PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

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

1. I am rather confused about this Development application. The site of the proposed DA, located on the East side of Park Avenue, opposite Waitara Oval (Mark Taylor Oval), is zoned for 5 storey apartments. This is also clearly stated in the current DCP, refer to page 3-82 (82/93).

   The site zoned for 6 storey apartments, which is clearly referred to the current DCP, (Jan 2015) is the site enclosed within the streets, east side Waitara Ave, south side Park Lane, west side Park Ave and north side of Alexandria Parade. Refer to page 3-112 (112/119).

   The proposed 6 storey development does not comply with the current DCP which is zoned for 5 storey developments. That alone should be enough to reject the development. However there are a number of other issues of non-compliance and as the proposed development falls with the zoning for 5 storeys, I shall refer to section 3.4 of the DCP.

   3.4.4 BUILDING HEIGHT.
   The DCP states the building should be a maximum of 5 stories and a maximum height of 17.5m
   The proposed development is 6 storey and 17.750m. This is non-compliant.

   3.4.5 SET BACKS.
   Rear-
   Basement setback is only 6m. The DCP calls for 7m setback.
   Ground floor setback is only 3m. It is well within the required 10m set back
   Levels 2, 3 and 4 are only set back 6m from the rear boundary. The DCP requires 10m setback
   Level 5 set back is only set back 9m. As per the DCP, it should be 13m.
   
   Front-
   More than 1/3 of the front building encroaches within the 10m setback and more that 1/3 of the front is facade is located within the 8m front setback. 2 ground floor street front balconies encroach well within the 7m set back zone.

   Side-
   Habitable rooms are only set back 4m which encroach well within 6m compliant side set back.

   3.4.6 BUILDING FORM AND SEPARATION
   The building floor plate exceeds 35m. It dose not have a minimum 4mx4m recess to create the appearance of two separate pavilions as stated in the DCP.
   The two buildings are only separated by 6m The DCP required a 9m separation.
   The northern side of the building along the boundary of 34 Park Ave required an additional 3m set back from the boundary.
   The building design does not visually break-up the built form. The façade is repetitive as a solid form, they do not look lightweight. The façade is repetitive in materials.
   The building is fully rendered. There is not a mixed use of material in the main bulk of the building to break up the repetitive painted solid concrete massing.
   The proposed paint colours of the building are too bold and will be overwhelming for the neighbours.
   The 3D rendered images of the proposed development are mis representative of the actual design of the development and the surrounding area. There is no tree in front of 34 Park Ave.
   The trees located in front of the building in the 3D rendered images will never be a true representation of the landscaping to be implemented on the site. The use of these trees in the image is a deliberate misrepresentation to hide the true overwhelming bulk of the building.

   3.4.7 LANDSCAPING
   The 3D rendered images of the proposed development are mis representative of the actual design of the development and the surrounding area. There is no tree in front of 34 Park Ave.
   The trees located in front of the building in the 3D rendered images will never be a true representation of the landscaping to be implemented on the site. The use of these trees in the image is a deliberate misrepresentation to hide the true overwhelming bulk of the building.
   The proposed development removes all existing trees on the site including trees that have been listed in the original DA to remain.
   The proposed development indicated gardens to the level 5 in the 3D rendered images, however the plans do not indicate that there are roof gardens. This seems to be a deliberate misrepresentation of what will actually be built.
   Due to the minimal setback to the rear boundary there is less that 40% area that can accommodate any trees that will be 10-12m.
   The required deep soil setbacks to the boundaries, 8m front, 7m rear have not been provided.
   The deep soil diagram provided on page 15 of the design statement seems to be misleading. It is showing more deep soil area than what will actually be provided. The deep soil area in the between the 2 buildings is indicated to be paved making the deep soil area unusable.

   3.4.10 MATERIALS, FINISHES AND SERVICES.
   The building colours do not reference the natural habitat.
   The building is fully rendered. There is not a mixed use of material in the main bulk of the building to break up the repetitive painted solid concrete massing.
   There is no indication of what type of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning system that is to be provided for the building. It is critical to know if there will be exposed wall mounted units.

   3.4.11 SUNLIGHT AND VENTILATION
   With the proposed design, less that 70% of dwellings in the block will receive 2 hours of sunlight.

