Report comment

In Bexley North NSW on “Construction of part two...” at 84 New Illawarra Road, Bexley North NSW 2207:

Nathan Kearnes commented

I wish to lodge and objection to the proposed development DA-2017/371.

The proposed development should be rejected given the following.

It does not meet the objectives of the land zoning being 'low density residential' and in 'a context and setting that minimises any impact on the character and amenity of the area'.

It does not comply with the height and floorspace requirements of R2 zoned land and the comments that the proposed development is consistent with the existing and emerging character of the area are misleading.

The cumulative impact of the proposed development is significant and it would set a precedence for the area which is inconsistent with the objectives and requirements of the R2 land zoning.

The proposed development is inconsistent with the requirements of the DCP including: 'protect and enhance the character of the suburbs and neighbourhood'; visual amenity; street scape; setbacks; building design; tree removal.

The site compatibility certificate is utilised in a way that is misleading with regard to building height (existing housing stock is predominately single storey); parking (not enough parking provided for each unit let alone visitors); built form and building design (not in keeping with existing housing stock).

In my opinion the Site Compatibility Certificate (SCC) should never have been granted for a development of this type in this area. I strongly disagree with the SCC specifically that the development is compatible with the surrounding land use (i.e. locating high density development within a low density setting).

Further, the proposed development does not meet the Schedule 2 requirements of the SCC determination, specifically:
1& 2. Height (New Illawarra Road is not a predominately 2 storey streetscape and Bexley Road is not a predominately 3 storey streetscape in the R2 land zoning);
3. That final dwelling numbers are inappropriate (i.e. inconsistent with the surrounding low density land use) and parking is inadequate (i.e. not enough parking has been provided for residents and visitors) such that the consent authority should refuse or seek modification of the application
4. That the consent authority in it's detailed assessment of the built form should reach the conclusion that it conflicts with the amenity of surrounding low density residential setting, the building design is not in keeping with the existing character of the streetscape of local R2 zone lands, that the heights proposed are inconsistent with existing amenity (as above), and that solar access and overshadowing of the neighbouring residences and public spaces will be significantly negatively affected.

In summary, I believe the proposed development should be rejected on the following basis:
1. Inconsistent with the Site Compatibility Certificate
2. Inconsistent with the objectives and requirements of the R2 zoning of the subject site and surrounds
3. Inconsistent with the objectives and requirements of the DCP
4. Is of a height that is significantly inconsistent with the existing streetscapes
5. Will have a significant cumulative impact to the local area and further afield
6. Will have a significant visual impact
7. Will have a significant impact on the amenity of the surrounding land uses and local community

Lastly, I am of the opinion that the application for the proposed development is intentionally misleading and that the consent authority should take this into careful consideration during it's assessment and determination. There is misleading information concerning (at least) the following information:
1. Height and predominant local street scape
2. Existing and emerging character of the local area
3. Visual impact
4. Built form and building design
5. Cumulative impact
6. Impact on the existing amenity of the area

delivered to the planning authority

This form is for reporting comments that should be removed. Reasons can include that the comment is spam, abusive, unlawful or harassing — in other words, where people are going out of their way to cause harm. Please explain clearly why you think the comment should be removed.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible 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