Alterations and additions to an approved mixed-use development to include in-fill affordable housing - 160-172 Lord Sheffield Circuit, Penrith

21st May 2025

<Name withheld>
Penrith NSW

Application for 160-172 Lord Sheffield Circuit, Penrith (SSD-78665709)

I strongly OBJECT to the proposal of the above mentioned project.

My reasons why I OBJECT to the proposal are:

Additional 144 apartments with only 102 additional car parking.
Is this the assumption that every additional apartment owns 7/10 of a vehicle to park in their assigned car parking spaces?

The lack of parking in Thornton Estate has been a major issue for many years. You should concentrate on how many parking spaces you could provide to the occupants instead of how many apartments you could fit MORE into the buildings to make more profit.

Additional 76 in-fill affordable housing.
The average rental price of Thornton Estate is at least $600 per week. Owners and occupants are hard working people in this friendly community. You are changing the sociocultural values of the neighbourhood by injecting people with lower social and economical levels to the community.

Changes to the basement layout to facilitate 102 additional car parking spaces
The traffic of additional 102 vehicles will create a long term impact on Thornton Estate. I really don't see any benefits by simply changing the basement layout.

Additional four storeys to an approved mixed-use development
The extra four storeys with 144 apartments which means there will be at least 144 additional occupants (assuming one occupant per apartment), to 216 occupants or even 252 occupants in total (assuming a family of 3 or more in one apartment) will be introduced to the community.
Consider the environmental impacts of accommodating additional 144 or more occupants in the area with no improvements on the infrastructures from the existing approved mixed-use development.

My final conclusion is, continue and proceed with the original approved development plan with NO alterations and additions.

as previously documented to the council and to the sisters

I am writing to express my support for the proposed alterations and additions to the approved mixed-use development at 160-172 Lord Sheffield Circuit, Penrith (SSD-78665709).

The development is ideally situated in a location with excellent access to transport, being minutes from Penrith Station and the future Metro West. It is also located close to essential services, including several schools, local shops and Nepean Hospital. This connectivity makes the site an appropriate location for increased residential density. Notably, the proposed increased density aligns with the NSW government's transport oriented development objectives to create more well-located homes close to quality transport infrastructure, jobs, and services.

I consider that the proposed development would deliver substantial benefits to Penrith and the wider Sydney community. The additional dwellings would help address the current housing shortage by making more efficient use of well-located land. The inclusion of 76 affordable housing units is particularly important given the challenges many households face in securing affordable accommodation in the Sydney housing market.

The proposed development would also improve the urban environment through the provision of additional commercial floor space and public open space, including a rooftop terrace. These facilities would benefit residents and contribute positively to the local area.

In light of these considerations, I support the approval of this development application.

I support this alteration to this DA. The main reason being is, we need as much housing as possible in sites like this, as it is key in addressing housing affordability in Sydney. It's a great site, that many people will want to live given it's immediately adjacent to the station.

The affordable housing ensures many lower income earners also get an opportunity to live at a site like this. Furthermore continued increase in supply will ensure rents remain affordable, which is important so people working at the hospital can live in a reasonable distance to work. The inability to be able to afford housing has made it harder for hospitals to retain staff, it's a trend in Sydney that has been noted as far back as last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/08/essential-workers-priced-out-of-housing-near-sydney-workplaces-and-face-even-longer-commutes

Affordable (both market and non market) housing within reasonable proximity of the hospital is key in ensuring there is a sufficiently large labour pool for the hospital. It ensures the hospital doesn't need to resort to higher wages to offset any disincentive a longer commute would have on people pursuing roles here. Given a fixed pool of resources, reduced labour costs will ensure the hospital can provide additional services with fewer staffing constraints. It will make the hospital also more desirable as a workplace given the more affordable housing.

It may not be immediately opposite the hospital but it's in a close enough vicinity I believe it will play a role in reducing labour costs.

Here are some things I'll list of for brevity. These are minor points but I feel they need to be stated given typical objections insist these issues regardless of whether this is the case.
- In terms of appearance, it looks quite nice. I'm sure you can tell by looking at the designs.
- I don't see this meaningfully obstructing sunlight, given it's north of the track and south of the nearest residential building.
- The only residential view it'll block is one of the tracks. Some people love trains, I know I do, but if anything this building will dampen the noise coming from the tracks for existing residents. I've lived immediately adjacent to a station like this before, and it can get quite loud if you leave windows open (in particular freight if it passes through). So Existing residents may actually have an improved quality of life after this is built. This does imply anyone living on the southern portion of the site will likely put up with that noise. I think this is okay, as it's something someone knowingly signs up for before moving in.

