Building works dig into neighbors property
What would you do if the builder from next door, gave you a bunch of technical drawings and asked you to sign approval for underpinning works to be done under YOUR driveway and well within in your property boundary?
That’s what happened here in Curlew court last week. Neighbor to the development said “I was told that the drawings they sent to me indicated that they will be inserting several concrete ‘pilings’ underneath the driveway on my side of the property. “
He was given 14 days to sign and accept the document, or give a valid technical? reason why he would not allow it.
The developer was asked to explain the drawings as they were not clear, and not something a normal lay person would be familiar with.
We have also asked the council if they are aware of it, and who can help them understand both the impact of the request, and the legal requirement to allow or otherwise.
The cause of this situation is the appartment block being built, is so close to the boundary, that the adjoining property cannot be protected from within the building site. And there is a two level underground car park to build.
2 Comments
Council had asserted, in submitting to the C96 panel, they were experiencing developers using the controls to maximise development potential of land, often at the cost of design and amenity impacts, in particular side boundary setbacks and accompanying landscaping.
Council had resolved to amend the design and siting provisions in DDO8 to increase side boundary setbacks to allow additional landscaping around buildings. However they are still not specified in the revised schedule and it appears they are to remain discretionary.
Rodney
Clearly side setbacks are just as important as the number of storeys in regard to the limiting of bulk and over development. I would much prefer that standard setbacks be made mandatory, i.e. allowing for a 1.5 metre balcony encroachment, buildings should be setback 6 metres from a front boundary and 4 metres from the rear and sides (if a 9m wall height), rather than a maximum land coverage. If the above setbacks were applied to consolidated sites such as Queens Avenue and Curlew Court (which is roughly 1600sqm, approximately 40m x 40m), a maximum site coverage of 60% could still be achieved.
New guidelines will now limit sites of this size (less than 1800sqm) in sub-precinct A, to “two storey townhouse style development” but curiously council are yet to provide any detail on the density levels envisaged.
Resident of Queens