PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

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

1. Dear Council

   We raise the following points in opposition to DA-987/2020 and request more time for enclosing written submissions as we did not receive 14 days notice due to delays of mail reaching us during COVID 19.

   We challenge:
   DA Environmental Effects Report - Section C.3.3.3 Setbacks: The proposal is non-compliant with leaving enough space between proposed development and property boundary of 40-42 Park Street
   DA Environmental Effects Report - Section 6.2.3. Amenity Impacts: Apartments of 40-42 Park Street are severely impacted and have not been given enough time to consult on this process.
   We also object to the timing of this proposal during the COVID pandemic
   Our objections are detailed below.

   1. Discriminatory consultation process

   Of the existing residents most impacted by this DA, they have not had an opportunity to respond to this proposal. Units which directly overlook 35 Gould St have not been consulted and are not digital-natives that can readily access the information available online.

   We request that the Council send a town planner or a representative to help these owners understand the DA and formulate their own response. By omitting this step, non-digital native residents of Campsie are suffering discrimination as the council consultation process assumes people have received their mail in time (delayed due to COVID) and presume ownership of a computer / internet access to formulate a response.

   2. Objection to construction and/or demolition during COVID for health reasons
   Any construction or demolition work means that our residents will not have a safe and dust free working / home environment. 40-42 park street currently has elderly, asthmatic, and immunosuppressed residents who already face respiratory challenges during pandemic for a respiratory virus making them very vulnerable to the disease. Having dust and chemical pollutants will further places significant, dangerous and unnecessary health burdens on our residents — especially if construction is undertaken this summer. Bush fire risks will further exacerbate this issue.

   We ask all demolition and construction be delayed until COVID-19 vaccines are generally available to the populace and normal business conditions have resumed.

   3. Objection to construction and/or demolition during COVID for professional reasons
   At this time, most people are working from home in our building for COVID-19 (it is 85% owner occupied with working professionals) . Having a large construction project next door makes it untenable to perform professional activities during COVID — particularly as construction sites tend to not only have machinery noise, but noise due to social practices (e.g. loud radios, use of loudspeakers, number of different people /strangers). Examples of work activities affected: talking on the phone, attending virtual meetings, ensuring sleep at night, additional hours taken up in mitigating dust and debris from construction. There is no "physical office" we can seek shelter in during COVID.

   4. Objection to rear-setback of proposed building with 40 Park Street - NON COMPLIANT WITH 40-42 PARK STREET

   We believe that there is insufficient space between the proposed 5 dwellings and the fence line of 40-42 park street. In contrast, all dwellings on Gould Street (Property Numbers 17-33 Gould Street) have a substantial rear space of greater than 8-12m from proposed building to property boundary. The proposed development on 35 Gould St accommodates less than 10% of this - only 2m to property boundary with park Street- and provides no greenspace (only a concrete path) with unreasonable consequences for water run off, soil quality, sunlight to 40-42 Park street.

   The DA Statement of Environmental Effects says under "C3.3.3 Setbacks" that the development proposal generally complies" but this is NOT TRUE. There is insufficient rear space between the development proposal and the fencline of 40-42 Park Street.

   5. Objection to the Site Plan which states there are no living room window on the eastern side of 40-42 Park Street (facing the rear of the proposed property on Gould Street)

   There are living/bedrooms which face east onto the proposed property. The Site Plan is incorrect on the characterisation of these rooms. The proximity of the building will significantly impact the residents of these apartments.

   6. Critical loss of sunlight and air flow to living areas for apartments in 40-42 park street
   We further believe that the proposed development of approximately 10m tall building height will block off all sun (east/north facing) to Apartments 8-12 on Park street. Of these, 3 apartments rely on this east facing sun solely (they do not have north or west facing windows) which represents a substantial deterioration of their living standards. The shadow diagrams clearly show that units facing the proposed block will completely lose access to morning sun and receive no mid-afternoon or evening sunlight.

   While DA-987/2020 states that these apartments on 40-42 Park Street "do not have living room windows", this is an inaccurate characterisation. These windows receive critical east/north sun where the sunlight flows from the kitchen to the connecting living areas of units facing the proposed block. There are no other windows for these apartments that receive sunlight, rendering them entirely dark if this access was removed.

   As per shadow diagrams, this development will also completely block sun from communal laundry drying spaces making them redundant for all 12 dwellings of 40-42 Park St.

   Further, space of the proposed development contains a vital air-flow corridor of prevailing winds from the Cooks River and provides the signifiant source of ventilations from these apartments, The size, positioning and proxitmity of the proposed development will significantly block this corridor and prevent sufficient airflow for apartments facing the boundary fence, impacting on health and quality of life.

   Our view is that the proposed development increasing the rear space between the proposed building and the fenceline to 40 Park Street at least 4-6m from the fence line may be sufficient to ensure that living spaces for all residents receive sunlight and are genuinely livable and compliant with Council requirements. We challenge Section 6.2.3. Amenity Impacts of the DA Environmental Effects report.

   7. Objection for potential damage to foundations of adjacent properties during demolition and excavation
   Further to the above, the proposed development is too close to existing buildings (40-42 park street) and as such, excavation for basement parking spaces will impact water run-off (given Campsie soils) and potentially damage our building's foundations as there is little space between the proposed building and our property.

   8. Objection to maximum Floor space ratio calculations
   The quoted maximum floor space ratio (FSR) 0.9:1, but some of the planned floor space contains usable areas that would potentially increase the FSR to beyond this threshold. We ask Council representatives to investigate whether the FSR calculation is indeed fair and equitable.

   9. Increased traffic impact for local road and existing round-about intersections
   Currently, Redman and Park streets are quiet, low usage local roads. We believe that the Development has exceeded the frontage to local roads, and will additionally result in increase traffic on local roads, particularly at the corner of Redman / Gould street and this round-about intersection cannot handle the increased traffic proposed by this development. Changing this round-about intersection to handle increased traffic would significantly impact the local character of this area.

   10. Building bulk and streetscape due to B1.4.6 Basement Parking Requirements
   We challenge the statement that building basement parking for 11 car spaces will not affect the scale or bulk of the building or detract from the streetscape or setback character. At present, these streets consist of houses, and small apartments, but no other building in this area has basement parking. Basement parking presents considerable risk during construction, as well as final impact on streetscape and character.

   11. Objection to impact of built area on Campise soils and biodiversity
   The proposal contains substantial built area with no greenspace for additional drainage which is at odds with the fine, soft clay soil susceptible to both erosion and compaction in the Campsie area near Cooks river (refer: ESPADE NSW soil profile data https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/land-and-soil/information/espade). As such, we would like confirmation that the development will not add or exacerbate erosion and drainage hazards to our property and surrounding residents. We also would like to hear about measures being undertaken to ensure soil drainage.

   To expand on this point, we would also ask the councillors to consider the unique bird life population near Cooks river that often finds roosting, mating and supporting habitats in the back gardens of houses in this area. This development proposal maximises built-space and concrete areas at odds to Campsie's unique ecological context. Furthermore, the proposed trees / plantations in this development do not support Cooks River birdlife. As stated in the BASIX Certificate, the area of indigenous or low water use plantations is 0 metres squared. Combined with the lack of greenspacein the proposal, we challenge Section 6 in the DA Environmental Effects report that there is no impact on local biodiversity.

   12. Objection for potential HVAC systems (as yet unclear)
   Any proposed heating, cooling, or ventilation systems create substantial and disruptive noise and vibration 24/7. There is very limited space on the current DA plans and we require greater clarity about how these new dwellings will be atmosphere controlled and if HVAC systems will be placed too close to our fenceline - it will directly impact our kitchen and living areas.

   We believe overall the Development Proposal is a good, strategic proposal to increase diversity of housing and overall housing space in Campsie in proximity to public transport and other infrastructure. However we feel that 5 dwellings so close to our fenceline is not compliant with Council regulations on property rear setback to 40-42 Park Street, and that greater space between the proposed building and our property will be more equitable and reduce negative impacts on health and quality of life for residents of this block. Furthermore, we ask demolition and construction activities to be delayed until the COVID-19 pandemic is over. We also request that Council consults residents of 40-42 Park street that have not had opportunity to respond due to digital barriers and delays with traditional mail.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Canterbury-Bankstown 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