Comments supporting objection to 200603484:

In the 1st instance, I lament somewhat that am no diplomat - sorry, but as a citizen of a democracy I don't think that I really need to be one (and besides, some/most/all diplomats *lie*; I do not stoop to that or any sort of baseness) - I just wish to pursue our rights as house-owners and occupiers. So I'm not here to grovel or sugar-coat, but to seek equality and justice. Although this is hardly the place to address the ugly McMansion philosophy - ACTPLA is approving them seemingly willy-nilly - there remains the fundamental concept of limited resources that we must all share. The resources here under discussion are access to views, sunlight and the sky. (Any effect on house-price values - as distinct from personal ones - will not be addressed herein.)

Please note: we sought out this (once?!) idyllic spot, specifically to be near to - and to view - the Big Monks mountain/skyline; the house was partly designed around this view, and to extend this amenity, we even added an extra window/sky-light on-the-fly during construction. We have lots of documentary mementos - i.e. photos, etc - available as evidence of this looong and intense interest, which I distinctly recall acquainting our neighbours with important aspects thereof. Our neighbours mentioned that they were on the verge of a 20-year project; our relationship to the Big Monks skyline has already been running for 20 years or so now - scouted '87/8, flew off it 1st in '89, negotiated purchase '92/3, built from mid-'95, and we would prefer our access to the skyline to endure for at least the next 20 years also, i.e. not to be wilfully and/or summarily removed as threatened by this proposal.

1. P3.1 "The privacy of dwellings and private outdoor spaces to be protected." Whilst building our own home, we came under the most intense scrutiny by PALM (now ACTPLA), prompted by what we regard were both unfair and unjustified complaints from the then-owners of #56 - even though our architect-prepared plans were approved as conforming to all applicable performance measures. Now what is proposed by #56 is an immense sight-obscuring structure to confront almost our entire house (East) and a full-length, full-visibility observation-platform balcony oriented towards our private open spaces (South) - with what we believe to be a Performance Criteria non-conforming design. Why that? Need I draw attention to the good old Aussie 'fair go?'

The design appears to be everywhere unnecessarily high; 2.7m UF ceilings, and a 3.59m ceiling to the dojo; 726mm floor-framing (ours is appr. 300mm) - plus the outsize 900mm West-facing, upwards-tilted eaves. Each of these over-sized items combines to exaggerate the impact on our sight-lines. The neighbours say they did react to my previously expressed concerns by dropping the roof-pitch from 10° to 5°, this reduces the impact from a potential 16° to 14° as seen from our office - but would still leave Big Monks obscured. The reduction on impact of the overhanging eaves of the dojo from a potential 26° to 23° is so minimal that it can only be described as 'risible' - since the 23° still totally blocks out our view not only of Big Monks but also most of the Eastern sky. One supposes that the planned impact could hardly have been greater, had they tried.

2. P3.5 "... to ensure no significant loss of amenity." The most serious aspect of the proposed re-development is the enormous Western aspect of the triple garage with dojo over. At 9.163m long, 7.399m high and with 5° elevated 900mm overhanging eaves it would form a 42° wide, 23° high sight-blocking blob - and all that on a 10.5m sight-line from our kitchen. This planned wall has the potential to a) obscure our sky in a quite major way - half of our kitchen window will view *almost nothing but this wall* (on the window, as little as appr. 2cm sky might remain visible), and b) including the proposed house-UF, our view to the Big Monks mountain/skyline will be completely obliterated, from the bath (specifically elevated to optimise the view to the skyline) and office, as well as from the kitchen. In addition, the blob will form a major sunlight excluder. The subsequent loss of amenity caused by building this blot on our landscape would be, to us, not just a permanent irritation but a deliberately neighbour-inflicted disaster.

In friendly discussions, our neighbours have not shown much if any willingness to minimise the impacts of the submitted plans, further than allowing that they could possibly reduce the eaves somewhat, and reduce the dojo ceiling height by 300mm - which are not significant improvements at all. Then, on the technical aspect: we had the existing garage on #56 surveyed (Nov'96, i.e. under a previous ownership), one result is that the NGL was measured at the foot of the 4.81m West-facing wall and reported to be 642.1 metres AHD. Based on this datum, we estimate that the non-conformities to the Performance Measure D1.2 Building Envelope of the planned new UF ceiling-heights (note: not the actual walls; we have not been given the data) at 0.9m (West-front) and 0.6m (East-rear), although the non-conformities must be somewhat greater than that. Apparently hardly trivial non-conformities, why that? But far more impressive is the non-conformity to Performance Measure D3.1 B, Minimum setbacks, East-rear UF on the plans; 3m instead of the prescribed 6/9m. That one appears to be an utterly gross non-conformity, again why that?

It would seem that other factors were given planning priority when compared to minimising the impact on us at #54. One could say 'fair enough' perhaps (IMHO the result is multiply *not*), and both sides of the fence are going to have to live (20+ years long?) with whatever consequences that may arise if these plans are allowed to proceed.

"Proposals, which do not meet the performance measures, may still be considered in terms of whether they meet the relevant objectives and criteria."

We consider that the proposal is in *serious* non-conformity of the "the relevant objectives and criteria," as detailed above. We wonder why ACTPLA has allowed/is allowing the proposal to proceed at all.

Thus we object to and seek relief from this proposal.

PS

1. Lose/lose.

The way it went, we at #54 were left with no good options; we could a) accept #56's proposal and so meekly cop the concomitant *horrendous* loss of amenity, or b) we could raise an objection and risk alienating #56. As my 'negotiating partner,' I believe Mr.#56 is an honourable man and wish him no ill.

IMHO, a win/win might have been possible, had #56 so wished.

2. Q: #56 at fault?

A: IMHO, they placed insufficient weight on #54's concerns. Apart from their own wishes (however reasonable), and noting the regulations, perhaps one could only say: they didn't think.

3. Q: ACTPLA at fault?

A: They are 'just' following orders?

If 'the orders' allow the imposition of McMansions (they obviously do), if those orders allow the drastic loss of a collateral's amenity (as they also obviously do) - then it's the rules that are crook.

"Town planning?" What a farce; and the ACTPLA workers - faced with such situations, probably have to 'cop-out' even if only to save themselves.

In truth, it's a failure of *leadership*.

4. Q: Is #54 at fault?

A: How? We did *bloody nothin'* mate! Even kept our heads (and shutters) down. But now we are threatened with - likely to get - an interminable future of vital amenity-loss and a state of extremely frustrated irritation - significantly reduced sun (*¼* East going), drastically reduced sky (*½* East going) and totally obliterated mountain/skyline views (*all* East going) - and simply no justice.

What was that about the good old Aussie 'fair go?'