PlanningAlerts

8 Comments

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

1. Hello Council,

   I have looked at the plans and the issues I have with this proposal is size, inadequate parking, street frontage, style.
   These two dwellings being very large a 5 and 4 bedroom is way over sized for the very small narrow street and smallish block. There is not even close a 9 bedroom house in that little street. These families might end up having 3-4 cars each, so maybe 7-8 + cars and only 4 car spaces. I would rather see more car spaces - double garages and/or fewer bedrooms. I see there is barely enough room to get a garbage truck or emergency vehicles at the moment with cars parked in the street. A 3 and 4 bedroom duplex would be better to fit better with the small no through street.
   Having all concrete front yard for cars is different from neighbours and would have much water run off to downhill neighbours.
   Ratio of house to soft surfaces and frontage distance looks inadequate but might be OK, I would like officers to check this. It does not seem to be much gardens or soft surfaces at all.
   The style of colorbond roof is out of character, every house in the area has tiles. I would like to see tiles used.
   I don’t also believe duplexes give any ‘cheaper’ option for families. I always see these large duplexes go for the same price as a normal standard house.
   Thank you.

2. Dear Council,

   My concerns with the development at 7 McCabe Place, Menai, is that of size. 9 bedrooms on a 694sqm block is very excessive, when most of the houses in the area are only 3-4-5 bedrooms on larger blocks. Surely there is a Floor to Space Ratio rule that doesn't allow for this?
   The building line should remain set the same as the adjacent existing buildings to maintain the street scape.
   And both buildings should be at least double garage. Being a cul-de-sac you would want to keep as many cars off the road as you can.

   Please consider these issues before approving.

   Best Regards

   Andrew Holmewood

3. Dear council,

   My concerns are listed below.

   • The high density development proposed will de-value the established homes in the area.
   • Walk way into McCabe Place is used by people to access shops, schools and bus stops – the proposed development will increase traffic into an area with no pedestrian paths causing a safety concern.
   • Lack of on street parking is currently an issue – the proposed development will add to this problem
   • Garbage trucks already struggle to access bins – the proposed development will add to this problem, this would also lead me to think that emergency services would struggle to access the cul-de-sac and people and property within it.
   • Trees – plans do not factor the large trees into consideration. To build the proposed car spaces, the builder will need to cut into the tree roots of trees not being removed, causing damage or destruction. Also if the proposed development goes ahead then the trees could cause damage to people and property.
   • Drainage and storm water run off – doesn’t show details of this. Given the landscape is changing details of this should be provided. Given what is proposed, this would increase the water run off to ours and other neighbour's property.
   • Current tenant has mentioned many concerns with the sewer not coping with the existing dwelling – the proposed development doesn’t outline how it will fix this and upgrade to cope with increased use.
   • The proposed development has plans to build in front of the existing houses either side and well in front of the existing house on the development block.
   • The proposed development would create lack of sun for no 9 McCabe (almost none) and No 5 would lose the westerly afternoon sun.
   • The bulk scale and size of the proposed building is not in line with local amenities and street scape. Nor is it seen as acceptable by the residents.
   • Floor space ratio doesn’t appear to be correct.
   • Concerns about not notifying residents of the zoning change to permit this type of high density dwelling – when did this happen?
   • People purchased in “old” Menai to be near nature, have big blocks, quiet cul-de-sacs and to live the “Australian dream”. This will change the future look and feel of old Menai and the reason why families choose to live here.

   Please consider the above points prior to making your recommendation.

   Regards,
   Kristie Porter

4. Dear council,

   My concerns are listed below.

   1. Overcrowding of a small Cul-de-sac
   The street currently has a lack of on street parking. The off street parking proposed does not adequately address the on street parking issues and increases strain on existing residents in the street. It will increase the volume of people parking on the street and would make it difficult for garbage trucks and other facilities access the houses. There is potential for 5-10 additional vehicles to be added to the already overburdened cul-de-sac.

   2. Streetscape
   This proposal is completely out of character with the existing dwellings, and would look out of place.

   3. House Values
   It is of major concern that if a high density dwelling was allowed to be built in close proximity to existing single occupancy dwellings that this would have an adverse effect on the value of the existing houses.

   4. Safety concerns with increased vehicular traffic
   There is a walkway from McCabe Place to Lindwall Close that is used consistently for access to school, shops and bus stops by residents, infant and primary school students as well as high school students. There is no footpath in McCabe Place and most people use the road. Increased traffic and cars when the buildings are occupied, as well as the demolition and construction vehicles during the re-development would create a safety hazard.

