State Administrative Tribunal Reconsideration. Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 12)

Transcription

1 State Administrative Tribunal Reconsideration Property Location: Application Details: DAP Name: Applicant: Owner: LG Reference: Responsible Authority: Authorising Officer: Responsible Authority Report (Regulation 12) Department of Planning File No: State Administrative Tribunal No: DR 349 of 2013 Report Date: 20 February 2014 Application Receipt Date: 7 February 2013 Lot 10 (No. 94) Kitchener Road, Alfred Cove Three Storey Residential Development Metro Central JDAP Tuscom & Associated Pty Ltd TTO Pty Ltd DA City of Melville Steve Cope Director Urban Planning DP/13/00143 Application Process Days: 396 days Attachment(s): 1. Development plans (Undercroft Plan, Ground Floor Plan, First Floor Plan, Second Floor Plan, Elevations (all received by City of Melville on 17 February 2014) and Street Elevations (referenced WD200). 2. Site and Landscape Plan (reference WD100), Planter Detail (reference WD101) 3. Amenity Impact Statement prepared by Dynamic Planning dated July Transport Impact Assessment (Revised Final Report V2) dated June 2013 prepared by Move Consultants. 5. Special Electors Meeting presentation by Striker Balance Community Action Group. 6. Minutes of the Special Electors Meeting held 5 August Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council dated 29 August Page 1

2 Recommendation: That the Metro Central Joint Development Assessment Panel, pursuant to section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 in respect of SAT application DR 349 of 2013, resolves to: Reconsider its decision dated 9 September 2013 and refuse DAP Application reference DP/13/00143 and amended plans Undercroft Plan, Ground Floor Plan, First Floor Plan, Second Floor Plan and Elevations (all received by the City of Melville on 17 February 2014), Street Tree Elevations (referenced WD200), Site and Landscape Plan (reference WD100), Planter Detail (reference WD101) in accordance with Clause 7.9 of the City of Melville Community Planning Scheme No.5, for the following reasons: a) The proposed development is not considered to fully satisfy the requirements of Clause 4.2 (d) (i) and 4.2 (d) (ii) and Clause 7.8 of the Community Planning Scheme No.5; b) The proposed development is not considered to fully satisfy Part 6.1 of the R Codes including the Design Principles of Clause Background: Insert Property Address: Lot 10 (No. 94) Kitchener Road, Alfred Cove Insert Zoning MRS: Urban TPS: Living Area R40 Insert Use Class: Residential P permitted Insert Strategy Policy: None applicable Insert Development Scheme: Community Planning Scheme No. 5 Insert Lot Size: 6052m 2 Insert Existing Land Use: Indoor Sports Centre Value of Development: $10,000,000 The City received an application in March 2011 to amend Community Planning Scheme No. 5 (CPS5) to change the R-Coding applicable to 94 Kitchener Road from Living Area R20 to Living Area R60/80. The surrounding properties are all zoned Living Area R20. Following discussions between the Applicant and the City, the Scheme Amendment proposal was initially modified to propose a Living Area R40/60 coding and then subsequently further amended to Living Area R40. Council, in December 2011 resolved to initiate the Amendment for Living Area R40. The Amendment was advertised for a period of 42 days and no submissions were received. An indicative only concept for development of the site with 2 and 3 storey grouped dwellings was submitted with the application for the Amendment and was included in the advertising of the proposed Amendment. In May 2012, Council resolved to support the Amendment for the following reasons: Page 2

3 The site is developed with an existing non-residential use (indoor recreation centre) which could have lawfully continued to lawfully operate Amending the R-coding would encourage the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes that is preferred given the residential character that currently prevails within the immediate area. The proposed medium density coding was considered to be consistent with the principles of the state government planning strategy Directions 2031 and Beyond and other state government policies. The site has good access to major public transport routes, activity centres (local and regional shopping), educational institutions and public open space. The development of the site for medium density residential use is particularly appropriate given the state government objective of accommodating additional dwelling numbers on brownfield sites within existing urban areas No objections were received during advertising of the proposed Scheme Amendment The Minister for Planning subsequently approved the Amendment in October It is noted that in August 2011 Council resolved to adopt for the purpose of public advertising a new draft Local Planning Scheme 6 (LPS 6) and a draft Local Planning Strategy and resolved to seek the consent of the WA Planning Commission (WAPC) for public advertising. WAPC approval for advertising has not yet been granted. On 9 September 2013, the Metro Central JDAP resolved to refuse planning approval for the construction of a four storey residential development (comprising 87 multiple dwellings) on the subject site. The JDAP reasons for refusal were: a) The proposed development is not considered to fully satisfy the requirements of Clause 4.2 (d) (i) and 4.2 (d) (ii) and is not considered to satisfy the requirements of Clause 7.8 of the Community Planning Scheme No.5; b) The proposed development is not considered to satisfy the Design Principles of Clause and is not considered to fully satisfy the Design Principles of Clause of the Residential Design Codes. The Conclusion to the previous RAR stated: The City s process for assessment of the development application in this case has included: - receipt of original plans - review of submissions received from advertising - consideration by Architectural and Urban Design Panel - independent advice on urban design issues - submission of revised plans and submission of Traffic Impact Assessment and Amenity Impact Statement - advertising of revised plans submitted - independent peer review including context analysis and consideration of future desired built form - final assessment/finalisation of the RAR Taking into account the above information it is considered that a number of further modifications to the development would be required before it could be considered to achieve an appropriate standard of amenity for potential future Page 3

4 occupants of the development and to ensure the development is consistent with the current and future amenity of the surrounding area. Modifications considered to be required include: 1. As proposed, the height of the development as it presents to Kitchener Road is considered to be out of context with the future character of the surrounding R20 area and it is considered does not present a human scale for pedestrians as required by R-Codes Design Principle and requires further mitigation.. An appropriate method to achieve this mitigation would be for the floor above two storey to be set back within a height plane approximating line of sight from the footpath in front of the building. 2. Likewise, the Cotrill Street elevation is considered to require similar modification especially as the setback to Cotrill Street is reduced and the elevation less detailed. 3. Further information as to the proposed external materials, colours and finishes should be provided in order to improve the elevation treatments, better delineate floors and reduce the perceived height. 4. The long blank ground floor level frontage along Cotrill Street requires improvement to incorporate openings and future articulation and landscaped to break up the bulk of this wall. 5. The parking bay located closest to Cotrill Street along the southern boundary should be deleted to enable landscape screening to the parking area. 6. The middle units on the first and second floor levels facing Cotrill Street are considered unsatisfactory as the studies have less access to daylight and the units compromise the ability to achieve a courtyard as per the other blocks. These units should be deleted and the other two units on each floor along Cotrill Street enlarged to three bedroom units instead. 7. Given that setbacks are related to the amount of open space and Clause 5.2 of CPS5 allow the Council to require setbacks to be compatible with existing residential development, and in light of the Context Analysis undertaken, front, setbacks may warrant further consideration. 8. Given the importance of open space in the street setback areas in contributing to the streetscape, detail should be provided with the development application to enable the City to assess its suitability. Detail of proposed landscaping treatment of the internal landscaped courtyards should also be given attention as this is considered important for apartment resident; more planting and less hard surface may effectively minimise potentially adverse acoustic conditions and provide some visual relief. 9. Alternatives to the use of obscure glass for windows in bedrooms and living rooms could be considered, such as projecting blades on the exterior of the building to prevent line-of-sight in particular directions where this can be demonstrated to be feasible or effective. 10. Where rooms that have no external outlook and appear to be proposed with highlight windows and could experience poor amenity as a result this is considered to warrant further consideration. 11. Bicycle parking in accordance with R Codes requirements should be indicated on the plans in addition to the private stores shown on the plans. The revisions to the design of the proposed development are considered to have enhanced the proposal however there remain concerns about the bulk impact of the proposal and it is considered that further modifications are warranted to make the development proposal acceptable. By zoning the site R40 in contrast to the surrounding R20 coding the City did not expect development of the site to be of the same intensity but the intent of CPS 5 and the R-Codes is that compatibility Page 4

