Most of my neighbours are nice..

To whom it may concern,
I wish to address the concerns raised by my neighbours regarding the proposed first floor addition to my home.
The concern raised by R of W street is justified and I agree with her that our proposed balcony would give views into her backyard. As such, the balcony will be fully screened with a 1700mm high picket style fence. The pickets will be closely set together and all views from the balcony will be obscured.
In my opinion, the objections raised by the two other parties, Mr and Mrs G and Mr E, are totally unfounded and without merit.
While the majority of houses in Mc Street are single storey the street is surrounded by double storey buildings and apartment blocks. The first building in the street, although officially a V Street address, is much higher than our proposed first floor addition. There are also several apartment blocks and town houses in B Street which are clearly visible from Mc street and are also higher than our proposed first floor.While I concede that the first floor additions to number 5 and number 12 Mc street are lower than our proposed addition, I disagree that they are "barely visible" and in fact, are clearly visible.
I find it amusing that the objections that the proposed first floor addition is "not in keeping with the Neighbourhood Character" is then followed by an objection to our attempt to recreate a Victorian style which "mimics" the adjacent properties. Our intention is for the extension to look as original as possible in order to maintain the neighbourhood character of the Victorian houses that dominate the area.
The G's claim that our first floor addition will be a "permanent obstruction to the skyline while standing in Mc street". While this is true, I would like to point out that the only skyline feature visible from Mc street are the L Street high rise housing estate buildings. Richmond is an inner city suburb with high density living - an uninterrupted view of the horizon is not possible.

Our proposed first floor is situated as close to the front of the house as possible in order to maximise our living space. The "design benefit" we gain from having a gabled roof is to allow for vaulted ceilings on the first floor which create a larger area that can be utilised by my family. Space and living area was one of our priorities in the design of the extension. Our foremost priority was to create a Victorian looking extension that will blend seamlessly with the existing house, not appear to have been "stuck on" as the extension at number 12 does.

My original brief to our architect was to create an "attic style" upper floor, with vaulted ceilings that were as low as possible in order to minimise the height of the first floor. Although his design does not reflect the attic style I would have preferred, I believe that this is due to minimum ceiling heights stipulated by building codes. If this is incorrect and the roof line can be lowered I would be more than happy to rework the plans accordingly. We have chosen to retain the 3m high ceilings in the front two rooms of the original house as we wish to retain as much of the original character of the house as possible.

In regards to the upper storey link between the house and the existing bungalow I would like to explain our reason for requesting this feature: We are currently (temporarily) living in Canberra and have been for almost two years. During this time the planning application for 12 Mc street was processed. Due to a glitch in the mail redirection I did not receive notification of the proposed upper floor extension. If I had known about the plans I would have lodged an objection and asked that the upper floor on number 12 be set more forward as it blocks the morning sun to my backyard. As the permit had already been issued by the time I became aware of the plans I was unable to have any say on the building. Since our backyard is now significantly darker it will be very difficult to re-establish my garden when we return to Mc street next year. The first floor balcony and the walk way are our attempt to increase the amount of outdoor area that receive sunlight and will be capable of supporting plant growth. My intention is to have the walkway and the balcony lined with planter boxes so that I may continue to indulge my passion for gardening in spite of my darkened back yard.

Mr E's opinion that the extension should be built in "a more contemporary modern design" and that the the design should "be handled more respectfully and cleverly" is nothing more than opinion. When we were looking for an architect to design our extension and oversee the construction we approached Mr E for a quote. We subsequently decided not to engage Mr E as we found his fees to be inflated well above the other three quotes we obtained and we do not like his style of designs.
As I have stated, we do not want a modern looking first floor, we want the addition to look as authentically Victorian as possible. The differences between our and Mr E's aesthetic appreciation is personal opinion and has no place in a town planning objection.

I purchased the house at 14 Mc Street in 1993 and it has been my home since then. As soon as the renovation/extension are complete my family and I will be returning to the house and intend to live there permanently. I have always enjoyed the community atmosphere of Mc street and have established firm friendships with my neighbours. I am determined to maintain my good relationship with my neighbours and will do my utmost to accommodate any reasonable objections to the proposed extension.
It saddens me that Mr and Mrs G and Mr E, relative new comers to Mc Street, are willing to jeopardise the existing good will by criticising our choice of style rather than making constructive comments.
I look forward to hearing the council's decision on the planning application.
Larissa