Dear Ms Perna
I am writing to you for two reasons, the first is to object to the continued use of the illegally constructed and visually offensive shed at 13 Griffiths St Oak Flats, and to request an extension of the objection period due to reasons set out below.
I called for you and left a message for you to contact me about this matter Thursday 24 April 2025.
My parents Eric and Elaine Brown live at 12 Fisher St Oak Flats, the property immediately to the rear of 13 Griffiths St. They are elderly in their mid 80s and are computer illiterate. They have asked me to contact you about this application.
They advised me of the Notification of Proposed DA 0149/2025 last week as they could not understand what it meant or what they needed to do. My 54 year old significantly disabled brother also lives with them and he also requires assistance to adequately respond to this matter.
As many of my parents neighbours are elderly and/or don't understand what this Notification means or what they have to do I respectfully request an extension of an additional 4 weeks be provided to the public exhibition period so I can discuss this matter with them, their neighbours and other relevant stakeholders so they can make an informed decision.
The fact that I am writing this to you at 4pm on a Sunday, the day before the public exhibition ends, is evidence that the current public exhibition period is deficient in length of time provided for the neighbourhood to respond to the application.
My parents have advised me that all of their neighbours are offended by the look, bulk and scale of this shed, and they are unhappy with the property owners selfish lack of consideration or regard for their neighbours enjoyment of their own home and residential amenity. as this illegal construction took place without any consultation or Council approval.
I note the public exhibition period for this Notification commenced on the last day of school for NSW and finished on the first day of the next school term, and in this period there have also been 3 public holidays. One of my parents Fisher St neighbours have been on holidays during the public exhibition period and others may have been as well. It would be unfair to them to not be able to examine this matter fully and comment due to the unfortunate timing of the public exhibition period.
With regard to the application there are several points I would like to make to support my objection, my parents objection and my brothers likely objection:
1. The structure was illegally constructed
2. A 126m2 4.85m high industrial shed does not comply with the Shellharbour LEP and DCP residential controls
3. It exceeds floorspace, height, bulk and scale, controls
4. It is incongruous with the existing residential neighbourhood in colour and bulk and scale
5. It is industrial in look and my parents are often complaining of industrial type activities and sounds coming from the shed at all times of the day, evening and weekends
It has negatively impacted their mental health as they have lost the views to the escarpment they previously had and they have been advised by a local real estate agent it could have reduce the sale value of their property by up to $200,000.00
6. As their yard is north facing it causes significant shadowing issues over the entirety of the rear of their back yard - the shed runs almost full length of the rear boundary
7. As there is a natural watercourse at the rear of my parents property and a 4m deep easement to drain water of the rear of 13 Griffiths St, which has been built over with a concrete slab, stormwater pools at the rear of my parents home during heavy rain as there is nowhere for it to flow and no deep soil area on the lower property for it to absorb into the ground
With regard to the SOE prepared by ApproveAll Town Planning to support the applicants DA there are many erroneous conclusions. Examples are:
1. ApproveAlls SOE survey details the shed as being 126m2 in area, however, their report claims that it is within the 45m2 outbuilding maximum FSR on page 16 of their report - see below
ApprovaAll survey page 5 detailing GFA approx 126m2
image.png
ApproveAll incorrect argument for the shed complying with FSR page 16:
image.png
2. ApproveAlls Conclusion on page 17, and other various comments claiming the shed complies with Councils LEP/DCP claims that the shed complied with relevant controls. This is erroneous and false:
1. It is over the height limit of 4.8m
2. It exceeds the maximum 45m2 area control by approx 280%. The shed is also 50% larger than the primary dwelling at 9 Griffiths St - see image below
3. It causes stormwater and overland flow issues on my parents property as it is built over a 4m deep stormwater easement
4. It is visually obtrusive and does not blend into the built environment
5. It causes significant shadowing issues especially in winter
6. It is industrial in look, bulk and scale and industrial noises emanate from activities conducted inside it
7. It has caused my elderly parents and my disabled brother significant mental distress
8. It has deprived my parents of views to the escarpment and Lake Illawarra water glimpses
9. It is incongruous with the residential amenity of a residentially zoned area
10. It has caused economic loss to my parents due to the reduction in potential sales value due to loss of views, residential amenity, the physical effects if causes to my parents property, and how obscene it looks from their rear yard - see the image below.
11. This page 17 statement supporting the application is incorrect: 'The design of the shed harmonizes (sic) with the neighbourhood's architectural context and does not impose a significant visual impact...'
12. This page 18 statement supporting the application is false: 'Additionally, the shed's design compliments the residential environment, maintaining the visual and functional integrity of the locality.' It is larger than many neighbouring primary dwellings, and is of a color, material, and bulk and scale that does not exist in the neighbourhood.
9 Griffiths St primary dwelling:
image.png
11 Griffiths St primary dwelling
image.png
My parents home at 12 Fisher St:
image.png
I would like to reiterate my objection to this application and my request for an extension of the public examination period due to the school holidays, three public holidays and the fact that many neighbours do not understand what the notification means and how to respond to it. I also need to gain advice from a Planner regarding ApproveAlls SOE and how to adequately respond to their claims that the structure is compliant - which it is not.
This is the view from my parents rear deck - it was once a direct line of site to the escarpment and parts of the lake. The camera is approx 8ft above ground and he yellow fence is 6 foot high:
image.png
Please contact me by return email or by phone if you have any questions.
Kind regards
Arn Brown