5 be achieved between the adjoining but differently coded areas. It is noted that there is not objection in principle to variation to height or plot ratio but in this case the extent of variation produces a building of a scale which is considered to be out of context with the surrounding locality. On that basis the proposed development could not be said to be consistent with Clauses 4.2 and 7.8 of CPS 5 or the Design Principles of Clause 6.1 of the R-Codes and due to the scope of the modifications considered necessary it is considered that it would not be realistic to seek to cover these with conditions therefore it is recommended that the development application be refused. Following the JDAP decision the Applicant appealed the decision to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). Mediation was initiated by SAT between representatives of the Metro Central JDAP with City of Melville requested to attend to assist JDAP. Following these mediation sessions, revised plans have been submitted by the Applicant. On this basis, the SAT has now ordered that the JDAP reconsider its previous decision, pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act Prior to the JDAP reconsidering its decision, the City of Melville has been ordered to submit a new RAR report to the JDAP on the basis of the revised plans. On 21 January 2014, the City received a referral from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) seeking the City of Melville s comment on a proposal to subdivide the subject site into five green title lots. The boundaries of the five proposed lots reflect the five modules the proposed development is proposed to be divided into. It is understood that the subdivision is to enable the development to be staged. The City has responded to the WAPC in support of the proposed subdivision as it satisfies all of the applicable requirements of the R-Codes. Site Description The subject site is rectangular in shape and is located on the corner of Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street in Alfred Cove (see Figure 1 below). 94 Kitchener Road is currently improved by the Striker indoor sports centre building. This is a large existing warehouse building which is approximately 2750m² in area. The building has an external wall height consistent with a two storey building and has minimal openings or articulation along each of the facades. It is understood that the existing building is the last remnant of a number of warehouse buildings which previously existed and operated within the area. The site features a moderate decline in natural ground level of approximately 1.4 metres down from Kitchener Road toward the south-eastern corner of the lot. Page 5

6 Figure 1 Aerial photography of subject site Car parking surrounds the existing building to the north, east and west of the site. The site is served via three vehicular crossovers along Kitchener Road and two crossovers from Cotrill Street. A service lane runs along the southern boundary which is primarily un-utilised with the exception of low level storage. The existing boundary fencing around the subject site is varied. Three mature trees are located on the subject site, two within the north-eastern corner of the property and the other, adjacent to the Cotrill Street boundary. In addition, three existing street trees are located adjacent to the property, two along Kitchener Road and the other on Cotrill Street. The indoor sports centre currently operates between the hours of 2:30pm and midnight, seven days a week. Facilities at the centre comprise five indoor courts which are designed to accommodate a combination of cricket and/or netball. For soccer, two courts are amalgamated, in effect creating two fields out of the total five courts available. Site Context Two single storey dwellings (98 & 98A Kitchener Road) adjoin the subject site to the east. Both of these dwellings are served by vehicular access points along their western boundaries. Furthermore, 98A Kitchener Road has an existing single storey height boundary wall constructed up to the common boundary with the subject site. Seven, single storey residential properties (1-13 Mullings Way) are located to the south of the subject property. All of these properties have their predominant access via Mullings Way, however vehicular access to 1 Mullings Way is provided from Cotrill Street. With the exception of 1 Mullings Way, the primary outdoor living areas of these adjacent properties are located to the north of each of the blocks. Some of Page 6

7 these properties contain mature vegetation and trees adjacent to their northern boundary. The area immediately surrounding the subject site and the majority of Alfred Cove is zoned Living Area Precinct and has a prescribed R-Coding of R20. The surrounding area is characterised by traditional single and two-storey single houses and grouped dwellings, the majority with pitched roofs. To the west of the subject site, and in other pockets within Alfred Cove, mediumscale grouped housing developments have been constructed which are predominantly single storey. These developments range in size from 6 20 units, and each is generally serviced by a sole access point. These developments have been developed at a density of between m² per dwelling, equating to an R- Coding of between R The subject site is located approximately 500m south of Canning Highway, 325m north of Marmion Street and 330m west of North Lake Road. Public bus services are available along all three of these roads, and Canning Highway is classed as a high frequency bus route. The site and the surrounding area is also well serviced by access to open space, including Melville Reserve 150m to the south, Harry Clemens Reserve 80m to the southeast, Kadidjiny Park 330m to the west, Bill Sweet Park 320m to the north. The area also benefits from access to the Myaree Shopping Centre located on the corner of North Lake Road and Marmion Street approximately 430m away. Details: outline of development application The JDAP is now being requested to reconsider its previous decision on the basis of the revised plans that have been submitted. The revised plans now depict a three storey residential development with basement level, consisting of 87 multiple dwellings broken up into five separate modules. The proposed building is designed as follows: Undercroft 169 Resident/ Visitor Car parking Bays Store rooms and bin store areas. Vehicular access is limited to one crossover off Cotrill Street Ground Floor Nine, single bedroom dwellings Nine, two bedroom dwellings Eleven, three bedroom dwellings Landscaped internal courtyards 14 on-street parallel embayed parking bays 10 new street trees Store rooms First Floor Eight, single bedroom dwellings Two, two bedroom dwellings Page 7

