澳大利亞世紀報:曾慶紅兒子和兒媳花三千萬澳幣買毫宅

澳大利亞世紀報:
前中國國家副主席曾慶紅的兒子Zeng Wei 和兒媳 Jiang Mei 在悉尼花三千萬澳幣買下毫宅, 這個成交價格在整個澳洲房地產歷史上排名第三。在此之前，Zeng Wei已獲得了澳洲的商業移民簽證。


http://www.theage.com.au/busines ... -20100423-tjcy.html

Buying Australian property is also a way of advancing migration hopes to Australia. Those who have lodged an application for permanent residency and hold a bridging visa are in one of the categories allowed to invest.

Chinese oil resources businessman Zeng Wei and his wife Jiang Mei are one example of the opportunities open to foreign investors in the right visa class.

Wei's father, Zeng Qinghong, was vice-president of the People's Republic of China between 2003 and 2008.

In 2008, the couple paid $32.4 million for the Sydney house Craig-y-Mor in Point Piper, the third most expensive house ever sold in Australia. The purchase was made after Wei obtained a business migration visa to Australia the year before.

不要再說了，隨便找一個前或現任國家領導人的子女，看看誰還缺錢？中國美其名為權貴資本主義！

Woollahra Municipal Council
Ordinary Council Meeting 11 October 2010
H:\COUNCIL\AGENDAS\2010\Oct11-10councilage.doc 27
Item No:
R6 Recommendation to Council
Subject:
73 Wolseley Road, Point Piper - Demolish Existing Building, Construct New Dwelling House, Swimming Pools, Basement Level Carparking, Landscaping & Siteworks – 30/11/2009
Author:
Mr Dimitri Lukas – Senior Assessment Officer
File No:
DA624/2009
Reason for Report:
In accordance with Council』s meeting procedures and policy this matter is referred to full Council due to a substantive change of the Committee』s recommendation for refusal of the application to the Officer』s recommendation for approval of the application.
Recommendation:
THAT the Council, refuse Development Application No. 624/2009 to demolish the existing building and construct a new dwelling house, swimming pools, basement level car parking, landscaping and site works on land at 73 Wolseley Road, Point Piper, for the following reasons:
1. The development is inconsistent with O4.5.8 which states buildings are to maintain the evolution of residential building s through the introduction of well designed contemporary buildings. In this regard, the development results in numerous non-compliances with Council controls due to the building not responding to the context and topography of the site, particularly the excavation required to lower the building by 1.5m to comply with Council』s height requirement.
2. The development does not comply with C.4.5.4 which states where the site width is equal to or exceeds 18m, development has a minimum side setback of 3m which is increased in a pro rata basis by 0.5m for each metre or part thereof that the building height exceeds 6m. As such, the building is required to be setback 3-4.5m from the northern boundary and 3-4.5m from the southern boundary. The building is setback 1.5-4.7m from the northern boundary resulting in non-compliances on the ground and second floor levels and 1.5-4.5m from the southern boundary, resulting in non-compliances on the ground, first and second floor levels. The non-compliances will result in excessive bulk and scale and sense of enclosure when viewed from the street and adjoining properties.
3. The development does not comply with C4.5.7.2 which states that dwelling-houses are to be a maximum height of two storeys. In this regard, the three storey appearance of the dwelling-house from the street is considered to be excessive.
4. The development does not comply with C5.2.3 which states buildings are to have a minimum rear setback of 25% (12m) of the average site length. The proposed building will have a minimum setback of 7.5m from the rear boundary which contributes to the excessive bulk and scale of the building.
5. The development does not comply with C5.2.4 which states ancillary development, to a maximum height of 3.6m and rear setback of 1.5m may be permitted in the area designated as the rear setback if all other policy controls are met. In this instance, the upper swimming pool for the ground floor level attains a height of 6m, while the decking structures around the pool/gym floor level do not comply with the side setback requirements of 3m. Furthermore, the proposed swimming pools and gym area are all located within the front setback area. The non-compliances will have an adverse impact on the streetscape and the amenity of adjoining properties.
Woollahra Municipal Council
Ordinary Council Meeting 11 October 2010
H:\COUNCIL\AGENDAS\2010\Oct11-10councilage.doc 28
6. The development does not comply with C5.2.8 which states building footprints for dwelling-houses shall comply with the sliding scale (or 30% - 334m2). The proposed building attains a building footprint of 37% (413m2) which is considered to be excessive and contributes to the bulk and scale of the building.
7. The development does not comply with C5.2.9 which states the floor space ratio for a dwelling-house shall comply with the sliding scale (or 0.55:1 – 612m2). The proposed building attains an FSR of 0.86:1 (957m2) which is considered to be excessive and contributes to the bulk and scale of the building.
8. The development does not comply with C5.2.16 which states that excavation shall not be less than 1.5m from a front, side or rear boundary. In this regard, the excavation for the basement level garage is setback 0m from the front boundary resulting in a non-compliance with the control. The non-compliance contributes to the excessive amount of excavation for the site.
9. The development does not comply with C5.3.16 which states that the location of swimming pools is to be at the rear of properties. The proposal involves the construction of a swimming pools within the front setback area of the site. The location of the swimming pool will have an adverse visual impact on the streetscape.
10. The development does not comply with C.5.4.10 which states that side and rear boundary fences are no higher than 1.8m on level sites, or 1.8m as measured from the low side where there is a difference in level either side of the boundary. The proposed side boundary fences will have a height of 1.8-6m which will have an adverse impact on the amenity and sense of enclosure of adjoining properties.
11. The amount of excavation for the proposal amounts to approximately 1770m3 (bulked) but when unbulked up results in approximately 2600m3 which is excessive and not supported. In this regard, the proposal is inconsistent with Clause 18 of WLEP 1995 and O5.2.4 and C5.2.15 of WRDCP 2003. In this regard, the depth and amount of excavation will significantly alter the topography of the site. Furthermore, the required truck movements due to the substantial amount of excavation will have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and the locality.