[200WILLIAM-EC SP67851] Envelope DA - Bayswater Car Rental - Suggestions
Matthew Perkins - Private
matt at perkins.id.au
Thu Apr 6 12:45:10 AEST 2023
Im not sure Craig Let me talk to Sarah and see if i can work it out. I
cant see why i cant just do a paper committee meeting. But im in
uncharted territory here so just want to be sure I dont get something
wrong making it impossible for Natalie to be paid.
On the flowers Craig do you have a written quote from them that I can
put as part of the motion if not could you just note down for me the
amount and the company name as well as just a brief description of what
they will provide.
Kind regards
Matt
On 6/4/2023 12:36 pm, cscl at optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> I have viewed some of the new DA points and have already found certain
> parts of it not acceptable. I agree with you Matt P to have a paper
> meeting put together asap (and will include the flower situation).
> Natalie is extremely busy but able to take care of our problem. Can we
> set that up please Matt P – would you be able to send out the notice
> via Sarah asap?
>
> Thanks.
>
> *From:*ec <ec-bounces at mailman.perkins.id.au> *On Behalf Of *Matthew
> Perkins - Private
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:48 AM
> *To:* ec at mailman.perkins.id.au
> *Subject:* Re: [200WILLIAM-EC SP67851] Envelope DA - Bayswater Car
> Rental - Suggestions
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Im happy for you to continue with Natalie, as I have said before for
> the people that it effects there is a major impact to their property
> values and I think people would expect us to do what whatever we can.
> Im not sure how we could organize a meeting as the current strata is
> in flux between Ascend and STM. Ascend are having serious issues
> trying to get the strata moved across. (Perhaps Sarah can give us an
> update) and work how how we would sort our a meeting. I suggest given
> the time frame a paper meeting would be all that is required. (lets
> also make sue the flowers are an included motion) so that they can
> progress as well.
>
> Matt
>
> On 6/4/2023 11:23 am, cscl at optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> Good morning,
>
> Please read the emails below.
>
> I’ve been in touch with Natalie Richter re the 2^nd DA for the
> development between Forbes/Dowling Streets. I’m happy to go ahead
> (as her work was so detailed the last time) and give my approval.
> However, we need a General meeting I believe, for a majority
> approval for her work to go ahead.
>
> Can we organize this asap. Thanks.
>
> Craig
>
> Natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au wrote
>
>
> Thanks Craig,
>
> The last submission was maximum $4,158.00 including GST (which was
> based on 14 hours work).
>
> I would estimate the work to get across the documents, amend the
> submission would take around the same time. I may be able to
> organise an abridged type version. To go through the documents
> will take around 5 hours. I can use the previous submission and
> the Council ‘issues letter’ as a base for a response to the
> revisions.
>
> So, if it took less time I could charge accordingly at the
> original hourly rate which was on the terms document sent to
> Leanne at Strata last year. The objective being to minimise costs
> for Strata whilst also accommodating the time for this reviewed
> submission. Let me know how that sounds.
>
> As before, I charge 50% to start and 50% at the completion.
>
> We have until May however I will need a bit of lead time.
>
> Thank you and regards.
>
> Natalie
>
> *From:*cscl at optusnet.com.au <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 6, 2023 5:37 AM
> *To:* Natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au
> *Subject:* RE: Planning Submission for SP 20087- D/2022/139 -
> 164-172, 174-194 William Street WOOLLOOMOOLOO NSW 2011 - 'Stage 1
> concept/envelope proposal'
>
> Thank you Natalie. In my email to the others in our committee I
> would like to state an amount we can expect to be charged by you
> for all the work. Would you please let me know how much that would
> be and I will ask them what their wishes are. Again, thank you for
> the details you’ve sent us after the 2^nd DA was submitted by the
> developer.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig
>
> *From:*Natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au
> <Natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>
> <mailto:Natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 5, 2023 4:08 PM
> *To:* cscl at optusnet.com.au
> *Subject:* Envelope DA - Bayswater Car Rental - Suggestions
>
> Hi Craig hope you are well.
>
> I spoke to Reinah.
>
> I mentioned the following:
>
> 1. I mentioned that your building does not appear to be included
> in the view study (and that was requested). She agreed they
> had expressly asked. She said she would look at that.
>
> 2. I asked if we can be granted an official 2 additional weeks
> (on top of the 28 days) to account for getting across the
> information and to allow people’s current leave times and
> public holidays.
>
> I have emailed her about it. She will speak to management and
> respond. She asked if it was for everyone. I said she is likely to
> have others ask so may be a good idea. She may even do an extended
> notification period due to the contentious nature. I will let you
> know the outcome.
>
> 3. I asked if she was able to indicate how if at all the revised
> envelope aligned with Council’s workshopping with the applicant.
>
> She said, they had not given definitive advice however in a
> general sense they had indicated to the applicant that the design
> should have regard for the _context_ and be driven by a _view
> study_ to look at the sharing of views.
>
> 4. I indicated the view study was again not ideal. I mentioned
> the colour coding (showing coloured blocks). She had said that
> was a suggestion of the Council staff.. (showing the DCP
> envelope, LEP height and storeys height). I said the green
> line of the envelope appears to demonstrate that the icons
> within Harbour and city views would be taken out. As far as
> properties actually addressed in the study who are also
> impacted - the green proposed envelope does not appear to seek
> to /share/ many of those icons.
>
> My view currently is that the view study does not address Tenacity
> objectives nor back up why the Council should be considering a
> variation to a strategic envelope.
>
> Possible suggestions for responding:
>
> 1. It is very important that you and other interested residents
> read the revision if they can and make their own personal
> submissions – if they are comfortable to do so. If it is
> helpful, I can assist them. Can just be dot points/or whatever
> detail people want to put in.
>
> 2. I was thinking a good way to ‘frame’ responses could be around
> the original issues letter raised by the Council (the RFI
> issues/assessment letter that I obtained via GIPA). I could
> prepare a dot point summary of that for use as a framework of
> sorts for resident submissions.
>
> Or, I Could also prepare an abridged submission referring to the
> new version of the envelope re the issues letter provided by
> Council (as well as highlighting some previous issues). An idea.
>
> 3. We could make another detailed group/strata response. I would
> be utilising/changing my original work as a base and following
> the Council RFI matters as well (as above). There would be
> focus on the bulk and scale/context issue and the
> view/solar/light impacts.
>
> I have already found a few reasons to object to the revised view
> assessment. I would think that the budget for my submission would
> be similar to before as I would need to review all the new
> documents and assess them (I budgeted for around 14 hours last
> submission I think in terms of the time allocation).
>
> I do understand if this is not an exercise or expense that is
> wanted to pursue again. Entirely up to you and the Strata as we
> have said our piece initially. Just depends how detailed you want it.
>
> We should certainly be saying that the documents do not address
> the Council letter requesting that your building views be addressed.
>
> 4. I have spent a bit of time chasing and liaising with owners re
> this submission. Probably only 1 hour.
>
> Please let me know how you wish to proceed on this? Please feel
> free to call if you have any questions or prefer to discuss.
>
> I would need to get moving on the research quite soon. I will be
> having a bit of down time late next week and the following week so
> would be wanting to use time at the beginning of this coming week
> for this.
>
> Thank you, 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.
>
>
>
> --
> ** DO NOT SEND PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL VIA EMAIL
> Matt Perkins
> 0403571333
--
** DO NOT SEND PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL VIA EMAIL
Matt Perkins
0403571333
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.perkins.id.au/pipermail/ec/attachments/20230406/3cd10573/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the ec
mailing list