PlanningAlerts

12 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

1. I am firmly against high density housing in my area, and in particular the application for the proposed 11 rooms at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.
   Higher density housing has not been a feature of my area and this would become a precedent, and I fear a tsunami of applications would follow if it was approved..

2. I totally oppose the proposed development on Westmore Drive. A boarding house in my opinion is for problematic or underprivileged persons and there are whole estates that are managed by department of housing around Sydney built for that purpose. Why build a single 'boarding' house in a very family friendly area? It will not stop at one development I know, and I don't want this to become another cheap housing option.

   Firstly, I fear for the general safety and well being of our kids and residents and secondly the negative impact it will have in the house prices.

3. I oppose this application for the proposed 11 rooms at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.

   This residential area can not cope with additional traffic entering Oakes Rd from Eaton Rd from Westmore Drive. The morning and evening peak hour commute is at a standstill due to the bottleneck at Oakes, Aiken and Murray Farm roads.

   We are also experiencing increased road incidents on the Eaton Rd roundabout at Oakes Rd. The footpaths and road crossings are inadequate for pedestrians leaving the area from Westmore Rd/Eaton Road.

   Please consider local residents interests before commercial developers profits.

4. I totally oppose this application for a boarding house at Westmore Drive, West Pennant Hills, the area is not zoned for multiple dwellings and I feel as though if this is approved, then duplexes and units will follow.

   The traffic congestion is terrible in peak hour on Oakes Road, we do not need anymore traffic in the area.

   We pay a lot of money for properties in this area along with high rates, we do not want a boarding house on Westmore Drive.

5. Dear Officer,

   I am writing to express my concerns about the application to construct a boarding house containing 11 rooms under the provisions of SEPP 2009 at 12 Westmore drive, West Pennant Hills.

   I am firmly against high density housing in West Pennant Hills. Carlingford is a nearby suburb that has already had a lot of development in this arena and it has become a very densely populated suburb. There is now an increase in drug activity and alcohol abuse there because of higher density housing. Higher density housing is not in line with the other properties in my area. Approval of this type of construction would lead to more and more applications of this nature and change the landscape of West Pennant Hills. West Pennant Hills is a suburb that is away from busy train stations and I choose to live here for that reason. If this type of construction is approved, council will effectively be allowing more and more applications of this nature throughout the rest of the suburb by setting a precedence.

6. I am opposed to the development of a boarding house at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.
   A development like this is not in keeping with the overall character and family orientated area. Such a development will affect the properties in the surrounding areas and is more than likely set a precedent for future developers looking to profit out of similar developments/projects.

7. I against boarding house in west pennant hills .particular westmore drive. The area is designed with feature of comfort environment. We do not need any action to start destroy this peaceful area. Nice people living here for safety of family. Aslo. It is already very congested to drive in oaks rd. It is not a smart choice to build a boarding house here.

8. I oppose this application for the proposed 11 rooms at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.

   It is abundantly clear that any additional traffic entering Oakes Rd from Eaton Rd from Westmore Drive would add to an already busy intersection during the morning and evening peak hour commute. The roads have not been designed to cope with any high density housing. Further, given the lack of footpaths and pedestrian crossings in the area, any significant increase in people traffic that would be caused by high density dwelling will only exacerbate problems/road incidents that the residents would already be experiencing.

   Further still, a development of this nature is completely contrary to the primary feature of the area, being one that is quiet and family friendly. It should not be allowed.

9. Monday to Friday Westmore Drive is already a single lane chokepoint with M2 parking. Why would council allow a single pocket of RE4 (high density residential) building construction in what is clearly an RE2 (low density residential) area? Is this the start of more?
   Most people bought into this area on the presumption that it is and will remain an RE2 area thus maintaining the character residents expect.
   Clearly a boarding house is totally outside the existing character of this area of West Pennant Hills. Boarding houses tend to have tenants requiring good public transport. While close to the M2, shouldn't this type of dwelling be built closer to the new Cherrybrook train station?
   Why would council even be considering such an application unless there is a hidden agenda to change the zoning for the whole area in the near future. This would then severely impact home values in a very negative manner for existing residents.
   I strongly urge council to vote 'NO' and maintain the integrity of our environment.

10. After reading the minimal proposal information regarding the construction of Boarding House containing 11 Rooms under the Provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, I find it difficult to accept that this project if it is undertaken will have only minimal effect in the local area.

    The State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) does not involve itself in minimal projects. On its web page SEPPs acknowledges that it deals with matters of State or regional environmental significance, often looking at policy change. I put it to you that 12 Westmore Drive is not the place to experiment with policy change. It is not the place where a single pocket of RE4 (high density residential) building construction should be allowed as the area is clearly defined as an RE2 (low density residential) area.

