PlanningAlerts

7 Comments

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

1. This application for attics to be added to these three townhouses takes urban density to a new and unwelcome level and should be denied on the basis of encroachment on the neighboring properties in terms of the bulk of the project and privacy concerns not adequately addressed by the architects. Also there is no convincing reasons to think that the application satisfies the current building codes and regulations even though the architects have mounted some spurious arguments to the contrary.
   I understand that the neighbors must be very concerned about this application as there is no adequate set back from them with the result being that they would feel dominated by this structure and that their privacy will be significantly diminished even allowing for the so called privacy screens.

2. In addition to my previous comment. Marrickville is a wonderfully diverse and close knit community. The neighborhoods are inhabited by people from diverse backgrounds and one off the great things about this community is the sense of belonging. This is all about neighbors not only getting on with each other but supporting each other and this application goes against this as it encroaches on the neighbors who now feel like they are being subjected to an and invasive and devisive application.

3. Surely if the addition of these attics were acceptable, they would have been included in the original proposal to build the townhouses. It's my understanding that some developers build the space for the attics and then put a new proposal through later hoping it will go through. Density and privacy and the impact on neighbors must be considered. I object to overcrowding and loss of privacy.
   Alison

4. I strongly object to DA 201400362.02. This is a significant deviation from the original DA201400362 in that the attic room willin effect become a third floor if the requested inclusion of sliding doors and fixed windows to the height of 2723cm and an almost continual width of 10000 cm and accompanying balconies is approved.

   The second amended DA does not satisfy the concerns of privacy issues raised in the various objections to DA201400362.01. The attic windows in the approved DA are frosted glass of 460cm high and 3680cm wide. The interior of the Attic window consists of a staircase (and a built in wardrobe), ensuring privacy to all neighbours.

   The second amended DA is seeking to replace the existing approved windows withfixed and sliding windows of 2723cm high, for all three properties with widths of 2919cm, 3838cm and 3144cm. This is a dramatic increase in window size and eliminates any privacy previously afforded to the neighbouring properties.

   The proposed privacy screens of 1.6m height of which 1.4m is upward facing screen fixed at 45 degree followed by 20cm straight blades (to allow straight view and ventilation) do not provide visual privacy to neighbouring properties. The Australian Bureau of Statistics – Profiles of Health Australia, 2011 – 2013 findings support the inadequacy of the screening.

   In 2011-12, the average Australian man (18 years and over) was 175.6 cm tall and the average Australian woman was 161.8 cm tall.

   On average, Australians are growing taller and heavier over time. Between 1995 and 2011-12, the average height for men increased by 0.8 cm and for women by 0.4 cm.
   In general, older people are shorter than younger people with the average male aged 75 years and over (169.7 cm) being 8.1 cm shorter than one aged 18-24 years (177.8 cm). Women aged 75 years and over (155.7 cm) were also 8.1 cm shorter than women aged 18-24 years (163.8 cm) on average.
   The average height of both men and women is above that provided by the privacy screens meaning that they will actually overlook the privacy screens.

   In addition, I don’t believe the privacy screens meet the requirements stipulated under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 version 5 August 2016.
   Part 2 Division 1 Subdivision 31 Privacy Screens, Clause 2.62 Developmental standards states:
   (1) The standards specified for that development are that the development must:

   (a) if attached to a balcony, deck, patio, terrace or verandah—be at least 1.7m, but not more than 2.2m, above the finished floor level of that development, and
   (b) if located on the ground—be not higher than 2.5m above ground level (existing), and
   (c) be no longer than 5m, and
   (d) be located at least 900mm from each lot boundary, and
   (e) be located in the rear yard.

   22 Garners Avenue has now been subdivided into three lots. The privacy screens displayed in the amended DA are not in keeping with requirement (d) 90mm from each lot boundary. In addition, the privacy screens would be an almost continual block of 10 meters making it visually unappealing to the rear and back neighbouring properties.

   I note that Page 42 of the Statement of Environmental Effects (SoEE), Air Movement states (original DA) ‘ There are also highlight windows at the front and rear of the rear of the attic level for great ventilation and access to ambient light, so the applicant has acknowleged the changes cannot be for this reason

   Streetscape /character

   Page 27 of the SoEE (original DA), states:- “ Whilst we have adopted an attic level in our attached houses, we have contained this to within the roof scape and behind the ridge. The amended DA seeks to increase the bulk and height of both the attic roof and add extra bulk with the attachment of three balconies. Again, this negatively impacts on the neighbouring properties and the increased bulk will be visable from the side aspects for lots 22B and 22.

   We use our backyard as a means of escape from the hustle and bustle of the street. I cannot stress enough the negative impact that a third floor with sliding doors and balconies will have on the privacy and lifestyle of all neighbours. I thank the Council for rejecting the first amended DA and implore them to reject this second amended DA.

   Regards
   Petra

5. Surely some thought must be given to the neighbors! Privacy is being removed piecemeal, to who's benefit? Will this make for a better community? Once again, this is change by stealth. The walls are built right up to the boundary, then you add a balcony which affords no privacy to the many neighbors. The council must surely be the gatekeepers to this sort of construction and apply a principled set of standards for the Marrickville community.

   David

6. I object to this amended DA for the reasons stated in the previous comments. The development already significantly overshadows the neighboring properties and the streetscape and at present ony the first and second story walls have been erected. To increase the approved attic level would have further impacts on both the streetscape and the neighbours. Existing neighbors should have rights of privacy and be able to use our backyards without being overlooked by three balanconies.

7. The proposed changes offer no real privacy for any of the neighbors, planing controls exist exactly for these sort of developmental incursions! I already feel the development has pushed the limits and this is a step too far!

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished almost 7 years ago. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to Inner West Council (Marrickville). Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment