PlanningAlerts

6 Comments

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

1. The owners of 16 Hope Street Pymble have no respect for their neighbours, the Pymble neighbourhood and the Development Application process.

   This is the third Modification Application in relation to DA 0112/17 and is continued evidence of a complete disregard for regulatory approvals and a premeditated rorting of the system, As has been the case with previous modifications, the owners of 16 Hope Street have moved ahead with a construction non compliant with the original DA on the basis that they would seek forgiveness after the fact - an approach which to our disbelief, Council Officers have endorsed.

   Firstly, they illegally built a habitable basement area approved as foundations, exceeding the allowable FSR and now they have painted the exterior a dark grey, with black windows that looms more than 8 metres over our back fence looking directly into our swimming pool, kitchen and family room and creating a very dark bulk that reflects no light and overshadows our private open space.

   Interestingly these Modification Applications have been made after the non compliant work is complete, having been notified by us to the private certifier. As a result, we question whether there is any level of oversight of this construction, and whether the Modification Applications would have been made at all if the non-compliant work had not been raised by us. We also question what action has or will be taken by KMC in regard to these breaches of the DA.

   The exterior finishes used are in complete contrast to the DA approval and totally inconsistent with surrounding properties and the Upper North Shore esthetic. The DA required white windows - The window frames are all black. The DA required a mid neutral coloured render. The house has been painted dark grey and looks like a submarine towering over our backyard. It is disgraceful and makes a complete mockery of the DA process.

   The Colourbond promotional material for the exterior colour ‘Monument’ describes it as:
   ‘An unashamedly city colour - a strong colour’.

   This not an urban landscape, this is a suburban area surrounded by properties with classic exteriors.

   Further, no amount of hedging or landscaping will shield the view of this eyesore from our property as it towers more than 8 metres over our back fence.

   Why is there a DA process and neighbour consultation if Ku-rung-Gai Council Officers turn a blind eye and approve these modifications after the fact?

   We request that this application and the blatant abuse of the DA process be referred to the full Council, as this is a serious issue of blatant and repeated regulatory non-compliance.

   We also note that we have referred to the private certifier further illegal work to the basement area (doorway and windows indicating additional non approved spaces which are detailed as foundations on plan) - so expect that will be the subject of modification application number 4!

2. The Section 4.55 (1A) application from Minto and Associates fails to detail that this modification impacts adjacent properties in Orana Avenue Pymble which are Contributory properties in a draft HCA.

   As these properties are currently subject to HCA development controls, the impact on these properties, as ‘adjacent properties in an HCA’ should be considered as part of the assessment of the Modification.

   In addition the statement that the result is ‘substantially the same ‘ lacks credibility as the exterior finishes applied are in stark contrast to that approved. How can black windows be substantially the same as white windows - that is illogical,

3. Re 16 Hope St Pymble

   What is the point of Council having a DA process if the applicant builds what they want, which is not in accordance with the DA, and then Council subsequently approves the modifications?

   Why is this happening??

4. I am concerned with how Council is dealing with developments that are knowingly not complying with the Development Approval process. This development is quite clearly not in keeping with the character of the area and would appear to significantly impact on the privacy of neighbours given the size of the construction.

5. I'm not seeing the problem here folks. It seems like you have the daggers out for your neighbours. The people are changing the colour of their house! Its paint! Why the vitriol? Its also a battleaxe lot so its not even visible from the street.

   Any of you can paint your houses a different colour tomorrow without even asking the council but you choose to make life difficult for these people because you don't like the house that Council has approved. Isn't your gripe with the Council? We don't live in a dictatorship. People are allowed to change their minds and that's why the planning system allows for modifications.

   Whether you like it or not, the original DA is compliant. Whether you like it or not, modifications are permitted. Everyone please calm down.

6. Who are you Fact Checker? Are you the certifier? Are you the owner? Why no name? You have assumed a name that asserts knowledge but is that true? You have no credibility until you reveal who you are.

   Also you make the statement "the original DA is compliant". The problem seems to be that what was built is not, thus the requests for modifications.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Ku-ring-gai Council. 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