   5. Overshadowing
   The size location and height of the development will block most of the morning sun to No.9 and afternoon sun to No 5.

   6. Zoning
   Most residents in the vicinity that have been contacted were surprised that a dual occupancy was allowed in our area. Council has never informed any of the residents contacted of any changes in zoning that would allow such a development. Surely something like a re-zoning of a residential area should be put to the residents that had bought into the area based on the understanding that the area we had bought into was based on quiet cul-de-sacs and single occupancy dwellings, so that they could voice their opinion on any proposed change.

   7. Driveways
   Addition of 2 driveways will decrease further the amount of on street parking. This coupled with the potential addition of up to 8 addition cars will create more problems in an already overcrowded street.
   8. Building line
   The new dwelling proposes to be developed in front of the existing houses on each side. This looks to be disproportional to the rest of the street and doesn’t fit with surrounding properties.

   9. Garbage Collection
   The street already has continual problems with garbage and recycling collection. The potential increase in the number of vehicles parking in the street, will only add to this. Just today we had a incident where the garbage collector placed notices on our bins saying they were too close together… the bins were positioned the same way that they have been for the past 20 years, with due consideration for the collection. I have attached one photograph showing the street parking on a normal garbage night and in this incidence there were cars missing that would normally be parked. The proposed development is where the boat is.
   

   Regards

   John Shanahan

5. Dear Council

   I refer to the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Mitz Design in relation to this development application.
   • Flora And Fauna “no adverse effects on any flora and fauna will occur” – Can somebody please tell us then what is going to happen to the huge gumtree on this property & the other gums?
   • Flooding Drainage etc etc… - Are we to assume that the land will remain at its current level as to not effect the easement? The back neighbours already experience a flooding problem, and any alterations to this could exacerbate the situation.
   • Parking and Access – Already there is a parking issue in this street, with many people using off street parking. Adding potentially an extra house to this part of the street is going to add more cars and less space for council to collect the garbage. (Which if you have ever watched the truck attempting to negotiate the street in the morning, they do a fantastic job) We too have had notices on our bins as we always have other residents cars parked outside our property. With a few elderly residents in the cul-de-sac and both myself and my daughter suffering from an autoimmune disease, the thought of emergency services not being able to access our property (both during construction and after) is a horrifying thought. Heaven forbid having a death on your conscience because of lack of foresight.
   • Renovating a property is one thing. Building a new property is another. Squeezing together 2 properties for the sake of financial gain at the detriment of all of the residents is simply not on!

6. Dear Council, Please consider the points below.

   • Where’s the logic?, a modern relatively new home not a pre-war asbestos cement home is being demolished to fit two new homes well forward of the current building alignment and out of character with the surrounding homes.

   • An arboricultural report needs to be commissioned by council and included with the DA re the impact an additional driveway will have if built over the roots of a magnificent old eucalypt. Surely the health of this tree will suffer to a stage where it will be axed sometime later because of safety issues.

   • Any new high density dual occupancy home should complement the surrounding homes not confront them. This proposed dual occupancy will consume the residential site or basically the site is too small for a dual occupancy of these proportions.

   • It is proposed that an additional driveway and street layback be constructed. The plan does not give measurements for the new layback but it appears that two visitor parking spaces on the street will be lost. I hardly think so, but can the street afford to lose two street parking spots?

   • It was and as far as I know still is, a planning requirement that homes built in this street have two vehicle parking spaces behind the 7.5 metre building alignment. These homes will have just one parking space behind the 7.5 metre point. Since when has public transport in Menai improved to a degree where we can reduce the number of vehicles at home or in the street?

   • Nothing is showing on the plan for the out of sight storage of garbage bins. Homes in this street generally have four large bins each. As the passages on either side of the dual occupancy are very narrow, one can only assume the bins will be left somewhere within 7.5 metre frontage or forward of the homes. This will surely be an eyesore for the neighbours.

   This DA appears to fall well short of community expectations.

   Regards, Graham Kauffman.

7. Sir,

   This application should be immediately rejected for the following reasons:-

   1. There is no dual occupancy dwellings in the general area from Hall Drive to Monash Drive and beyond.

   2.Roof construction, corrugated iron, is foreign to the area and certainly not in keeping with the Close and the general area.

