Objection to the re-submission in response of the developer to the deferral items raised by the Blacktown Local Planning Panel in Their deferral decision on the 12th March for Development DA-20-00417 https://www.blacktown.nsw.gov.au/Have-Your-Say/DA-20-00417-Re-Notification

"Demolition of existing structures, tree removal, construction of a new single story boarding house containing 12×2 person boarding rooms accommodating 24 Lodgers, a self-contained manager’s room, car parking and ancillary works. The subject site is an existing battle-axe block " at 12 Bourke Street, Riverstone.

The signees STRONGLY OBJECT to the re-submission of the proposed boarding house development 12 Bourke Street, Riverstone, as no significant changes to the original plans to take the concerns of the neighbours and community into account. We acknowledge that the planners explained why they did not change their design, or rather explained why they did not see the need to change their design, but that is not satisfactory to us. In the cited case Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 there was only 6 issues of contention, of which 4 were resolved before the meeting and it was specifically set for a medium density setting and the thoughts were about urban design, which does not at all apply to a R2 low density area. In this case there are many more issues, and none have been resolved, thus this is a very weak comparison. The plans show little change, despite there being 37 private submissions in regard to the built, a first petition with over 500 signees and 3 verbal submissions against the built where heard at the panel meeting. The neighbours are concern about safety, especially child safety (as kids play in the street, as there are no pedestrian walkways), lack of parking, and loss in property value due to this built. Also, people are worried that such a built is erected in an area that might be completely submerged in a flood, with little hope for tenants to escape if rescue crews are trying to get on the property at the same time, as it is in a battle axe block.
The resubmitted plans of the development do not follow the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) and other regulations and therefore should be rejected, as outlined in the policies and regulations.

PANEL DEFERRED the DEVELOPMENT for SEVERAL REASONS

BLACKTOWN COUNCIL was to re-assess the application against the Draft Housing Diversity SEPP, particularly in relation to the future permissibility of this land use in the R2 low density zone.  

THIS HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE DEVELOPER IN THEIR RESPONSE.  This is a major concern for our future and should not be ignored. The reason for this draft is because it has been recognized that boarding houses don’t fit in R2 low density housing zones like ours. It unduly influences us, our future and the future of our children.

There is a concern that the building does not fit in this area, because of size and character, which alone should be a reason for rejection of the building in line with State Environmental Planning Policy 30A. This states a consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area. The revised plan has some A FEW EXTRA TREES AND SHRUBS, which does not change the building design whatsoever.  Bourke Street and Crown street are streets that possess some of the first homes in the area, for example heritage listed number 66 Crown Street, 42 and 45 Bourke Street; together with some federation period homes literally across the road from the proposal.  These streets have mostly single dwellings with the odd property having a granny flat.  Just because the proposal location is in a BATTLE-AXE block, this does not make it EXEMPT from 30A.

State Environmental Planning Policy states: A consent authority must not grant development consent to a boarding house on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone unless it is satisfied that the boarding house has no more than 12 boarding rooms. State Environmental Planning Policy. 30 (I) (e) states if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on-site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager. However, in the plans provided by the developer the manager still has an identical boarding room in addition to the 12 rooms. There are in fact 13 boarding rooms not 12. The manager has not an additional dwelling on the property, just another boarding room. Why has this not been changed? Why is this literally the same application, and why was the application not rejected, nor these new plans, when they are in direct contrast of the SEPP? At the meeting it was clear that new plans reflecting the rules, like this one or the legally required setback, would make the plans more in line with regulations.

BLACKTOWN COUNCIL was to re-notify all surrounding property owners and the development sign was to be erected for another 14 days with evidence to be provided of the posting of the sign and its retention on site for the 14-day period in accordance with 40 A 2 b State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 stipulate 2 weeks. THIS HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.  The locals and property owners directly and indirectly affected by the proposal have not all been notified two weeks prior to the deadline, my letter only came one week prior, and I did not receive an email for example.

THE PANEL was concerned whether the proposal is CONSISTENT WITH CHARACTER OF THE AREA, not only having regard to the lack of landscaping, but also the location of the proposed boarding house on a battle-axe block. Loss of mature trees to the site was of concern. But also the scale of the build being to big in scale for the neighbourhood. An amended landscaping plan has been submitted by the developer to address the lack of mature trees and provide a visual buffer for adjoining properties and in addition has deleted the perimeter pathway to the South Western Side boundary so to provide greater opportunities for planting for (increased privacy). Privacy is definitely one of the many concerns with 10 property boundaries being, not just on one side.  No further amendments have been made to the application; only the landscape, especially the setback to properties has not been addressed.

Decrease in value to properties in the adjacent streets is a concern for all, but especially to new buyers in Bourke, Streets and Riverstone Parade Crown and if the development was to proceed would definitely not have purchased. A reduction in tenants, would increase the safety of children, that have to play in a street with no pedestrian walkways, and a potential increase of up to 18 additional cars parked in this and surrounding streets.

Other non-compliance with guidelines/ policies:

• Setbacks on a BATTLE-AXE BLOCK not addressed it should be 5-10 m up the front and 3 meters at the back, however it is only 2.3 m from all boundaries. While 2.3 m would be sufficient for a standard R2 low density block, it does not apply for a battle-axe block, which should be 3 m minimum per Development standards for battle axe lots or Greenfield Housing Code standards, this needs to be addressed!  According to the legislation a battle axe lot is not a standard lot. The summary of development standards defines the necessary setback.
• Common access to property should be 7m wide (Blacktown City Council Growth Centre Precincts Development Control Plan July 2018; 6.2.3.3) “All battle axe handles should be provided with a minimum concrete carriageway of 7m.” whereas 5.750 m maximum shared is obtained. The road is not shared all the way, and the owner of the other block, did only think people could stand on her side, to let other people pass, that are driving in.
• SEPP 16A Character of local area. A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.
• The build within the battle axe is facing the wrong way, it should be facing the road, not the surrounding properties, according to the “The Summary of development standards states in clause 3.3 (2)”. The council should not accept this. They would not accept disregard to an insufficient setback in a private built, why is it allowed in this monstrosity?
• Blacktown City Council Growth Centre Precincts Development Control Plan July 2018 3.1.3.3 states, that “In density bands 10, 15 and 20dw/Ha, the minimum site area for battle-axe lots without any street or park frontage is 500m² (excluding the shared driveway) and only detached dwelling houses will be permitted.” Multi-dwelling houses are not mentioned as being acceptable.
• Boarding Houses Act 2012 – Statutory Review from 2020, Zone R2 Low Density Residential at the moment allows boarding houses, however the The Planning, Industry & environment department of the government of NSW introduced in July 2020 new housing diversity SEPP will remove boarding house developments from R2 Low Density Residential zones at a state level; because they are very contentious. Some councils and communities consider that boarding houses are fundamentally incompatible with other development in the R2 Low Density Residential zone due to their bulk, scale and nature of use. Changes to regulations will see the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment intends to introduce an affordability component by changing the definition of "boarding house." A boarding house will be required to be managed by a registered not-for-profit community housing provider.

Other overall concerns:

• Driveway access for fire and emergency purposes to be shared between 26 occupants and neighbouring property. However, this permission to use the other driveway might change when owners change of the neighbouring block. Then in case of an emergency the situation would be even more dire, as no one might be able to escape.
• Slope of the land, and insufficient area for water to dissipate may cause issues to surrounding properties.

Previous petition to reject the development can be found here. As mentioned a lot of points in private submissions and petition have not been addressed: https://www.change.org/p/moninder-singh-blacktown-nsw-gov-au-objection-to-a-boarding-house-development-in-riverstone