75 Hutchinson Street St Peters NSW 2044

I would like to reject this application based on the social impact it will have for neighbours living opposite Simpson Park. This has not been addressed in the social impact at all. All those residents will use the park as their own open space. A15 one bedroom boarding house will not blend in with the surrounding area or residents.

I absolutely oppose this development for Hutchison street. A negative impact will be felt by Lackey, Applebee and even May St. Fifteen residents in a boarding house is not in keeping with infrastructure of the area.
What if all 15 have cars? Where will they park?
What sort of boarding house will it be?
Is it long-term, short-term, airbnb??
A half-way house. This impacts directly on everybody in the neighbourhood.
Also what about the impact of one more story overshadowing the neighbours in Hutchison St? Not to mention the potential noise from 15 boarding house rooms.
It's a NO from me.

There is nothing in the Social Impact Study or the Plan of Management to ensure that this accommodation will be used to assist young workers and students. Even more concerning, there is nothing to assist the most disadvantaged people in need of affordable housing.

The developer tries to enlist sympathy by mentioning social impacts such as isolation and domestic violence but it seems unlikely that single room accommodation "for students and young workers" will be of a lot of help for the majority of those fleeing domestic violence, ie mothers with their children. It is unlikely to help the many families, now homeless and living in tents or cars. This plan does nothing to address the needs of intellectually or physically handicapped young people.

The developer claims that this will be "affordable accommodation" for students and young workers. While current rentals for are cited to illustrate a very real problem for young people there is no indication of proposed rentals and they may well be more expensive than flat-sharing in our area.

There is no indication that the boarding house manager will be required to have any skills or qualifications in the area of working with young people.

Since the plan of management is copied from one used for a boarding house in Eastwood (a very different suburb) there is nothing to address the issues of an industrial scale boarding house side by side with Victorian cottages.

It seems unlikely that the people who compiled the Statement of Environment Effects have ever visited St Peters. This document states, in the second paragraph, that the site “is 900m from the Marrickville Metro shopping centre, with the main shopping strip located along the May Street.” THERE IS NO SHOPPING STRIP IN MAY STREET.

I could not see any provision for limiting either the number of residents per room or the total number of residents on-site. We know there is an enormous problem with students from overseas being forced into grossly over-crowded accommodation - what controls and checks will Council put in place to prevent this sort of dangerous exploitation?

Now I would like to address the plans. For some reason, probably cost-cutting, the architect has chosen to locate the entrance in Hutchinson Street where the effects of a large number of people coming and going will be much more intrusive on the life of the community than in busy May Street. This means that there are then bedrooms backing onto noisy May Street. Why not the other way round?

Placing communal areas on the roof seems designed to maximise noise and disruption for neighbouring residents. With the best will in the world 15 young people will be noisy at times. Why not have the common areas at ground level, including a courtyard open to the sky but surrounded by the building to contain noise?

Significant parking issues
Parking - while "1 new parking place" is claimed this would be better described as "1 relocated parking place" with as there are currently 7 parking places on site. The developer claims that car-parking is not required because of the proximity to public transport.
In my 40+ years’ residence in Hutchinson St I do not know how many developers have claimed this. They have all been wrong. Many students and young workers have cars - they need them to get to work now that studying has become so expensive. Where will they park?
Current resident parking is already over-subscribed.
With up to 30 adults on-site, this is grossly under-catering. While provision of bicycle parking is sufficient to comply with regulations, it is unclear whether or not there are sufficient spaces for motorcycles are provided ( “one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.”) as on pages 7 & 9 of the Statement of Environmental Effect the developer promises only two, on page 10 both 2 and 3 are claimed, while on page 13 there is mention of 4? Why are these motorcycle spaces placed on the Hutchinson Street frontage where they have the potential to disturb every resident in Hutchinson Street rather than the May Street side where they would not add significantly to current traffic noise?

Where is the “one accessible parking space per 10 guests’ rooms/10 boarding rooms” which must be provided, in accordance with relevant Australian Standards?

Gross floor area – this already exceeds that permitted under controls yet a further increase is proposed. The proposed floor space ratio is almost 50% (43.6%) in excess of that permitted.

