PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

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

1. We live in a neighbouring proper that does not fall within the notified properties requirement even though we are directly affected. I'm now aware the previous DA amendment was very scant in detail and applied to extend the second storey 2 or 2.5 metres to the front claiming a "need" to extend without citing the reason and that there would be no impact on privacy. The approval of the previous amendment has now created an issue with the scale and proportion addressing the street and the surrounding properties under BMCC LEP Section 6.17 and the objectives of the BMCC DCP B.2 and B.3. I'm also concerned about a reversal of council's earlier stance to discourage new solid fuel installations to improve air quality, particularly for those with respiratory health issues. The impact of this substantial development on our privacy has been significant (Human Rights Act Protocol 1, Articles 1 and 8).

   I acknowledge that these issues are not part of the current application amendment which is now the 3rd iteration of this DA, however this is my first and only opportunity to comment and I feel compelled to do so as it has set a disturbing and unsympathetic precedent.

   That being said, I agree that this amendment to realign and reduce the size of the garage and associated non-permeable surfaces is needed to address the site density and ratio compliance which appears to have been significantly understated in the original application and subsequent amendment. I question one of the previous DA conditions concerning the environmental controls as it was my understanding that the rainwater tanks were to be installed prior to the roof cladding to mitigate potential water run off and erosion. The roof has since been installed and the rainwater tanks are not evident. It is unlikely they are installed underground as the second and current amendment shows these will be installed behind the garage touching on the western property boundary. The setback needs close scrutiny as the state rail fencing has been installed approximately 0.3 metres away from the actual residential boundaries and there is potential to encroach on State Rail property. With regard to BMCC DCP C14, construction of the 3 vehicle garage and water tank installation so close to the rear boundary is also likely to create erosion issues and sediment to run down into the culvert that runs along the western/rear property boundaries. This is frog habitat and it should also be considered that water that runs along this culvert feeds into the Jamison Creek and therefore the water catchment area for Warragamba Dam. Given the fall of the land to the east, it is also a concern that no sediment fencing is proposed to be installed adjacent to the eastern boundary to protect runoff into the adjacent property.

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished over 6 years ago. It lasted for 14 days. 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 Blue Mountains City Council. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment