31 Dickinson Street, Charlestown NSW 2290

Firstly, being a neighbouring property as yet I and other residents who will be directly effected by the proposed 3 storey building, have not been notified regarding this application.

Secondly, we are concerned that the height of the proposed building will definitely be overshadowing and overlooking into our courtyards, which will impact our privacy .

There are several issues with this application relating to neighbouring properties:
first, this is a generally quiet area where residents are able to peacefully enjoy their properties with very minimal disruption. A high number of small children will create considerable noise in the neighbourhood, impacting on the peace experienced by neighbouring residents.
second, this development would generate a high level of traffic, impacting on parking, noise, congestion and access for local residents and visitors. There is currently extremely limited available parking for visitors, and this issue will be exacerbated by the proposed development.
third, construction of this facility will cause significant vibration, dust and noise. There needs to be consideration of how this will impact residents, including potential structural damage to properties from vibration, as well ad disturbing of the peace from high noise levels. The impact of noise on animals, including resident service dogs, also needs to be considered.
Finally, this area has several people who are elderly or live with disability. at certain times of day, the street and footpaths will be congested, as well as there being high volumes of traffic movement. This will reduce the ability of these residents to navigate independently throughout the local area, especially if using a mobility aid, including service dogs. \
It is important neighbouring residents are consulted regarding proposals such as this, due to the detrimental effects the construction of this or similar facilities will have on the local community.

Firstly, being a neighbouring property as yet I and other residents who will be directly effected by the proposed 3 storey building, have not been notified regarding this application.

Secondly, we are concerned that the height of the proposed building will definitely be overshadowing and overlooking into our courtyards, which will impact our privacy .

This is such a great addition to the community. We may be able to go back to work with more childcare’s opening.

In response to this development application, as neighbours who are directly impacted by this proposed development, we wish to note the following:

1). Social Impact Assessment
We were never consulted regarding the proposed plans, and we wish to highlight that on page 5 of the Lake Macquarie Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Guidelines (Checklist) it states that a consultation is a non-negotiable inclusion of an SIA, and this mandatory consultation has not been entered into regarding the creation of the social impact comment (SIC).

The SIC claims that “… the proposal will not generate negative social impacts…”.
We disagree, as the SIC fails to take into full consideration the direct impact on neighbours’ privacy, solar access, noise, potential traffic related safety issues, and overall wellbeing.
Clearly, there are rather significant negative impacts which must be considered.

Additionally, the statement also includes a reference to the positive impact of the development on the ‘Riverstone area’, a suburb in Blacktown, Sydney, which highlights the inaccuracy of the impact statement (see page 11).
https://www.lakemac.com.au/Development/Planning-controls/Local-Planning-Controls#section-5

2). Overshadowing
The construction of a three-storey building on the north side of one double and three single-storey residential units will completely overshadow the neighbouring properties' north facing habitable rooms and courtyards, as evidenced by the plans’ shadow drawings, and the brief comment in the SIC.

Regarding solar access, this proposed design contravenes the Child Care Planning Guideline NSW (2021), whereby, section 3.3 Building orientation, envelope and design, sub-section C11 states:
• avoid overshadowing of adjoining residential properties
https://gazette.legislation.nsw.gov.au/so/download.w3p?id=Gazette_2021_2021-501.pdf (page, 15).

Additionally, it contravenes the Lake Macquarie Development Control Plan (2014), Part 3 (Adopted August 2021), whereby, under 3.10 SOLAR ACCESS AND ORIENTATION, it states:
a. To ensure that reasonable access to sunlight is maintained for occupants of new and existing dwellings.
b. To optimise solar access to habitable living areas.
c. To ensure solar access is maintained to adjoining open space and public domain areas.

Controls
1. Developments must provide for the reasonable access to sunlight in accordance with the Planning Principle established by the Land and Environment Court in The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082, and Davies v Penrith City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1141.

2. At a minimum, three hours of sunlight must be available between 9am and 3pm on June 21, to at least 50% of:
i. Habitable rooms, and
ii. The required area of private open space of each development, and
iii. The required area of private open space of adjoining developments.
https://www.lakemac.com.au/files/assets/public/hptrim/land-use-and-planning-planning-development-control-plans-dcp-dcp-2014-revision-27-cardiff-town-centre-area-plan/dcp-2014-revision-27-cardiff-town-centre-area-plan-adopted-documents/dcp-2014-revision-27-part-3-development-within-residential-zones-adopted-9-august-2021.pdf (pages, 34 & 35).