   It will be interesting to see how this developer, Charbel Demian, who is currently under investigation with the ICAC, will get this development through. He has been around the block. He has all the right connections.

   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-5948247/NSW-Liberal-MP-embroiled-ICAC-inquiry.html

   https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/just-got-a-call-from-mp-friend-inquiry-hears-of-wagga-mp-s-sydney-property-interest-20180712-p4zr5x.html

   https://www.afr.com/news/government-mp-resigns-after-icac-wire-tape-is-played-20180713-h12o5x

   https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/we-were-kept-in-the-dark-teacher-tells-icac-of-tough-lessons-in-property-deals-20180724-p4ztcw.html

   https://marrickvillegreens.wordpress.com/issue/planning-heritage/lewishamtowers/

   https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/nsw/need-to-see-you-at-the-gym-icac-hears-of-texts-calls-between-developer-and-councillors-20180720-p4zsq7.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

   https://vaaju.com/aus/liberal-mp-terminates-the-party-after-having-allowed-to-apply-for-real-estate-payments/

   https://tech2.org/aus/the-alarms-of-political-influence-of-the-catholic-leader/

   http://www.alankabout.com/australian_news/132009.html

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx7cFAyyLDI

   https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWk4aU1iVmpJQU1FU1FEdmRlRXYtQjZLQUFQAQ?hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU%3Aen

   https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/why-nsw-development-scandals-keep-happening-over-and-over-again-20181206-p50kmu.html
   https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/graft-favours-bullying-and-barbecues-at-canterbury-council-20180420-p4zaqz.html

   https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/how-a-polymathic-genius-took-hold-of-sydney-s-second-cbd-20180907-p502dk.html

   https://insolvencynewsonline.com.au/developer-overcomes-asset-freeze/

2. Wow, this "Concerned Resident" should be hired by council.
   He or she has reviewed the DCP and the published proposal and come up with a detailed objection that must be addressed by Hornsby Council.
   I commend him/her for their concern and their diligence.

3. Doesn’t Waitara have enough apartments yet? 200 apt!

4. I imagine this new build will follow in the footsteps of the other awful apartments built in this area. We have been trying to buy an apartment in Hornsby, Waitara area for years and the new build developments are terrible and make us wonder how Hornsby council can allow such appalling design and poor quality materials. Multiple units squeezed in a single corridor, the layout is awful with tiny living rooms and bedrooms, no storage space, no proper light and ventilation in bathrooms, a laundry in a cupboard in the middle of the lounge, some bedrooms with a window that is squeezed in a corner blocked by an external wall so the room is pitch black during the day. Cheap kitchen and bathroom materials that wear after less than a year. Gaps and cracks, water leakage appearing in new builds that have not even been lived in. The list goes on and yes, people are investing in these apartments which is unfortunate and I imagine they will regret this later on. These apartments are not designed to live in and enjoy a decent quality of life. It is clear that the council is on the side of the developers. The need to fill a quota of dwellings should not result in a drop in building standards and creation of future slums.

5. I object to this proposal on the following grounds:

   - Traffic Congestion
   The increase of residential dwellings in the area will add to the already existing traffic congestion. Most couples and/or families own at least one car between them so the number of cars on the roads will increase. The roads surrounding the proposed development are not adequate to withstand more traffic.

   - Lack of car parking
   Already the car parking in the area surrounding the proposed development is inadequate. More residents will only make car parking more scarce.

   - Overshadowing
   A structure of such height will create a negative impact on the surrounding environment through over shadowing.

   - Overlooking & Loss of Privacy
   The proposed development will overlook surrounding residences and impact their privacy. Furthermore, it will overlook an adjacent early childcare centre. This is a serious breech of privacy.

   - Overdevelopment
   The area of Waitara is already over developed. We have reached our quota of residences required. This proposed development is not being built to further improve the quality of life or housing availability of current or future residents but purely for development’s sake.

   - Lack of Schools & Recreational Facilities
   There are not enough schools or recreational facilities in Waitara. The schools in the area are already overcrowded. Adding more residences will add further strain and negatively impact the quality of life of the existing residents.

   I implore you to make the right decision for the residents of Waiatar and its’ surrounding communities and reject this application or at least reduce its’ density.

   Regards

   Rachael Guest

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. 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