Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Assessment

Kellyville Station Precinct Concept Proposal

The Hills Shire

Current Status: More Information Required

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Concept proposal for the allocation of land uses and gross floor area (GFA) across the site, built form design
principles, guidelines and controls, street hierarchy and layout and subdivision of public domain areas.

Attachments & Resources

Request for SEARs (1)

190606 5947 Kellyville Indicative Plan of Subdivision V03

SEARs (4)

Issued SEARs_11092019_053921
Issued SEARs Cover Letter_11092019_053919
Issued SEARs_11072019_034028
Issued SEARs Cover Letter_11072019_034025

EIS (22)

Appendix P - Kellyville & Bella Vista Design Excellence St
Appendix U - Geotechnical Assessment
Appendix T - Air Quality Assessment
Appendix S - Riparian Assessment
Appendix R - Bushfire Protection Assessment
Appendix Q - Preliminary Site Investigation Report
Appendix O - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report
Appendix N - Economic Impact Assessment and Benefits Statem
Appendix M - Social Infrastructure and Open Space Report
Appendix L - Utilities and Infrastructure Servicing Report
Appendix K - Noise and Vibration Assessment
Appendix J - Stormwater Management Plan
Appendix I - Ecologically Sustainable Development Report
Appendix H - Traffic and Transport Assessment
Appendix G - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report
Appendix F - Heritage Significance and Impact Assessment
Appendix E - Clause 4.6 Variation Request Kellyville
Appendix D - Kellyville Urban Design Guidelines
Appendix C - Landscape Master Plan and Open Space Strategy
Appendix B - Kellvyille Urban Design Report
Appendix A - Kellyville SEARs
00 - Kellyville Station Precinct Environmental Impact State

Response to Submissions (18)

Request RTS_05122019_032521
01 - Kellyville Response to Submissions
Appendix A - Updated Urban Design Report
Appendix B - Updated Design Guidelines
Appendix C - Updated Landscape Strategy
Appendix D - Updated TTAR
Appendix E - Car Parking Technical Memorandum
Appendix F - Updated Utilities-Servicing Report
Appendix G - Updated Stormwater Management Plan
Appendix H - Updated BDAR
Appendix I - Updated Riparian Assessment
Appendix J - Updated ESD Report
Appendix K - Updated EIA
Appendix L - Amended Cl 4.6 Variation
Appendix M - SDRP Correspondence
Appendix N - Final ACHAR
Appendix O - Design Excellence Strategy
Appendix P - Draft SMNWP Public Art Guideline

Agency Advice (7)

EES - DPIE - RtS for Kellyville Station.docx
TfNSW response
Hills Comments - RTS Reports for BV KV SSDA
RFS comment
NRAR response to RTS
Sydney Metro RtS - Kellyville
DPIE Greater Sydney Branch comment

Additional Information (1)

RFI Request for Additional Information_27082020_034108

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 33 submissions
Gemini Grace
Comment
STANHOPE GARDENS , New South Wales
Message
I have resided at my residence since 2006 and street parking is so bad now, local residents are forced to park unreasonable distances from their homes. Please assure us parking has been considered because as it stands the metro parking is simply insufficient to cater for the commuters. I have no doubt I’m speaking for other local residents near this proposed development application. This is a family area so it’s very difficult some days expecting my children to walk from the car to the front door with bags etc. for such unreasonable distances because of commuter vehicles.
Adrian Clarke
Object
STANHOPE GARDENS , New South Wales
Message
I oppose this project as there has been no consideration to upgrading Old Windsor Rd, Samantha Riley Drive or any surrounding streets. As a resident that will live directly opposite to the proposed developments, the impact on me and my family will be immense. We already have significant delays after the Kellyville Station was built, with waits of up to 20 minutes just to cross Old Windsor Rd from Samantha Riley Drive after waiting for about 5 sets of traffic light signals.

Can you imagine what an additional 1500-3000 vehicles added to the current grid and local schools would do?
The combined infrastructure impacts of both SSD-10343 and SSD-10344, make these developments untenable.

I’d only recommend proceeding with these developments after infrastructure has been upgraded to cope with the proposed tenancy of both residents, shop owners and customers that will be drawn to the sites. This needs to be done before, without exception.

The current situation of Samantha Riley Drive being upgraded AFTER the North Kellyville developments were built is a prime example of planning gone wrong. Please don’t do it again!
Paul Singh
Comment
KELLYVILLE , New South Wales
Message
With the proposed development of 21 - 50 m between Samantha Riley Dr, Memorial Av and Lewis Jones Dr, the close by area will become very congested with extra traffic. Please consider to expand the zoning to area lying between Memorial Av, Arnold Av, Gainsford Dr and Samantha Riley Dr.

