for the area would increase this concern.

  2. Alison Bird commented

    We object to the proposed 44 room boarding house to rezone what is commercial property into a large scale residential development. The proposal is over scale and out of character for Lane Cove West which is predominantly single dwelling residential. Any boarding houses in residential zones should be kept to a maximum of 12 rooms and Lane Cove West is a residential suburb.

  3. Charlotte moore commented

    This is a suburban residential area and not suited to a development this large.

  4. Karen Tam commented

    The site in question is situated opposite R2 zoning to the south and west of it (Penrose and Wood St). The height and scale of this development of the development is too big, and not consistent with the feel and environmental heritage and residential character of the R2 neighbourhood (a reserve nearby which adjoins Blackman Park). The density proposed of 44 rooms for that zone, is too big from allowed density of boarding houses in R2 zones (R2 zones are neighboring) at 12 rooms. Project is not in keeping with the environmental heritage and residential character of the area and offers virtually no green areas (trees, shrubs, lawn). I object to this development.

  5. Carole Wilson commented

    I am very concerned about the number of rooms in this establishment. 44 rooms is a very large number of rooms making it a large complex. I would have thought 15- 20 rooms would be more in keeping with the neighbourhood and the surrounding R2 planning area.

    Lane Cove West is getting more than its fair share of high density housing, retirement villages and now a boarding house with very little in the way of added amenities and infrastructure to support. them. More is being done to us and very little for us.

  6. Claire Kennedy commented

    We object to the proposed 44 room boarding house, the development is too large for the residential area. It is out of character and over scale for Lane Cove West, this should not be rezoned and allowed to go ahead. Neighbouring R2 areas are limited to 12 rooms Lane Cove West is a residential suburb.

  7. Craig Neyle commented

    The scale and proposed use of this development is completely out of character with the existing residential area. Not so many years ago, local residents successfully lobbied the LCC to change the proposed zoning at the time, thus disallowing medium density housing on Wood Street, directly behind this location. The reasons at that time, including the local residential character, the already-straining peak hour traffic at the Penrose-Burns Bay intersection and the near gridlock traffic conditions on Saturday morning from sporting activities at Blackman Park all remain the same now, arguably worse once overall activity returns to normal after our covid.
    I strongly urge LCC to consider the impact on the local area, existing traffic issues and the inappropriate nature of this development and reject the proposal.

  8. Paul Grimshaw commented

    I would like to lodge my objection due to the size of the establishment and the already horrendous traffic at certain times of day in the area.

  9. Nicholas Quinn commented

    The site in question is situated opposite R2 zoning to the south and west of it (Penrose and Wood St).
    The scale and proposed use of this development is completely out of character with the existing residential area and not consistent with the feel and environmental heritage and residential character of the R2 neighbourhood (a reserve nearby which adjoins Blackman Park).
    The density proposed of 44 rooms for that zone, is too big from allowed density of boarding houses in R2 zones (R2 zones are neighbouring) at 12 rooms. Project is not in keeping with the environmental heritage and residential character of the area and offers virtually no green areas (trees, shrubs, lawn).
    Not so many years ago, local residents successfully lobbied the LCC to change the proposed zoning at the time, thus disallowing medium density housing on Wood Street, directly behind this location. The reasons at that time, including the local residential character, the already-straining peak hour traffic at the Penrose-Burns Bay intersection and the near gridlock traffic conditions on Saturday morning from sporting activities at Blackman Park all remain the same now if not arguably worse once as overall activity returns to normal after the Covid lock-downs.

    I strongly urge LCC to consider the impact on the local area, existing traffic issues and the inappropriate nature of this development and reject the proposal.

    I object to this development.

  10. Steve Levy commented

    The prosed development is totally out of character for our area. For some reason developers swoop on opportunities to make a substantial profit with no regard whatsoever for the area residents who reside in the surrounding precinct. Should this development proceed we will urgently list for sale our home to move to a local council area that cares for their residents. Everything pertaining to the scale of this development and is subsequent approval enforces desire and reasons to exit the area. We strongly and vigorously object to the proposed development and implore LCC TO REJECT THE PROPOSED DA.