The “Juliette” balconies will be an unacceptable source of noise.

While there may be no contamination due to previous uses of the site, it is important that the site is checked against leaching from nearby sites as this is highly likely given past industrial uses.

Adding a third story to this building will make it much higher than its neighbours and give rise to overshadowing.

Locating the social space for young people on the top floor will maximise the effects of noise on neighbours as noise will be able to travel across many properties.

The proposal does not adequately address the Council’s Promotion of Access and Mobility requirements.

Ceiling heights, except on the ground floor, are significantly lower than permitted under existing controls. While the developer sees an opportunity for additional profits by squeezing in an extra floor, reasonable people would prefer not to have students and young workers crammed into substandard accommodation.

Solar access for neighbours will be affected and this includes their ability to improve our environment by installing solar panels or solar hot water.

The developer suggests that this development will increase security for other residents. As an old lady who has lived here for more than 40 years, I am not currently afraid to walk in my street at any time of the day or night. In fact, the fewer people around the safer I feel because there is no-one to cause trouble.

The plan of management specifies that there shall be no smoking in the boarding house. This suggests that without any other plan to manage smoking, the smokers amongst the residents will congregate just outside the premises, forcing neighbours to walk through a cloud of smoke. There is no plan to manage the nasty habit many smokers have of dropping their butts on the street.

The plan of management specifies that "The volume of the television or any noise generating device must be kept within reasonable levels." This is very vague - what are "reasonable levels". And who will conduct the metering to ensure that noise levels are kept to "3dB above the background level between the hours of 10pm to 7am."

The plan of management specifies that "Drunken behaviour may result in eviction." Only may result? There does not seem to be any policy regarding alcohol onsite or any policy for responsible management of alcohol.

There does not seem to be any provision in the management plan to prevent this degenerating into "airbnb" style party accommodation for young travellers Although it states a minimum 3 month occupancy, with only 2 weeks bond there is nothing to prevent travellers breaching the agreement and moving on. What controls will council put in place to prevent this?

What controls will council put in place to prevent expoitation of international students?

Is this usage permissible under current zoning?

Will council take into account the proximity of Westconnex and

While the development claims to be sustainable, where are the solar panels, grey water recycling plans, rainwater storage for use on the rooftop terrace? According to the US EPA, the most energy efficient heating and cooling is achieved via geoexchange or geothermal heating and cooling systems. Is there provision for sustainable winter heating and summer cooling, eg by use of ground-source heat pumps which can reduce the amount of energy used in cooling and heating while still maintaining a comfortable temperatures? Or is this development on the cheap without regard to the environment?

I object to the application as it does not state parking will be provided, if there is no parking , the potential for what ever parking spots are available will become difficult for local residents , the council will not have parking restrictions in Brown st so would this become a parking space for this new accomodation building ?

It is overlooking Simpson Park which is a family park , would this intrude on that space as it's unspecified what type of boarding house they are intending

I object to this application based on the following:

Hutchinson Street is not an appropriate area for a 15 bedroom boarding house whether it be for university student accommodation or temporary housing for disadvantaged people in need. There is a clear lack of research to support the claims made by this proposal as illustrated in the Social Impact Assessment. St Peters is notoriously known by students for being extremely difficult to travel to and "far away" from universities that are not USYD. I have experienced this first hand - my university is only 4km away but at times it has taken me an hour to get home by bus.

The congestion and extended transit times experienced by students already living in the area are testament to the fact that this is not an appropriate area for student housing. It would only aggravate the current transport issues by trying to cram more students on to already overcrowded buses. In turn, this would force many of the students and young people to drive, and instead irritate the current parking issues faced by the residents in Hutchinson and surrounds.

In most cases it will be more affordable for a student to live in apartments near/on their university campus than the proposed 'affordable housing' here. For example, a one-bedroom apartment at UNSW is approximately $420.50 a week (High Street Apartments), while shared accommodation near USYD costs approximately $205-240 (USYD Terraces). To insist that this cost-friendly housing is vital for the area is simply not necessary.

