PlanningAlerts

1 Comment

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

1. A copy of the letter I sent to the council during the official commenting period:

   We write in connection with the above planning application. We have examined the plans and as a direct neighbour we know the site well. We wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location.
   Firstly we refer you to the Zoning classification for Blaxland R2 which in part states that a “dual occupancies, boarding house and group homes”” can be built “with consent”, which we are not giving in this instance. This area of Blaxland is composed of only free standing single homes and where development proposals should be considered very carefully: infilling could ruin the character of the suburb while group housing or strata development would overwhelm it. At most, R2 zoning allows for dual occupancies on a single block, not 5 homes, 4 of which are double storeys. This building application clearly breaches this zoning classification.
   I next refer you to the State Environmental Planning Policy https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2004/143/chap1/cl2 (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, Chapter 1, Clause 2 which states in part that the aims of the policy is “(b) to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and (c) be of good design”, the intent of which is clearly contradicted by this plan for five double storey homes.
   Addressing the issue of “efficient use of existing infrastructure and services”, this area of Blaxland simply does not have existing infrastructure for disabled seniors. As far as services, the reference to a bus stop which is 300 metres away along an unpaved walkway is once again wholly inappropriate. Even if a walkway were to be built, the bus service itself is sporadic and would not afford the disabled residents any form of “services”.
   As for “good design”, a plan for double storey residences for disabled seniors is wholly inappropriate and would present a major mobility issues within the home from the onset. This cannot be mitigated by additional handrails and any other mobility aids, as the intrinsic two stories design and its intent is inherently flawed. Two stories are thus wholly unsuitable for disabled aged citizens and we do not give consent for a structure of such proportions to be built. This may initially be occupied by disabled seniors, but there is no surety that this will be the case in the longer term. While this is speculation, there are no restrictions to these dwellings being occupied by non disabled younger occupants which will lead to the normal congestion associated with more mobile younger families.
   The next most serious reason for our objection is the obvious additional fire danger presented to the area by such a large structure with only one exit for an emergency evacuation. The block is in a documented bushfire prone area and the construction of such considerable bulk would increase the fire risk to the disabled seniors as well as the residences all around.
    

   We next draw your attention to the fact that the sidewalk frontage between my property and number 46 is a mere one meter wide. This is the smallest sidewalk width in the entire street. There is literally only space to place our two bins at the regulation 1 meter apart. If 5 homes were to be built, the collection of 10 bins would present a logistical impossibility even if the bins were to be collected from within the property, this will involve excessive noise, danger and additional traffic danger for a truck of even light duty size.
   We also emphasise that the tight corner of this street into which the driveway exits is already extremely dangerous in that traffic from either side has limited visibility. Last year (2016) alone there were two motor accidents on this corner which resulted in one vehicle spearing off into the front yard of the corner property. Adding the traffic of 5 more disabled seniors entering and exiting this smallest of entryways will increase the possibility of a serious collision by many fold. Are you as a council prepared to bear responsibility for injury or even death from an avoidable accident? Right on this corner we have families with pre-school children and these young lives will be unnecessarily be exposed to a much higher volume of traffic than what their parents envisaged for this area.
   The small street frontage will also pose a challenge for any visitors and indeed to the residents themselves if they are to own the average of 2 cars per household. The plans show only one garage per household and the minimum legal 2 visitor spots. This may be compliant to regulations but in reality this minimum allocation will force residents to park their extra vehicles, caravans and boats out on the street which is already dangerously congested due to the tightness of the corner.
   On the matter of privacy, we will lose our privacy from our backyard and pool with a direct line of sight from many of the second storey windows. The environmental impact report mentions that our backyard view is protected by trees but this is not the case at all. The line of sight extends past my property directly to the bedroom windows of number 42 and this will be most intrusive.
   As a matter of history, we refer you to your records of refused building applications for a double storey building by the previous owners of my property. We are informed that the reason for refusal was that the building was out of character for the area. After a number of years this reason is even more substantial as Blaxland has a firmly entrenched character of single storey frontages. The same rules must apply to the building application of 4 double storeys in the spirit of fairness.
   If this application is to be decided by councillors, please take this as notice that we would like to speak at the meeting of the committee at which this application is expected to be decided. Please let us know as soon as possible the date of the meeting.
   Finally, please note that our submission is in respect of the proposed development. While we have taken every effort to present accurate information for your consideration, as we are not a decision maker or statutory consultee, we cannot accept any responsibility for unintentional errors or omissions and you should satisfy yourselves on any facts before reaching your decision.

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