[200William-EC SP67851] FW: DA View Issues - Fee
Matthew Perkins - Private
matt at perkins.id.au
Tue Mar 22 10:20:07 AEDT 2022
Hi Craig,
Im happy with the contacts you have made and reading through the
thread it looks like Natalie is the correct person for the job. Im also
ok with approving $4158 for the initial work. This however needs to go
through Leanne so that it's above board. So when Natalie sends her
terms/agreement fee schedule the strata manager will need to approve it
/ issue work orders. (providing Matt G agrees)
Im happy to have a zoom if we need to get together however unless Matt
is on a different page I dont think it's required. Matt Do you want to
discuss ? Are you ok with the proposed charges it sounds quite
reasonable to me. If we engage a solicitor it would be more like $40k
So it seems like Craig has found the correct person.
Also just thinking out loud who would be impacted by the views I wold
say Cathy in 101 would be massively impacted and im sure would not mind
photos taken. Also but not limited to
106/201/206/301/306/401/404/501/504 and 601 all would see massive
impact. Not only to views but also light/sun Especially in summer. Im
sure if Natalie wanted to get photos we could arrange with Darren to
take her to the effected apartments as he does with the fire inspections.
Kind regards
Matt.
On 22/3/2022 9:52 am, Craig Laforest wrote:
>
> Good morning,
>
> I have just received the following from Natalie.
>
> Would you Matt P and Matt G like to get together asap to discuss this
> matter? There are owners in the building, and I’m sure owners who
> don’t live in the building but who have tenants, who would like to get
> involved. This would be a great way to show a large number of people
> have similar concerns and also it would reduce our costs.
>
> Please let me know if you would like to get together as soon as
> possible for an initial discussion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> *From:*Natalie @ NRP <natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 March 2022 9:27 AM
> *To:* 'Craig Laforest' <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> *Subject:* RE: DA View Issues - Fee
>
> Good morning Craig, I am glad Reina called you back and that they will
> follow up on the view assessment. I would also email to Council
> formally requesting that today and indicating that residents in the
> area are quite concerned about a range of issues and you are looking
> to engage planning assistance (this will trigger the general objection
> and also them knowing that an additional item may be coming in).
>
> I may need to come and have a look at individual views based on what
> we receive from the applicant to check. I would need to know how many
> homes this would be from your residents. Also this would depend on
> covid difficulties. To do this site work would be around 5 hours work.
>
> To just review the documents and provide the detailed submission
> representing the key items we have discussed would be around 9 hours
> to put together in a professional formal report. There is a bit of
> research involved in reviewing all the DA documents in detail and
> checking them against planning and amenity provisions etc.
>
> In total this would be $4158.00 incl GST. As mentioned, it may depend
> a bit on that the applicant’s view assessment comes up with and then
> how much would I would be doing on that to assess it. As some of the
> residents may be able to read and check it as well. If they had no
> intention of providing it with the DA then the Council is going to
> look to us to do our view assessment (hence the work).
>
> So this would be a maximum. If it takes less and the scope changes,
> then I would charge less.
>
> I charge 50% to commence and the balance at completion when the work
> is in draft.
>
> If you could let me know how this sounds and I can send the
> terms/agreement document.
>
> Thank you and regards, Natalie
>
> Natalie Richter Planning
>
> PO Box 59 Mt Colah NSW 2079
>
> m. 0438 828 972
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. The contents and attachments are not to be altered or
> reproduced without our consent or used for any other purpose. If you
> have received this email in error then please delete the email and
> inform us of the error by return email. We are not liable for any
> loss arising from the receipt or use of this email or attachments. It
> is the responsibility of the receiver to be satisfied that this email
> and attachments contain no computer viruses.
>
> *From:*Craig Laforest <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 March 2022 12:14 PM
> *To:* 'Natalie @ NRP' <natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>
> *Cc:* ec at 200william.com
> *Subject:* RE: DA View Issues
>
> Hello Natalie,
>
> I’ve just spoken with Reina Urqueza at City of Sydney. Good news is
> that they’re only in the ‘initial stages’ of the DA and she will be
> asking in the report to the owners of the land for information
> relating to view impact of surrounding buildings. She has also asked
> me to obtain photos of the present views of the site from our AVIS
> building and submit those to her.
>
> Please let me know when you can, what your fee would be to help us
> fight this DA.
>
> Again, I appreciate the information you have provided already.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Craig
>
> *From:*Natalie @ NRP <natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>
> *Sent:* Monday, 21 March 2022 10:52 AM
> *To:* 'Craig Laforest' <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> *Subject:* DA View Issues
>
> Hi Craig.
>
> Since speaking I have had a look on the tracker and can not see the
> referenced view assessment. I am a little concerned about this. I have
> checked twice.
>
> The submitted ‘Statement of Environmental Effects’ says the following:
>
> /5.3.1. View Sharing /
>
> /Richard Lamb and Associates have undertaken an Assessment of
> Potential Impacts on View Sharing which provides an assessment of
> potential impacts on private domain views because of the development.