8 Nineteen, three bedroom dwellings Store Rooms Second Floor Twenty-four single bedroom dwellings Two, three bedroom dwellings Store Rooms The revised plans differ from the plans which were previously refused by the JDAP as follow: Change Previous Proposed Decreased number of dwellings Distribution of apartments Ground: 5 First: 31 Second: 29 Third: 22 Ground: 29 First: 29 Second: 26 Decreased Plot Ratio Decreased Building Height Four storey 13.6m Three storey + basement 11.1m Increased On-Site Car 140 Bays 169 Bays parking Decreased Retaining/ Fill 0.44m Nil along the Southern Boundary Decreased Open Space 51.8% 46.51% Decreased Overshadowing 1 Mullings: 20.3% 3 Mullings: 19.47% 5 Mullings: 23.7% 7 Mullings: 24.27% 9 Mullings: 24.85% 11 Mullings: 14.24% 1 Mullings: 8.2% 3 Mullings: 7.6% 5 Mullings: 10.3% 7 Mullings: 11.4% 9 Mullings: 12.3% 11 Mullings:9.7% Design changes to the Kitchener Road façade: Additional dwellings provided at ground floor level. Redesign of the façade of the building to include greater articulation so as to create the appearance of townhouses rather than apartments. Increased setbacks to the second floor apartments and balconies Design Changes to Cotrill Street Dwellings incorporated at ground floor level fronting Cotrill Street. Additional articulation of the elevation through increased setbacks and façade treatments. Additional building entrance point provided along Cotrill Street. Central apartments deleted from the first and second floor. Increased setbacks to the second floor apartments and balconies. Location of waste collection hardstand along the Cotrill Street verge. Design changes to the eastern elevation: Additional materials used within the elevation. Changes to the location and configuration of windows. Page 8

9 Design changes to the southern elevation: Increased setback to the second floor balconies. Increased setback at all levels of the building in the western-most module. Obscured glazing has been removed from the 2 nd floor windows along the southern elevation (however still remains on the 1 st floor windows). Legislation & policy: Legislation Planning and Development Act 2005 City of Melville Community Planning Scheme No. 5 (CPS5): Cl Housing Cl Housing Part 4: Melville 2 Cl. 4.2 Development Requirements and Variations Cl. 5.8 Car Parking Cl Height of Buildings Cl. 7.8 Matters to be Considered by Council State Planning Policies SPP3: Urban Growth and Settlement SPP3.1: Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) Local Policies CP-054: Community Planning Scheme No. 5 and Residential Design Code Development Advertising Procedures CP-066: Height of Buildings CP-067: Amenity CP-069: Architectural and Urban Design Advisory Panel CP-029: Street Tree Policy CP-085 Provision of Public Art in Development Proposals Consultation: The original application was the subject of two public consultation periods, review by the City s Architectural and Urban Design Advisory Panel, as well as an independent urban design consultant, and independent peer review. The proposal has also been considered at a Special Electors Meeting. These are all detailed below. Public Consultation The SAT order requires the submission of a Responsible Authority Report (RAR) by 28 February Page 9

