stop 40 curtis road subdivision

Stop this DevelopmentReference D/2014/496

at 40 Curtis Road, Balmain

Description: Demolition of existing structures, removal of trees and construction of 2 new detached dwellings with Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots. Variations to Floor Space Ratio and Allotment Size development standards.

Please REJECT this non Compliant Development Application

1. Developer led house block sub-division on a block that is undersized 2. Non compliant Boundary setbacks 3. Development of two (2) new buildings that exceed the Floor to

Space Ratio 4. View and tree impacts 5. Removal of four (4) beautiful trees and potential High Risk of 2 others 6. Orientation of openings - as stated in the DA is not true 7. Visual Privacy negative impacts 8. Other issues relating to boundary impacts

The DA statement

The following application was lodged with Council by M Zalloua on 18th Sep 2014

Description: Demolition of existing structures, removal of trees and construction of 2 new detached dwellings with Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots. Variations to Floor Space Ratio and Allotment Size development standards.

40 Curtis Road, Balmain

Variation to Allotment Size development standards1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PURSUANT TO

CLAUSE4.6 OF LEICHHARDT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2013

Subdivision Allotment size – Clause 4.1 of LEP 2013Why is compliance with the standard unreasonable or unnecessary? What are the special circumstances in this case? (To answer consider whether a development that complies is unnecessary or unreasonable)

The proposed subdivision will result in a lot not meeting the minimal permissible lot size, however we believe that compliance with the standard in this case is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Lot sizes have been specifically developed to be in accordance with the general pattern of development and subdivision in the area. 2. The existing site area 392.9sqm would facilitate 2 lots of equal size of 196.45sqm each which is very close to the required standard. The uneven distribution of area is so as to conform to the existing pattern of development and subdivision in the area including boundary locations, and with many smaller lots below 150sqm. 3. The proposed development does not result in any significant loss of amenity, privacy or sunlight for any neighbouring property. 4. In order to improve the environmental sustainability of our cities it is necessary to regenerate existing housing stock and increase urban density where appropriate, as in this case. All alterations will be compliant with BASIX improving the energy efficiency of the property. 5. The proposal creates diversity in accommodation given that the area provides a number of smaller offerings. The subdivision creates an opportunity of servicing two families. 6. The appearance of the dwelling when viewed from the public domain is in keeping with the established character of the area. 7. Sufficient and compliant landscaped area is provided to the rear of the sites in the form of open backyards for both proposed lots.

Variation to Allotment Size development standards1.1

1. The proposed Lot sizes have been specifically developed to be in accordance with the general pattern of development and subdivision in the area.

False

There is NO GENERAL PATTERN of forcing 1 house lot to have 2 new lots adjoining except for a few historical instances This is not a general pattern and has significant impact

History is now no basis for non compliance

Backyard external living area of lot 42 is directly impacted by

the addition of 2 lots - comprising 2 x 2 story

dwellings resulting in increased noise and privacy issues


1. The proposed Lot sizes have been specifically developed to be in accordance with the general pattern of development and subdivision in the area.

False

Adjoining Lot 38 extends from Curtis Road to Trivetts Lane Adjoining Lot 42 is larger then proposed

Nearby lots 44,45,36,34,13,11,9,7, etc are all larger lots


2. The existing site area 392.9sqm would facilitate 2 lots of equal size of 196.45sqm each which is very close to the required standard. The uneven distribution of area is so as to conform to the existing pattern of development and subdivision in the area including boundary locations, and with many smaller lots below 150sqm

False

The uneven distribution: - is a Balmain historical fact and should not be the basis of this application. Smaller lots also coincided with the charm of the workers cottages, etc. NOT 2 Story Bulky Excessive BOX like designs that exceed the Floor to Space ratios crammed in for developer financial gains.


3. The proposed development does not result in any significant loss of amenity, privacy or sunlight for any neighbouring property.

False

Amenity: - There will be increased Car Parking demands for the 2 Families - Already there is availability issues for existing neighbours. The proposal claims 2 car parking spaces in the rear and there is only one on the design. Further we question the 85th Percentile car template getting in/out of the garage is not a typical Balmain family car. Privacy:- As indicated Lot 42 and Lot 38 will have to deal with the additional 2 dwellings located without any Privacy or offset design considerations. The design may look ok from the external facade but the internal/backyard layout does not!

Backyard external living area of lot 42 is directly impacted by

the addition of 2 lots - comprising 2 x 2 story

dwellings increases noise and privacy issues


4. In order to improve the environmental sustainability of our cities it is necessary to regenerate existing housing stock and increase urban density where appropriate, as in this case. All alterations will be compliant with BASIX improving the energy efficiency of the property

We are not against regenerating existing housing if it is done within the compliant regulations and as per this application it is NOT Compliant on many levels’ 1 - Lot sizes 2 - Boundaries non compliant and 3 - Floor to Space Ratio non compliant

This development will create a very negative impact directly on the two adjoining and neighbours and the surrounding neighbours; Being - 2 new Families right on top of 2 weatherboard homes with no space

around ( between walls) - all new structures appear to be weatherboard like materials

- The negativity of the acoustic environment will result in huge consequences, quality of life, demands on services such as Police

- Police call outs in this area are already under pressure to maintain peace and controls due to basic things like even loud conversations and music levels.

Boundary setbacks non-compliant2

The existing setbacks do not comply as stated in the application yet this application is going to fully demolish all existing structures therefore any new structures should comply with locality setbacks

Demolition Notes and WARNING this application does not call out or address a primary concern that the existing structure is full of asbestos.

This DA on the one hand relies on fully clearing the lot of existing structures to create a vacant land and then using those structure footprints as the basis for designing the new structures when they should really be based on a cleared vacant lot. Which means comply with the boundary setbacks

Variation to Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standards3

Footnote: The DA relies on existing footprints for lot 1 and then exceed overall FSR !Review of calculations to come

The DA does not comply to the FSR as it exceeds the minimum standard required. The proposed design creates two excessive new dwellings that should not be allowed under any circumstance. !If one is to rely on the PATTERNS of the neighbourhood it should propose retaining a single lot and designing an appropriate dwelling to suit a family. Inclusive of suitable outdoor area and retention of the environmentally important existing trees such as the Moreton Bay Chestnuts

View Impacts - Current4

Applicant claims that no views to or from the site will be adversely affected by the proposed development. No views from adjacent properties should be adversely affected.

How is this View not effected? What is the definition of a view - The view of beautiful trees is an important view.

Views from 42 Curtis Road

We object to any trees being removed! This area is full of beautiful mature trees - unless diseased removal is criminal. They provide oxygen - shade and privacy

4

Applicant claims that no views to or from the site will be adversely affected by the proposed development. No views from adjacent properties should be adversely affected.

Proposed 2 Dwellings will result in a negative impact to views, and privacy in the most highly used area of the properties

Views from 42 Curtis Road

Dwelling 1 Dwelling 2

View Impacts - Proposed

Removal of trees & impacts5

It is proposed to remove 4 of 5 trees from the site Tree #1 Moreton Bay chestnut Remove WARNING this tree should not be removed Tree #2 Canary Island Date Palm - REMOVE Tree #3 Avocado - REMOVE Tree #4 Moreton Bay chestnut - Remain but WARNING see notes below Tree #5 Canary Island Date palm - REMOVE Tree #6 Jacaranda located on the adjoining property - EFFECTED

Moreton Bay Chestnuts commands higher retention values and should be retained where possible. The proposal clearly WARNS that Tree # 4 is at HIGH RISK of being structurally damaged during excavation and building works. In referring to the TPZ - a combination of both root and crown area requiring protection for viable tree retention. Requires area isolated from construction disturbances. !Due to the extent of excavation required for this development - this is EXTREME HIGH RISK of being structurally damaged. Potential to sever structural roots vital to the trees stability. and the proposed development does consume a degree of the TPZ that is marginally more then allowed !Tree # 6 Jacaranda the lack of consideration for trees located on adjacent properties within close proximity to building envelope - will effect root loss and injury - increase in reflected heat as a result of surrounding hard services. !This development is constantly exceeding the boundaries at every dimension

Orientation of openings6

The application claims that the orientation of openings is ok and the acoustics are fine.

The location and orientation of the openings is not acoustically reasonable, as all (4) neighbours will be opening back doors all in a row. With the fully opening bi-fold doors directly next to each other, this will and cannot provide acoustic privacy. !There is NO OFFSET design considerations like most other new dwellings in the nearby area

Visual Privacy7

The application claims in their opinion there is no unreasonable loss of visual privacy by the proposal and that general privacy levels are maintained.

How can they make a claim like this when there has been; - NO consultation with adjoining property owners - NO supporting evidence lodged !It is very obvious that this is just an oversized property development and not from a quality of life and general living perspective

Wall offer & claims8

We note the offer made to the property owner of lot

What - Unreasonable Claim - “ lightweight walls ( backs the noise / fire concerns) How the existing boundary wall will able to be maintained as the result of the proposed new construction !Your existing timber walls will no longer be accessible for future maintenance We propose that this wall be re-clad in a pre-finished, non-combustable, that will not require future maintenance. !Very odd that all new dwellings are weatherboard as well - there has to be something very wrong in having 2 free standing weatherboard homes with no access to the walls.

Letter sent to 11 Trivetts Land - 9th Sept 2014 offer of wall on 12th Sept 2014 - Caryn raised the issue of the offer to Council Council received the letter and stamped on the 19th Sept 2014 - letter sent prior to application

stop 40 curtis road subdivision

Environment