Report comment

In Waitara NSW on “Construction of 2 x 6...” at 22-32 Park Avenue, Waitara:

Concerned Resident commented

I am rather confused about this Development application. The site of the proposed DA, located on the East side of Park Avenue, opposite Waitara Oval (Mark Taylor Oval), is zoned for 5 storey apartments. This is also clearly stated in the current DCP, refer to page 3-82 (82/93).

The site zoned for 6 storey apartments, which is clearly referred to the current DCP, (Jan 2015) is the site enclosed within the streets, east side Waitara Ave, south side Park Lane, west side Park Ave and north side of Alexandria Parade. Refer to page 3-112 (112/119).

The proposed 6 storey development does not comply with the current DCP which is zoned for 5 storey developments. That alone should be enough to reject the development. However there are a number of other issues of non-compliance and as the proposed development falls with the zoning for 5 storeys, I shall refer to section 3.4 of the DCP.

3.4.4 BUILDING HEIGHT.
The DCP states the building should be a maximum of 5 stories and a maximum height of 17.5m
The proposed development is 6 storey and 17.750m. This is non-compliant.

3.4.5 SET BACKS.
Rear-
Basement setback is only 6m. The DCP calls for 7m setback.
Ground floor setback is only 3m. It is well within the required 10m set back
Levels 2, 3 and 4 are only set back 6m from the rear boundary. The DCP requires 10m setback
Level 5 set back is only set back 9m. As per the DCP, it should be 13m.

Front-
More than 1/3 of the front building encroaches within the 10m setback and more that 1/3 of the front is facade is located within the 8m front setback. 2 ground floor street front balconies encroach well within the 7m set back zone.

Side-
Habitable rooms are only set back 4m which encroach well within 6m compliant side set back.

3.4.6 BUILDING FORM AND SEPARATION
The building floor plate exceeds 35m. It dose not have a minimum 4mx4m recess to create the appearance of two separate pavilions as stated in the DCP.
The two buildings are only separated by 6m The DCP required a 9m separation.
The northern side of the building along the boundary of 34 Park Ave required an additional 3m set back from the boundary.
The building design does not visually break-up the built form. The façade is repetitive as a solid form, they do not look lightweight. The façade is repetitive in materials.
The building is fully rendered. There is not a mixed use of material in the main bulk of the building to break up the repetitive painted solid concrete massing.
The proposed paint colours of the building are too bold and will be overwhelming for the neighbours.
The 3D rendered images of the proposed development are mis representative of the actual design of the development and the surrounding area. There is no tree in front of 34 Park Ave.
The trees located in front of the building in the 3D rendered images will never be a true representation of the landscaping to be implemented on the site. The use of these trees in the image is a deliberate misrepresentation to hide the true overwhelming bulk of the building.

3.4.7 LANDSCAPING
The 3D rendered images of the proposed development are mis representative of the actual design of the development and the surrounding area. There is no tree in front of 34 Park Ave.
The trees located in front of the building in the 3D rendered images will never be a true representation of the landscaping to be implemented on the site. The use of these trees in the image is a deliberate misrepresentation to hide the true overwhelming bulk of the building.
The proposed development removes all existing trees on the site including trees that have been listed in the original DA to remain.
The proposed development indicated gardens to the level 5 in the 3D rendered images, however the plans do not indicate that there are roof gardens. This seems to be a deliberate misrepresentation of what will actually be built.
Due to the minimal setback to the rear boundary there is less that 40% area that can accommodate any trees that will be 10-12m.
The required deep soil setbacks to the boundaries, 8m front, 7m rear have not been provided.
The deep soil diagram provided on page 15 of the design statement seems to be misleading. It is showing more deep soil area than what will actually be provided. The deep soil area in the between the 2 buildings is indicated to be paved making the deep soil area unusable.

3.4.10 MATERIALS, FINISHES AND SERVICES.
The building colours do not reference the natural habitat.
The building is fully rendered. There is not a mixed use of material in the main bulk of the building to break up the repetitive painted solid concrete massing.
There is no indication of what type of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning system that is to be provided for the building. It is critical to know if there will be exposed wall mounted units.

3.4.11 SUNLIGHT AND VENTILATION
With the proposed design, less that 70% of dwellings in the block will receive 2 hours of sunlight.

It will be interesting to see how this developer, Charbel Demian, who is currently under investigation with the ICAC, will get this development through. He has been around the block. He has all the right connections.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-5948247/NSW-Liberal-MP-embroiled-ICAC-inquiry.html

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/just-got-a-call-from-mp-friend-inquiry-hears-of-wagga-mp-s-sydney-property-interest-20180712-p4zr5x.html

https://www.afr.com/news/government-mp-resigns-after-icac-wire-tape-is-played-20180713-h12o5x

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/we-were-kept-in-the-dark-teacher-tells-icac-of-tough-lessons-in-property-deals-20180724-p4ztcw.html

https://marrickvillegreens.wordpress.com/issue/planning-heritage/lewishamtowers/

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/nsw/need-to-see-you-at-the-gym-icac-hears-of-texts-calls-between-developer-and-councillors-20180720-p4zsq7.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed

https://vaaju.com/aus/liberal-mp-terminates-the-party-after-having-allowed-to-apply-for-real-estate-payments/

https://tech2.org/aus/the-alarms-of-political-influence-of-the-catholic-leader/

http://www.alankabout.com/australian_news/132009.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx7cFAyyLDI

https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWk4aU1iVmpJQU1FU1FEdmRlRXYtQjZLQUFQAQ?hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU%3Aen

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/why-nsw-development-scandals-keep-happening-over-and-over-again-20181206-p50kmu.html
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/graft-favours-bullying-and-barbecues-at-canterbury-council-20180420-p4zaqz.html

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/how-a-polymathic-genius-took-hold-of-sydney-s-second-cbd-20180907-p502dk.html

https://insolvencynewsonline.com.au/developer-overcomes-asset-freeze/

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