Radio 6PR host Liam Bartlett is opposed to group homes opposite his house having clear glass on their balconies because he doesn’t want to look at their washing.
Owners of five terrace homes being built in Nedlands want a condition to have frosted glass on their balcony balustrades — to stop people looking into their houses — removed. The side of Bartlett’s house is opposite the houses, which are being built.
Mr Bartlett — who lives opposite the homes — has objected to the move saying he didn’t want to see the residents’ “bikes” or “washing” on the balconies.
Mr Bartlett told the council when the development was approved last year, they had negotiated the preservation of an “important tree” and the frosted glass.
“We were more than happy to see height to see density. To have four separate apartments opposite our house. To lose parking. To see more bins and less amenities,” he said.
Mr Bartlett said his house was elevated behind his wall and had four windows that looked out onto the property.
“I don’t know about you, but I’m not fond of looking out onto people’s balconies and their bikes and their washing or whatever else they want to stick up on their balcony or what they’re doing behind their balconies,” he said.
“That’s the reason we had this compromised position.”
Bartlett said the staff recommendation to allow clear glass was “beyond the pale”.
“I can’t understand why we paid rates for 29 years at that property. The first I hear about this is an email saying administration has recommended it,” he said.
The City of Nedlands approved the construction of five grouped homes, with one on the corner of a Nedlands street and the other four on the adjoining avenue, in May 2021.
Each was sold for $690,000 last year and are all currently under construction.
City staff have recommended the condition to use “either opaque material or frosted glass” be removed.
They said the “cone of vision” for the home on the corner block was confined to the street and it did not overlook any other residential property behind the street setback area.
“Passive surveillance from the balcony on to (the streetscape) is a positive outcome, as it is generally a good planning principle to promote safety through providing opportunities for ‘eyes on the street’,” staff said.
Staff said the application for the other four homes “satisfies all the relevant deemed-to-comply provisions” for visual privacy and reiterated “street surveillance is seen as a positive outcome.”
One of the homeowners, Geoffrey Nathan, spoke on behalf of himself and the owners of three other homes being built.
Mr Nathan said the condition for frosted glass was placed after they had bought their homes individually and all the sales material showed clear glass.
“The builders weren’t aware that this motion (to impose frosted glass) was coming through,” he said.
Mr Nathan said it was a “matter of aesthetics” but frosted glass would cut off their natural light and view of the street.
Staff estimated it would cost the city between $30,000 to $50,000 if the council refused to remove the condition and an owner took the matter to the State Administrative Tribunal.
The council is scheduled to vote on whether or not to remove the condition at its August 23 meeting.
.
