53 Hannam Street, Bardwell Valley NSW 2207

Hello,

I am just curious regarding this development at 53 Hannam Street, Bardwell Valley NSW 2207. There is going to be 15 rooms for this boarding house. So if each tenant has one car there are going to be 15 cars, and if room gets one visitor with a car, that could possibly mean 30 extra cars in this street. Where are all these cars supposed to park ?. The street is narrow that two cars can barely pass each other. So all these cars will just spill over to surrounding streets. All council is doing is creating a giant car park around this area. Just look at units around Turrella station and associated streets. Most of the cars parked in these streets come from the two units located near Turrella Station.

If you allow this application there should be a minimum of thirty car spaces onsite.

Thanks

Peter

Given the responses to my previous inquiry (CRM191139) on the number of cars illegally parked on the footpaths in the area, adding a boarding house with 15 rooms hardly seems like a sensible option to help alleviate this issue.
As a parent with a pram who is constantly forced to walk on the road among traffic (which is often speeding through - CRM188507), I feel that additional vehicles in the area will only increase the risk to local residents in similar situations.

I object to this proposed development of a 15 room boarding house, I know this street, it's quite narrow, like others here I am concerned about the parking in the street, not only that but it would look out of character in our nice quiet suburb.

This proposal is not in keeping with the residential area. There is nowhere to park the cars that will be part of this proposal. This is a quiet residential area and the addition of a boarding house will mean that more houses and people will be in the area and cause extra issues with parking.

I oppose this development because it is not suitable for its location. I support affordable housing, diversity and support for low-income households. But this is not the right place for the boarding house because it is located in a quiet residential area with very limited parking and the building development is not in keeping with the existing housing. The change will be negative for the existing residents of Turrella.

To the powers that be,

I’ve reviewed the proposed development and was pretty gobsmacked at the idea of fitting in a 15 room (up to 27 people) onto the 714sqm block on little ol’ Hannam St.

Another boarding house, (10 rooms), is nearing completion over on Rickard St (860sqm block). Thankfully, council were able to work with them on reducing bulk, splitting it into two smaller developments. At the very least, I hope to see similar controls here - 15 rooms is surely too much for a 714sqm block, surrounded by a mix of cottages (1 Wilkins St) and single story dwellings (55 Hannam St) and duplexes (51 Hannam St).

This area is of course part of a ‘planned precinct’, with draft plans due to be released middle of this year, would it be prudent to await the results of this process before approving a development that is so out of step with the character of the area? Residents are holding their breath for what is in store, but we are promised that whatever the result, it will be well thought out and *planned*, rather than adhoc development. I would see a 15room/27person boarding house in this location as extremely adhoc. If council are authentic in their mission to be arbiters of considered land use and planning, then I imagine it’s best to wait a few short months to see what’s in store for the area over the next 20 years.

In my view, the narrow constraint of Hannam street creates unreasonable impacts for pedestrians, as 3 car spots for up to 27 people will no doubt result in more illegal parking on footpaths, forcing those pedestrians, families with prams, kids on bikes onto what is a busy street. It’s a well known rat run for those avoiding congestion on the M5, which is soon to be tolled again, inducing more rat runners onto this tight road.

I understand that council is in a tough position to be able to do anything about the *existing* illegal footpath parking, and I’m grateful that council have attempted to remedy this with a traffic flow change (unfortunately there was no consensus amongst residents) - but surely this is a clear opportunity for council to step in and be proactive in not making a bad situation, worse.

I imagine that the build would severely constrain further development of the adjoining properties in accordance with the planned precinct, and as such, this land, or its neighbour 55, would then become isolated between a heritage item and the boarding house.

The relationship of the site to the heritage property on Hannam St (57 Hannam) creates issues that are not appropriately addressed by the proposed development and cannot be ameliorated with small amounts of landscaping around the carpark at the front of the site.

