Firstly, how has Stonnington City Council (SCC) allowed a secondary amendment to be accepted for the moving a boundary fence, when one, boundary fences are a civil matter and nothing to do with Planning and secondly, if they were, why then is this not processed via a S72 amendment, when surely moving an entire boundary fence requires not only the permission of the adjoining property and I do not agree, but also as this would be a significant change, and would require public notification and the opportunity for people to submit objections. On the other hand, if SCC have accepted this secondary amendment for the moving of the boundary fence and it was meant for the internal wall arrangement, then the information provided is clearly inaccurate and therefore also misleading and I am asking SCC to decline the application and ask for this to be amended with full details of the amendments required via an S72 application as the changes are not minor, they are significant, such as the floating driveway the owner wants to be built over the exiting non compliant retaining wall to cover all the bends in it, and this would entail raising the driveway levels higher than the endorsed plans, as at present, the RW is quite a lot higher than the approved driveway levels, and that’s not a minor amendment as not only would the levels be again changed, but also levels would be extended flush up against the actual existing boundary fence, and this would include installing either within the current void or on top of the extended driveway, an internal wall front to rear that from my natural ground level at that very boundary would be almost at 4 meters in height, which is my Northern boundary, so there will be no thanks for the significant loss of natural sunlight all in the name of creating a sufficient driveway that pre erecting another retaining wall to cover up underpinning of townhouse one without planning permission was 3 meters and sufficient as per endorsed plans, and yet now with the new RW, the adding of vehicle bollards and not to mention covering up the crooked existing retaining wall with a floating driveway, then if Council approve this, then your sending me a message that as a single home owner, I don’t matter, I am garbage to you, with no consideration to my basic human rights i.e. natural sunlight etc., unlike the three sets of rates at the neighboring property who are treated favorably and a driveway proposal such as this over living alongside a 4 meter wall, my right to sunlight just stolen from me and therefore my health and wellbeing would decline even further would send a clear message to all the other single story home owners, unless of course you’re a somebody.
This will look like a shopping center car park with floating driveways vehicle bollards, a 4 meter wall front to rear and a plethora of concrete retaining walls with little to nothing in green spaces, a concrete jungle, and is not only being built over a storm water easement, it will also push that burden onto my property having an obstruction on the other side of the existing boundary fence some 4 meters in height either preventing or hindering me from repairing or replacing the existing paling boundary fence now and in the future where and boundaries are supposed be sharded not one sided, whilst this will also prevent me from building alongside the boundary in the future when it's been entirely taken up at the boundary when it should have at least a gap of around 500 mm which in its present state, is thereabouts, more would be preferred.
This is being proposed at my Northern boundary and I only have one, that any further loss of natural sunlight will harm my health and wellbeing as already this has contributed to my decline in health, my depression amongst other issues, and it's a basic human right to sunlight and this is not asking of much when it’s a basic human right. It's fine for everyone involved to go home to a warm bed when my homes dynamics have detrimentally changed forever where it remains cold through the continual floodings over the past 7.5 years from this same development and the already reduced loss of natural sunlight that should be warming my home and feeding my plants and trees and or my solar panels, that this will not only be mass bulk, but also visual, and previously when it was suggested to build within the void in Council reports that I have copies off, this was rejected from Council for those very reasons, so based on that alone, to change and flop fop now would be cause for me to take this back to VCAT and is hinging on that now as proposed amendments have not been brought to light through any amendments, rather one amendment that is entirely misleading and as these are significant amendments, they should be processed via an S72 application.
For those who are unaware, You can make a secondary consent amendment if the changes are minor, and these are not. These changes are more significant and require a Section 72 amendment. A Section 72 application follows a similar to a new permit application - this means it may include public notification and the opportunity for people to submit objections. To not process under an s72 is of significance in that secondary consent applications do not require public notification and accordingly third-party appeal rights do not exist and Council is taking this away from us.
