Lodging a critical objection

1. Stop this Development
Reference 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.

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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 2013
Why 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.

5. 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

6. 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
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

7. Variation to Allotment Size development standards1.2
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.

8. Variation to Allotment Size development standards1.3
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

9. Variation to Allotment Size development standards1.4
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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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