Dreamworld CEO putting the squeeze on neighbour's dream home

[Retardent]

I saw this on TV tonight and found the link to the article which you can click on:

https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/tight-40cm-squeeze-delivers-blow-for-gold-coast-couples-dream-home/4ccb607e-b263-45c6-97d3-2b050a68c552

 

Quote

 

"It's a dream we have been planning for years now, we are so close," said Morin.

"But then this issue raises its ugly head in our path."

The brand new house blocking their path is owned by their neighbour, Dreamworld CEO Greg Yong, whose first level is jutting out so far Morin and Matsalla will be able to touch it."

 

 

Moderators I am not sure if this is for the theme park forum or the chit-chat forum.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Slick
The CEO's name in the title was a bit much

[REGIE]

Bruh this is just so disappointing and just another lame stab because of the DW name… so what about his house lol.. they must be millionaires to complain to TV that there’s a house blocking your 1st floor view from your multi million dollar home.. poor them, only have 7 levels that have a view now… cough cough .. kids dying from hungry in Africa..  .. people are disappointing sometimes…

Edited January 31, 2023 by REGIE

[Levithian]

40cm? With certain building requirements you can build right to the fence line with no space between houses at all. 

They should be slamming their builder and architect. The Yong's property was existing and they have no requirement to allow access to their property to allow builders to erect things like scaffolding or to provide site access anywhere, let alone make sure they leave space along a boundary for future access to a neighbouring property. 

It's not preventing them from building the property, the size and alignment of your property is not providing enough space to allow the builder to actually build it within your boundaries. 

[Guest 239]

So the Yong family built their home first, got it all approved by council, and is willing to help out where they can to support their neighbours... but they're the bad guys? This is such a bizarre hit piece trying to make us feel sorry for millionaires.

I agree with @Levithian. This is 100% on their builders and architects. 

[New display name]

Why does this have to do with theme parks?  @Retardentcan I publish your private life?

[Gobbledok]

Damn thats some ugly as houses

Remember when we had yards? 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

10 hours ago, Levithian said:

40cm? With certain building requirements you can build right to the fence line with no space between houses at all.

The problem here lies with the certifier of Mr Yong's home. GCCC has a required setback of 2.5m unless council has given relaxations, which hasn't happened here as no application was made. The private certifier signed it off as compliant. It isn't.

They're retrospectively applying for the relaxation and they'll want to hope that they get approval else the building will need to be redone to meet the approved specifications.

The fact that the other house now needs a firewall installed too is an additional cost, and the builders\ certifiers will probably be sued to recover those costs from whomever is required to foot the bills.

[Levithian]

Notice that the hatchet job done by ACA go to great trouble NOT to show the left rear of the new property and how close their second story is to the existing property on the left?

You don't comprehend things do you?

You can apply to council to build within the limit, it's only a guideline. I guarantee it was applied for and was approved as Greg said. You don't make your house 2m wider and apply for retrospective approval, that is not a minor change. The article even says the building was approved that close.

A minor change would be the top floor/front looks like it might have originally been exposed/open area as it appears to be an alfresco/deck. They've added a privacy screen by adding cladding (the strips of timber) around the open area. You can see the facia only extends around the side of the house maybe 6 or so meters and stops. This has extended the width of the front section of the property by the width of the cladding and the facia and is what the application is likely for. Not the whole second story. 

That would make absolutely no difference at all as the building still has to be within the boundaries of your property, not over it. The addition is still within the boundaries of the existing dwelling that was there before the new build was started. Probably before it was even planned. 

More evidence of this being the case is they offered to remove the siding to allow them access to finish the building on the second story of the new house next door. The Yong's have no requirement to do this, only simply trying to avoid problems given you have to live next door to these people. It's within their best interest to keep things civil and it shows council they are willing to work with them if they have objections to their addition. 

None of this at all changes that the new property was positioned and/or designed with the flawed assumption that they would be allowed access to the neighbouring property to errect scaffolding. The didn't have the same problem with the other side because the build is set back further from the property, and the second story is further setback again to provide them with styling features of an overhang/soffit. 

If you look closely, the new building is offset heavily to the left at the rear of the property to the point it looks like it nearly touches the existing property too. So by their reasoning, they are basically guilty of doing the same thing they are calling the Yong's out for. Not providing enough space. Talk about being hypocrites. 

The firewall would have been a requirement of the new dwelling long before the build even got started and it's 100% their cost to be able to build within the envelope. It's just a cheap shot trying to leverage the Yong's, to what reason, I don't know, because there isn't a council around that will make someone remove part of a dwelling that is still within their boundaries, so they aren't getting any space back to make it easier for them to finish the new build. The council would just make the owners of the existing dwelling jump through a lot of hoops (and fees, plenty of fees) to achieve the retrospective approval. It would have no impact on the building next door and will be sorted long after the new building has been completed. 

It sounds like someone complaining, then dobbing the neighbour into council in the hope that it will cause them issue/cost because they are unhappy and want other people to be unhappy too. 
 

3 hours ago, Gobbledok said:

Damn thats some ugly as houses

Remember when we had yards? 

Yeah. But remember when we didn't build houses on 300sqm properties too?

Developers have been reducing the size of blocks to maximise their profits and councils have been allowing it to happen. It's really evident over the last 20 years. 

It's not like houses have changed in area, if anything they have gotten bigger because everyone wants a 4th bedroom, 3 bathrooms, a media room and a second lounge for the kids to make a mess in. So every bit of available space is being taken up and previous building limits have been amended/changed over the years to allow greater land usage per sqm of the vacant land and jam more houses in.

It's complete crap, but it's what happens with urban sprawl. The density goes up as the land size decreases. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Levithian

[Levithian]

We see it all the time project managing building projects like this. Everything grinds to a halt when there is a dispute about money/costings. 