I’m not across the minimum standards for boarding houses, but the amenity for the future tenants looks restricted. The outdoor common space area seems very small for up to 27 people, and if I’m reading the plans correctly, the northernmost tenant (very back) on the top floor, has to walk all the way to the front of the property, down the stairs, back down all the way to the back, across the width of the block, and then up another set of stairs in order to reach the common space? Is this practical?

Considering the noise and light pollution onto the side of 1 Wilkins St, and all along the side of 55 Hannam St - I wouldn’t expect to see this kind of development approved in this area, and certainly wouldn’t want to see a precedent set.

In summary, I would expect council to work with the developer in
* Significantly reducing the number of rooms and people
* Striking the right balance between retaining the garden curtilage of the street and on-site parking. (eg. More garden area in front of the carpark)
* Ensuring that the privacy and residential amenity (light and sound) for adjoining properties is maintained
* Considering a deferred decision in light of the planned precinct work due to be released in only a few months

Regards,
Scott

I am a mother with two young kids living in the area and I strongly oppose this application being approved.

My biggest complaint, as others have stated, would be the situation of parking. In a modern world like this we have to assume that most of the tenants moving in would have a car needing to be parked somewhere. With limited spaces offered onsite we have to look at the other options of where they might park those vehicles.

Hannam Street itself is a busy thoroughfare with several vehicles coming from the M5 and zooming along at high speed. The lanes themselves are narrow and it is a tight space for passing vehicles. Because of this anyone who parks along the street tends to park up on the pathway, often completely blocking the pavement. Every week I take my children out to walk the short distance from our house to the Coolibah Reserve at the end of Hannam Street. Every week I am already forced to take my double stroller into the middle of the road because I cannot walk along the pathway. I am ALWAYS running to get ahead of hoons revving down the road in fear that they may not see me in time. Any parent can tell you how terrifying that would be. If you allow this build to happen, we can only propose that there will be more cars to dodge parked along Hannam Street.

The other two places cars may park is in Wilkins Street or Mawson Street. Both of these roads are already busy with lots of cars parked. Mawson Street has a mechanic with numerous cars parked along it and next to that is either a shared accomodation or boarding house which at any time has around eight vehicles parked outside, often a semi trailer too.

Then there is a villa complex with several people needing to park cars in a very small space. In short, I cannot see where extra vehicles would go in Mawson Street.

In Wilkins Street, there is limited available space and already there is a boarding house being built close to the bottom of the street, on Rickard Street.

Whilst I am an advocate for charge and city life, I feel that any change needs to be well thought through and be a plausible plan in the first place.

I would also object to the size and style of this build. The duplex next to it already towers over anything else in the street. This build looks like it will be even taller and situated just one property away from a beautiful protected sandstone property. It would also tower over the little one storey property at the back of it in Hannam Street.

All in all, I feel that this is not a suitable plan for this area and that if people really wanted to build a high-rise, quick monetary fix property, they should wait to see what the re-zoning of this suburb may bring.

I am opposed to this development on the grounds that parking has not been satisfactorily addressed.

A development of this size is likely to introduce a permanent addition of 15+ cars into an area that already experiences significant illegal parking. The practice of illegally parking on the footpath on Hannam and John St impacts pedestrian users, particularly the disabled and parents with strollers, who are forced onto a narrow road that is commonly used as a high speed rat run for the M5. In addition, the regular Telford and STA buses struggle to navigate the turns due to illegal parking and have resulted in more than one crash in the area.

If this development were to be approved, I'd like to see a minimum of 10 onsite spots, allowing for residents, visitors and a permanent manager spot. In addition, enforcement of the current parking regulations must occur, perhaps with the addition of No Stopping signs.

In fairness to the current residents, a compromise would be to allow parking on the footpath on one side of the street only, allowing a clear path on one side - probably the north side.

Table 1 of the Bayside Council development control plan 2013 applies the required number of parking spaces for boarding houses stipulated in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPPARH).
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2009/364/part2/div1/cl14
[14(2)(ii)] of SEPPARH requires 0.5 parking spaces per single bedroom and 1 space per 2 bedroom.
The 0.2 spaces included in the DA does not meet the requirements of the Bayside Council plan.