10 The amended plans which have been prepared following the SAT mediation have not been the subject of further advertising. The R-Code and CPS5 variations relating to plot ratio and building height which were previously the subject of public consultation have been reduced, however still remain variations. The concerns raised by the community in the second phase of advertising are addressed below in reference to the revised plans which are the subject of this report. First Phase During the first phase of public consultation the application was advertised for a period of 14 days. A total of 64 submissions were received in the first round of advertising which included consideration of the development plans originally submitted with the application. These submissions raised the following concerns: Traffic generation Visitor parking Visual privacy Building bulk Setback variations Overshadowing Building height Noise Demographics of potential residents Out of character with the existing area Quantity of apartments Removal of mature trees on site In addition to the above, a petition signed by 480 residents and 12 non-residents was also received by Council following the first advertising period. Second Phase The revised plans (which were the subject of the JDAP refusal) were advertised to the adjoining property owners and occupiers, and to those who previously lodged a submission on the application. A total of 51 submissions were received in response to the second phase of advertising. The Summary of Submissions table below includes the following information: The main themes raised within the submissions received in response to the second phase of advertising, Officer comments provided in response to the submissions which were included in the RAR dated 30 August 2013, and Additional Officer comments based upon the revised plans which have been submitted following SAT mediation. Summary of Submissions Page 10

11 Issue Nature of Concern Raised Officer s Comment (Refused Application) Plot ratio / height The proposed development does not align with local neighbourhood character and socioeconomic catchment. The design will not blend in with the locality. The proposal will dominate the existing streetscape of the area which is typically characterized by 1-2 storey dwellings. Contributes to a bulk impact on adjoining lots. Scale and bulk of the proposal will devalue surrounding properties. Bulk and scale should be reduced to comply. Proposal does not have consideration to attributes that characterise and define a locality as stated in the Residential Design Codes. Potential to set precedent. Although compliant, the proposed setbacks do not moderate the visual impact of building bulk on the neighbouring properties. The 9m permitted height would be out of character for the area. As a result of this, 9m should be the absolute maximum considered. CPS5 and the R- Codes enable discretion to be exercised on height and plot ratio. It is considered a well designed development could exceed the specified height and plot ratio where exceptionally good design is demonstrated that makes a positive contribution to the locality. Further consideration is given to height and plot ratio in the planning assessment below. The City has undertaken further context analysis which is summarised in this report The development cannot set a precedent in this area as it is the only similar site/zone and thus the circumstances are not replicable. However the approach to dealing with plot ratio could set a precedent elsewhere. Regarding height, 9m would be permitted even in Officers Comment (Revised Plans dated 17 February 2014) The overall building height has been reduced by 2.5 metres as a result of proposed excavation and design modification. The plot ratio of the proposed development has been reduced by or sqm. See further commentary relating to building height and plot ratio in the planning assessment below. Page 11

12 Density The proposed development will be at a density six times that of the surrounding residential area. The area being developed is the equivalent to the size of seven lots within the immediate area, despite most lots in the area being unable to subdivide. Traffic and Parking Pedestrian safety will be compromised particularly for the aged and young. Traffic congestion is already an issue and will only increase. With 2 and 3 bedroom units, there are likely to be more cars than bays provided which will increase the amount of street parking. Safety of the street will be compromised. The surrounding roads were not designed to cope with such a significant increase in population. Lots to the south will be significantly impacted as a result of noise pollution from cars and large service vehicles entering and exiting the parking area throughout the day and night. The traffic impact assessment should have been done over a longer period of time. the R20 coded areas, however it is considered unlikely to be commonplace in this locality. The minimum site area requirements were removed from the R-Codes for multiple dwellings on properties coded R30 and above on gazettal of Part 6 of the R- Codes. The on-site car parking bays are in excess of the number required by the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R-Codes for occupant and visitor parking. The proposed embayed parking bays within the road reserve are supported on the basis that they will act to slow traffic along Kitchener Road which is identified as a road which there is a current speed issue. These parking bays would be developed at the Applicant s cost and would be available for any person to utilise, not only occupants or visitors of the proposed development. The previous Officer comments still apply however it is noted that the design modifications result in three less apartments. The previous Officer comments still apply however it is noted that the minor reduction in unit numbers would slightly reduce the traffic generated by the proposed development. Furthermore, the proposed development would provide a significantly greater number of on-site car parking bays than required (47 bays) by the R- Codes in addition to the 14 embayed on-street parking bays. Page 12

