RE: NOTIFICATION OF CLASS 1 DEVELOPMENT APPEAL | LOT: 115, DP: 1161129

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!


Attn: General Manager,

RE: NOTIFICATION OF CLASS 1 DEVELOPMENT APPEAL - 
SITE DESCRIPTION: 51-53 Manooka Road, Currans Hill | LOT: 115, DP: 1161129       

In reference to the above-mentioned Development Application to note my objection to the proposed plans. we have listed my objections below which will outline how this development will severely impact my residence, my other neighbours, the overall area and fails to meet the guidelines as outlined in the Development Control Plans (DCP) - https://www.camden.nsw.gov.au/planning/planning-controls/ and the Camden Local Environment Plan (Camden LEP 2010) - https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2010/514/whole

 

1) Overdevelopment of Site

The developer has lodged a variation request as follows (see DA_2016_612_1 - Appeal Supporting Public Documents - 51-53 Manooka Road CURRANS HILL – Page 8)

Clause 4.1 of the Camden Local Environmental Plan 2010 (CLEP 2010) imposes a development standard for a minimum subdivision lot size of 450m2 for the great majority of the site. A very small part of the site falls within the minimum lot size area of 220m2

The amended proposal, as illustrated on the architectural drawings at Appendix A to this Variation Request includes the following lot subdivisions:

•       Lot 1 - 220m2 (a 51 per cent variation);

•       Lot 2- 220m2 (a 51 per cent variation);

•       Lot 3 - 240m2 (a 47 per cent variation);

•       Lot 4- 220m2 (a 51 per cent variation); and

•       Lot 5 - 225m2 (a 50 per cent variation).

In short, it is proposed to vary the standard set out under clause 4.1 by between 210m2 and 230 m2 (i.e. between 47-51 per cent).

If strict compliance with the development standard were required then the subject land could be subdivided into two lots only, leading to two detached dwellings. In this request, when a comparison is made to a strictly-compliant development, we are referring to a two-lot subdivision, with each lot having a detached dwelling.

The original council guidelines for this site was that it was only suitable for somewhat larger properties and not smaller dwellings. With an overall size of 1124m2. It is entirely possible to create 1-2 great dwellings that will not only fit the land well, be suitable for neighbours and truly make this corner a great gateway site.

With such large variation percentage requests we ask that this is denied based on the fact that this far exceeds and guidelines and is an unreasonable request.

 

2) Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The Development Control Plan (DCP) states that the design of dwellings (including attached dwellings) must minimise the opportunity for sound transmission. As per the ‘DA_2016_612_1 – Appeal Supporting Public Documents – 51-53 Manooka Road CURRANS HILL’ air conditioning units will be part of the property. Plans are unclear on where these are exactly placed, but the crowded subdivision and narrow side setbacks will only echo, and amplify these sounds, which will result in unreasonable noise impact on my bedrooms and living areas.

These sounds, plus noise from 5 families, will also reverberate through the backyards to many neighbouring properties, including the immediate 3 adjacents.

All five properties also will spread excessive light pollution, directed into the three adjacent properties. A large toll on energy efficiency on the site as well.

DCP - D2.1.4 Visual and Acoustic Privacy Objective Point 1
1. Locate and design dwellings in order to meet requirements for visual and acoustic privacy, whilst minimising visual and acoustic impacts of development on adjoining properties.

DCP - D2.1.4 Visual and Acoustic Privacy Control Point 2
The design of dwellings must minimise the opportunity for sound transmission through the building structure, with particular attention given to protecting bedrooms and living areas.

The upper-level windows of the proposed dwellings also allow for the direct overlooking into adjacent bedrooms, living and private open space areas. One tree has been proposed for each property however due to, in our opinion, poor natural lighting (See DA_2016_612_1 - Appeal Amended Architectural Plans - 51-53 Manooka Road CURRANS HILL - LOT_ 115 DP_ 1161129 – Page 14 Shadow Analysis) on this development it might be cut back or to allow more light in the future, reducing any privacy we might eventually receive after years of tree growth. Or in fact due to poor conditions it could barely grow at all. Providing me with no cover whatsoever.

DCP - B1.17 Air Quality Objectives Point 1 and 2
1. Preserve air quality, minimise pollution and improve environmental amenity.

2. Ensure appropriate levels of air quality for the health and amenity of residents.

DCP - D2.1.4 Visual and Acoustic Privacy Control Point 2
Direct overlooking of the main living areas and private open spaces of adjacent dwellings should be minimised through building layout, window and balcony location and design, and the use of screening devices, including landscaping.

 

3) Health and Safety concerns with Private Open Space

The proposed development open spaces are non-uniform and oddly shaped not making it a fairly unusable space for any tenant. It might turn into excess storage space and a junk yard. Also referring back to ‘DA_2016_612_1 - Appeal Amended Architectural Plans - 51-53 Manooka Road CURRANS HILL - LOT_ 115 DP_ 1161129 – Page 14 Shadow Analysis’, I’m concerned grass and shrubbery will fail to grow.

Both these potential outcomes concern me as these areas could become havens for pests and breeding grounds for air contaminants, which could potentially affect myself, the proposed tenants, other neighbours, local Preschool and the local park with an unhealthy living environment.

DCP - C4 Subdivision in Established Residential Areas Objective Point 4
Design lots with consideration to their orientation, slope and shape to maximise solar access for energy efficiency and healthy living environment.
 

 

4) Streetscape and Character

The proposed development already has a large proportion of dual occupancy dwellings on the adjacent Ascot Dr. In this street alone (thirteen blocks) there are three dual occupancy houses (that have one garage only per two houses) a Preschool, and two other blocks that have already been subdivided into two and three blocks each. Block 110 in Oakbank Pl, which backs onto Ascot Dr, is also being subdivided into three. Currans Hill does not have dual occupancy and townhouses to this level of development at present.

Being on the corner of the two main roads leading into the estate, a large, congested clutter of townhouses will greatly undermine the suburban, single dwelling neighbourhood style that is Manooka Valley. we believe the minimal side setback from fence boundaries will push the development to look out of place. For other adjacent properties, the minimum side set backs are much larger.

Please refer to following DCP extracts, this proposed development does not have minimal impact and does not integrate well with the surrounding suburb.

DCP – C8.1 Manooka Valley Planning Principles Point 2 & 5
The visual impact of development on Manooka Valley’s landscape setting will be minimised.

The detailed design of the public domain in Manooka Valley, and its seamless integration with the private domain of each dwelling, is critical to achieving this vision. For this reason, control of the neighbourhood’s streets and open spaces is rigorous. It has been planned and designed to respond to the natural features of the site, and to integrate innovative integrated water cycle management techniques. The combination of a thoughtful public domain design and its integration with the private domain of each dwelling will make Manooka Valley a great place to live.

 

5)  Street Congestion

Whilst the developer has allowed for a 2 tandem double garage and 3 single garages across the townhouse, in situations of minimal sizes dwelling, people will often use their garages for storage. Also adding the fact that multiple cars in a tandem situation and disorganisation of tenants will result in the need for on-street parking. The future of our street is then congestion as if we assume two cars to every house, this means up to ten cars may be on the street. Furthermore, where will they park given that you cannot park on a corner, Ascot Dr is already overloading due to the three dual occupancy houses with no individual garage for each residence, and Manooka Road is too narrow to support excessive parking?

We suggest that a no stopping sign is issued on the left-hand side of the road, in any case, to prevent this street from becoming too congested.

 

6)  Safety

Ascot Dr is and will become even more of the main thoroughfare through this developing suburb. With so many driveways and excessive street congestion on this corner, this will pose major visibility issues and create a community accident blackspot.

Pedestrian traffic here is higher than normal being so close to the local park, many children will go around this development. Vehicles may not see them due to poor visibility.

Vehicle on vehicle collision is as likely. When entering Ascot Dr from Manooka Rd, vision is already hindered due to the curve on the Ascot Dr bridge (southbound traffic toward Manooka Rd) and crest on Ascot Dr (northbound traffic toward Manooka Rd).

Please note there are current DA applications for more development adjacent to Manooka Valley which will increase the influx of traffic to Ascot Dr considerably, being what appears to be the only access road. With what looks like another 250 homes which will be another 500+ cars driving along this route.

 

7)  Misleading Sale

The developer misled me to encourage purchase. We were informed that the proposed development would be a dual occupancy style home, if not a regular large single story home. This was quite an important part of the decision-making process to ultimately purchase my land and build here in Manooka Valley.

 

8)  Conclusion

Considering the huge deviation from council guidelines, the lack of and poor private open space, the substantial visual and acoustic privacy impacts, adverse impacts on streetscape and character, the street congestion issues, safety concerns, and the negative precedent that this proposal will create, this development should not be supported.

We propose the developer looks at creating and single story dual occupancy which would suit the area and location better and remove any issues of privacy and have minimal impacts on neighbours and be more in line with the public interest and abide by council guidelines for the site.



Today: Rizwan is counting on you

Rizwan Nawaz needs your help with “RE: NOTIFICATION OF CLASS 1 DEVELOPMENT APPEAL | LOT: 115, DP: 1161129”. Join Rizwan and 81 supporters today.