I would not at all be surprised if either their builder failed to notify them of the additional cost the second level is going to incur because of the existing dwelling next door being so close; or the owners were notified of this cost and it's in their agreement, but they failed to realise/understand this when the builder notified them of what was happening with the top floor. 

The fact that the build has stalled when there are a number of solutions available to be able to finish off this side of the building says to me there is an ongoing dispute with the builders and the owners want someone else to blame. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Levithian

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

59 minutes ago, Levithian said:

You don't comprehend things do you?

You can apply to council to build within the limit, it's only a guideline. I guarantee it was applied for and was approved as Greg said. You don't make your house 2m wider and apply for retrospective approval, that is not a minor change. The article even says the building was approved that close.

No need to be so snarky about things. You purport to have more knowledge of the situation, whereas i've only taken what's presented in the article and drawn conclusions from that. I've also run this by industry professionals in construction who agree with me - again, based only on the information presented in the article.

The key factors relevant though are:

Quote

A development application, approved by Gold Coast City Council, shows that upper floors should be set back by at least 2.5 metres from the neighbouring property unless council approves.

• Here are the facts as presented:
• Council approved the development application, with the standard condition that the upper floors be set back.
• The builder has built the Yong's house without the required set back
• The certifier has now submitted a minor change request to gain relaxation of that condition.

Quote

The planning company employed by Yong has recently submitted a retrospective 'minor change' application to reduce the mandated set back

If the situation is as you say, how do you explain the minor change application?

You don't retrospectively apply for relaxation if the council approved you to build it that way to begin with.

 

Whether or not the new home is built to the same rules isn't the topic at hand here, but I have absolutely no doubt council inspectors will be checking everyone's compliance very closely here and no doubt anyone non-complying will get pinged.

There is a case recently of a fellow who built an extension to his canalside property with approval from council, but he did not build it in compliance with those conditions (it was a tennis court but he built more of an entertainment space with music and lights on it too). I'm not sure if GC or Sunshine Coast but after several battles, he was required to demolish the extension, so it can happen. 

 

[Gobbledok]

Yeah houses are getting bigger. Everyone needs a media room and butlers pantry and a guest room and a kids retreat apparently. When we hard a yard to play in we didnt seem to need all that stuff. Still 2 damn ugly houses though. Id sooner build a smaller house and be able to afford something better than hungry jacks for lunch. 

[REGIE]

John longhurst had such a rad house

[New display name]

Which one @REGIE?

[REGIE]

I really like this one. It’s got a unique wedge shape and looks sick. Kinda gives me 70s vibes and Ferris buellers friends house vibes with all the glass but not as cool as that one. Idk why I just like it.

 

it’s not just another Kmart millions of dollars house it’s a interesting millions of dollars house

Edited February 1, 2023 by REGIE

[Stevie]

A full thread dedicated to a news story about the house of the Dreamworld CEO. Each day we stray further from theme parks 

[Gobbledok]

His house is pretty close to the theme parks so not too far

[New display name]

11 hours ago, REGIE said:

I really like this one. It’s got a unique wedge shape and looks sick. Kinda gives me 70s vibes and Ferris buellers friends house vibes with all the glass but not as cool as that one. Idk why I just like it.

 

it’s not just another Kmart millions of dollars house it’s a interesting millions of dollars house

The house he never lived in.  I've been inside of it and it's a great house but not very practical with its location.  You can (well you can't) but if you could, you can still locate the clearings Longhurst made for his private steam train project he never finished.

Edited February 1, 2023 by New display name

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

17 hours ago, Gobbledok said:

be able to afford something better than hungry jacks for lunch. 

That shit is bloody expensive compared to the alternatives - you don't get HJs because its cheap, you get it because its convenient and you don't have many other options.

Those photos make it look like the pressures of the top job are taking a toll though, and the quick HJ's run is all he had time for. I do hope things get easier for him.

[Brad2912]

The way HJs pricing is going you’ll need an executive job to buy a burger soon… 

[New display name]

4 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

The way HJs pricing is going you’ll need an executive job to buy a burger soon… 

Cheaper to fly to America than buy a whopper from HJ (better for you too).  I just purchased return flights on Qantas to America for just over $1200.0.   Last year it cost me $2600.00.

[Gazza]

4 minutes ago, New display name said:

Cheaper to fly to America than buy a whopper from HJ (better for you too).  I just purchased return flights on Qantas to America for just over $1200.0.   Last year it cost me $2600.00.

What dates are these for? I've been looking and it has all still been around $3000!

[New display name]

May. 

My wife sent me this today.

And I sent her this back for 3 tickets.

She gave me a 👍

And 3 mins latter I sent her a message, we are going in may.

She should know by now not to send me this stuff.😂

Anyway, when I looked at the receipt it was $200.00 cheaper for my daughter so really it's just over $1300.00 for adult.

 

 

 From Qantas  BNE to LAX

Edited February 1, 2023 by New display name

[Brad2912]

Yeah my local flight centre is $1400 flights not sure of the time period but that’s bris to LA

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

We've already booked ours for late march early april. Paid on QF points but the flights were similar costs if we'd paid cash.

[joz]

Really dissapointed in Greg. The only reason anyone should eat Hungry Jack's is because you want fast food and you're with a vegan, but on that kind of money you should be able to get a wife who isn't a vegan pretty easily so there's no excuse for him to be eating that.

 

Easily the worst of the fast food chains, even Red Rooster beats it, and most things at Red Rooster are awful. Also in my mind HJ's is the cheapest of the big chains (stunner meal anyone?), so I'm bagging it out based on it being cheap. The fact it's now apparently makes it even more of an outrage.

Edited February 2, 2023 by joz