> This assessment has been informed by a review of architectural plans,
> field work observations and an analysis of CGIs prepared by FJMT. The
> built form facing the site on the south side of William Street is
> predominantly retail and commercial. However, there are a small number
> of residential properties that could be affected by view loss,
> predominantly Horizon, Top of the Town, 5 Farrell Avenue, 26 Kirkton
> Road, 1 Tewkesbury Avenue, Harbourview at 12-20 Rosebank Street and
> 1-5 Rosebank Street have been considered with regard to potential view
> loss. The view assessment concludes that: ▪ Overall the proposal would
> not cause any impacts on view sharing for the majority of residential
> buildings in the vicinity, including buildings south-east and east of
> the site such as Top of the Town, Elan, Altair, Zenith and Omnia. ▪ As
> would be anticipated by implementation of the existing development
> controls for the site, a complying building envelope would cause view
> loss for some levels of residential buildings south and south-east of
> the site such as Horizon, 5 Farrell Avenue the associated buildings at
> 26 Kirketon Road and 1 Tewkesbury Avenue. These buildings would be
> likely to retain extensive and unaffected views from the levels
> affected, ensuring that view sharing would be achieved. URBIS
> STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - 164-194 WILLIAM STREET,
> WOOLLOOMOOLOO 41 /
>
> /▪ View loss, as is anticipated by implementation of the development
> controls, would occur for buildings with views from residential levels
> that are lower than that of a permissible envelope and as a result
> there would be some view sharing impacts produced by the proposal.
> This includes buildings such as Harbourview and 1-5 Rosebank Street,
> from which it would be unreasonable to expect existing views to be
> retained, when the controls contemplate a building significantly
> higher than the existing buildings on the site and adjacent sites,
> including the Avis car rental building at 200 William Street. ▪ The
> proposed building envelope complies with the standard for height of
> buildings and responds to the crossfalls of the site from east to west
> on William Street and the falls from William Street toward the north.
> Where there is view loss, this would generally occur up to Level 5 to
> 7 for the buildings considered. Notwithstanding there would be some
> view loss caused by the proposed building, the extent of impact is
> within the reasonable expectations of implementation of the
> development standards and controls. It is therefore shown that the
> proposal can be supported on view sharing grounds.///
>
> //
>
> I believe that we should contact the assessment officer and ask where
> this report is as I believe it would have been appropriate for this to
> have been included given the potential impacts. Do you want to make a
> call to Council?
>
> Normally, a view impact assessment would provide sight lines across
> from impacted buildings and the 3d diagrams such as the following
> might be used to show the building in relation to view trajectories.
>
> It may be worthwhile seeking our own professional view analysis. I
> know of another very good consultant. It really depends on the budget.
> I could see if she is still working and see what a budget could be for
> this to feed into mine. I would need to gather information quickly on
> how many buildings are impacted in terms of view.
>
> I have also noticed that the attached Architectural design study is
> relatively silent on this issue which it should not be in my view when
> seeking ‘extras’.
>
> Please let me know how you go with the Council. The contact is *
> Make a submission to Council Officer*Reinah Urqueza
> <https://online2.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/DA/IndividualApplication?tpklapappl=1609096>
>
> I will email later with a fee. However if you could have a think about
> how many buildings may be impacted this may help. They may be getting
> their own planners perhaps.
>
> Speak soon and regards, Natalie
>
> Natalie Richter Planning
>
> PO Box 59 Mt Colah NSW 2079
>
> m. 0438 828 972
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. The contents and attachments are not to be altered or
> reproduced without our consent or used for any other purpose. If you
> have received this email in error then please delete the email and
> inform us of the error by return email. We are not liable for any
> loss arising from the receipt or use of this email or attachments. It
> is the responsibility of the receiver to be satisfied that this email
> and attachments contain no computer viruses.
>
> *From:*Craig Laforest <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> *Sent:* Friday, 18 March 2022 4:40 PM
> *To:* info at natalierichterplanning.com.au
> *Subject:* A PROGRAM ON HOW TO HAVE A DA FOUGHT AND WON
>
> Dear Natalie,
>
> Thank you for your text.
>
> I live at 200 William Street, Woolloomooloo in the AVIS building and
> am a member of the residential Body Corporate.
>
> Last week it was announced that the buildings which make up 166-194
> William Street would be pulled down and an apartment block would be
> put up in its place, comprising 220 apartments.
>
> Some of the owners in our building are not in favour of losing
> sunshine from this building, an increase in the already extremely
> heavy traffic on William Street surrounding roads/streets and in some
> cases, the views.
>
> I asked the Potts Pointers group on Facebook if there was anyone who
> could be recommended to take up the fight against the DA on our
> behalf. Your name was given by Drew Wentzel. I mentioned in a post on
> Facebook “Outlined below are several important points re the DA. The
> DA does not show the traffic problems that William Street is going to
> face for the present owners in this immediate area and any of the new
> owners of the apartments from this new apartment site. The DA proposes
> using an outlet such as Corfu Lane in addition to narrow McElhone and
> Cathedral streets as ways for people to drive onto William Street and
> to the Eastern Distributor. If you are travelling from the eastern
> suburbs to get to the site, this is also the major option to get into
> Forbes Street (where the entry to parking will be for the new build);.
> The only other option is to go down to busy Crown Street using back
> roads and turn right onto William Street (to get to Forbes). My other
> major concern is that we are going to lose yet more sunshine from a
> really beautiful area overlooking the disaster of William Street and
> its constant throng of traffic. To put in 229 apartments is absolutely
> ridiculous given the traffic situation we have and again yet another
> way to continually build high and then in a few years’ time look back
> and say....'why did they decide to take away the sunshine yet again?'
> I have asked on PPers for a specialist who may help us fight this DA.
> Any recommendations would be appreciated.”
>
> Below is the article which came out in the Sydney Morning Herald.
> Click on the picture of the building for full details:
>
> https://m.facebook.com/groups/PottsPointers/permalink/3939889962903059/
>
> If this is an area you are qualified in and if you have the same
> concerns we have, would you kindly provide me with a quote and details
> of how you would go about working on our behalf.
>
> My phone number, again, is 0409 323 585.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Craig Laforest
>
> s
>
--
Matt Perkins
0403571333
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20220322/da91dcac/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 120850 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20220322/da91dcac/attachment-0001.jpg
More information about the EC
mailing list