Objection to DA1/2021

RESPONSE TO MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND BOARDING HOUSE DEVELOPMENT

Objection to DA1/2021
47A Penrose Street Lane Cove West NSW 2066
to
Lane Cove Council
by
John and Ann Colyer
Residents
1 Wood Street Lane Cove NSW 2066

John and Ann Colyer object to the proposed development at 47A Penrose Street, for reasons as outlined in this Submission Summary, plus the Body of Evidence.

Additional to the Summary, the Body of Evidence covers matters backgrounding or otherwise having bearing on decisions regarding 47A Penrose Street.

Submission Summary

1. The development application contains errors or omissions of fact, rendering it an un- reliable document.
   
   
2. One error is in section 5.10 of the Statement of Environmental effects “The subject site is not a listed heritage item, is not located with a heritage conservation area and is not located in the vicinity of any heritage item”.
   
   The adjoining property, The Oaks is locally heritage listed, on Council’s records as “one of the early cottages in the area”.
   
   Under the guidance of a heritage architect the Oaks is undergoing extensive renovation, partly the subject of an approved Development Application.
   
   By nature of its use and its size, the boarding house is incompatible with the Oaks, a classic “relatively intact” building from another era.
   
   
3. The Traffic and Parking Assessment has similar omissions, errors or out of context data. The proposed development includes a substantial commercial use, with only one car parking space. The present commercial property has twenty-one car spaces (the Traffic and Parking Assessment only notes sixteen).
   
   Per area of commercial use, the proposed development represents an extra ordinary reduction in the available car spaces.
   
   Existing boarding house evidence shows one car space for two rooms is inadequate (contrary to the Assessment- refer Body of Evidence for some facts).
   
   Local street parking is at capacity and cannot support this boarding house development.
   
   
4. The traffic plan quotes statistics for the surrounding streets, (without reference to when the study was taken), but has no traffic study for Johnston Lane, used as the entrance for the proposed development.
   
   Over the length of the property the laneway is one car wide (not mentioned in the Assessment). Johnston Lane already has traffic congestion.
   
   
5. The building shadow submission is in error as the existing two-story building casts an equivalent show.
   
   
6. The third floor of the proposed development overlooks part of the courtyard of the Oaks and looks directly into a bedroom, as well as into no. 3 and no. 5 Wood Street.
   
   
7. The Statement of Environmental Effects does not mention the noise of forty-four air conditioners radiating from above, directly into the residence of no. 1, no. 3, and no. 5 Wood Street. Noise pollution is unacceptable.
   
   
8. Garbage collection is shown as contained in an internal area, but there is no mention of how it is presented for collection. The experience of the adjoining boarding house is un- acceptable (see Body of Evidence).
   
   
9. The imposing size and the intended use of the building, will substantially reduce property values of Wood Street and Penrose Street properties, almost all of which have been extensively enhanced or rebuilt.
   
   
10. We question the demographic study, as previous census showed West Lane Cove had the highest per capita ratio of children to adults in Australia. Protection of children from adverse experiences is every parents’ objective.
    
    
11. Lane Cove West already supports one boarding house and therefore has met any perceived or real obligation to accommodate low-cost housing.
    
    
12. Lane Cove West (west of Burns Bay Road) is a small enclave of low-density residential houses, yet it also includes a school, substantial playing fields, Scout and Guide huts, together with Government assisted living village, plus one woman’s refuge, together with two sets of tennis courts. The contribution of local residence supporting the wider community is therefore well satisfied and adding another boarding house is unacceptable.
    
    
13. The present building tenants include yoga, dance and music classes, all community- based activities. With the boarding house these will be lost to Lane Cove West residents and the wider community, as they cannot be supported in the proposed commercial premises, with one car parking space.
    
    
14. Low-cost commercial space for community or business purposes (similar to 47A Penrose Street as it is at present) are becoming scarce, causing business retail to “invade” industrial areas, which were not intended or are not suitable for retail activities.
    
    In our direct experience some Councils are addressing the need to provide local employment, particularly for lower cost activities. 47A Penrose Street as is, (but renovated), supports that objective.
    
    
15. A boarding house does not generate employment, but the loss of effective commercial operation does reduce employment. The development proposal is employment negative.
    
    
16. Because of prior discussions with an agent of years ago, it ought to be known by the present or past owners that we are aware of parties interested in purchasing 47A Penrose Street, for the purposes of renovating and retaining the current use status.

The Body of Evidence qualifies and quantifies this summary, endeavouring to address factual matters to the extent time, opportunity and funding allows.

John and Ann Colyer commend this Submission and Body of Evidence for forensic examination and remain available to discuss matters as appropriate.

Signed: John M Colyer