  11. Alexandra Mides commented

    I strongly OBJECT to this proposal.
    The proposed DA is completely unsuitable for this site and shows complete disregard for the surrounds, facilities and impact on the community. The scope is out of character for the area and surrounds, and has no consideration whatsoever for the impact on access, traffic, existing infrastructure and park and bush access , nor residents.
    The enormous development further down Burns Bay Road, had already had an untenable impact on the traffic in this hugely congested area for traffic and impacted access for the LCW residents. The Penrose Street, lane way , Woods Street, and Burns bay are already bottle necks, which a development of quarter of this size would make SIGNIFICANTLY worse. Blackman Park has only just been improved and has become a even more popular and highly accessed area, especially with the numerous apartment development already overdeveloped in the area. At peak sport periods the access along Penrose, Wood and into Blackman is already severely strained with NO parking or stopping. This development and scale is not at all in character with the surrounds, and the feel of the Lane Cove area, and is completely inappropriate to the area. LCW has already been overdeveloped way beyond what is acceptable let alone necessary in the area. This development is purely profiteering as boarding houses and developments of this scope are not necessary in this area, and not at all in keeping with the character and surrounds. The detrimental impact on the location, environment, infrastructure, heritage and character of the area would be enormous. We STRONGLY OBJECT.

  12. Kurt Mueller commented

    I strongly object to this high density housing as it is a quiet residential area and the proposed building does not fit in well with the current neighbourhood of single residences. It would change the complexion of the neighbourhood.

  13. Nicole Vaccaro commented

    I object to this development. It does not serve the needs of the existing people who already live & work in the surrounding neighbourhood or meet the objectives of the B1 zoning....
    " To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.
    • To encourage urban design maximising attractive public domain and adequate circulation space throughout the neighbourhood centres for current and future users."

    The immediate area already suffers from server traffic congestion. Adding a development of this size would not serve the needs of the existing or the new residence it would attract. It can already take in excess of 20min to get across Burns Bay Rd to home in Lane Cove West in the afternoon for residents.

    The size & scale of the development would not suit the already existing urban design of the area.

  14. Nancy Trovato commented

    The buildup of traffic is quite apparent now in the morning & especially in afternoon traffic. It also happens at times during the day depending on how much cars are at lights waiting & therefore more cars coming from this development will have an impact.
    Also, isn't there enough high buildings around us? Enough now. Let's enjoy Lane Cove West in the way it is meant to be enjoyed, traffic stress free & asthetically nice to look at.
    This is such an unnecessary change to the area, I'm sure there is more priority elsewhere for change? When I have visitors, trades people etc. visit this area for the first time, their comment is always one of sheer admiration & contentment at being in such peaceful & calm surroundings. Their comment is usually of saying that we are situated in a corner of paradise & tranquility. Let's keep it that way.

  15. Stefan Hutton commented

    I object to the proposed development.
    This type of development most definitely does not suit both the character of the suburb or the needs of the local community. Traffic is already of major concern in the area and this style of proposed build will put additional strain on traffic. 44 rooms and this style of zoning should not be achievable in Lane Cove West.

  16. Robyn Stutchbury commented

    How very impressive to find so many vocal residents objecting to yet another Council approved horror in our area. Where were you all when a group of us tried desperately to prevent the shocking high rise development along Burns Bay Road some 10 years ago?

  17. Nicole Bresnahan commented

    I would like to add my voice to that of my neighbours who have eloquently expressed their objection to this development proposal.
    This part of Penrose Street is a quiet, family residential area which has neither the need nor the infrastructure for a boarding house of these dimensions and the number of people it will service and traffic it will produce.
    I implore council to please reject this development and retain the existing environment that is currently enjoyed.

  18. Jackie Daher commented

    This development does not have my support! Based on comments from other locals, they share the same concerns. The Burns Bay Rd corridor between Linley Point and Lane Cove West is already chocked with high rise buildings and traffic.The proposed 44 room boarding room development will further add pressure to significant peak hour traffic congestion on Burns Bay Rd, Wood St and Penrose St’s. Additionally, it won’t fit in with the character of the area. I urge the council to listen to locals and not approve this development.

  19. Susan Morrison commented

    I wish to object to the development proposed for 47a Penrose Street Lane Cove West outlining some of my concerns as follows:

    We have a variety of businesses and infrastructure in Lane Cove West drawing people from different areas. Blackman Park has been developed and improved on immeasurably bringing more people to it, but without sufficient traffic management improvements. Wood Street is used as a rat run down to the Penrose/Burns Bay intersection especially in the evening, often with traffic waiting for the lights banking up as far back as the Beatrice Street roundabout. The vet, pet shop, butchery, cafe, seafood takeaway, gym, bottle shop, bakery and fruit market all draw customers from outside the area adding to the traffic on foot and vehicles. The development is located on a service lane, with no option for street parking nearby. The proposed twenty car parks and three disabled car parks servicing the forty-five units (which will sometimes house two people), a caretaker (and perhaps partner), a commercial site, a bicycle parking space and a motor bike parking space will result in an overflow at times, putting further pressure on local roads which already experience parking shortages and traffic jams at regular times.