    In a three kilometre radius from this site many medium and high density projects are currently underway. Carlingford Road and Jenkins Road display obvious examples.

    Traffic congestion is something that locals experience regularly. Pennant Hills Road has recently been described in the news as one of Australia’s most congested roads. The infrastructure to support convenient access to greater Sydney is not in place. The M2 buses and local bus services do not address the problem sufficiently.

    Cherrybrook Station is under construction and will offer better links to greater Sydney, but will not be easily accessible from 12 Westmore Drive, unless the residents have a vehicle. If each of these 11 rooms attracts a resident with a vehicle, another point of congestion has been created.

    I oppose the introduction of any construction that would lead to a precedent being set and further applications of a similar kind in the area bounded by Oakes Road, the M2 and Aiken Road.

    I strongly urge those voting on this application to vote a definite “NO” and acknowledge the feeling amongst residents.

11. Boarding house at 12 Westmore Drive West Pennant Hills.
    We object on the following grounds, no parking on Oakes Road due to the day parking of commuters using the M2 bus.
    Parking at the bottom of Westmore drive is difficult as cars are parked on both sides of the road and therefore it is one way traffic only.
    As there are many families with young children in our neighbourhood can you be sure that we are not going to have trouble with the coming and goings of the people in the boarding house?
    I have written to Clr. Jefferies and Clr. Alan Haseldon who agree with my concerns.
    Anne Fidler

12. I have now had some further time to properly consider this development application. For the reasons I have set out below, I strongly object to the application and note that any approval of it would be contrary to precedents set by the Land and Environment Court (LEC) in Northcote Trust v Hornsby Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1327 (Northcote) and Succar v Bankstown City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1255 (Succar).

    Pursuant to section 30A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH), the Council must not consent to this type of development unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. It is clear that this type of development is not compatible with the character of the local area.

    The meaning of the phrase “compatible with the character of the local area” was considered by the LEC in Northcote Trust v Hornsby Shire Council [2012] NSWLEC 1327, albeit in the context of an affordable rental housing development containing 31. In applying the facts of that case, the LEC found that such a development was not compatible with the character of the local area on Northcote Road, Hornsby.

    If anything, the facts relevant to the present development application provide an even stronger basis to reject the application on the ground that it is not compatible with the character of the local area.

    First, what must be borne in mind is that the present application is for a development in a particular pocket of West Pennant Hills that is solely made up of single and 2 storey detached dwelling residential development with large backyards. Unlike the facts in Northcote, there are no 2 storey multi-unit housing developments in this particular part of West Pennant Hills. Further, even if there were such multi-unit developments in parts of this area that I am unaware of, according to Northcote at [40] this type of development would still not be compatible with the character of the local area within the meaning of s.30A of the SEPP ARH because such developments would be an anomaly rather than a common occurrence.

    Further, the character of the area is similar, if not identical, to what the LEC dealt with in Succar v Bankstown City Council [2012] NSWLEC 1255 when it refused the development application for the construction of affordable housing on Brennan Street, Bankstown. In that case, the LEC found that the character of the area at Brennan St, Yagoona, was a "building zone" to the front, and a "green zone" to the rear. The LEC went on to find that the green zone, an area of open backyard or private open space, separates and relieves the visual impact of the construction in the building zone. That is precisely what we have in this pocket of West Pennant Hills. As in Succar, this development does not offer that open backyard separation or relief because it seeks to retain the existence of the current dwelling at the front of the block as set out in more detail below.

    Second, as in Northcote, there is a significant negative aspect of the development. This development is proposed for a block of land that is significantly smaller than the block proposed in Northcote. That is approximately half of the 1000 sqm available on the land (490 sqm according to the Statement of Environmental Effects) will be used for the proposed boarding house compared to 3,378 sqm for Northcote. It appears that it will be a large dwelling with no significant set-back from Oakes Rd. We’re effectively dealing with a monstrosity that will have 11 occupancy rooms (the same as 11 studio apartments), 2 common rooms, a sitting room, patio, open space and a double garage. As in Northcote, none of the elevations adequately deal with the issue of bulk and massing for this type of development.

    Third, as stated above, under the proposed development the house currently on Westmore Drive will be retained and used as the manager’s residence. Accordingly, contrary to the assertion in the Statement of Environmental Effects, the total development on the block will have a site coverage well in excess of the DCP maximum of 60% because of the retention of the manager’s residence.

    For all of the above reasons the Council should reject this development application.

    Kind regards,

    Dilan Mahendra