47 Conder Street Burwood NSW 2134

Residential Flat Building

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. It was received by them earlier.

(Source: Burwood Council, reference 154/2016)

1 Comment

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

  1. Pauline Forrester commented

    With regard to Development Application No 2016.154 at 47 Conder St, Burwood, please consider the following points:
    • Minimum Site Frontage
    Whilst I cannot find any definition on the Council’s web site as to what constitutes “frontage”, the proposal itself details the property to have a length of only 13.61m. It then refers to a “secondary frontage” of 32m and uses that as the criteria to pass the requirement that “A residential flat building shall not be erected on an allotment of land having a frontage of less than 20m.”
    Surely, the Council’s intention was not to allow any corner block to be able to bypass the requirements simply because the side fence is longer than the front fence.

    • Height of buildings
    The proposal admits that the building exceeds the height requirements – (from Annexure C) “… three parts of the building breach the height limit: the proposed roof of the common space area of the western end of the building (max 1.8m above), the lift overrun (2.5m) and the uppermost level of the building at the eastern side (1m).”
    1.8m above a restricted limit of 14m is quite significant, and 2.5m over is very significantly in breach of the criteria.
    The argument put forward is that the “proposed height is suitable for the site as the locality includes low and medium density development with a number of multi-unit developments located nearby.” This contradicts the proposal’s statement (in paragraph 2.3) that it is located “in a low density residential area.” There are no buildings in the surrounding area which exceed 2 stories. Also, the closest multi-unit developments are over 200m away, not visible from the site, and in a different zoning area.
    There seems to be no valid reason for the height criteria to be breached.

    • Landscaping and removal of trees
    The proposal also (in paragraph 4.2.6) “… does not provide the 25-30% of site area as landscaped area.”
    The Council has a positive attitude to the retention of trees, and the existing trees are fully mature healthy natives which cover a significant part of the block and can readily be seen to provide habitat for local birds. Any new plantings will take a long time to grow and mature to the point where they provide the same habitat.
    The removal of these trees and the failure to meet the criteria does not seem to be in keeping with the Council’s objectives.

    • Solar Access
    The proposal also fails the criteria in respect of solar access. Paragraph 4.305.1 states the requirements are “… 70% of the living rooms and private open spaces of the proposed apartments … to receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on June 21.” However, “the Apartment Design Guide as it is achieves a minimum of 2 hours of solar access to living room windows and living areas for 13 of the 18 apartments (70%) between 9:00am and 3:00pm during mid-winter.”
    Again, there does not seem to be any acceptable reason to allow this breach to be permitted.

    • Character of the immediate vicinity and the age of the existing building
    Paragraph 4.3.1 states “The proposal results in a form of development that is consistent with the desired future character of development in the area, and, as such, the proposal will not generate any adverse topographical or scenic impacts.”
    I don’t know what criteria they are using to determine the “desired future character”, but I believe that the proposal will adversely change the character of the immediate vicinity. Council promotes “Heritage” as the first word in their logo and this should be reflected in their desire to retain the existence of buildings such as the one that currently exists on this site. This house and several of the nearby houses are over 100 years old, and in most cases the houses are well-kept and cared for. To target them and knock them down to be replaced by new structures seems contrary to the concept of “heritage”.

    Overall, I would ask the Council to consider the impact that approval of this application may have on the future of any adherence to the criteria set by the Council, and to the heritage character of the appearance of the area.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Burwood 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

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is part of the digital library from the local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts