Second Report · 131999.982632.1

NB

There are a number of issues regarding neighbours' privacy:

While the proposed terrace is on the western end of the
development, Duplex 2 is setback some 6 metres and Duplex 1
some 7 metres from the shared boundary and the roof terrace
balustrade a futher 1 metre. A building legally sited closer to the
boundary ~ for example in a unit or single dwelling development -—
would present a substantially greater problem.

Arguably, most rooftop terraces will result in some invasion of
privacy.

Additionally, any platform elevated above ground level on this
site will provide views into neighbouring backyards - the view
from the master bedrooms and balconies could be considered more
invasive than the rooftop due to a lower angle of sight. For this
reason, screening has been proposed.

The Master Bedroom spaces could have been designed for active
use e.g. Living Room - gaining limited coastal views - which would
aggravate any privacy concerns. Instead the active areas have
been intentionally contained on the ground floor - where the
majority of occupants would naturally congregate.

The view into the north-west properties from adjacent units to
either side of this proposed development, particularly to the
south-west, is not evaluated in the report.

Arguably, the loss of privacy caused by Naoussa's units
and balconies has greater impact - there are many more
units and occupants; the occupants are short term and
therefore more likely to use the unit balconies than the long
term residents of a duplex.

Use of rooftop terraces, particularly in along term
residential situation, is notoriously infrequent (however,
considered vital to this proposal).

Additionally, the design of the rear units does not attend to
screening of ablution areas which presents a modesty
consideration for all parties. The solution is not the responsibilty
of this proposal.

It is not clear what is intended by ‘amenity terms' in the last sentence
conjoined to the reference to ‘likely height of the building’.

It bears mentioning that the owners of 11 Mitti Street did not oppose the

development proposal - now translated into built form - for the property
to the rear, although their view was to be, and is, severely restricted.

11 MITTI STREET / M & J WILSCHE