Bottom line, this DA alteration is a net positive, given the magnitude of impact this will have housing affordability will drawf any inconvenience cited in any objection. As I said at the start, we should be providing as much housing as possible in sites like this, no matter where in NSW.

I support this proposal. It's providing the housing density that Sydney so desperately needs to solve the housing crisis.

Further to my previous submission, I wish to also raise the following additional points in objecting to this application:
1. By making this building 14 levels high it is not consistent with the height of other apartment buildings within the Thronton complex. Currently most apartments in the complex are 9 levels high with only the Lumina apartment being 10 levels. To make this building 14 levels it would be inconsistent with what residents have expected with building level heights in the complex.
2 .My current apartment is on level 9 ,81 Lord Sheffield Circuit and is directly opposite the Mayfair building project. When I purchased my apartment, I paid extra so as I could be on the top floor facing the east so that I could enjoy the warm sun in the mornings as well as the view. The addition of 4 floors to the Mayfair Project will not only take away my view but also take away a large proportion of the morning sun.
3. When I purchased my apartment, I enquired about the vacant block where the Mayfair building was being erected and was told by the builder St Hilliers that there was a council restriction on the block restricting it to only retail and that nothing over 4 levels could be built there given its close proximity to the rail line. Obviously, what i was told was either incorrect or the council has changed its position in relation to building on the block.

Housing in Sydney is too expensive -- because we do not approve enough housing. Developments like this are a good way to alleviate the crisis.
Specifically, extra density should go near Penrith station and the hospital.
I understand that some residents think the proposal is ugly. That is their idiosyncratic value judgment, with which I disagree. i think it looks fine.

The project is just what the city needs during the ongoing housing crisis. It is well located with easy access to public transport, health and education facilities and more homes are always better. The city needs all the homes it need to meet the demand and the additional floors and houses will surely help. The 76 affordable units are an added bonus. The best place to build homes is a location that is closer to amenities where people like to live and work. This project ticks all the boxes. I hope to see the project approved unanimously.

The proposed building height will tower over the Thornton estate and Penrith generally. Penrith roads and public transport can barely support the community as is, let alone once this complex is finished and brings in more residents. Such an influx of residents with the addition of ‘affordable housing’ will also add to the influx in crime seen around the area, particularly drug and theft related offences.

This project will involve the creation of more commercial floor space and more housing to an already-approved development, which I think are both extremely valuable in creating a nice sense of place in what already seems be be a pleasingly open design, and are also key to addressing the housing crisis. This is an area in which many of my colleagues work (at Nepean hospital), many of whom have chosen to live in areas further away where apartment-style housing that suits their needs is located. Creating development near to amenities like Penrith station with good access to public transport and schooling creates houses that people will want to like in, so I strongly support increasing the number of houses able to be developed here. Given the nice open space included in the design and the location at the public heart of Penrith, the inclusion of more commercial flooring is also a welcome addition. The addition of the rooftop terrace will also help create a nice sense of place in the area. Overall I strongly support this project.

I completely support the project, especially the alterations.

I believe this project will:

Be an excellent addition to the Penrith area and is close to several schools, many local shops and other businesses

Give more people, especially healthcare workers for choice and flexibility on where they wish to live

Encourage more public transport usage as it will be close to Penrith Station & Metro West

There is significant foot traffic within Penrith station and surrounds already as well as limited parking, this will be worsened by additional residents in addition to those already planned within the 10 level project as initially proposed.

There are regular vacancies in existing projects within Thornton and so there is not a supply issue and instead additional residences will devalue the whole area.

If affordable housing provisions are a necessity for the project/area then this should be accommodated on the existing approval or explored within other existing vacancies.

I support the proposed amendments to SSD-78665709 at 160–172 Lord Sheffield Circuit, Penrith, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing and increased housing supply near public transport. However, I encourage the Department to consider extending the affordability period beyond 15 years, improving access to community infrastructure, and enhancing sustainable transport measures. With these refinements, the project can deliver lasting benefits and serve as a model for well-planned, inclusive growth in Western Sydney.

