DIANA Smith’s letter (January 23, 2016) suggests that we have not addressed public concerns about aspects of the development at 62 Byng Street
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
She then lists a number of aspects which have allegedly not been addressed.
As the applicant for the development we are required to provide to council information to enable council to consider the project.
In this case documentation was lodged with council on September 22. The documents contained the outline of the project. At this point in time these documents became available to the public.
Prior to lodgment, three of the neighbours were shown drawings of the size and concept of the project.
The council’s procedure was followed and a time was allowed for objections to be lodged. After the time for objection had expired, council then provided us with a summary of the objections and asked us to comment.
We did not sight the actual objections and were not provided with the names of the objectors, although we could have obtained the information under FOI legislation.
Further information and expert reports were provided to the council in answer to the queries, including those raised by Ms Smith. These documents are available to the public and were available to the public prior to the meeting on site.
This process has been ongoing with further material being provided to the council this week, including material certifying the height of the site poles which one person has suggested did not show the correct height.
As can be seen from the poles they do not show a building as depicted in the “artist impressions” referred to as being produced for the meeting. Unfortunately the person concerned in their production did not provide them to the meeting and not to us till the meeting had closed. Such activities make it difficult to reply to any queries.
The material suggested by Ms Smith is in the council documents and has been since the meeting. As far as the view in the article is concerned, we provided three images to the Central Western Daily and we are not responsible for which one they published. Those additional images are in the council papers.
As far as the comments about trees are concerned, the plan clearly shows that four trees are to be removed, only one of which is on the boundary (behind 79 Hill Street).
There is an arborist’s report in the council papers concerning this removal and its replacement by the planting of 50 new trees. We have offered to discuss suitable planting of trees with the owners of 79 Hill Street.
Ms Smith raises one issue concerning the need for the development to be as large as it is. This has not been raised with us before and the answer is simple: economics. To provide the high standard of service intended, a certain number of staff and services are required.
The property must operate as a commercial enterprise. If we were to reduce the number of rooms to 20 we would still require the same number of staff. The wages bill will be the largest ongoing expense, particularly as the project will operate seven days per week. It simply would not be viable.
We note that the building occupies 32 per cent of the site, well below the council maximum.
We have followed council procedures to the letter, and to suggest otherwise is not correct, as anyone who cares to take the time can see from the council’s records.
We have provided two interviews to the Central Western Daily in which their questions have been answered by me and have been reported accurately. We will continue to provide information to interested parties who request it.
David Nock, Denoc Holdings Pty Ltd, Springside