I wish to highlight that the design is to retain direct solar access to habitable rooms and private open spaces, therefore the building plans needs to be adjusted to lower the building height and pull back from the southern boundary.
Additionally, the overshadowing will prevent the future installation of any solar panels on the north-facing roofs of the adjacent properties.

3). Overlooking and privacy
The SIC states, “…the building is designed to be used as a buffer/barrier to those properties [neighbouring] to reduce visual privacy and acoustic impacts…”, however, the south facing side of the plans show numerous windows/sliding doors and walkways above the fence line, therefore, the privacy of neighbours will be impacted throughout the day.
Thus, the proposed plan contravenes the Child Care Planning Guideline, whereby it states:
C11
• ensure visual privacy and minimise potential noise and overlooking impacts on neighbours by:
- facing doors and windows away from private open space, living rooms and bedrooms in adjoining residential properties
C12
• setbacks should allow for adequate privacy for neighbours and children at the proposed child care facility

Objective: To minimise impacts on privacy of adjoining properties.
C21
Minimise direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces in adjoining developments through:
• appropriate site and building layout
• suitable location of pathways, windows and doors
• landscape design and screening.
https://gazette.legislation.nsw.gov.au/so/download.w3p?id=Gazette_2021_2021-501.pdf (pages, 15; 18).

4). Streetscape and scale
The SIC states, “the proposal responds well to the individual context of its site and positively contributes to the visual appreciation and cohesiveness of the streetscape”.
We disagree.
A three-storey property is not in keeping with the current character of the street, and the fact that it is set forward of the existing property frontages means it will dominate the streetscape.

The Child Care Planning Guideline gives clear guidance to designers that planned proposals need to remain consistent with existing buildings in order to maintain the local character. See excerpt below:
Objective:
To ensure that the scale of the child care facility is compatible with adjoining development and the impact on adjoining buildings is minimised.
C12
The following matters may be considered to minimise the impacts of the proposal on local character:
• building height should be consistent with other buildings in the locality
• building height should respond to the scale and character of the street
• setbacks to the street should be consistent with the existing character
https://gazette.legislation.nsw.gov.au/so/download.w3p?id=Gazette_2021_2021-501.pdf (page, 15).
As a result, the building height must be reduced and setback to complement the existing buildings either side.

5). Traffic and parking
The street already is over parked by local workers using it for all day unrestricted parking, which means residents and visitors already struggle to get a space between 7AM-5PM. Removing two spaces from the street for teacher parking will increase the demand for an already sparse supply of parking for residents.
Unless the council is prepared to bring in restricted visitor parking and introduce resident permit parking, then this is not satisfactory.
Additionally, the increase in traffic during drop off and pick up times (of over 120 children) could also pose an increased risk for the site’s elderly and disabled neighbours, and produce congestion of our driveway if traffic banks in the street during those times.

6). Noise levels
Based on C22 of the Child Care Planning Guideline, the acoustic report proposes sound barrier fencing be installed, “to minimise the impact of child care facilities on the acoustic privacy of neighbouring residential developments” (p, 18).
The elevation of the outdoor play areas and the south facing ramps and sliding doors, will be above the 1.8M height of the suggested fencing, therefore potentially intrusive sound will carry above the fence line into neighbouring properties.
https://gazette.legislation.nsw.gov.au/so/download.w3p?id=Gazette_2021_2021-501.pdf.

We have highlighted what we believe to be the most impactful aspects of this design and we would appreciate due consideration of the negative impact this development would have, not just on ourselves, but all our neighbours, in particular, for those of us who daily use our north facing rooms and courtyards for both physical and mental health and wellbeing.

We eagerly await further consultation on these matters.

I would like to raise my family’s concerns regarding the development application DA 2593/2022 particularly the direct impact on my elderly mother’s overall wellbeing due to overshadowing, loss of privacy, the increase to traffic, noise levels and the resale value of her home.

