PlanningAlerts

4 Comments

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

1. Hello,

   I have misplaced my letter regarding this development so am replying here.

   I am a resident close by and have only just noticed that this is a 6 level development unlike the rest of the towers going up along Canterbury Rd which are 5, including the new developments (in DA) to the left and right of this tower.

   The development will block the afternoon sun into our apartment and tower over us.

   It will not be in keeping with the rest of the street being a level higher.

   There's no need to try to pack so many units onto such a small site. There are also so few commercial sites vs the amount of dwellings.

   I'm all for the building of new dwellings and retail sites in the area but there are planning laws and guidelines for a reason. This should never be allowed at 6 story's.

   Thank you,
   Michael

2. Hi,
   This mail also adopts the Objections pursuant to the Canterbury Development Control Plan 2012 and Canterbury Local Environmental Plan 2012.

   Please note, Notification letters to all neighbouring residence in apartment block of thirty four residence were not sent until of recent due to action of one owner which leaves Canterbury Council questionable to their failings of guide lines.

   I strongly emphasise that you take action for the following submissions in regards to DA505-2014.

   The following Objections for Residential Neighbourhoods (CDCP 2012) are within the notion of being breached.
   Objection 2: “…space between buildings for household activities and landscaping.”
   Objection 3: “…privacy and general amenity is available to occupiers…”

   Additionally, section 2.1.9 ‘Building Separation’ (CDCP 2012) is in the motion of being breached.
   Objection 1: “..privacy is available to residents in new buildings and residents in existing buildings.”
   Objection 2: “Taller buildings require greater separation to buildings on adjoining land to provide spatial relationships which are proportional to the heights of buildings.

   I dispute that there is an inadequate level of separation to the rear of the property (five or six story development) and that the concept of ‘reasonableness’ is being abused. For this reason, I submit that the repercussions of this development will ultimately breach the objections stated.

   
   Moreover, I submit that reasonable privacy, general amenity and a special relationship is neglected in the development of this building as it is not available to residents at rear of existing buildings adjacent to the rear development site. Furthermore, section 2.1.3 ‘Height’ (CDCP 2012) refers to the initial objective, which states: “New buildings have a scale that is visually compatible with adjacent buildings, and the intended character of the zone.”

   To this objection, I submit that the height of the building is not visually compatible, and to this effect, consequently minimises the direct looking of property. Also, increases the view from the development property into private rooms and personal open spaces.

   Evidently, the CDCP requires, in terms of visual privacy that:

   - “Reasonable levels of visual privacy are available for residents, inside a building and outside within the property, during the day and at night.”

   - “Visual privacy is not compromised…”

   - “Provide adequate building separation, and rear and side setbacks,”

   - “…avoid directly overlooking neighbouring residential properties”

   - “Provide privacy to the principal area of private open space”

   Thus, the complexities of failing to compromise with the Canterbury Councils LEP Controls (five or six stories at least 18m between windows and or balconies), and part two of the CDCP, fuel my further submissions. These include:

   - Low level of visual privacy during the day and night, due to the failure of degree of separation;

   - Levels of visual privacy to adjacent neighbouring residence are not met;

   - Reasonable separation of the two buildings are not met with Canterbury Councils LEP controls;

   - Plan metric findings are 10m or less between the two separation points of buildings, and

   - Greater separation of the two buildings on adjoining and boundary land is required to provide greater spatial relationships between the two which are proportional to the heights of buildings.

   Ultimately, I strongly emphasise that you take action for the following submissions in regards to DA505.

   
   Regards,

   
   Garo Benkowics

   Please fwd my email add to Michael Anderson

3. Poor design outcomes of this building contribute to a bulky design that doesn't properly articulate and break up the mass. Rather than just brick and paint, the buildings should incorporate different materials for the base (1st-2nd floors, middle (3rd-4th floors) and upper elements of the building. This will effectively provide good visual outcomes to the streetscape. The balconies fronting Canterbury Road should be treated with aesthetics that articulates the presentation whilst providing better privacy for future occupants. Vertical blades are highly encouraged to complementary the horizontal building mass of this development.

   Also the building envelope is too rigid and rectangular. It is also highly recommended that curves are used. Greenery and plantation provide better amenities. Breaking up the mass is preferred over a symmetrical (Canterbury Road elevation) design approach.

4. Hello,

   I just want to stress, the spatial distance between the new development and the existing apartments that share the same northern boundary, to the left from Canterbury rd at the rear is extremely close.
   On visiting the the location, the distance of 10 meters or less between windows and balconies between the the two apartments are in serious breach of council regulations LEP controls.
   A 40% abuse of the distance allowed in Canterbury Council LEP is way unacceptable.

   Reasonable separation between the two buildings neighbouring each other are not met at the rear, nth and sth facing of the two properties. 10 meters is a serious oversight.

   JRPP must take this into serious consideration and ask for adjustments.

   A extension for neighbouring apartments is required to seek professional advice, given late notification letters sent to all residence.
   Its come to my knowledge the Canterbury council has not responded or reply to concerning emails as well.
   Thanks
   Steve

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels. 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