I have lived in an apartment opposite the Mayfair development for the last 6 and a half years.
I am very concerned about the increased traffic that the Mayfair project is going to generate and the impacts on existing residents in the Thornton Estate.
I don't believe the traffic report that has been provided for this project satisfactorily covers all of the scenarios that create increased traffic in Lord Sheffield Circuit . My reasons follow:
The 3 apartment blocks in the existing 81 Lord Sheffield Circuit complex comprise of 191 units and 206 car parking spaces. All of the car parking spaces are allocated. The Entrance and exit to the car parking is via a laneway that runs off Lord Sheffield Circuit. This laneway is directly opposite the Mayfair project site.
In addition to 81 Lords Sheffield Circuit, the Quest Hotel also use the laneway for their guests to park in the carpark in their building. Again, entrance and exit is via Lord Sheffield Circuit.
Lord Sheffield Circuit is heavily populated before 8am and after 5pm by family collecting rail commuters and by cars that do not have a parking spot allocation within 81 Lord Sheffield Circuit and the Quest Motel.
The turn from the laneway to Lord Sheffield Circuit is difficult already . If turning right, you do not have a clear view of traffic coming down Lord Sheffield Circuit as a result of a distinct bend in the road. If you are turning left, the traffic outside the Quest Motel significantly impedes your view. I believe its only a matter of time before a major and possibly fatal accident takes place.
Adding an additional 431 units is going make traffic congestion so much worse. There will be more unclear visibility, more residents that do not have car spaces parking in the street and more traffic with residents entering and leaving the new carpark at Mayfair. Furthermore, the planned new retail businesses the Mayfair will be including will no doubt bring more traffic to Lord Sheffield Circuit.
I do not object to affordable housing but I do object to the substantially increased traffic congestion that the Mayfair Project is going to create and this will be made even worse by the action that you have proposed by increasing the building size with 4 floors and an additional 144 units.
Please reject this proposed development.

I'm writing in support of the project. We need much more housing, especially affordable housing. Penrith's spot on the train line Makes it a great place for more infill development.

Dear Assessing Officer,

I am a resident of 10 Aviators Way, Penrith (part of Thornton Estate). I am writing to object to the proposed modification seeking to increase the approved height of the development at 160-172 Lord Sheffield Circuit Penrith from 10 storeys to 14 storeys, on the following grounds:


AIRFLOW OBSTRUCTION AND POLLUTION BUILDUP
The proposed additional height would have serious environmental and health impacts by impeding the natural southwest airflow, which is crucial for ventilating Thornton. The applicant's own environmental reporting acknowledges that the prevailing wind direction is from the southwest year-round.

Obstructing this airflow would lead to stagnation and reduced dispersal of pollutants, particularly emissions originating from the Visy Glass recycling factory and the sewerage treatment plant to the northeast, as well as vehicle emission pollution from the increased residential and business traffic, and existing coal dust emissions from the railway line. Residents are already exposed to industrial and vehicle emissions; any further reduction in natural air cleansing would increase health risks, including respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT
The excessive increase in building mass would also contribute to the local urban heat island effect. Thornton has experienced significant urban development pressure, and the cumulative retention of heat between large, tall buildings further diminishes residential amenity and public health, especially during hotter months. Reduced airflow will compound this problem.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENTS
It must be recognised that other high-rise developments southwest of Thornton are already approved, under construction, or proposed. Each of these buildings incrementally reduces the available corridor for the southwest airflow. This proposal, if approved, would exacerbate the cumulative obstruction of vital natural ventilation. Planning assessments must take into account the broader context and cumulative impacts on the community's living environment, not just the isolated effect of a single building.

DEPARTURE FROM ORIGINAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES
The original 10-storey approval more appropriately balanced development with the need to protect liveability for existing residents. Granting approval for an additional four storeys would breach the intent of the original planning controls, significantly worsening environmental conditions and impacting the reasonable expectations of residents who have made homes here based on the approved planning framework.

REQUEST FOR REFUSAL
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the proposed modification to increase the building height to 14 storeys be refused, in order to protect public health, environmental quality, and community amenity in Thornton.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Sincerely,
Lisa Seckold
Resident, 10 Aviators Way, Penrith NSW

The Thornton Estate is not well equipped to accommodate high traffic generated by the proposed development, bearing in mind that there is another piece of vacant land with even more residential apartments already proposed / to be proposed. I believe that without any underpass connection to the other side of the Penrith Station we will soon have traffic congestions during peak hours within the Thornton Estate itself.