[200William-EC SP67851] FW: DA View Issues - Fee
Matthew Perkins - Private
matt at perkins.id.au
Tue Mar 22 10:44:08 AEDT 2022
Hi Craig,
Im flexible for the zoom. Matt what's the best time for you ?
Matt.
On 22/3/2022 10:42 am, Craig Laforest wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> Natalie has been really helpful so far. She mentioned she has also
> been approached by another group regarding the same build (good to use
> the same person).
>
> I’m happy to have a short zoom session just to ensure we’re all in
> synch and if there are any other questions before I contact Natalie to
> give her the “go ahead” and for her to expect something coming from
> Leanne.
>
> Re photos, let’s get them done asap. The sooner Natalie can file the
> complaint, the better.
>
> I’m around tonight and tomorrow morning after 930am if that’s a good
> time for a zoom session.
>
> Cheers
>
> Craig
>
> *From:*Matthew Perkins - Private <matt at perkins.id.au>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 March 2022 10:20 AM
> *To:* Craig Laforest <cscl at optusnet.com.au>; 'Matthew Guy'
> <matthew_guy at hotmail.com>; ec at 200william.com; Darren Vignes
> <marquis at bfms.com.au>
> *Subject:* Re: FW: DA View Issues - Fee
>
> 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>
> <mailto:natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 22 March 2022 9:27 AM
> *To:* 'Craig Laforest' <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> <mailto: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
--
Matt Perkins
0403571333
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20220322/9298584e/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/20220322/9298584e/attachment-0001.jpg
More information about the EC
mailing list