Adding on to this, having a rooftop communal area has been, in my personal experience, often blocked off after repeated dangerous and inappropriate behavior from young tenants and essentially made redundant. Further, the amount of noise that could be generated on this rooftop garden would not be fair upon the other residents of Hutchinson Street.

I strongly oppose the developement application for 75 Hutchinson St. We have lived here for 30yrs and seen the street grow and the parking deminish. My wife works evenings and the parking in our street or Lackey street is almost no existent when she gets home from work and is forced to park in May st and it is very scary for her to walk around to our house in the dark. Also we think that a boarding house would affect the value of the houses around here and most certaintly effect the lack of parking that we have here already.Is there going to be parking spaces provided for them ? What sort of people would be hanging around Simpson Park? We have a lovely community of families here at the moment and I dont think it would be an advantage to everyone to put anymore traffic congestion in our streets. PLEASE do not permit this application to go through.

Dear Kaitlin,

Thank you for inviting me to comment on DA201700362, related to the Boarding House development on 75 Hutchinson St, St Peters.

As I live and own the house right next door to the proposed DA, on 77 Hutchinson St, I will be severely impacted by this proposal.

I strongly object this DA for the following reasons:

Substantial overshadowing that this development will bring over my property. The sunlight available in March to September now to my property is already significantly reduced, due to the fact that 75 Hutchinson St wall is now 10 meters high, and it is blocking the sunlight to my living room and bedroom for the majority of day. Adding one more storey will worsen the situation. This therefore impacts upon the functioning of principal living areas of my house and the principal areas of open space such as my backyard.

Simply put, if this DA goes ahead it will severely restrict the enjoyment of my home. The building is quite high already, and in winter time I am getting hardly any sun into my living room and my bedroom though my windows. I only have solar access for about 1.5 hours in winter time though skylight that is in my living room. This skylight is actually quite small, about 1m by 1m. So it is really a patch of sunlight that I get during the day in winter time. The rest of my living room is quite dark during the day (except for the patch that comes through the skylight). If that skylight is not there, I would not get any direct sun into my living room during this period. The skylight in my bedroom is even smaller than that. It is really unacceptable that the developer would want to build even higher, so I would not get any sunshine through my windows in winter time at all, only through my skylight and for very limited period of time. I don’t think that a reasonable person would agree to accept to live in a house so severely limited by solar access only through the skylight. Even the developer admits that at equinox I will get only solar access through my skylight and not though my windows at all if this DA goes ahead. This is very concerning to me and I strongly object this DA for these and other reasons outlined below.

Furthermore, I am in the process of installing solar panels on my roof and also solar heat pump to ease the high cost of rising electricity; it this DA goes ahead I will actually suffer a great economic loss as I will be not able to enjoy enough direct sun to make solar panels efficient. The DA makes no serious attempt to remedy this by proposing better design and they are basically saying “yes, we see that it will restrict your sun but bad luck”. I think this is unacceptable.

My privacy will be also severely impacted by additional storey and the common space to be placed on the top of the structure. Right now my backyard is very private as no one can see inside and there is no noise that comes from 75 Hutchinson St. I spent a lot of time in my backyard, especially during the day in winter time as it is the only place that has full sunshine for a few hours during day time in winter. Having this common area on the top will mean that I will lose my privacy and also I will suffer noise that will travel from the top of the structure directly to my property and neighboring properties. This is almost certainly happen, as there will be up to 30 young people on the property at any one time. Again, the quiet enjoyment of my property will be severely impacted by this proposal.
The floor to space ratio is too high – more than the Council allows as identified in the Strategic Plan for the St Peters Triangle. This DA is therefore not compliant. The current gross floor area is already over of what is allowed, yet this DA is proposing even more, 43% in excess of what is permitted by the Council. Similarly, floor space ratio is 1:1 and they are proposing 1:58. The floor space ratio is in place to minimise adverse environmental impacts on adjoining properties and the public domain – clearly the high floor space ration proposed bears direct impact on adjoining property and the public domain as it is too dense and too high.
The development will have a very adverse impact on the parking situation on Hutchinson St. The parking they are proposing in DA is grossly insufficient. There is already a huge lack of parking for existing residents in Hutchinson St, further exacerbated by additional vehicles in use by existing business and residents on Hutchinson St. Parking is daily struggle and this development will inevitably add more cars to the street without a viable sustainable solution. While the developer says that boarding house residents are unlikely to have cars, I think this is not a realistic assessment to make. If we consider that there will be at least 2 residents per each room, this potentially will translate to 30 cars in worse case scenario, and in the best case scenario – probably five additional vehicles - accommodating these additional vehicles will be impossible. It is not realistic to say that the boarding house residents will have no cars.
It is also very surprising that the developer has lodged a management plan from a boarding house in Eastwood. St Peters is a different place than Eastwood. The developer says that he wants the boarding house to be for “young people” but there is no appropriate management plan in place to give confidence that the boarding house will seamlessly blend into a residential environment populated with families with young children and elderly people living in direct proximity to 75 Hutchinson St. This does not fill me with confidence that the proposed boarding house will be well managed.

