58 Bream Street Coogee NSW 2034

Dear Randwick Council

I would like to object the proposed development REF: Application Number
DA/150/2022 : 58 Bream Street COOGEE NSW 2034

Based on concern below listed below:

- The lot size of 322.5m2 does not comply with the LEP minimum requirement of 325m2 for R3 medium residential. Also considering the addition of a pool and underground car park in this lot.

- The development will cause additional overshadowing of residence surrounding and affecting both privately used areas and general service areas

- considering the excavation/earth works required It is concerning the effect of the development on the existing amenities and residence surrounding the proposed development, specifically: 60 – 62 Bream street, 75-77 Dolphin street, 71-73 Dolphin street. Considering the age of surrounding structures.
I would request A closer review of the geotechnical report and the excavation vibration consideration as 60-62 Bream street structure sits only less than 1m from the existing fence line.

- The proposed cost of the development estimated works was advised as $1,588,607 for a four storey structure + underground car par/ car park lift and turn table + Pool … this questions the quality of the build.

- There will be 4 dwellings proposed to this development: 1 x 1Bedroom unit , 1 x 2Bedroom unit, 2 x 3 Bedroom units . Provided car spaces 4 on average each house hold will have 2 vehicles. This will places an even greater impact on our current parking situation.

- Concerns also on privacy considering the proximity of the proposed structure to pre-existing residence.

We do don't belive the size of the development is suited to the lot.

We kindly request Randwick council reject the proposal.
Jessica Voon & N.Y Chung

RE: The Proposed redevelopment of 58 Bream Street COOGEE NSW 2034.
REF: Application Number DA/150/2022

The stratas for Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street share an open backyard area where there are clothes lines set up for the residents. The proposed development will cast significant overshadowing not only of Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street but also of other buildings south and east, as well as an obvious reduction in privacy for the buildings in the vicinity.

In respect to the excavation/earthworks required by the proposed development and the fact that 60-62 Bream Street is less than 1 metre from the existing fence line, I would ask that Council reviews closely the geotechnical report and takes into consideration the excavation vibration and what effects the vibration will have on the structure of 60-62 Bream St.

I ask that Council consider my comments when reviewing this DA.

Mary NG

RE: The Proposed redevelopment of 58 Bream Street COOGEE NSW 2034.
REF: Application Number DA/150/2022

The stratas for Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street share an open backyard area where there are clothes lines set up for the residents. The proposed development will cast significant overshadowing not only of Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street but also of other buildings south and east, as well as an obvious reduction in privacy for the buildings in the vicinity.

In respect to the excavation/earthworks required by the proposed development and the fact that 60-62 Bream Street is less than 1 metre from the existing fence line, I would ask that Council reviews closely the geotechnical report and takes into consideration the excavation vibration and what effects the vibration will have on the structure of 60-62 Bream St.

I ask that Council consider my comments when reviewing this DA and reject this DA..

Ray NG for Mary NG

Dear Randwick Council & Residence

Please note previous submission :
"- There will be 4 dwellings proposed to this development: 1 x 1Bedroom unit , 1 x 2Bedroom unit, 2 x 3 Bedroom units "

UPON REVIEW / CORRECTION
- THERE ARE 3 DWELLINGS :1 x 1Bedroom unit , 1 x 2Bedroom unit, 1 x 3 Bedroom units.
however there are still concerns on the impact this development will cause on parking considering 56 Bream street has also submitted an application for development..

Thank you for your time.
Jessica Voon & N.Y Chung

This is a copy of what was emailed to Council:

To whom it may concern 
WE OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION 

The development is too big for the area.
It ignores the risk of damage to lower tenements on Dolphin Street.
There have been previous instances of work on Bream Street causing subsidence on Dolphin Street, between Brook and Hill.
This development present a very serious risk of a landslide type event.
And impact on lower retaining walls is not addressed.
Units on Dolphin street routinely experience vibrations from traffic, so the impact of heavy machinery and construction on the upper tenements is too risky.
Especially with proposed below street parking to be excavated.
Evidently this is not addressed in the application.
The developers, owners, builders, and all parties in this process are put on notice that should this development proceed, compensation for damages will be pursued.
No assessment of impact of loss of sun on the units at 79 –81. This impacts on garden and vegetable growth and enjoyment of property.
No assessment of impact on quiet and peaceful and private enjoyment of premises, including because of new balconies overlooking lower properties and because of the pool and communal area.
Lack of parking and traffic is bad enough as it is.
The development is not consistent with the area,it is not necessary to increase the number of people living in an already congested area.
Please do not approve this development.

The proposed development at 58 bream st will benefit a small number of people including the developers and people wealthy enough to buy these, no doubt very expensive appartments.
On the other hand the negative effects will be felt by a large number of long term residents along brook, bream and dolphin st.
This development will block a significant amount of light at the rear of adjacent buildings in dolphin st as indicated by the shadow diagrams.
The area at the back of 64 and 62 bream, while used for parking at night, is an area where children play handball and cricket by day this area will be significantly effected by increased shade.
The balcony’s on the rear of 64 bream st are primary family socialisation area and this will be drastically effected by the size and height of the proposers development.
The retaining walls behind the development block have consistently been an issue for the residents in dolphin st and despite advances in engineering the size of this proposal represents significant risk.
The proposed number of car parks associated with the development is of course stated as the legally obliged minimum and this will add to the continued difficulty of existing residents and visitors attempting to access street parking.
In summary the size and impact of the proposal benefits few while imposing significant reductions in sunlight and privacy for existing long term residents.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this and other submissions and i sincerely hope that thru reasonable consultation a more reasonable development can take place.