Thanks

Paul
Name Withheld
Object
KELLYVILLE , New South Wales
Message
My concern in connection to this project is number of dwelling proposed and height of the building. This will have increase in traffic around the area and noise level.
Also proposed height of the building affects our privacy.
This proposal affects value of my property.
Name Withheld
Object
KELLYVILLE , New South Wales
Message
I object to the project as it is not in line with the existing zoning of the area and is not complimentary with the lifestyle in the area.
If this development is to proceed the area in the 800m radius from the proposed development needs to be re-zoned to Medium Density (2-8 stories) to allow for a progression from High to Low density rather than having a Low Density pocket surrounded by High & Medium developments.
Name Withheld
Support
KELLYVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Please have more services centres like RTA(RMS),Centrelink centres available. Banks and medical centres.
Name Withheld
Object
KELLYVILLE RIDGE , New South Wales
Message
The district does not need additional housing whether apartments of individual dwellings. The local infrastructure is already overstretched and the roads are becoming
more and more clogged with traffic. We need more green space to provide a more sustainable and pleasant environment for the future of our children. Building more housing along the Kellyville metro station corridor is not environmentally friendly and only panders to the building developers who only care about making money for their businesses. The proposal to allow construction of housing along the northwest above ground metro corridor may be seen as a blatant grab for profits by shortsighted money hungry developers. The proposal needs a drastic rethink to provide what the area really needs - more green space to cater for the already over-crowded greater Kellyville-Kellyville Ridge-The Ponds and North Kellyville areas. We do not need any more housing units that will no doubt be built quickly and poorly and will become the slum areas of the future. In addition, allowing more high density housing will not lead to more permanent jobs prospects in the area for the people who will live in the proposed buildings. Most will have to travel out of the area to go to their jobs causing even more strain on roads and public transport and cause more air pollution.
Name Withheld
Support
GLENWOOD , New South Wales
Message
There are a thousand of people move to northwest recent years. Government should consider how to reduce vehicle on the old windsor road. I think to developed northwest line railway stations was a brilliant idea. Also,this project might offer more jobs.
Raymond Abe
Comment
KELLYVILLE RIDGE , New South Wales
Message
I am a relatively new resident of Kellyville Ridge, and previously at Cherrybrook for 30+ years, I have been waiting for the NW Metro project to come to fruition for many years. So I now welcome this new public transport link and the further development of the metro/light rail system. The recent publication of ideas for the future of Sydney through the Bradfield Oration is also heartening.
I consider the area that I now live is a fringe suburb or entry point to the great Sydney Metropolitan area. The development of the NW Metro with only about 4,000 parking spaces at Tallowong, Kellyville and Bella Vista stations was a gross under-estimation by planners. Not withstanding the principles of encourage walking and cycling within the concept of an Active City, there are many more people who currently live beyond the 2km zone, let alone the number of new residents to come. One only has to look at what has been happening, and what is planned, in the North West. Other forms of local (public) transport are proposed, but these statements in Appendix H reflect more a 'possible aspiration' or mere words. This area is progressively changing from a rural to a residential area, so why is it so difficult to ensure that planning is contemplative of a more holistic outcome. So my concern first is the proposed development at both Bella Vista and Kellyville stations, while serving residential and commercial ideals in a 'village' like approach, do not consider the need for additional station parking, if only to provide for the needs for those who like outside the 2km zone. Once the areas proposed to be developed are in fact developed, how does the government and government planners plan to address the existing shortfall for reasonable station parking, let alone future parking. So I urge the planning give consideration to extending public parking needs for metro users, and ensuring that land is set aside for this purpose. I wrote to my local member of parliament about my concerns regarding planned parking during the period the metro was designed and built, only to be fobbed off (suggesting I write to Andrew Constance). Does this reflect a government who appear to be above any sort of criticism or is it more a local member 'toeing the party line'?

My second comment reflects the concept design of the residential and commercial precincts proposed. Appendix B (Section 4.3 Principles) outline positive concepts regarding open space, building offsets and building form. Consideration needs to be given to how the area is developed and looks from the perspective of those looking in. People who chose to take up residency within the development will no doubt have some aspects of a pleasant outlook. However, it concerns me that the images of the proposed build form appear to reflect the ongoing practice of rectilinear design - with perhaps a splash of colour to reflect a more aesthetic architectural treatment. One only needs travel along Windsor Road, Old Windsor Road, and nearby areas to see the quality of 'architectural excellence' that has been approved and developed by both the Hills Shire and Blacktown Council. Frankly, this is quite outrageous that developers are permitted to provide new medium density homes based on mediocrity. The new areas of Sydney being developed should now be based upon creating something special - there is a 'blank page', a opportunity to specifying more unique and interesting buildings for all purposes. I have grave concerns that the current 'high rise' examples within the area, may become ghettos in the future. Today's Bradfield Oration article in the 'Daily Telegraph' reflects the challenge put forward by Californian academic Joel Kotkin who stated "Planners and a lot of their allies in the business community are trying to do everything they can to make the suburbs a very difficult place to live." The NW metro created something of great value as well as interest particularly the curved bridge across Windsor Road. Lets now take the step and specify architectural design that reflects both livability for those who take up the new residences, as well as those who live nearby and look in - give us something of merit and interest to look at, to appreciate that ensures value and merit to the outer areas of Sydney.