    I fully support a diverse community. Lane Cove West has many apartment blocks, high, medium and low density residential blocks, a large industrial area, recreation, environmental conservation with some public housing, a refuge, retirement complex’s and another “boarding house” within 500m of the proposed development. We enjoy the range and diverse spread of zonings in our area due to previous planning controls which allows and supports cohesive community living, however it seems more and more that local controls are being pushed and overturned by the land and Environment court with greater powers and no regard for local input. I am concerned that calling this development application a “boarding house” is an attempt to somehow negate some of the current restrictions applicable to the site to allow a larger development and perhaps a gradual shift to apartment dwellings. This seems to have been the case at no 1 Johnston Lane Lane Cove West. Their boarding house application was knocked back by Council in 2014 but subsequently approved through a Land and Environment determination. The 1 Johnston Lane site does not appear to have an on-site manager (despite application being for 24 units - a manager is required on site for 20 or more units) with leasing currently being run by LJ Hooker. This is not in the spirit of the original approval or the B1 neighbourhood centre zoning, and in a few years there could be existing use claims to allow further development. It is the thin end of the wedge as developers push their way through planning controls.

    I do not consider that the site warrants another “boarding house”. The tiny allowance for a commercial space on the site hardly compensates for the diverse small businesses that currently cater to our community (including Pilates and dance studios.) The neighbouring properties zoned R2, with one listed as a General Heritage item, will have overlooking issues, and will be subject to noise at an increased level. There is very little “green space” proposed for the residents to enjoy on site, and there is no way to ensure it will continue to be maintained. (The units at no 1 Johnston Lane have had no land maintenance on their tiny patch until the last few months when the apartments were put back up to rent) The development proposal in its current guise will not enhance the current “community” feel of the area.

  20. Josh Edwards commented

    As a resident of Penrose street, myself and my family object to this development on multiple grounds.
    Penrose Street by enlarge is a residential, family oriented street. Boarding houses by their nature are transient and house a different demographic not suited to the area. We already have some low income/housing commission dwellings along Penrose which accomodate some very unsavoury people. Adding an additional 44 rooms (potentially 88 additional people if categorised as doubles) is no good. For the safety of the local residents and to maintain a community feel, we object.
    Additionally, only supplying 23 car spaces for 44 dwellings means a potential 42 vehicles will need to find street parking (If double rooms). As it stands, we often find it frustrating to find street parking in our own street as external people park in Penrose to then catch the bus. Additional 21-42 vehicles will completely line both sides of the street with cars. This will destroy the street.
    The yield on this development is too high and out of character. I am not opposed to development when it is within reason, unfortunately this is not. We object to this development.
    Regards

  21. Sian Mueller commented

    I wish to submit my objection to the proposed 44 dwelling "Boarding House" development above.

    (1) The 44 dwelling building is totally out of character for the neighbourhood and would be a dangerous precedent in an area which is dominated by a quiet family orientated street of single residences of no more than 2 stories.

    (2) Parking. An additional 44 dwellings with only 23 car spots would obviously significantly increase the need for on street parking in the area. The parking around Penrose Street and Wood Street is already incredibly difficult with the roads basically turning into one way streets. Drivers have to wait for other cars driving in the other direction as there is no space for cars to pass each other. During school pick up and drop off it causes large traffic jams and frustrated drivers and is a danger to children going to and from school. This is also a massive issue on the weekend with children's sport where it gets so bad that the whole of Penrose street becomes a parking lot for people going to Blackman Oval. On two occasions I was stuck for the most of the day not able to get my car out of my house as people had blocked my exit by parking across the road. I believe an increase in another 44 residents is an impossible addition to our quiet neighbourhood.

    (3) Extra traffic. More people means more cars and more traffic along Wood Street and Penrose Street and Johnston Lane. It is terrible especially during peak hours (in the afternoon already bad from as early as 3:30pm coinciding with the school pick up which is 3:25pm) with many cars using these back streets as a "rat run" to avoid Centennial Ave. We have seen a detrimental effect from the massive Burns Bay Road development and another 44 resident dwelling would only make things disastrous.

