Re: Development DA-20-00417" Demolition of existing structures, tree removal, construction of a new single storey 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.

We are residents of Bourke Street and Crown Street, Riverstone and we STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed boarding house development.  Boarding houses offer temporary budget accommodation for residents with little or no regard to neighbours and their properties due to their temporary position in the community. This proposal seeks 24 lodgers with an additional resident within the building as a boarding house manager.

The proposed development is not suitable for this area. Crown Street together with Bourke and adjoining Streets in the nearby area are all very quiet streets with 99 percent of properties being family residential homes (single dwellings).  All this is being thrown into jeopardy by a greedy developer looking to make a quick buck!

The development seeks to sneak into an established family area through State Environmental Planning Policy Exempt Development, as it does not comply with Blacktown’s Development Control Plan.

12 Bourke Street, Riverstone  was not set aside for affordable housing by any tier of government and is only permissible through poor state legislation with loopholes. It should not be up to an individual not associated with our community to make this decision.

There are a number of problems with the development attached below for consideration:

Fails to fit the character of the street:

There are no other large-scale buildings on Bourke Street or in close proximity let alone a Board House. This is proposed to be a large complex. It’s around two-three times the size of the existing house on the proposed block. Our street is characterised by residential homes with some being the first homes in Riverstone dating back to late 1800’s early 1900’s.  This is what makes Riverstone the country town it is.  Some of the properties feature granny flats to the rear of the property if complying with council.    Bourke Street does not even house a prominent home business.

Some of the blocks in the street are only capable to house 2 free standing dwellings to council policy, there are no duplex or townhouses; as the blocks are not large enough or the frontage wide enough yet council has accepted an application in a battle-axe block sharing approximately 10 residential boundaries to house 25 people.

Incorrect categorisation of area within the report

The CPTED report states: “Riverstone has been described as having two sides - south of Garfield Road described as a safe place to raise a family while the north side (closer to the industrial precinct) is not as safe (homely.com.au)”. This is quite a slanderous statement. First of all, the website homely.com.au does not contain this as official information, the website itself is a sparingly controlled webpage where everyone can write commentary without any peer review or fact checking. In fact, under the pseudonym AKK12, one user wrote: If you want the "good" side of Riverstone, it is best to buy north of Garfield Road.

The true statistics of our area speak for themselves, this is a low crime area, middle income, family oriented, with little drive through traffic and no shops where people can congregate in groups.  Most blocks are quite large and a standard property would easily sell from $750 000 - $900 000. In short, their research into the area seems non-existent.
There are also numbers of an increased crime rate within the report without any proof or source of this information and this data was impossible to confirm.
On the other hand, google reviews say about the company Minto Planning Services P/L: 1 out of 5 stars, incompetent work and terrible service.

Lack of community consultation

Only some immediate neighbours were informed despite other residents being affected by future lack of on road parking spaces, noise, possible increased crime rate and in turn loss of property value. Some but not all adjacent neighbours received a letter about 10 days from the 12th of July 2020, the close of comments on the project. Despite the house prices in the neighbourhood likely to be affected, as well as parking, other people in Crown Street or on Riverstone Parade, did not get any notification, not even people living very close to this proposed development. No signage can be seen at the new development. No official information was provided on who should live there. This indicates that the developer is not really interested in the fellow residents’ rights.

Poorly conceived plans:

Reviewing the plans submitted with the application, there are several concerns such as proposed building too close to the boundary of neighbouring properties, too many neighbouring boundaries affected, the driveway being not wide enough.

While there is an Acoustic Report for the premises, no assessment of plant noise could be made.
The report has not considered additional cars parked in the street, not enough parking on the proposed development site for each resident and manager, not enough turning space for cars within the development.

There is also no social impact statement despite our house prices being likely to fall (as was mentioned to us on request by local real estate agents in the area) and there being a change of character to the area.

Parking Requirements:

Parking onsite according to the CPTED report: There will be 3 motorcycle spots and 7 spots and one spot for disabled parking. Another plan exists that has even less parking space, due to different arrangement of the garbage waste area, with the parking hardly meeting requirements, as one of the parking spots might hinder garbage collection. However, reality is, most people in the current area rely more on personal transportation, how can the developer guarantee that only 6 cars, and three motorcycle will be present and needed? Are they to deny occupants their own personal vehicles, and are they denied visitors? If not, where will they park? On weekends and visiting days an additional 40-50 cars may occupy the street! This will affect residents of at least Bourke Street who already have had parking pressure increased over the past few years with the average household having 1.8 cars. Most would not be looking forward to taking their children out to Saturday morning sport then returning to have to park a ten-minute walk away from their home due to the number of cars parked along the road. Also, children being often seen on Bourke Street playing, residents take great care of this fact, how will all these additional cars effect the safety of the children?

Council’s Development Control Plan indicates that the minimum bay dimensions for Residential Parking are - 2.8m x 5.5m x 7m, and for Disabled Parking 3.2m x 5.5m x 7m. The dimensions in the proposed layout do not comply with this.

Sight Distance at the entry: The proposed layout indicates that a colorbond fence will be provided to the site boundary. This will restrict sight distance to approaching pedestrians on the footpath and does not comply with Australian Standards AS 2890.1.

Additionally, cars exiting driveways from neighbouring properties will have lines of sight reduced by the fencing at the development and by the increased vehicles parked on the side of the road. This creates a real danger to road users.

Council’s DCP on Landscaping

Parking areas should be landscaped to provide shade, to improve the visual amenity of large, all weather surfaces and to provide a buffer to neighbouring properties. Trees should be planted to achieve 50% shading of the car park at 10-year maturity. The proposed layout does not comply; with half of the parking spots having no shade from trees.