There are also some concerning misrepresentations of facts in the DA. Despite what the Social Impact Statement says, there is no main strip of shops on May St. This indicates a lack of proper consideration of this DA to the environment.

The Social Impact Statement says that: “The development will operation in a similar way to other residential flat buildings in the area – being a home for long term accommodation for residents of St Peters”. I would argue that by its nature, a boarding house is very different type of accommodation by its virtue of being short term and transitory. Residents of boarding houses don’t enjoy same protections as for example, tenants that are protected by the NSW Residential Tenancy Act, and they cannot have their complaints resolved by the NSW Tenancy Tribunal. This lack of protection will contribute to a potentially high turnover of residents and would encourage leasing the boarding house as an Air- bnb type of accommodation where people come and go as they please on a short term basis. It is therefore unrealistic to claim that the boarding house will contribute to ‘sense of belonging and community’. It is rather rich statement to make.

There is also a substantial lack of exploration into the state of soil and existing pollution and leachate, as all documents were prepared from “desktop research only”. It is also stated that the existing building is likely to contain asbestos, and there is no proposed plan to see how this will be managed. This is very worrying. Bearing in mind the industrial past of St Peters, one would reasonably expect that the developer would seriously consider the state of soils, potential leachate and the level of asbestos present in the building currently and the way to remediate and address these appropriately.

Thank you for taking this submission in your consideration. There are many concerning aspects of this proposal that do not warrant the approval to proceed.

I object to this application for the following reasons:

- The property exceeds limits for floor space ratio and gross floor area. The reasoning given to justify these violations do not stack up. Adding an extra floor will have significant impacts on the privacy, shading and noise of neighbouring properties.

- Parking: the current property has 4 car spaces accessible from the street. Outside of business hours and on weekends these spots are very commonly used by people in the neighbourhood. There is already a lack of parking on Hutchinson st. To add up to 30 residents and reduce the parking by 3 spots will definitely cause problems.

- It's great that the property is providing bicycle and motorbike parking but this does not remove the need for additional car spaces.

- It is claimed in the application documents that neighbour's privacy will be protected through "privacy screens", but it's not clear what these are. Are these moveable by residents? If so, this will not guarantee privacy.

- The 'statement of environmental effects' document does not appear to meet the guidelines for access and mobility. In response to the 6 requirements listed, the applicant's only specific response is that the building has a door accessible from the street.

- I live next door to the proposed development at 77 Hutchinson st. I'm particularly concerned by the impact of this application on solar access. The solar impacts violate the standard guidelines. If this building were to go ahead the reduced solar access would effect us in three ways: our lounge room skylight would be blocked, plants growing in the space between our house and the development site would loose significant sunlight, the increased shadowing on our roof would mean that we would not be able to install solar panels (something we are planning to do in 2018). The reduced sunlight would change the liveability of our home and reduce our energy access.

- I also note that only 7 of the 15 planned new dwellings would receive more than 2 hours sunlight per day. This also violates solar guidelines.

I object to this development application and agree with the points raised in the other objections.
I would like to note that according to the 2016 Census, the average cars per dwelling is 1.2 in St Peters - this is the same as in the 2011 Census for this area. With 15 'dwellings' in this development it can be readily be seen that there is a requirement for car parking and without provision, will have a negative impact on the surrounding area.