PlanningAlerts

3 Comments

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

1. I have several objections to this second proposed DA modification for 92 Ramsgate Avenue which will further impact our adjoining building on the east side of this development and the 15 unit owners of 94-98 Ramsgate Avenue apartments as a result of the proposed development modification. This No 92 site has a frontage width of only 11.5 m, not the 15 m width required for the 5 level new development with a basement carpark and 4 floors of residential living areas which do not have the DCP required boundary set backs and allows the carpark to be build along the dividing boundary.
   The Builder has already caused extensive environmental damage to our private trees and native shrubs on our side of the diving fence by trenching along the common dividing fence, cutting through our private trees and native shrubs roots, without our agreement and permission to install his temporary shoring and the approved basement carpark continuous piled retaining wall, which is against the common boundary without any set-backs.
   The Developer sought our agreement to allow him to remove the existing color-bond dividing boundary fence along the common boundary between No 92 and 94-98 Ramsgate Avenue to clear all our private trees and native shrubs in our landscaped gardens for a width of one metre of our land for the full lengthy of the 38 m boundary and dividing fence to accomodate the construction of the basement carpark and new boundary wall.
   That proposal and request was rejected by our Owners Corporation of 15 Unit Owners and he has been asked to build his development from his side of the existing boundary fence. He has already damaged our boundary dividing fence and removed a rear section of concrete retaining wall supporting the dividing fence. The Builder also removed a section of existing boundary fencing, tress-passed and caused wilful damage to the private landscaping retaining wall structures within our Lot 3 courtyard, without permission or agreement, which was reported to the Waverley Council Compliance Officer.
   I object to the proposed basement extension modification which increases the length of the no 92 basement carpark requiring shoring and retaining wall to be full length along the common boundary, which will further damage our remaining private trees and native shrubs. The landscaping on our site provide screening to the No 92 building site and development for our ground floor courtyards. The Developer has not complied with the Waverley Council DCP Tree Management requirement for root mapping before cutting the neighbours private tree roots. Our private trees which will be further damaged and may be killed are shown on the plans DA02 [03] and DA06 [03] on our side of the dividing fence.
   The Builder has already installed the new piling for the revised basement carpark layout and increased area with shoring and piling along our common boundary in accordance with this DA modification, without approval to this DA modification. This new piling work commenced before the new DA modification application was notified. The Builder has already installed the new boundary piling forward of the our building to his new basement carpark along the boundary line and not set back 500 mm from the boundary line for a length of 8 m as shown on the DA approved plans. This widens his new basement carpark driveway ramp, without Council approval.
   2. I object to the proposed increased height of the ugly concrete block boundary wall along the eastern boundary of No 92. The proposed increased height from RL 13.10 ( 1.8 M high on the lower side being no 92 Ramsgate ) by 75 Cm to RL13.85 along our boundary and then increasing again to RL15.29 at the rear of our property, which is an increase of 2.19 m above the current approved fence height. The rear portion of this boundary wall for an length not dimensioned will be 3.99m m or approximately 14 feet high on his side of the fence above his tiled pool deck RL. This increased wall height does not comply with the DCP fencing controls and the NSW Fencing Act. The elevations showing the proposed concrete block boundary wall height is not clear and there are anomalies between the top of wall ( TOW ) RLs shown on the proposed modification drawings. There are various notes on the proposed plans which indicate different wall height criteria from the higher side property levels on all three sides of the new development. The full impact and proposed increased wall height is not shown on a single elevation along our boundary. The East Elevation DA14[03] only shows TOW at the rear of our boundary.
   3. I object to the increased basement carpark size extension against our boundary and the increased residential living area on the GF and L1 which exceeds the DCP permitted floor space ratio and area.
   4. This proposed infill of the GF landscaped courtyard for the widening of the internal courtyard and the addition of two dinning rooms will increase the overshadowing of our western GF courtyards to Units 1,2 & 3 and the balconies to units 6,7 & 8 and reduce our privacy to all 6 units on the western side of our building adjoining No 92. The proposed new dinning rooms will look straight into our bedrooms and living rooms and balconies.
   5. The Owners Corporation 15 Owners of units in 94-98 Ramsgate Avenue do not want a very tall concrete block boundary wall as our common dividing fence. We have not been able to negotiate a fencing agreement after 3 months of discussions with the developer who has asked the OC to pay for the render and painted finish on our side of his new wall. He has stated he will challenge the existing DA condition 36 and not pay for the quality finish on our side of his new boundary wall. We refuse to have any responsibility for the future maintenance of his retaining walls under his new boundary wall and his concrete block wall.
   6. I object to the proposed change to the DA condition 2, increasing the front fence height and the boundary wall height forward of the new building and our building. Council has previously rejected the application to increase that fence height and to comply with the Council DCP fencing control permitted height.
   7. There have already been a number of complaints made to Council and the private Certifier about this Developer and Builder not complying with existing DA requirements and the CC1 conditions. The Builder and his piling contractor Sydney piling is parking his trailer concrete pump at kerbside in front of our building at 94 -98 in the street rather than in his construction permit kerb zone and pumping concrete in pump lines across the footpath onto the site, that predestines have to walk over. This construction pumping activity in the street is damaging our footpath lawn verge.

2. I object to several aspects of the second proposed DA modification for 92 Ramsgate Ave. I am a resident at 94-98 Ramsgate Avenue and am concerned specifically with 2 of the proposed changes.
   1. The proposed infill of the courtyard will impact the privacy of my bedroom and create further overshadowing of my balcony.
   2. The proposed increase in height of the eastern boundary wall following the developers lack of co-operation in negotiating an appropriate fencing arrangement reflects a level of arrogance in their approach to this development that concerns me and leaves me wondering when the next set of moderations are to be lodged. As Peter Varga has mentioned in his objection, the developer has already commenced aspects of the development as if this moderation will be accepted so I am sure you would appreciate my concerns in this regard.

3. How long is this estimated to completion?

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Waverley 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