Lack of ownership and responsibility:

The proposal fails to address much of the operation of the boarding house, in particular with respect to the nature of the accommodation, any support services to be provided or the target group to be catered for making existing residents nervous causing anxiety and monitory stress.

This proposal does not meet the character of the local area requirement. -  The area is established residential, without commercial. The development is within 800 metres of a licensed premises (Riverstone Schofields Memorial Club). As noted above, the scale of the development is excess, unplanned, unneeded and motivated from private interest rather than meeting any community and social obligations. Significant affected residents have voiced their objection to the proposal, showing this development is not compatible with the character of the local area – who better to judge then the residents already living in the area?
Reading though all the documents, it is clear that the occupants can not develop a real relationship to their rental accommodation. They are not allowed to share keys; they are also not allowed any of their own furniture; but only easily movable belongings. This hinders the integration of tenants into the community, as it would be the case with a flat, townhouse or duplex.

The applicants Statement of Environmental Effects shows a level of arrogance in its planning. The design statement of notes the development to be 24 lodger boarding rooms. While there is a boarding house manager his room is tucked into a corner, without oversight who is coming or leaving, nor where he would be objected to noise in the carpark or common area. While there is a closing time of 10 pm for some areas, this does not include the carpark, driveway or street, and as the access is with a key card at any time, this could lead to unacceptable noise for hard working neighbours of which many have little children. Also, access to the manager might be impossible for owners of adjoining properties, when urgent intervention is needed.

The failures of the applicant Statement of Environmental Effects are many and obtuse, the assumption of no impact on the built environment is incorrect, the assumption there is a positive social and economic on the locality is offensive!

Influence on house prices and the Riverstone Town Centre Masterplan

There is no clarification of resolving disputes with the neighbours.

In the CPTED statement, the development has a total of 14 bins, we assume 7 normal garbage bins and 7 normal recycling bins. That is not a lot for 25 people. And might cause a collection of waste that can’t be collected on a weekly basis. Having an additional 14 bins on a street with an increase of parked cars, will also be an issue. Another plan has only two large waste bins but is now lacking in parking space.
The kitchen and common area is very small with 7 food lockers for 25 people. Given that most youth hostels, old people homes or similar, don’t have lockers, again is raising concern who should be living in this house.

No smoking should be allowed within the vicinity of neighbouring houses and in front of the property.

Most owners of properties in Bourke and Crown Street, occupy their own houses or are mum and dad investors. They are house proud with carefully landscaped gardens and constantly try to improve their homes. Most would not be able to afford a loss in value of their real estate.

There is very concerning comments within the CPTED stating that:
• Use fencing and landscaping to clearly control the edges of this development.
• Appropriate fencing is required to prevent unauthorised access to neighbouring properties. Fencing should be minimum 1.8m high.
Later on it states: • Avoid creating natural ladders into the site or adjoining properties.

Why would tenants be expected to break into neighbouring properties, this is a huge concern for the neighbourhood!

Currently there is little crime in the neighbourhood. Trees and palms (natural ladders) are planned within the property close to the fence. Front fences are only allowed to be 1.20 m high in this part of Riverstone. So, all neighbourhood yards would be very easily accessible for those boarding house residents that are expected to climb fences. Neighbours would have tools stored in yards and garages and many neighbours have children, some are single women, causing concern about their safety.

Later the document states: • Walls and fences within the development may be targets for graffiti. The use of anti-graffiti coatings is strongly recommended.
• Graffiti should be removed quickly. The longer tags are left on display, the greater the reward for offenders.
• Avoid the use of porus materials in areas with the greatest risk of graffiti tagging.

Again, all neighbour’s yards are not protected from entry, also the street and fences of neighbours do not have a special coating to avoid graffiti on them. So, use of this colour within the compound does little to alleviate the concerns for loss of property value. What example is this giving to young children, which are often seen playing in the street, who would observe such behaviour.

Quote: • Review the current trends in crime in Riverstone and adjacent areas with the local Police and regularly update Environmental Maintenance Plan.
This reads like a rise in crime rate is expected because of the development. This and the wrong categorisation of the area; as crime rich and a bad area, according to non-existing quoted material is in stark contrast to the real statistics, e.g. https://www.microburbs.com.au/NSW/Sydney-Western-suburbs/City-of-Blacktown/Riverstone#affluence is very concerning. It sounds that we might be expected to be the guinea pigs for integration of suspect individuals that might not find a proper apartment somewhere else.
Possible anti-social behaviour is also mentioned in the plan.

Another issue is that 12 Bourke Street currently has elderly tenants that due to their age are in a high-risk category in regard to Covid 19 and will have to find new accommodation urgently if this proposal goes ahead.

What does this mean for the Riverstone Town Centre Masterplan? How are we expected to have a flourishing town centre close by this development? When graffiti and break in to neighbouring yards is expected and discussed? Who would want to establish a stylish shop close-by? After all there is a plan for a boarding house with a potential group of anti-social individuals that have little rights in their own home, possibly are transient and have no pride in the neighbourhood.
Why would this even be considered?
Currently we can’t subdivide blocks under 1000m2 and without a minimum 17m frontage, we can’t build townhouses or a duplex on our land, however this development will house 25 people in close proximity, impacting at least the boundaries of 10 neighbouring properties.  Who is going to compensate for loss of property value when we are unable to sell at market price should the situation suddenly become unacceptable and/ or unsafe?

There are so many community concerns we believe that the proposal must be refused and believe this proposal should go before the councillors and we ask Councillor Dr. Moninder Singh to present this petition to council for and on our behalf.

Thank you for your time in reading this petition. Please sign it and share it with friends and family.