I know this will fall on deaf ears, but this house is magnificent and should not be destroyed for another cheap, soulless, grey box. Devastating. Sign of the times I guess, and local councils do nothing to save our heritage.
The destruction of Malua Street continues.
8 Malua Street, Dolls Point NSW 2219
- Description
- Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two (2) storey dwelling with basement parking, roof top terrace, swimming pool and cabana
- Planning Authority
-
Bayside Council
View source
- Reference number
-
DA-2021/29This was created by Bayside Council to identify this application. You will need this if you talk directly with them or use their website.
-
Date sourced
- We found this application on the planning authority's website on , almost 5 years ago. It was received by them earlier.
-
Notified
- 134 people were notified of this application via Planning Alerts email alerts
-
Comments
- 4 comments made here on Planning Alerts
Public comments on this application
Comments made here were sent to Bayside Council. Add your own comment.
The pretentiousness and arrogance of the proposal's design and the fact that they fully disregard the building size limits - about 30sqm over the maximum size for the land shows the utter contempt. The architect obviously failed at maths as many of the numbers for claims of other properties FSRs are simply wrong!
Also the look of the house is intended to look out-of-place which was freely admitted by the Architect Fernando who I spoke with to check into the obvious typos he made in his Redacted Statement of Environmental Effects document. He told me he doesnt design vanilla houses. Too much like a house you'd typically expect to see in the over-pretentious areas of Miami Florida. We need to band together to reject this sort of new building style here. Just look at how unkept the existing house is presently.
Also, look at the photo Montague - it clearly has the roof top terrace connected by an external stairs between balconies. This is not within the rules and the architect knows this is clearly a breach and he has not addressed it. Also who needs big tall front fences at 1.7m high along the frontage... This is what has been proposed.
If the house has to be that big then the current owners should have taken the size of the land into account when they decided to buy it. The rules are very clear no more than 50% of the land area can be habitual internal house. The proposal asks to exceed that by about 9-10%
Best thing would be to put this existing house back on the market for someone who respects the neighbourhood.
Also the proposal claims the construction will cost $1,085,000 or thereabouts. A design like what is being shown in the proposal is construction cost of at least $2.2-2.5M
Once you add that to the existing property cost, the total expense on the owners will be close to $4M - thats a record for the area (even the water front properties. I seems to suggest the house is way overcapitalised for the location. In other words they will not get their investment back. If someone were looking to spend $4M, thats not the location to go (on a busy roadway which is facing directly into the western afternoon sun.