Browse Forums General Discussion Re: Development Application Refused 7Oct 23, 2013 8:21 pm Hi Stewie, Thanks for you input. Much appreciated. It's a difficult time for me trying to get this DA over the line. I just did a recalc of the FSR and it's 0.568, so not much better than previously calculated. With the more lenient Councils of Manly and North Sydney, what's the most FSR you've seen? My architect says the FSR should not be a problem, but talking to Council they say it is. I'm pretty sure if I took it to the Land and Environment Court, it would get over the line. Something like "although it does not meet the numerical controls it does fulfil the objectives of the ..." The main things on my side are that there is no increase in bulk (since the outside walls remain the same) and there are no neighbour objections. I'll try to describe the boundary retaining wall. It's actually quite simple. We are on a corner block and the boundary retaining wall has two sections that meet in the opposite corner to the two streets corner. One "arm" of the retaining wall is 13 metres long and the other is 17 metres long. They start at about 0.5 metres high and meet at the corner where it's 2.7 metres high. On top of this is a 1.8 metre fence. So, for instance looking at the 17 metre long retaining wall from the neighbour's back yard, you have a 2.7 metre wall height on the far left, and, as the land rises as we move our view to the right, the retaining wall is just 0.5 metres height at the far right. (I should also add that Council approved a higher boundary retaining wall (about 3.3 metres) when the house was build, but then it does not have fill.) I hope you have a reasonable picture. None of retaining wall is visible from the street and the only people that would be aware of the retaining walls are me and my immediate three neighbours. I should also add that I got no objections and the affected three neighbours all want to see this go ahead because it will clean up a very messy boundary full of broad leaf privets for privacy screening. There's even thorny vines growing through that make the twice yearly trimming to keep it in check a frustrating activity. Privacy for the downhill neighbours is not god and the proposed retaining wall will not only clean up the area but improve privacy for the three adjacent neighbours. The FSR may be a bit over the top, but the retaining wall will really clean up the area. You'd think Council would thank me for expending money, time and effort to make things better. Cheers, Casa Demolition August 2009, Construction Started September 2009, Completed December 2010 Re: Development Application Refused 8Oct 23, 2013 9:57 pm Quote: With the more lenient Councils of Manly and North Sydney, what's the most FSR you've seen? Manly Sub Zone 4 – allowable FSR = 0.5 :1 Proposed FSR = 0.54:1 We got it passed but there were no other items in the proposed DA that were even close to being marginal in relation to the DCP or LEP. I get your description for the retaining wall and in all honesty I can't see why they wouldn't have allowed it especially seeing as there were no objections. Mind you I am unsure of Rydes policy for maximum cut and fill either. The other thing some councils are big on is streetscape and how a proposal affects that but seeing as yours seems to have a minimal impact I can't see how that would be a problem either. Maybe they don't like the engineering aspect of it. I'd go in and see them and ask why they have a problem with it. Stewie Re: Development Application Refused 9Oct 24, 2013 11:18 pm I've been going a lot of reading over the past week and building quite a knowledge base on local government and planning principles and laws. It appears that the magic number is an FSR of 0.55:1. Planning Circular PS 08-014 and PS 11-018 provide detail into why. Once there's a variation greater than 10%, it is to "be determined by full council (rather than general manager or nominated staff member)" and "any particular development standard are being regularly varied by a council may require review". So basically, once I go over 0.55:1 there's more work on Council's part and more visibility. And if they allow too many variations they may be forced by the state government to increase the FSR beyond 0.5:1. From a town planning point of view, I wonder if the FSR of 0.5:1 makes sense. You would think that once the building height and setback requirements are fulfilled, what happens inside the building envelope has no effect on the community. Maybe I'm missing something. We've come long way over the years. If you go to Australiana Pioneer Village you can see how houses were like in Sydney about 150 yeas ago. They were about 40 m2 (consisting of one bedroom and a living/kitchen area) plus an outhouse toilet - no laundry or bathroom! Today we need a study for each adult, a master bedroom with an ensuite, a bedroom (sometimes with ensuite) for each of the kids, a guest bedroom, a theatre ... Are we getting too excessive or are we getting better? I actually set out to have a compact house, but somehow it has grown to what it is. Having four very young children doesn't help! I want them to each have there own bedroom, particularly when they are in high school. Wanting a second living area in the Lower Ground Floor to escape the summer heat doesn't help either (there's no air-conditioning in my house and it's cool even on the hottest of days at the lower level). With regard to the retaining wall, Council has said that basically the topology is excessively altered. I should have asked, so what? If they are worried about stormwater, it's been designed to maintain the subterranean water flow. If they are worried about appearance, it is only visible by my site and the adjoining four properties, all of which have not objected. Better than that, most are keen to see the boundaries cleaned up. I really can't think of anything adverse with putting in the retaining wall if it's engineered and built properly. I'm with Council on this one. I don't mind spending more to get it engineered and built as good as it gets. I want it to last at least 100 years. From my research, the Land and Environment Court will give me consent. I'm hoping it doesn't get that far. We'll see how the Council review goes. Demolition August 2009, Construction Started September 2009, Completed December 2010 Re: Development Application Refused 10Oct 25, 2013 6:10 pm Quote: From a town planning point of view, I wonder if the FSR of 0.5:1 makes sense. You would think that once the building height and setback requirements are fulfilled, what happens inside the building envelope has no effect on the community. Maybe I'm missing something. That's it in a nutshell for me too Casa2. Luckily we live in the Warringah council area where they don't have an FSR as part of their DCP. They simply have a hard surface to soft surface area of 60% to 40% no matter how many storeys your home is. A much more practical guideline in my view. We are aiming for a basement granny flat ( 60 sq m ) half below ground level then a ground floor ( 270 sq m ) and a top floor of about 180 sq m - all under the max height of 8.5 m and within the side boundary envelope plus behind any of the setbacks. A two level house in the Manly council area of a similar size block of land to us ( 580 sq m ) would let you have 145 sq m on each level at an FSR of 0.5:1 whereas under the 60:40 rule that Warringah Council employs we can go up to 270 sq m ( allowing for about 80 sq m of driveway, paths and other hard surface areas). The important thing as you have pointed out is the footprint of the building on the land, building height and side setbacks. Good luck with the council. Stewie Thanks for the response! However, it's have been sorted. But for others benefit here is what we had to do. Unfortunately, it's not straightforward. BCC washed their hands… 3 7203 Hi, does anyone have a clue how the Brisbane Development website work in terms of how uptodate the dates on it are (developmenti.brisbane.qld.gov.au). I transfered… 0 4637 Yeah I don't know why I came to a forum. Place is full of wierdos/pedos thought internet may help but I suppose I'll try my luck with someone in person. Cheers. I tried… 0 6440 |