A NEIGHBOURHOOD debate has erupted after a development application was controversially passed by Council for a new home on land on Browns Road in Kurrajong.
Neighbouring residents of Margot Lock’s property at 67 Browns Road said the building site for the proposed house looked directly into their properties, and will mean there are four houses within five acres of one another, with the homes spaced about 90m to 100m apart.
Most affected by the development would be North Richmond doctor Robert Sheahan, who said Ms Lock’s proposed home would look directly through to his family room, entertaining area and bathroom.
Ms Lock emphasised the fact the borders of homes at 63, 65 and 69 Browns Road were all privacy screened with a thick row of 15m high casuarinas.
“We drew up 10 different of versions of where to build the house and this is what we have come up with,” Ms Lock said. “I don’t understand how at 90m away privacy could be a problem. How would a community exist if every home had to built 90m or 100m apart?” she said.
Neighbours Dr Sheahan and Lisa Taylor suggested Ms Lock’s home would be better built towards the back of her block, which would satisfy all concerned, however a report to Council suggested that Western Sydney Dry Rainforest populations in the area prevented building at that site.
Ms Taylor refuted this, saying she had extensive experience and education in flora and fauna. Ms Taylor believed the report was “lacking” and that other studies carried out by state government bodies identified no such species around the area.
The neighbours also had objections to the driveway access to the property saying it failed to meet the Council’s planning instruments. While the application was passed on February 5, a rescission motion was put to Council last Tuesday by councillors Mary Lyons-Buckett, Leigh Williams and Christine Paine.
“I believe certain aspects like flora and fauna deserve to be looked at again,” Cr Lyons-Buckett said. Cr Rasmussen said the issue of privacy would be seen as an issue in the Land and Environment Court. The rescission motion was however lost.
Votes for the rescission motion: Cr Lyons-Buckett, Cr Calvert, Cr Rasmussen, Cr Williams. Against: Cr Ford, Cr Tree, Cr Conolly, Cr Reardon, Cr Porter, Cr Mackay.