Thank you.
Rebecca Correa
Object
STANHOPE GARDENS , New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposal as the area is already overflowing with houses and traffic and the necessary infrastructure is not there. The schools are overflowing, there are no nearby public hospitals and you only need to sit on Old Windsor road any weekday morning to understand how bad the roads are. The area cannot withstand any more developments.
Blacktown City Council
Comment
,
Message
No objection is raised by our strategic planners to this proposal thank you JUDY
TRANSPORT FOR NSW
Comment
Chippendale , New South Wales
Message
No comment.
HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NSW
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
See attached letter
Attachments
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached
Attachments
Woolworths Group Limited
Object
North Sydney , New South Wales
Message
see attached letter
Attachments
Name Withheld
Support
STANHOPE GARDENS , New South Wales
Message
Metro project is Australia’s largest transport infrastructure project under construction and a priority rail project for the NSW Government. Areas close to the station (5-10 min walking distances) have to be redeveloped in order to fully utilise the metro stations, regardless the houses in Kellyville or Stanhope Gardens. Houses in this area have to be replaced by modern apartment buildings to provide more affordable homes for people. It is a total waste to keep the old houses in these areas.

With the benefits of higher population around the station, shops / restaurants / other facilties need to be built as well. So making town centres around the stations is a great idea. This helps to move the population from East to West in the Greater Sydney region. This also aligns with the general development plan of the Greater Sydney Commission.
Name Withheld
Support
SCHOFIELDS , New South Wales
Message
I believe the development will help creating more job opportunities and create a better living environment around the area.
Bridget Macquarie Island Development Group
Comment
KELLYVILLE , New South Wales
Message
In response to your invitation for submissions in relation to the concept proposals for the Kellyville Station Precinct - SSD 10343, I hereby attach a Submission that was previously made to the NSW Department of Planning for their consideration as to the rezoning of the area surrounding the Kellyville Station Precinct. This Submission was made with the consent of ALL residents (landowners) in the impacted area. On behalf of the group of residents, I bring this Submission to your attention for further consideration as part of the Concept Proposals for the Kellyville Station Precinct. It is the position of the Macquarie Avenue/Bridget Place residents that the Recommendations made in the attached Submission Report be adopted by the NSW Government and we commend the Report to you

Our current Submission comprises following attachments:
1 - Cover Letter
2 - Submission Report - authored by Architectus Group Pty Ltd (Architects), and
3 - MoU signed and supported by all Landowners in the Bridget-Macquarie island group (original MoU with signatures available upon request)
As a group, the Landowners we represent are well-coordinated and are open to further discussion
Thanks and best regards
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
KELLYVILLE , New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern

Re: Objection to application SSD 10343 Kellyville Station Precinct Concept Proposal

I, the undersigned oppose the proposal in its current form, the proposal is an over development for the area. It is unclear how infrastructure demands are going to be met which will impact our quality of life.
The following are items would need to be addressed to meet infrastructure demands
• Expansion (Stage 2) of Caddies Creek Reserve Playing Fields with four (4) additional playing fields;
• 8ha of new local parks (including riparian land along the Elizabeth Macarthur Creek corridor)
• New roads and intersection upgrades;
• New pedestrian footpaths/cycleways and creek crossings (bridges); and A new community facility of 1,650m2 to be located in the Bella Vista Town Centre (with potential for a 4,000m2 facility subject to Council agreement to fund the additional 2,350m2 of GFA).
The following are other concerns that we have and why we oppose such a development.
• Concern regarding proposed setback variations for residential flat buildings;
• Concern regarding insufficient car parking proposed;
• Request that future development achieve The Hills Shire Council’s housing mix and diversity objectives;
• Concern regarding excessive street wall lengths;
• Proposal of a mechanism to secure delivery of medium density housing forms;
• Identification of the need to ensure streets provide a uniform and logical profile with the existing streets already constructed by NRT and that a 2.5 metres shared path is provided along all streets to facilitate both pedestrian and cycle movements;
• Concern regarding undersized parks proposed in Kellyville Town Centre;
• Concern regarding the design excellence strategy and consistency of built form outcomes if different consent authorities and Design Review Panels are utilised for different projects within the Precincts;
• Concern that the additional population will also generate demand for an additional high school which has not been identified; and Concern regarding inconsistency of information presented within different material and supporting studies.
Yours faithfully,
Sriniti Mukherjee
28 Arnold Av, Kellyville
Ph 0415892901
Name Withheld
Support
HASSALL GROVE , New South Wales
Message
I used to live in Mount Druitt and Stanhope Gardens. Both areas are nice. My daughter is moving out soon. My wife and I actually want to move back to Stanhope Gardens because I know some folks over there! And we prefer apartments due to less maintenance. We have been hoping that apartments will be built in Stanhope, right next to the station, as listed in the Kellyville Station Precinct Proposal (2015 version). However, the 2017 version says that the plan is on hold. If this is the case, why was the footbridge, equipped with lift, be built? The plan to build amenities / shops and apartments in Kellyville and Stanhope should go ahead ASAP considering the benefits of businesses and population to the area. Everyone wants to live close to the station, right? And we're talking about a metro station, not just a train station.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-10343
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Residential & Commercial
Local Government Areas
The Hills Shire

Contact Planner

Name
Paula Bizimis