The unsustainable rate of major residential redevelopment in Gardyne street

I have recently received a letter from the Waverley Council about the new development application, DA-283/2019, for 19A Gardyne street. It's a major redevelopment, that includes knocking down the existing building and then putting a place a new, 4 level building. With other major developments barely completed and some still going on, I have concerns about our quality of life in the street if these developments continue unabated. So, I made a submission to the development assessment department, the text of which is included below. The application itself can be seen here:

https://eservices.waverley.nsw.gov.au/Pages/XC.Track/SearchApplication.aspx?id=378036

and, if you want, you can make your own submissions, either by emailing to dasubmissions@waverley.nsw.gov.au, or by visiting the page above, clicking on "Progress" tab and then, at the bottom, there's a link to making a submission via an online form.

The text of the submission:

TO: Waverley Council, Development Assessment department
SUBJECT: A submission regarding development application DA-283/2019
DATE: September 12, 2019

Dear Mr. Reid,

thank you for your letter of September 9th, 2019, informing me of the development application proposal DA-283/2019. I would like to raise a few conditions to be an integral part of any potential approval of this application. My objections also touch on general conditions for approving any future development applications in the vicinity of my dwelling, as they are not specific to just this particular application.

To sum it up in one sentence: the development activities in Gardyne Street, Bronte, need to balance out the quality of life and health of existing residents with the desire of developers to start new major construction projects. So far, this balance seems completely absent or heavily skewed in favour of further development.

We moved into the street 2 years ago. Since then, there hasn’t been a month where the residents were not exposed to a daily mix of:

- excessive and incessant noise. We are talking jackhammers drilling into the sandstone, nail guns, angle grinders, sand blasters, all sorts of motorized hand tools, concrete mixers. Add on that demolition of walls, roofs, cutting trees and tree roots. Loud house parties where the police is called in and shuts them down generate far less noise than this construction work.

- the street is constantly clogged by small and large trucks, tradespeople's vehicles, large trash bins and containers stuffed with construction debris. Add to that barricades around the construction sites and the result is a significant reduction of parking space available in the street.

- we regularly get requests to park elsewhere to make way for supersized machinery, cranes, etc.

- the level of dust in the air is way above what would be normal. The colour and the composition of dust also changes daily, depending on what is being drilled, blasted, mixed, crunched or pulverized on a given day. This dust easily gets into our homes, our bedrooms and living areas, making it look dirty and posing health risks.

- the whole street has unsightly looks, with dirt and construction debris lying around on the street, on lawns, covering trees and gardens.

The conversation with our neighbours who lived here for longer than me reveals that this situation has been ongoing for more than last 2 years.
This situation is not a result of a natural phenomena or catastrophe, where nothing can be done. It’s completely preventable. All that is required is to respect the right of current residents to peaceful and unobstructed enjoyment of their dwellings and to balance this right with the desire for new developments. I understand that nothing can be done with the developments that have already been approved, but hopefully something can be done with any future development requests, like DA-283/2019. Therefore, I propose:

1. That there is a minimum period between successive major developments of three years. A major development is any development lasting more than 3 weeks and employing construction processes and activities that generate noise, dust, dirt, foul smells. That means, a new development cannot start earlier than 3 years after the last development was completed and commissioned.

2. That this restriction is applied within the distance of 150m of all properties that were affected by any development in the last three years. This distance provides some isolation from excessive noise, dust and dirt.

3. That any residential dwelling in the area has no more than 2 major developments within the 150m distance going on at the same time. The total of number of concurrent developments is directly linked with the magnitude of the impact on residents' quality of life and health, and the objective of this condition is to put a limit to the intensity of the activity at any point in time.

For example, if the proposed new development is within a 150m distance from the place where I live, and in the last 3 years there was another development within the same distance from my dwelling, then the new development cannot start until 3 years have passed since the completion of the last development within that distance. Alternatively, draw a circle with a radius of 150m around the proposed new development. Then draw circles with a 150m radius around any developments in the area within the last 3 years. If any of them intersect with the new development circle and there are dwellings in that intersection, then found the residents being affected. The new development cannot start within the 3 years of the latest completion and commission date of any older developments whose circles intersect with the 150m circle of the new proposed development.

If the conditions 1-3 were included in any future development approval considerations, then the resident would be able to enjoy some time in peace before having to put up with all the problems associated with major construction works in a small street.

I think this proposal is reasonable and in the interest of not just current residents, but also future residents, that will move into newly built/reconstructed dwellings. It provides a sustainable model for everyone and strikes a decent compromise between temporarily competing interests. While I admit that the matter is potentially rife with complexities and other people may want to add to this, it’s better to start with some working set of rules and adjust them later on, if needed, as we learn more.

Kind regards,


Milan Durovic

Published with the permission:

Of course we are happy to participate in a public forum.
Mary

On 13 Sep 2019, at 5:38 pm, Milan Durovic <milan960@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mary,

thank you for reaching out.

I wanted to give some kind of very specific proposal, as opposed to just complaining, so I put in very specific numbers like:

- the minimum period of peace between major developments. I have put 3 years, but if it’s deemed as too much, we can put, 2 years or even 1 year. The number should really depend on the average duration these projects take so that residents can enjoy some minimum average period of peace of, say, 50%. So, 1 year of noise followed by 1 year of peace. Some people may think that the percentage should be higher in favour of residents, because it’s one development project vs peace of 10-15 households.

- the distance to which the constraint applies. I have put 150m. Maybe it can be negotiated to more or less. The point is, if the development is happening 2km from where I live, nobody will accept that it’s having a major impact on the quality of my life. But if it’s happening 30m from me, then drilling of sandstone is going to make my windows rattle, as well as my nerves. Between these extremes, there must be some distance where we can all agree that if you live farther than that, you’re not really impacted.

- the number of concurrent developments within the same space/time segment. I have put 2. It’s not irrelevant whether you have noise from one, two or 3 developments, within the narrow area, overlapping in time. The noise levels, the number of vehicles, trucks etc directly depends on that.

So, while my proposal came out with concrete figures, it’s really up the body of residents in the street and the council to come up with a compromise on what the reasonable numbers are. That’s why I initiated this conversation. I don’t think this is “us vs them” situation, because, after all, people who are renovating/rebuilding will eventually move into the street, and it’s going to be in their interest as well to enjoy a peaceful life in their new house.

One last thing I would ask you: do you mind if I put this correspondence on the public forum on this address:

https://gardyne-residents.forumotion.com/f1-construction-developments

I made an initial posting there. I’d like to encourage a public discussion about this topic, so that we can also learn how other residents feel about this issue. If you don’t want that, I’ll respect your wish for this conversation to remain one-on-one.

Regards,
Milan

On 13 Sep 2019, at 1:45 pm, Mary Sinclair <marybernsinclair@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Milan
Thanks for sharing your concerns with us. We agree wholeheartedly with your issues and will be happy to write to the Council expressing our views.
However, we feel that your proposal is not realistic and will not be successful. It will be difficult to stagger building in the street to every three years, which in some ways prolongs the experience. I think as long as Council continues to approve massive overdevelopment of suburban sites, we are stuck with the consequences. In some ways it would be better requesting more regulation of the street traffic, more consideration given with forewarning and signage when streets are blocked even for a few hours (as St Thomas St frequently is) and regulation of tradesmen noise such as blaring radios and restricted hours for use of jackhammers and other relentless tools.
Anyway we will send our concerns to Council and wish you luck with your request.
Best wishes
Mary
_________________________
Mary Sinclair and John Kaldor
34 Gardyne Street, Bronte NSW 2024