Double Bay Residents’ Association Inc
P.O. Box 1684, Double Bay NSW 1360
Tel: 0413 888 685 Email: [email protected]

The General Manager,
Woollahra Municipal Council,
PO Box 61,
Double Bay NSW 1360
4 October 2017

Dear Sir,

DA 212/2017 3, Knox Street, Double Bay

We refer to our letter to you of 19 June 2017. Subject to what is said below on the height issue we maintain all of our objections as stated in that letter.

We refer to the re-exhibition of some amended drawings for the above application. In the absence of any amended Statement of Environmental Effects or explanatory architect’s letter on the DA tracking website, we have had to make the best judgment we can based purely on the fresh drawings available on the website. If an Amended Statement of Environmental Effects or like document has been filed we would appreciate it if we could be sent a copy and given a chance to comment.

As we understand it the principal change from a building envelope point of view is to replace the roof deck structure shown on plans DA 1.15.00 with something lower as shown on DA 1.15.03 as “Roof over stairwell”. There is some mystery over this because there is also shown on the website another recent roof plan DA 1.15.01 which retains the roof deck to which we objected.

On the assumption that it is roof plan DA 1.15.03 for which consent is sought read together with new elevations DA 2.06.02 and DA 2.07.02 (and that new plan DA 1.15.01 can be ignored) we would concede that there would now appear to be exact compliance with the LEP height maximum of 14.7m. In this respect we are concerned that the new plan drawing of the third upper floor below (DA 1.13.02) appears to show the staircase continuing up to the roof level and the new proposed north elevation shows what may be a balustrade to the right of the roof over stairwell structure. If it is intended to have the roof level accessible and occupiable as a viewing deck then all the privacy type impacts referred to at the foot of page one/ top of page two of our 19th June objection will remain.  To ensure this is not the case Council should condition any consent so as to preclude the roof area being used for anything other than servicing the air-conditioning units and solar panels, and requiring that the roof shall be clad in non-trafficable materials save for any steel tracks that may be necessary to provide servicing access to the aforesaid solar panels and air-conditioning units.

As stated our other grounds of objection remain and we repeat the request for notification in the last paragraph of our 19th June letter.


Yours faithfully,

Malcolm Young, Vice President.