[200WILLIAM-EC SP67851] Envelope DA - Bayswater Car Rental - Suggestions

Tue Apr 11 19:32:30 AEST 2023

Hi all,

I vote yes, Natalie to go ahead.

Matt

On 11 Apr 2023, at 6:39 pm, cscl at optusnet.com.au wrote:

Hello committee members,
I have heard from Natalie Richter again today, just following up on her email of April 05, below. The revised DA has been submitted and you all have a copy of it. The final ‘complaints’ must be submitted by April 29 so I ask again for Matt G and Paul to respond and please consider the work she provided last time and to support this present time situation. We only get one chance at this. This week is best for Natalie to work on our submission.

Matt G and Paul, I need your “yes” or “no”. Matt P – please reconfirm your vote. Thanks.

Please let me know by tomorrow. Thank you.
Craig

From: cscl at optusnet.com.au <cscl at optusnet.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 12:36 PM
To: 'Matthew Perkins - Private' <matt at perkins.id.au>; 'ec at mailman.perkins.id.au' <ec at mailman.perkins.id.au>
Subject: RE: [200WILLIAM-EC SP67851] Envelope DA - Bayswater Car Rental - Suggestions

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:cscl at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Good morning,
Please read the emails below.

I’ve been in touch with Natalie Richter re the 2nd 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<mailto: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<mailto:cscl at optusnet.com.au> <cscl at optusnet.com.au<mailto:cscl at optusnet.com.au>>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 5:37 AM
To: Natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au<mailto: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 2nd DA was submitted by the developer.
Cheers,
Craig

From: Natalie at natalierichterplanning.com.au<mailto: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<mailto: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.

  1.  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.

  1.  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.

  1.  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.

  1.  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.

  1.  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.

  1.  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

--
ec mailing list
ec at mailman.perkins.id.au
http://mailman.perkins.id.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ec
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.perkins.id.au/pipermail/ec/attachments/20230411/7a0c899b/attachment-0001.htm>