I object to the proposal of a new boarding house development in this location.
The notification I received from Council today states that they planned for 10 rooms but the proposal here states that they are wanting 15 rooms.
I'm more-so concerned about the fact that this property is too close to Coolibah Reserve and I would not want that site to be affected in any way during the development.
Boarding houses also have a reputation for insecurity and other safety issues in residential zones.

To the powers that be,

After reviewing the latest plans, I would like to re-submit points of objection in light of new information since original submission.

Firstly, all the new plans are marked as "59 Hannam St" not 53? I'm also unsure why only some new plans are lodged online - for example, I don't know how many double vs single rooms there are anymore - and consequently, how many people would be residing at the site? Is this normal? Has there been enough accurate information on the revised plans published for public comment?
In any case, when referring to the amount of residing persons below, I've assumed >= 12 persons. (ie 2 of 10 rooms being double)

I don't feel a 10-room boarding house is the right structure for the site, given that it's surrounded by a mix of cottages (1 Wilkins St) and single story dwellings (55 Hannam St) and duplexes (51 Hannam St)

The ‘planned precinct’ for the area has been handed to councils... I am unsure what this means, but I imagine it would still be prudent to await the results of this process before approving this kind out-of-step development?
Residents feel a little in the dark about the planned precinct work, but we are promised that whatever the result, it will be well thought out and *planned*, rather than adhoc development taking place. I would still see a commercial boarding house in this location as adhoc/out-of-character - but I'm not privvy to Council's plan for the area.

In my view, the narrow constraint of Hannam street creates unreasonable impacts for pedestrians, as 6 car spots (+ 2 motorcycles) for >=12 people (unsure of max) will no doubt result in more illegal parking on footpaths, forcing those pedestrians, families with prams, kids on bikes onto what is a busy street. It’s a well known rat run for those avoiding congestion on the M5 East, which is soon to be tolled again, inducing more rat runners onto this tight road.

I understand that council is in a tough position to be able to do anything about the *existing* illegal footpath parking, and I’m grateful that council have attempted to remedy this with a traffic flow change (unfortunately there was no consensus amongst residents) - but surely this is a clear opportunity for council to step in and be proactive in not making a bad situation, worse.

I imagine that the build would severely constrain further development of the adjoining properties in accordance with the (now council led) planned precinct, and as such, this land, or its neighbour 55, would then become isolated between a heritage item and the boarding house.

The relationship of the site to the heritage property on Hannam St (57 Hannam) creates issues that are not appropriately addressed by the proposed development and cannot be ameliorated with small amounts of landscaping around the carpark at the front of the site. (Unsure if this has been addressed in revised plan)

I’m not across the minimum standards for boarding houses, but the amenity for the future tenants looked restricted in the original plans, and I cannot determine what they look like in the latest plans. The outdoor common space area seemed very small when compared to # of expected residents

Note: Unsure if this original objection is still relevant given the change - I am unable to tell from the new plans "if I’m reading the plans correctly, the northernmost tenant (very back) on the top floor, has to walk all the way to the front of the property, down the stairs, back down all the way to the back, across the width of the block, and then up another set of stairs in order to reach the common space? Is this practical? "

Considering the noise and light pollution onto the side of 1 Wilkins St, and all along the side of 55 Hannam St - I wouldn’t expect to see this kind of development approved in this area, and certainly wouldn’t want to see a precedent set.

In summary, I would expect council to work with the developer in
* Significantly reducing the number of rooms and people (I can see this has been partially done but I do not have enough information to determine max people)
* Striking the right balance between retaining the garden curtilage of the street and on-site parking. (eg. More garden area in front of the carpark) (This may have been addressed with the new underground parking - unsure)
* Ensuring that the privacy and residential amenity (light and sound) for adjoining properties is maintained
* Considering a deferred decision in light of the planned precinct work now handed to council to drive (unsure of any timeline here)

Regards,
Scott