9 Centennial Avenue Chatswood NSW 2067.

Agreed the separation into two lots but not the construction on the newly excised vacant lot until the heritage property and its surrounding garden is fully restored. This Heritage property was seriously damaged in a blatant attempt by the owners to circumvent its heritage status and protection. That damage must be fully remediated before any resources are outlayed on the new development..

Council should reject this application as the removal of the surrounding land will have a significant impact on the Heritage Item (the building). The heritage significance of the house must be considered in the context of the grounds that surround it. Removal of the grounds, and the encroachment of lot 2 within meters to the main house directly impacts the heritage significance.

The request to contravene the LEP based on the "long term management of the heritage significant house which is need of extensive renovation works for the damage done upon the partial demolition" , rewards the owner for the unauthorised demolition works they performed.

The tests the developer is using contravene the LEP and are not justified. It would not be in the interest of the public to have it varied for this development. The damage done was performed by the owner trying to bypass planning laws. That conversion of a 1,562m2 block with a grand heritage home into a dual occupancy house for the family would "facilitate the opportunity for social and economic welfare and a better suit environment for the community" is not plausible. The third point, is easily counted as it does not support ecologically sustainable development by removing the open grounds of the building and replacing that with a building.

Council has stated in the planning reports that they actively support conservation and heritage of the buildings in the LGA. This DA request directly contravenes that stated goals and should there fore rejected.

I support the very solid points of objection made by Brian Gallagher, particularly in light of the unauthorized attempts of the owners to by demolish the building without approval previously.

I've lived in WCC area for 33 years and I know the house as it used to be. My daughter was best friends with a girl who lived there back then. It is a beautiful very large house with the distinctive style of a bygone age that will not be repeated and is one of the last to survive intact. This is the whole reason for heritage classification - to save distinctive architecture like this. The garden is an integral part of the style of the house and subdivision would destroy the historic visual balance of the property.
I strongly reject the proposal for both the subdivision and the building of a dual-occupancy.

I expect the council to enforce the restoration of the demolition that has taken place.
A house of that size should be sufficient to house an extended family.

I would not object to an internal division of the existing house to provide separate residences within the existing building as long as the garden is also kept intact.
I agree completely with Brian O'Gallagher's objection.

Re: DA-2019/317
9 Centennial Av Chatswood

The National Trust listed the building on their register in April 2019.

Willoughby Council has submitted a request for the heritage listing of this building.

This Heritage property was seriously damaged by an attempt at illegal demolition. No construction should be permitted until the heritage property and its surrounding garden is fully restored to its state prior to illegal demolition. There is considerable risk to the heritage values and integrity of the building and damage must be fully remediated before any consideration is given to subdivision of the lot.

Some repairs have been commenced but these are incomplete. The demolished main chimney, the guttering and tiles have recently been replaced but their downpipes have not been connected. Significant internal fittings which were illegally removed have not been replaced, window frames have not yet been restored and the grounds and gardens remain in a state of disrepair.

It is expected Council will first enforce the restoration following the unauthorised demolition prior to any approval of this DA.

9 Centennial's curtilage, both its grounds and gardens, are a vital component of the building's integrity and significance in its location in its elevated position at the top of Centennial Av, overlooking the West Chatswood Valley. Its location is integral to its original design.

Any consideration given to subdividing the lot and constructing a dual occupancy building must take into account this heritage building and the integrity of its curtilage by imposing strict conditions upon any such construction.

These conditions should include, but not be limited to, its architectural design, proximity to the heritage building and size of the proposed strucure(s).

Any proposal should also be subject to external professional advice from architectural and heritage experts.

We see no problems in subdividing this large parcel of land. But creating two dwellings on the smaller (Lot 2) and that too both two stories is extreme. How are they meeting the floor space ration that is suppose to be only 40% on block of this size (614 SQM). The other concern we (at 2 Jenkins Street ) have are:
1. They are proposing a driveway almost full length along our southern boundary. There is an existing 1200 log wall along this boundary. The proposed drive will be sitting just above this wall. How will a log wall take the load of the driveway and vehicles on it?
2. The second dwelling will be facing north. There is proposal to have a balcony facing north that will directly over looking into our backyard. What will happen to our privacy?
3. A 2 story house which will be sitting on the land that is already 1200mm above our yard, will make it an imposing monster every time we will put our foot in our backyard.
4. This is by far the worst proposal I have ever seen.
5. Will council guarantee our privacy, stability of our 1.2 m log wall and ensure that the floor space ration is complied with not only in technical terms but in the spirit of the planning laws?

Very much support the comments of Prue Jeffrey, Brian O'Gallagher and David Grover.

In particular David's comment
"9 Centennial's curtilage, both its grounds and gardens, are a vital component of the building's integrity and significance in its location"

The heritage building will be truly diminished by squashing a dual occupancy in it's grounds.
The developers should in my view withdraw the application and sell the property to someone that would delight in a restored grand residence in this area.

I no longer live it the area but grew up nearby and felt compelled to comment on a place that I love.

Further to my earlier comment, I have now realised that there are two DA lodged with the Council DA-2019/317 to subdivide this property and DA-2019/326 to extend the existing heritage home and build a granny flat attached to it. Basically with these development this property will have four residences. Heritage home itself will be submerged among these. Forget about the grand garden complimenting this heritage home. Every inch of space is being used in one way or another. If the Council approved these two DA as submitted then it will be a blow to the local community that had worked so hard to preserve this heritage home.

Further to my earlier comment, I have now realised that there are two DA lodged with the Council DA-2019/317 to subdivide this property and DA-2019/326 to extend the existing heritage home and build a granny flat attached to it. Basically with these development this property will have four residences. Heritage home itself will be submerged among these. Forget about the grand garden complimenting this heritage home. Every inch of space is being used in one way or another. If the Council approved these two DA as submitted then it will be a blow to the local community that had worked so hard to preserve this heritage home.