PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

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

1. The proposed development was built under a CDC, and has completely bent the rules of the side setback.

   They owner and builder clearly have no regard for the development process, and surrounding neighbourhood, and thought they could build whatever they wanted.

   Masking a development as a CDC, and then building whatever you want want is so far outrageous, and is purely demonstrating that the owner/developer felt they could get away with whatever they wanted without penalty.

   This development application should be rejected, and the entire development would need to go through a DA process. Alternatively, they should be required to remove the imposing wall and lower roof. You cant have it both ways, as this is a blatant attempt to trick the system.

2. I object to this DA.
   Allowing this development application to be review purely on the unapproved area is ridiculous. This will set a precedent that any developer can simply submit a CDC, and then build a different design to what is set out on the CDC plans. I hefty penalty should be given to them to deter any developer wanting to do this. A similar case was to this occurred in Earlwood a few years back, where the developer built his garage out to suit his needs. He was fined 20-50K from Canterbury council for this, and was required to resubmit the DA, and associated fees. Home occupation certificate should not be issued until the owner/developer has been penalised accordingly to deter any other potential builders doing the same. I believe a new DA would be required to be submitted for this property.

3. What is it with this street and developments.

   Number 10 has been trying to get approval for 3 years now.

   Number 12 has built a monster home with all sorts of unapproved areas ( basement garage, 3 full levels, over FSR, over height), and got away with it.

   Number 3 now wants council to approve a development that was built under Complying Development, but was not Compliant Development?

   We object to Number 3 obtaining approval for this. $30k seems too cheap, and the entire house should be subject to the development assessment, and its not possible he built it for just $30K..

4. I agree with PWalls, there are too many developments threatening Lambert RD and sooner or later there would be too many. It's too much of a small street to comply with so many of these major developments. Council needs to step up and monitor the activity by being more stern against development approvals. Developers in Lambert RD seem to think they can do what they like, build the worst kind of unfit monstrosities and get away with it. But there are also specific rules that they need to apply with too.
   I object to this Development application.

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