PlanningAlerts

3 Comments

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

1. This application has already been denied once for reasons which have not chnaged., namely that the ecxisitng structure is unauthorised to begin with, and that change to the second structure will result in a floor space ratio of 0.57:1 or 57% which is exceeding the allowable 50% by 14% and will also set an undesirable precedence in the area. There is no question that this secondary application should be refused.

2. Why does the illegal structure still remain? This should have been demolished. Why should it be approved when built illegally? If this is permitted to remain a precedent will be set and anyone could build anything without approval or thought for their neighbors.
   Nothing quite like dodgy brothers building whatever they want, then the money talks.... REFUSE, DEMOLISH .

3. I object. Council should not permit further eroding of FSR and setback controls in this instance. The lack of setbacks represents a fire safety risk and this illegal granny flat would not satisfy BCA rules.
   The FSR is being exceeded, where is the SEE and Variation justification? Legislation has not been addressed at all. This house has a large footprint, scale and bulk compared to neighbouring houses. If the FSR is already exceeded then a granny flat cannot be supported. It would not be in the public interest to support this proposal. This DA should not have been accepted at lodgement without a proper planning report.

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