[200William-EC SP67851] FW: DA View Issues - Fee

[Leanne Eardley]

Morning,

As I am holding an online meeting to formalise the Edyco variation, I can include this cost proposal on the same agenda to get it formally accepted

Can you please have Natalie send through a proper fee proposal on letterhead.


Kind Regards,
Leanne Eardley
Senior Community Manager

[cid:image002.png at 01D83DDB.B9232510]


STRATA TITLE MANAGEMENT
t.  (02) 9266 2600
d. (02) 9266 2648
e. leardley at stratatitle.com.au<mailto:name at stratatitle.com.au>
a. Suite 2, Level 4, 1 Chandos Street, St Leonards NSW 2065

[cid:image003.png at 01D83DDB.B9232510]<https://smartercommunities.com.au/covid-19/>
[cid:image004.png at 01D83DDB.B9232510]<https://issuu.com/smartercommunities/docs/0121_scmagazine_final_issuu>
[cid3266202371*image006.png at 01D80635.C2FB44B0]<https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnsw.strata.community%2F2021-strata-community-awards-finalists%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cleardley%40stratatitle.com.au%7C7b1d83e1e0d749bbd38f08d9d4000d4f%7C2579fdbe9584475e914839b6bc70b75d%7C0%7C0%7C637773918959270129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=48Qko8dMtVwUzkX6lddjbgCf5CRxN%2FwXkYj2gExnuIs%3D&reserved=0>
[cid:image006.png at 01D83DDB.B9232510]
DISCLAIMER: Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. Strata Title Management Group Pty Ltd takes no responsibility for content included in this email when relating to a client matter. Please view Smarter Communities’ full email communication disclaimer smartercommunities.com.au/disclaimer<https://smartercommunities.com.au/disclaimer/>


From: ec-bounces at 200william.com <ec-bounces at 200william.com> On Behalf Of Craig Laforest
Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2022 10:42 AM
To: 'Matthew Perkins - Private' <matt at perkins.id.au>; 'Matthew Guy' <matthew_guy at hotmail.com>; ec at 200william.com; 'Darren Vignes' <marquis at bfms.com.au>
Subject: Re: [200William-EC SP67851] FW: DA View Issues - Fee

WARNING. This email was received from an external sender. You should verify the email address before processing the email.

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<mailto:matt at perkins.id.au>>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2022 10:20 AM
To: Craig Laforest <cscl at optusnet.com.au<mailto:cscl at optusnet.com.au>>; 'Matthew Guy' <matthew_guy at hotmail.com<mailto:matthew_guy at hotmail.com>>; ec at 200william.com<mailto:ec at 200william.com>; Darren Vignes <marquis at bfms.com.au<mailto: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<mailto:cscl at optusnet.com.au>>
Sent: Monday, 21 March 2022 12:14 PM
To: 'Natalie @ NRP' <natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au<mailto:natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>>
Cc: ec at 200william.com<mailto: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<mailto:natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>>
Sent: Monday, 21 March 2022 10:52 AM
To: 'Craig Laforest' <cscl at optusnet.com.au<mailto: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.

[cid:image007.jpg at 01D83DDB.B9232510]

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://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonline2.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au%2FDA%2FIndividualApplication%3Ftpklapappl%3D1609096&data=04%7C01%7Cleardley%40stratatitle.com.au%7C8cd0585da6614552782b08da0b947927%7C2579fdbe9584475e914839b6bc70b75d%7C0%7C0%7C637835029574524187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=I07Mxixkt0%2B92XwCy3Qfgr5IWDRglSxlDFQmzeN0GKM%3D&reserved=0>
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<mailto:cscl at optusnet.com.au>>
Sent: Friday, 18 March 2022 4:40 PM
To: info at natalierichterplanning.com.au<mailto: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/<https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2Fgroups%2FPottsPointers%2Fpermalink%2F3939889962903059%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cleardley%40stratatitle.com.au%7C8cd0585da6614552782b08da0b947927%7C2579fdbe9584475e914839b6bc70b75d%7C0%7C0%7C637835029574524187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=PlhMIGuTDoMjKEUfCeSygiddtrCpBSEcps17CLWQ6Vc%3D&reserved=0>

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/20220321/0dd2c325/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8527 bytes
Desc: image002.png
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20220321/0dd2c325/attachment-0005.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10607 bytes
Desc: image003.png
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20220321/0dd2c325/attachment-0006.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 69332 bytes
Desc: image004.png
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20220321/0dd2c325/attachment-0007.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 57686 bytes
Desc: image005.png
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20220321/0dd2c325/attachment-0008.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12615 bytes
Desc: image006.png
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20220321/0dd2c325/attachment-0009.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 61405 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20220321/0dd2c325/attachment-0001.jpg