2 Connemarra Street, Bexley NSW 2207

There are three reasons that this proposal should be rejected/significantly amended. Reason 1: Streetscape Aesthetic. The front design of this proposal must rank as one of the most discordant in relation to street appeal ever witnessed. The houses situated along Connemarra St at either end of Number 2 are all Federation/ Edwardian residences. The proposed design concept is, as is prevalent with many recent constructions, a combined pastiche of elements which are boxy, angular, asymmetrical and curved within the one facade. The quote, ‘ The proposal provides for a building that is of a high architectural standard and that would enhance the existing locality by virtue of its details and design features ‘ (p7), is vehemently disagreed with in that it does little to respect nor accomodate its positioning close to a Heritage Conservation Area and amongst a street environment which is home to many beautiful historical houses. Reason 2: Duplex Concept. This proposal is concerning for anyone residing to the rear of the structures. We have two double storey domiciles. The resident at rear already has three villa home neighbours at the same side as the proposed development. If approved, five neighbours in total will share boundary with the rear resident, ensuring unabated noise, additionally amplified by the dual swimming pools proposed. Reason 3: Two storey aspect. Any two storey development has significant implications for neighbours. In this instance, all three neighbouring residences will be impacted. The quote, ‘ The design…. will not adversely result in substantial or relevant loss of solar access or privacy’ (p7), is the architect/developer’s viewpoint and certainly terms like ‘significant…relevant’ in regard to solar and privacy issues will certainly require clarification and specificity for those who will border this proposal. In addition, little to nothing is said regarding the double storey visual intrusion at the duplex rear toward the rear neighbour. Explicit detail and clarification are absent here. Explanation and specificity are required, and should include proposals for significant fence heightening at the rear. Reasons 2 and 3 clearly underscore the importance to well being of the intertwined aspects of noise abatement and privacy.