PlanningAlerts

3 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. We are the direct neighbours to the South (24 Edgehill Ave) and are concerned by a few things regarding the development.
   The applicant states that our property contains established screen planting at the rear of our property (on the common boundary), which it does not.

   We also have two young children who pay in their backyard often, and the distance of the building (noise, amount of units and smoking) is of great concern to us as parents.

   The application also states that each of these rooms have external balconies, but will not interrupt the privacy of the southern, eastern or western boundaries. I'm not sure how this is physically possible unless all balconies face inward toward each other.

2. My concern regarding the approval of DA-2018/379 are the rear 2 story building will directly effect the surrounding neighbors, With the balconies in both sides of the rear building and with minimal screen planning will be intrusive and will interrupt the privacy of all boundaries.
   The street parking situation is congested as is! 7 car spaces for a possible 24 persons plus staff is not enough.
   Three year ago i applied for a DA to extend the existing garage on the rear of my property and had several restriction to the to the following.
   1/ The height of the garage roof was to be no higher than 2.4 metres.
   2/ The roof was not allowed to pitch and a flat roof was only allowed.
   3/ Grass to concrete/hardstand ratio.
   4/ All footings to be 3 metres away from certain neighboring native trees.
   5/ No sewer or running water to be run to the rear of the lot.
   So if i had height restriction place on my DA shouldn't everyone?
   We are over housed and over developed these days. To have a 2 story building so close to the adjoining boundaries with balconies on both sides is ridiculous and if approved and i will be seeking an explanation on why i was not allowed to go higher than 2.4 metres on my rear extension.

3. As I resident who lives near by, I am against this boarding house and the over development of Botany. Too many units with not enough parking have already been approved. With all of these extra residents, due to over development, leaves getting in and out of Botany a nightmare. We do not need a boarding house too, especially with one already nearby. Further development is also going to put pressure on existing services. We need to maintain our blocks for family homes.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Bayside Council (Rockdale). They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment