You are here

Subdivision 602 m2 split into 5 lots - Impact Assessible

Submitted by webmaster on Fri, 13/09/2013 - 11:25pm

An impact assessible DA A003563722 has been submitted for 109 Clara Street (cnr Hassall St) Corinda proposing to split a 602 m2 lot into 5 separate lots for townhouses down to 94 m2 in size.

Responses need to be made on council's website prior to 18-Sep-2013

A template response has been provided for those who wish to object - please take the time to customise the content to be an individual submission for maximum effect.

AttachmentSize
Microsoft Office document icon 109 Clara St Corinda Objection.doc28.5 KB

StoryType:

Comments

I started to use the prepared template which was well done thanks, but after spending a few hours studying the application I have added a few thoughts, which may be totally off the mark. In summary, this is a particularly clever application which pushes the boundaries of every code to the limit (and then some), and as it is so close to complying in many ways, it stands a good chance of success, although I note that there has been a revised ground floor plan lodged. There may be more changes.

My thoughts which are now lodged with council are as follows:
I am writing to lodge an objection to the development application (A003563722) to build a large townhouse unit complex, comprising of five units, at 109 Clara Street, Corinda on the following grounds:.

a) Firstly, the applicant has made the consideration of this application very confusing in that on one hand it is self assessed as a single building on a 602 M2 lot but on the other hand it is self assessed as 5 individual “Single Unit Dwellings”. It would appear that the applicant’s compliance statements use whichever situation best meets the criteria. The applicant clearly states in the Compliance Statement re “Single Unit Development in a MRD Zone” that this is not applicable, adding to the confusion and repeatedly contradicted in other compliance statements where the project is being treated as a single Unit Dwelling.

b) While not a town planner, superficial scrutiny of the plans and documents submitted suggests that this application pushes almost every criteria to the absolute limit, eg Site Cover is stated at 49.7% vs a maximum of 50%; one measure of Open Space is 30.4% vs a minimum of 30%. GFA calculations are admitted to be 425M2, exceeding the code requirement, but even then the calculation should be carefully checked as the applicant appears to take the most liberal interpretation of the codes in arriving at such figures.

c) This liberal interpretation applies to many calculations in order to meet assessment criteria, eg Erosion Hazard Assessment is assessed at “0”, for “Average Slope of Disturbance Area” therefore not triggering an impact assessment, yet the slope across some parts of the block is 2.8 M in 17.2 or exceeding 15% and thus triggering an impact assessment. The average slope might be less than 15%, but it is certainly greater than 3%.

d) Such optimistic interpretation continues on this Erosion Hazard Assessment form – the Duration of Soil Disturbance is stated as less than one month!! WOW this is the fastest builder in Australian History. 5 townhouses of 3 stories on a very tight site will not have the site disturbance “stabilised” in anything like 4 Months (the impact assessment trigger point) and most likely more than 6 months.

e) The stated 220 Meters from the site to the extreme south east corner of the Corinda Precinct might be believed, but from that point to the entry of Corinda Station appears to be a little understated and needs to be checked!

f) Some compliance statements are clearly wrong. Eg “The roofline is commensurate with nearby pre-1946 buildings...” Responses to form/bulk/mass criteria are creative journalism if not rather repetitive.

g) The proposal claims to comply with required setbacks. If this application is being considered as a single site, then I agree that both the adjoining boundaries are “side” boundaries, which could be 1.5M to a height of 4.5M and 2M to a height of 7.5M. The plan appears to show 1.65M above the 4.5M level, again this appears to be a liberal interpretation of the codes and needs to be carefully checked. However, if this is to be assessed as 5 freehold lots (as per the intent of the application) than only Lot 5 is a corner Lot and lots 1-4 should be treated as requiring compliant “rear” setbacks.

h) I object to the proposed development on the basis that it is an overdevelopment of the site and does not meet the low to medium density code requirements of the City Plan 2000.

i) the proposal incorporates tandem parking. The design of the units, with 2 double ensuited bedrooms suggests occupancy by 2 couples, potentially renters, possibly with 4 vehicles per unit, which is inadequate to meet residential parking requirements for the townhouses.

j) I am a regular user of these two streets, and this corner has poor visibility, with vehicles travelling north on Clara being unsighted as they ascend from a rather roller-coaster like “Dip”. 5 driveways on this corner is a potential disaster.
Further grounds include:
• the proposed front setback of 4.4m does not appear to meet the requirements of being located within the average 20% setback of adjoining buildings – neighbouring setbacks are 7.5m and 6m respectively;
• the proposal lacks the required design elements and integrity such as variation in materials, finishes and colours, verandahs and other features that contribute to reduce bulk and scale;
• the proposal locates visitor parking in the townhouse driveways, which fails to meet the requirements for dedicated visitor parking – compounding the poor parking solution proposed for the residents;
• appropriate screening to side and rear windows should be provided to protect the privacy of the neighbouring house and townhouses; and
• the development does not meet the minimum required sustainability measures regarding orientation, energy efficiency – access to sunlight and breezes due to the orientation of the buildings private open spaces (south facing) is problematic
I urge Council to reject or substantially amend the application as it does not meet numerous City Plan 2000 requirements and is an overdevelopment of the site.