13 Overshadowing Such developments should be designed on major roads and transport hubs. Kitchener Road is a quiet residential street. Narrow streets are not conducive to traffic flow once cars are parked along them. The corner of Cotrill Street and Kitchener Road is already a notorious blind spot. Safety will be further jeopardised. Kitchener Road and the surrounding streets are already used to bypass traffic lights on nearby major roads. Direct sunlight to major openings and outdoor living areas of the southern adjoining properties will be restricted. Overshadowing of the northern aspects of the lots will increase electricity consumption for lighting and heating. Overshadowing will fall upon the solar panels of the lots to the south. Privacy Privacy will be compromised as a result of the rear facing balconies and windows. Windows should be orientated to face west to avoid overlooking into the lots to the south. Being overlooked would create unease in residents and result in perceived safety issues. All outdoor living areas should provide The proposed development would result in an estimated additional 450 vehicular trips. These additional trips are anticipated to only result in a minor impact upon the existing road network. See Planning Assessment section below for further comment. The amended plans increased the setbacks of the proposed building to the southern boundary which reduced the level of overshadowing. The proposal now satisfies the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R- Codes. The proposal satisfies the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R- Codes in relation to visual privacy. Furthermore, the number of major openings along the rear elevation has been reduced. As a result of the reduction in the overall height of the building, the overshadowing on to the adjoining properties to the south is also reduced. The proposal still satisfies the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R-Codes. All proposed visual privacy setbacks comply with the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R-Codes however it is noted that 2 nd floor windows along the southern elevation which were previously proposed to be obscured are now proposed with clear glazing. Page 13

14 screening to restrict views onto neighbouring lots. Noise 87 dwellings will create noise pollution as a result of the increase in population and the design of balconies opening on to neighbouring lots. Noise pollution will compromise the health and safety of adjoining land owners. Anti-social behaviour Removal of trees The increase in population will result in an inevitable increase in crime. The demographics of people living in these types of units will be at odds with the residents in the surrounding area and will lead to anti-social behaviour and crime. Several large trees which complement the existing streetscape will be removed and enhance the impact of building bulk. Noise emitted from the property both during construction and following construction is required to satisfy the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations There is no documented direct correlation between the development of new multiple dwelling developments and an increase in crime. It is also anticipated that given the location of the subject site and its proximity to amenities and the City, that the proposed dwellings would be marketed at an executive level rather than low income level, as this would provide the best return from the property for the Applicant. It is noted that the existing mature trees are proposed to be removed. This is permitted development and therefore the City cannot protect these trees from removal. It is noted however that the Applicant proposing is the The previous Officer comments still apply. The previous Officer comments still apply. The previous Officer comments still apply. Page 14

15 planting of six new street trees within the Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street road reserves. In addition to the above, a petition signed by 533 people in opposition to the proposed development was also lodged with the City on 15 July 2013 as part of the second submission period. An additional petition was submitted during the course of the second advertising period requesting the City hold a Special Electors Meeting on the subject application. This meeting was held on Monday 5 August At the conclusion of the meeting, the Electors present unanimously passed two motions as follows: 1 That the PowerPoint presentation provided by the Striker Balance Community Action Group be included in the Officer s RAR Report to the JDAP. 2 That the Council supports the request for the Striker Balance Community Action Group presentation team or substitutes be allowed to present the presentation to the Joint Development Assessment Panel so that it can be presented appropriately. At its meeting held on 20 August 2013, Council resolved to note the two resolutions from the Special Meeting of Electors held on 5 August A copy of the minutes of the Special Electors Meeting and the presentation made by representatives of the Striker Balance Community Action Group were attached to the original RAR report and considered by the JDAP. City of Melville Architectural and Urban Design Advisory Panel The original proposal was considered by the City s Panel on 5 March Following the meeting of the Panel, the Applicant provided amended plans. Details of the Panel comments and the Applicant s response are outlined below. The Officer comment provided in the RAR dated 30 August 2013 is included in the table as are Officer comments based upon the revised proposal which is the subject of this report. Panel Comment In principal, the height is not a crucial factor and there are no issues. Applicant s Response Officer Comment (Refused Application) Noted. No change has been made to the overall height of the building. Officers Comment (Revised Plans dated 17 February 2014) The overall height has been reduced by 2.5 metres. See further commentary relating to building height in the Page 15

