4 Vanston Parade, Sandringham NSW 2219

My objection to DA-2021/378 is as follows:
My objection is not against the argument by the Applicant, relating to the increased visual and recreational amenity (unquestionable) which this proposal would achieve for the applicant; it is all about the use of this argument to justify the proposal for:
1) An increase in the property’s currently allowed maximum height by 26.7% (i.e. from 8.5m to 10.77m), and
2) A trafficable area increase of 51% (i.e. of 82.8m2, over the existing roof top floor plate of 160m2).
These statistics alone demonstrate the disregard by the Applicant (who already has substantial views from its maximised site), to the detriment of the amenity of its neighbours and the environment.
Added to this, is the proposed roof top shade structure of 88.9m2, which amounts to 55.5% of the roof top floor plate of 160m2.
Additional elements of the proposal… the lift and staircase overruns coupled with the air conditioning units add another 15.63m2 or 9.77% of the roof top floor plate. Not only does this application seek stairs to access the roof top, additionally it seeks a lift….even though the existing house utilises stairs for its current 2 floors. Little has been made of the lift; it is presumed that the lift, being on the outside of the building, will significantly impinge on the privacy and amenity of the dwelling at 5 Vanston Parade.
One could perhaps be empathetic, if this were a highrise unit development (heaven forbid); however, this is a single home on a mere 383.1m2 block.
Yes, clause 4.6 of the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 provides for appropriate flexibility in determining applications; however, this application is of staggering proportions, as outlined above and should be dismissed outright.
Despite claims to the contrary, habitable floor space is dramatically increased. The Applicant argues that the extra floor space is open to the elements and therefore does not constitute additional habitable floor space. Technically the Applicant may be correct; however, to justify such an enormous increase in trafficable area, topped by the massive shade structure, in my mind makes it habitable space and as such is totally unwarranted in order to achieve the desire to have additional “recreational use”. How much additional recreational use is enough, when the neighbouring homes and environment are so severely impacted.
The resulting impact on neighbours and the environment is dramatic and primarily involves overshadowing, additional light restriction and reduced privacy.
The development if approved will:
1) Restrict future roof top solar energy generation by casting massive shadowing to the roofs of surrounding homes, due primarily, but not exclusively to the equally massive shade structure. If the Applicant was sincere, it would build a solar collection on its own roof top.
2) The argument that the development will allow collection and filtering stormwater capture is a furphfy, for as the property now stands, it is already available.
3) Select and limited examples by the Applicant of overshadowing does not nearly demonstrate the extent throughout the entire year of overshadowing to neighbouring properties and the local environment. This is particularly applicable to 3 Vanston Parade which is copping it every which way, being on the immediate southern side of the applicant property.
4) Visual privacy is compromised north, south and west, despite acknowledgment that emphasis as the most affected, being placed on the dwellings at 3 Vanston Pde and 5 Vanston Pde.
5) Not even the lower section of the beachside trees, the beachside benches and the rear lane are spared.
6) Additional noise will be potentially be generated by the air conditioning and the so-called recreational activities, which presumably will have little or no restriction.
Should this DA be successful, it will be a dramatic departure from that which currently exists and will set a distressing precedent, which our Council should therefore disallow outright.
Private interest totally, public interest, zero!
Enough is enough…
Ron Wood
Owner, 5 Vanston Parade

This application should be rejected for a number of reasons including:
- Exceeding building height DCP Control of 8.5m by 27%. It should be noted that the 10.770m height shown is from floor level and not actual ground level. If actual ground level is used then this would be even greater.
- Exceeding FSR by over 40% before this additional trafficable area is considered
- Over development of the site
- Visual impact to the foreshore
- Overshadowing to neighbouring properties
- Not in the public interest
- It sets a precedent
- Impacts the enjoyment of views by others
This DA should be rejected outright by Council