The proposed construction of a three-storey building on the north side will completely overshadow her single storey home. This can be seen in the shadow drawings, and is confirmed in the social impact comment.

My mother uses her sun-filled courtyard, lounge and bedroom daily. Losing this sunlight will have a direct and negative impact on her mental health and overall wellbeing.

The building plans needs to be adjusted to lower the building height and leave space between the building and southern boundary to keep access to sunlight for the existing neighbouring properties.

Future access to sunlight for the installation of any solar panels on the north-facing roof of her home will also be restricted.

Privacy is another major concern with the proposed development having windows, sliding doors and walkways above the fence line. This is especially a concern for my mother and her neighbours spending the majority of their day in their courtyards and north facing sun filled rooms. The building should be setback from their boundary and properly screened to allow privacy for their existing neighbouring properties.

Parking is already very limited in Dickinson Street and the surrounding streets. The proposed Childcare Centre will add congestion to our streets with staff, parents and carers of the 122 children attending having insufficient parking available with only 16 spaces for designated pick up/drop off and 14 for staff.

This is particularly concerning as my mother and her elderly and visually impaired neighbours have frequent visits from healthcare workers, nurses, pharmacists, carers and cleaners all requiring parking.

Equally important is the street parking required by visiting family and friends. I believe this will have a serious negative impact on the healthy lifestyle and overall wellbeing of all residents of 33-35 Dickinson Street.

There is nothing in the building design to stop the noise of the Childcare Centre from carrying into neighbouring properties. The two outdoor play areas as well as the open walkways and balconies will have a direct impact on the peace and quiet my mother now enjoys in her home and therefore a direct impact on her health and wellbeing.

Finally I believe the loss of sunlight caused by overshadowing and the loss of privacy with the current building design will cause a significant decline in the value of my mother’s property impacting the choice she will have in residential aged care facilities in the future.

Please take these concerns into consideration, I ask that application DA 2593/2022 be disapproved.

Overshadowing

In addition to our previous comment, the SEE page 33 states that, “the design scheme has also undertaken a conscious effort to minimise adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, acoustic and overshadowing. This includes the siting and orientation of the building combined with the three-story built form complying with the prescribed height and setback provisions to ensure adjoining properties will continue to receive a minimum of 3 hours of interrupted solar access at mid-winter.”
And again, on pages 38 and 72 of the SEE, “The proposed centre-based child care facility has been designed to reduce the potential for overshadowing of neighbouring properties, including compliance with height and setback provisions. It is considered that appropriate solar access is to be provided on site and for neighbouring properties and this is supported by the attached shadow diagrams.
We disagree.
This is clearly not the case, as the shadow drawings do not support their argument.
The shadow diagrams show no solar access to our property throughout the day on 21 June, therefore the design contravenes the Child Care Planning Guideline.

I have recently purchased a property and settled in my home at 33-35 Dickinson street due to the area being quiet and peaceful as I have a sensory disorder that is affected by noise among other things. My new home is quiet, not effected by traffic or external noise.

Due to other health problems I spend most of the time at home, particularly in my courtyard. I’m extremely concern about the ongoing noise that 122 children in the outdoor play areas will create along with the obvios increase of traffic and people. This will have a huge impact on my health and wellbeing as well as my neighbours. Most of them are elderly people with health problems and/or disabled.

If the Childcare Centre is built in this street it will have very bad consequences in the physical, mental and emotional health of myself and my neighbours. So please disapprove this application. Our future wellbeing is in your hands…

Marcela Sutcliffe

I have recently purchased a property and settled in my home at 33-35 Dickinson street due to the area being quiet and peaceful as I have a sensory disorder that is affected by noise among other things. My new home is quiet, not effected by traffic or external noise.

Due to other health problems I spend most of the time at home, particularly in my courtyard. I’m extremely concern about the ongoing noise that 122 children in the outdoor play areas will create along with the obvios increase of traffic and people. This will have a huge impact on my health and wellbeing as well as my neighbours. Most of them are elderly people with health problems and/or disabled.

If the Childcare Centre is built in this street it will have very bad consequences in the physical, mental and emotional health of myself and my neighbours. So please disapprove this application. Our future wellbeing is in your hands…

Marcela Sutcliffe