And a bit about the developers

By Stephanie Hemelryk Donald

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

Mr XXX has kindly allowed me to quote from the letter below.

I support his points, and I am also disappointed at what seems to have been a foreshortened process led by developers' interests and with little concern for residents of smaller, low rise dwellings.
The assumption that we have big yards, amazing eastern suburbs designer kitchens and, of course, 'garages', is a fantasy and Sydney councillors should pay us the courtesy of knowing that not everyone fits the mold.

I yesterday received the Mayor's letter about  a possible flyover for Moore Park, which is a serious issue. I understand that political agents can only fight and win a few battles at a time, but surely  this Euston Road development is not a major battle, and should not be relegated because there are other bigger things to dispute. It would have been so good to give some respect to longstanding residents who respect the community. Because, yes, we do respect each other (we live cheek by jowl and everyone has to give and take and we do), we respect heritage values, we put money into maintaining the look and feel of a village suburb even when it does not really add to our property values (i.e. we don't demolish and build high) but does support a working and generous community. We promote wellbeing and health by neighbourliness and by keeping streets clean - (of course it's often us that wheel back the trolleys, pick up the litter and dog mess etc). We also pay taxes and we vote.

We were resigned to minor changes, and yet we have been given none - except for 'semi-mature trees'.  On which, the developers' images still pretend that there are some kind of bushes or mature trees on our side of the back Lane? There are in fact two tall firs - one growing out of our shed (we have a hole in the roof near the water tank which takes up half the shed - the other half is for two bikes and a dolls house) and one in our yard, both of which we maintain with tank water. Will the developer be supplying these fictitious trees as well and all the Council make this possible by a further set back of one metre, then  we don't have to publish a picture essay online about how developers tell great big visual fibs and just get away with it?

Could you also explain how the Council will assist us in measuring damage to our properties through protracted, intense drilling less than 15 meters away from our foundations, and let us know how to claim recompense for necessary rebuilds?

Stephanie Hemelryk Donald FRSA, FASSA.

On 23/10/2013, at 2:27 PM, XXX wrote:

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I was dismayed to learn that despite 63 resident submissions, which included detailed rationale and reasonable suggested amendments to this DA, none of our concerns appear to have been addressed.

In fact, as far as can be determined from the meeting minutes, you did not even discuss and have not provided any explanation why neither of the following amendments were adopted:

1. Set back top floor by 2m to match adjoining apartment building. This would massively reduce the major privacy issues and have minor impact on the development.

2. Require fixed horizontal slat louvers to prevent downward views. Again this would offer a huge improvement for residents, with NO adverse impact for the developer. I expect that the developer would have been willing to accept this condition just as they did the semi-mature trees.

Why were these issues not implemented (or apparently even discussed)? Can you please provide a rational and justification.



Stephanie Donald

Post a Comment

Commenting is closed for this article.