   3. PARKING.
   This Close, particularly at its end, is narrow and at present is generally fully occupied with excess residence and visitor parking. The construction of premises, where the possibility of a further 5 - 7 cars being introduced to the Close is unacceptable. If construction of the new premises were to proceed we could see conflict arising between local residents with cars having to be parked far away from the residence they belong to, thus creating another problem possibly in other streets. The plans submitted provide for 2 cars being parked on each lot which has been taken into account when accessing future requirements for street parking.

   A prior submission for the development on the corner of Trumper Place and Miller place was rejected partially on the basis of inadequate parking. The parking in this particular case would have been temporary in nature and not over night. The addition of a further driveway will decrease the availability of street parking in the Close.

   PRIVACY.
   Privacy is of concern, although you would not believe it is of concern from the DA. There are no issues with the present premises however there is a threat with the new premises owing to its height. Premises in O'Reilly Close, Benaud Close and other residences in McCabe Place will have their present privacy affected detrimentally by construction of the planned re development as contained in DA14/0385.

   ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT.
   The plans provided would lead you to believe that there will be no tree removal as a consequence of the re-development. There are significant large trees at the front of the premises which, it is believed, will need to be removed.The front boundary of the property is on an arc and I fail to see, from the plans provided, how adequate parking access to the property and the decreased setback of the development can be achieved without the removal of the existing trees.

   BUILDING ALIGNMENT.
   Building alignment of the proposed residence appears to be less than that of all other housed in the Close and would detract from the general asthetic appearance of the Close.
   A shadow plan has not been provided which would substantiate assertions in the proposal that there is no major concerns in this area, which are rejected.

   AFFORDABILITY.
   Assertions in the proposal that this development will provide lower cost housing are refuted on the basis of housing affordability figures recently published in a major newspaper and also the trend in the local market in the sale of "small allotment" accommodation.

   Please consider the above in reaching your decision to reject this appliacation DA14/0385

8. To the general manager Sutherland Shire Council: Ref application DA14/0385
   
   I am writing in objection to the development of 7 McCabe place Menai construction of dual occupancy premises.

   POINTS OF OBJECTION

   1. PARKING

   Under the requirement, that the developer accommodate on each the properties, 2 car spaces, the present single dwelling 3 bedroom has accommodation for 4. Therefore the is no improvement counter to the application which states there will be an improvement .The 2011 census states for Menai that there are 2 cars per house hold but does not give the ratio of cars per 3 bed rooms or greater. Menai area has 50.8% of 4 bedroom or greater. McCabe place has at present on average 4 bedrooms single dwellings approximately 3 cars per dwelling, by putting two dwelling of combined 9 bedroom on an existing 3 bedroom property what increase will that cause ? The access to the McCabe place for collection of bins by service vehicle would be ne’er impossible as well as any other utility service for access.

   2. TREE REMOVAL

   On the Environment impact statement section, utility services NO TREE REMOVAL IS PROPOSED? Yet on the plan it shows at least two to be removed .As there now two entrances unit one car entrance is a tree very close if not on drive way not to be removed or damaged.

   3. WASTE DISPOSAL

   On the Environment impact statement section, Waste Disposal bins provided for each dwelling, they will be located at rear of dwelling…. I find this hard to understand as the width of unit 1 southern side at the back corner to be narrower than bin 0.55m, then trying taking it up the side with water tank entry.

   4. BUILDING ALIGNMENT

   Overshadowing the property no 5/9 McCabe place receive 4hours minimum sun light direct or otherwise? During the day which day of the year!
   The older 80’s style homes most of which have been updated to designs in the area in the McCabe place are set at the same nature strip yet the development proposal is to move house forward and not stay in line with existing building, I am Not sure what that distance will be drawing 2/14 shows 7.5m and drawing 8/14 is 7m on a computer drawing!

   5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

   It is a viable alternative to owning a new property, without high price tag, compared to that of an individual home ,in a location that would normally be out of reach of you average family.
   The average dual occupancy, three bedroom single car space (not including driveway) in Menai, is a minimum of 85% the price of a single dwelling (figures taken from local sales of properties of in the area for townhouses or similar dual occupancy dwellings) . Referring to the statement above, about affordable property, this is more about installing high density living (fitting 9 bedrooms on a site that currently has 3) to capitalize on an investment, rather than offering affordable housing, which clearly it does not. This type of housing (high density) is not suitable for a cul-de-sac of this size.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Sutherland Shire 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