A TEN storey apartment block at Forster’s Head St is set to go ahead after a court hearing breathed life into rejected plans.
The project was reviewed by the Land and Environment Court, and court-appointed expert Stewart Verity deemed the building suitable for its 43 Head St site.
“It is my considered opinion that the proposed development should be approved by the Court,” Mr Verity said in his statement. Facing huge legal fees to contest the findings, Great Lakes Council submitted 119 conditions for developer Aleksander Group to meet before its application is granted.
They range from the building’s disabled access, to the amount of light reflected off windows, to the number of toilets at the construction site.
“At the moment we’re saying “here’s what we want”, and if [Aleksander] comes back with a strong argument we could accept changes to some conditions,” development assessment manager Wayne Burgess said. Aleksander Group did not return the Advocate’s calls, but Mr Burgess said imposing over 100 conditions was “quite normal for a building or development of this nature”.
The building was rejected by the council in April.
Council staff approved the plans, but councillors sided with a faction of locals wary of the building’s impact.
Dale Rolfe lives in the neighbouring Pinnacle building, and said the council’s backflip is understandable but sets a dangerous precedent.
“I’m disappointed the council didn’t back up their original decision in the Land and Environment Court,” he said.
“It’s obviously a lack of finances, and because they can’t afford to fight for these causes [Forster] could become open slather for developers.”
The main source of anger is the size of the proposed block. Under normal standards a 10 storey building would need a 1500 square metre site; 43 Head St is only 1,094 sq m.
Mr Rolfe said the new building’s proximity to his own will impact on his life, and was especially worried about a pool and entertainment deck on the roof.
“My main concern is the building will be only 3.8 metres from our boundary fence. You’ll have balconies 10 stories high that will face each other just 15m apart. It’s a real lack of privacy,” he said.
“It’s the first time in the area we’ve seen a pool and games room on a roof, and there will be huge noise issues. Why have these [building] standards if they’re going to be broken time after time, not by five per cent, but 40 per cent? In 20 years we’ll wonder why we have people living on top of each other.”
Height controls normally limit buildings on blocks this small to five storeys.
The rules governing buildings’ height and density have actually tightened since Aleksander took its case to the court in May.
“This application became quite complex because it was lodged before the new [stricter] Development Control Plan (DCP) came in. We considered both the new and old DCP when formulating the conditions,” Mr Burgess said.
“We took into account the existing streetscape.
“There are already tall buildings on either side of the block, so if we said “you can only have a five storey building there” it would make the street look pretty uneven.”
Aleksander will have to donate $112,000 to local coffers.
The contribution is a legal requirement to offset the impact of developments.