    (4) "Affordable" Housing. Whilst I am a big advocate for affordable housing (My mother and I used to live in Housing Commission) we already have a very large Housing complex at 80 Penrose Street (which I live next door to) and another along Wood Street (where my mother still lives). Whilst I am proud that our neighbourhood welcomes people less fortunate than ourselves it is a sad fact that there are regular visits by police at 80 Penrose Street and a growing problem with mental illness and drugs and drug dealers, which in turn increases violent incidents. Inviting more lower income and transient residents into the area risks this problem getting worse.

    So I strongly object to the proposal and hope that some sense can prevail. There is already too much traffic and not enough parking in the area and we wish to preserve the character of the area being a quiet, leafy neighbourhood focused on families and children. I believe this Boarding House to be the first step in the erosion of this community.

  22. Vinoo Lele commented

    We strongly object to the proposal. We wish to preserve the character of the area being a quiet, leafy neighbourhood focused on families and children. Our houses on Myee Crescent have only a single narrow road for entry and exit. The construction will block traffic at various times for trucks to enter and exit thereby residents experiencing delays getting to work / school on time. Once completed the traffic and parking in the street will increase. We would like to endorse the objections raised by others in the area.

  23. Michael Wu commented

    My family strongly oppose this development:
    •the complex way too big and doesn’t integrate with its surrounds (detached houses/single dwellings).
    •creates issues with parking on nearby streets, add more pressure on wood street & penrose street, especially in the afternoon as cars by pass centennial ave and barwon road
    •the come and go short term residents doesn’t fit in our existing neighborhood
    •affects negatively local residents way of live and our quality of lives
    •this development just doesn’t fit in whatever way you look at it

    My family moved three times in the past 10 years or so from cope street, to Moore street and now penrose street, all in lane cove west because we like to live here at lane cove west.

  24. Steve Levy commented

    The prosed development is totally out of character for our area. For some reason developers swoop on opportunities to make a substantial profit with no regard whatsoever for the area residents who reside in the surrounding precinct. Should this development proceed we will urgently list for sale our home to move to a local council area that cares for their residents. Everything pertaining to the scale of this development and is subsequent approval enforces desire and reasons to exit the area. We strongly and vigorously object to the proposed development and implore LCC TO REJECT THE PROPOSED DA.

  25. Leon commented

    I am going to move in the the nearby street in the next month. This DA concerns me like anyone who had left their comments. I may have reconsider the purchase if I knew this application is on going, for all the impact have been well presented in the comments. My suggestion is to also raise your concern to the local member and other channels you know, to make the voice be heard.

  26. Sana Issa commented

    We’d like to lodge our rejection to the proposed development at 47A for the following reasons. The devaluation of our property prices in this quiet enclave is of grave concern, as the development will lead to worsening traffic congestion at peak hour, and the preposterous decision to include 23 parking spaces for a development with 44 rooms will lead to increased difficulty in parking on-street.

  27. YI GAO commented

    As a resident of Penrose Street, myself and my family wish to submit our objection to the proposed 44 dwelling boarding house development.

    There are already some low income/housing commission dwellings on Penrose Street. As parents of a young child, we always keep our child within our eyesight when he played on the path in front of the house because we just don't feel safe enough on this street.

    We strongly don't think a boarding house with 44 rooms suits to 47A Penrose Street. Potentially up to 88 additional people and their vehicles could really increase the pressure of the already busy traffic condition, and this development would contribute nothing to improve the character of the neighbourhood.

    We object to this proposal of development.

  28. Sarah Baxter commented

    We recently moved into Lane Cove West and now that we have familiarity with the area, I strongly oppose to the boarding house development on the following grounds:

    - Much traffic is diverted through Wood Street onto Penrose Street to gain access to burns bay road which results in banked up traffic through Penrose especially during peak hours. Adding the boarding house will only add to the congestion in the area.
    - Parking on Penrose Street is already congested and causes congestion for residents driving in and out of Penrose. The traffic congestion is also a risk for the many children and elderly who resides in the area.
    - As highlighted in earlier comments, a diversity of commission dwellings already exists in the area and therefore we have played our part in the support of the community.

  29. Nima commented

    Penrose Street is one of the worst streets for congestion in Sydney after 3pm on any given day. Congestion lasts for hours. Adding a boarding house here just doesn't make any sense at this site.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts