PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

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

1. With regard to Development Application No 2017.33 at 39-41 Conder St, Burwood, please consider the following points:
   • Height of building
   The proposal admits that the building exceeds the height requirements by a significant amount – 6.41m (ie 46% more than the regulated height of 14m).
   The roof top garden is included as a storey; making the building 7 storeys high, including the 2 basement levels.
   The argument put forward seems to hinge on the argument that the shadowing effect would be worse if they were compliant. However, from my point of view as the immediate neighbour this argument holds no weight. (See my comments on the shadowing below.)
   There are no buildings in the surrounding area which exceed 2 stories. Across the road the building height is zoned as to be significantly restricted to only 8.2m, and a building of the proposed height would be anomalous to the area. Also, the closest multi-unit developments are over 200m away, not visible from the site, and in a different zoning area.
   Comments on ascetics and appearances are purely subjective and should not be accepted as valid arguments.
   There seems to be no valid reason for the height criteria to be breached.

   • Solar Access
   The proposal also fails the criteria in respect of solar access. From my position, it appears that I will not get any winter sun on any of my living areas. The shadows on my house are totally unacceptable.
   I have solar panels which have been in place for over 10 years, and under the proposal they will become totally ineffective during winter. Also, I presume they will also be adversely affected during summer.
   Most of the comments on shadowing refer to the impact differences on neighbours further away when looking at compliance with the height restriction. They seem to assume that I should be happy with their comment that “The setbacks of the development provide at least 3 hours direct sunlight to No 43 rear private open space.” This does not tell the full story – only part of my back yard will get sunlight, and even drying my clothes on the clothesline will be a major issue.
   The argument that it could be worse does not remove my dissatisfaction with the proposal, nor does it justify acceptance of the breach.

   • No mention of the existing easement
   From a previous application put forward for 41 Conder St, there was mention of the restriction necessary because of the easement which runs the length of the property adjacent to the boundary fence adjoin my property. I could not find any mention of this in the plans, and the carpark area will be totally blocking this position.
   Is there no longer any restrictions relating to the easement, or has it been conveniently overlooked?

   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. There seems to be very little regard by any developers in the area to take into consideration the rules and regulations set in place by the Council, or to consider the pride associated with these older houses and the character they instil in the overall area, which admittedly is changing rapidly in the area close to the central shopping area. I would ask that the Council try to limit the impact of this advance to a totally different image of multi-layered living; with no “heritage” and no reason for “pride”.
   I would, personally, ask that the Council do not approve this development as its impact on my living space would be significant.

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