16 Overshadowing needs to be addressed. The interaction between the development and the streetscape needs improvement. The southern elevation interface with the adjoining residential properties needs to be addressed. Amended proposal provided. Amended proposal provided. Amended proposal provided. All overshadowing now satisfies the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R- Codes. Apartments are now proposed at ground floor level to improve the passive surveillance and streetscape appeal of the building at street level. All vehicle access and parking is now proposed to the rear of the building rather than each module being accessed individually via Kitchener Road. The Applicant also proposes a new footpath, embayed parallel car parking on the street, street trees and landscaping to improve the usability, interaction and interface with the street. The design and articulation of the southern façade has been improved to match the appearance of the Kitchener Road elevation. Setbacks have been increased to planning assessment below. Overshadowing is decreased further with the reduction of the building height and still satisfies the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R- Codes. With the creation of the basement level, the building and the increased setbacks to the Second Floor, the development is capable of being perceived as a two storey building when pedestrians are walking on the verge adjacent to the property. This is considered to enhance the pedestrian scale of the development. The activation and interaction with the streetscape is also enhanced by the revised proposal due to the greater number of apartments at ground floor level along both Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street. The interface of the building with the adjoining neighbours to the south has been improved through the reduction in the height of the building, the additional setback Page 16

17 The setback of the eastern elevation should be increased. Query the proposed landscaping screens between the units. Reconfiguration of the floor plan is required to relocate the gyms, reposition the lifts internally to provide an internal service courtyard and to pull the development in and away from the Amended proposal provided. Amended proposal provided. Amended proposal provided. exceed those required by the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R- Codes. In addition, the City has liaised with the Applicant to minimise the number of major openings along the southern elevation above the Deemed to Comply provisions. All visual privacy setbacks are compliant with the R-Code requirements. The setbacks of the eastern elevation now satisfy the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R- Codes. The proposal has been significantly amended to remove the previous landscaped screens and to allow for greater areas of internal open space on the first floor. The proposal has been significantly amended. The gyms have been deleted, an internal service area provided in each module and the setbacks increased. provided to the balconies on the top floor and the landscaping proposed along the rear boundary. The obscure glazing of the southern facing windows along the second floor is no longer indicated on the revised plans. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the boundary and visual privacy setbacks to the southern boundary satisfy the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R- Codes. Proposed setbacks from the eastern boundary still satisfy the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R- Codes. Additional landscaping around the building and the site boundaries is now proposed in addition to planting within the internal courtyards. Comment not applicable to the current design. Page 17

18 boundaries. The existing significant trees on the site should be protected as they are important for the streetscape and character of the area. Noted. These trees are located within the lot boundary and are therefore on private property. Trees and vegetation on private property can be removed without approval from the City. It is noted however that the Applicant proposes six street trees to be planted within the road reserve. Previous comment applicable. Officer still Independent Urban Design Review After the first phase of public consultation and consideration of the development application plans by the City s Architectural and Urban Design Panel, the City engaged Mackay Urban Design to provide advice to the City in its assessment of the development application noting that the City would not support anything other than an appropriate built form. The consultant reviewed the development plans originally submitted so as to gauge the applicant s intention for the redevelopment of the subject site (i.e. multiple dwelling development in five stages). The consultant re-interpreted the development application plans submitted via preparation of a series of illustrative sketch plans so as to identify for the City potential modifications to the plans for the proposal. The consultant s advice included the following parameters: Nominated setbacks for each of the floors to ensure appropriate separation between the proposed development and the adjacent residential properties and to ensure overshadowing complies. Location of the over height portion of the development away from adjoining properties to reduce the appearance of building bulk. Recommended apartments on the ground floor level for street activation. Embayed parallel car parking on Kitchener Road. Provision of new street trees within the road reserve. Removal of the communal areas and gym. Vehicle access confined to a single laneway at the rear of the development. Deletion of the upper floor of the eastern module to allow for greater setbacks. Reduction in the number of major openings along the rear elevation to provide additional privacy to the southern adjoining properties. Landscaping provided within internal courtyards and front setback areas. Landscaping also proposed along the southern boundary to increase the separation between the subject lot and the adjoining residential properties. Page 18

19 The City reviewed the illustrative sketches and noted that in many respects the reinterpretation of the original plans submitted responded to many of the issues identified in the City s initial preliminary assessment and the concerns raised during the first phase of advertising taking into account the potential impacts upon the streetscape and the surrounding properties. As is general practice with advice of the City s Architectural and Urban Design Advisory Panel the City communicated the independent urban design advice to the applicant in order to inform redesign of the proposed development. The Applicant subsequently submitted amended plans which are broadly consistent with the advice provided to the City by the independent urban design consultant. These plans were the subject of the second public consultation period detailed below. The City s urban design consultant viewed the revised plans and noted that overall, the proposal is largely consistent with the illustrative sketch plans in relation to overall form, access, and the internal planning of the apartment blocks and that the revised plans are a significant improvement over the previous iterations. In addition, the urban design adviser provided further comments on variations to the illustrative sketches summarised as follows: The car parking adjacent to the rear boundary rather than in an undercroft results in a larger rear setback, is cost effective, means that visitor parking is accessible, and could be considered as an acceptable alternative. The extent of height reduction at the eastern end is less than the sketches with the fourth floor extending further east and would need to be further justified otherwise could result in modification and the loss of two easternmost units on the fourth level. A single stair rather than two stairs for each block should be confirmed by a fire engineer. The urban design adviser also recommended a number of additional modifications to the plans to improve the functionality and appearance of the development. These are: The relationship to Cotrill Street at ground floor level is not ideal but this is mitigated to some extent by the amount of ground floor activation on Kitchener Road and the amount of passive surveillance of Cotrill Street from the upper level apartments The parking bay closest to Cotrill Street should be deleted to enable landscape screening to the parking area The planters adjacent to the First floor Bed 3 of the 3-bed apartments could be enlarged if the adjacent store door was relocated sufficient to have a normal height window rather than a high level window The middle unit on the westernmost block facing Cotrill Street on the First and Second floor is unsatisfactory and should be deleted as it has no access to daylight and compromises the ability to achieve a courtyard as per the other blocks. The other two units to Cotrill Street would then be enlarged to become 3-bed units There remains scope to improve the elevation treatments for example deleting the stick on panels, shading to the northern windows at the upper Page 19

20 level and the use of colour and materials to better delineate the ground floor from the upper floors and reduce the perceived height The independent design consultant concluded that there still may be other issues that arise from a more thorough review of the plans from a statutory planning perspective The applicant s planning consultant subsequently submitted further commentary detailing reasons why the further modifications identified by the City s urban design consultant as being desirable are not considered warranted as follows: The activation of the ground floor level of Cotrill Street should be considered in the overall context of the development. Passive surveillance of Cotrill Street is provided via the upper floor levels and there is significant ground floor activation along Kitchener Road. With regard to the internal planters associated with the first and second floor Bed 3, it is noted that this area equates to only 2.5m² and will not have a notable impact on the overall development outcome. The study of the middle unit on the first and second floors along Cotrill Street is designed to allow ambient light to enter into the room. The applicant s planning consultant acknowledges that the extent of the height reduction at the eastern end is less than the MacKay Urban Design concept sketch, however states that the design is considered to have achieved the desired outcome of mitigating the bulk impact of the upper floor in relation to the adjoining properties. The applicant s consultant however agreed with the City s urban design consultant s comments in relation to the landscape screening of the parking bay closest to Cotrill Street and the provision of a schedule of colours and materials. In both cases the applicant s consultant stated that these requirements could be a condition of planning approval. Independent Peer Review Due to the complex planning issues that the development application raises the City sought independent peer review of the development application during the assessment process (prior to the JDAP decision). The applicant was advised of the peer review during the assessment process. The peer review included consideration of the existing development context and/or the desired future built form for the locality as set out in the local planning framework. The findings of the peer review were incorporated within the RAR dated 30 August The consideration of existing development context and/or desired future built form highlighted: Existing development context The particular design elements addressed under this clause are building size (bulk and scale), building height, street setbacks, lot boundary setbacks, and open space. The two lots that comprise 94 Kitchener Road, Lots 159 and 160, constitute the whole of Precinct ML2 as defined by Community Planning Scheme No. 5 (CPS 5). Page 20

21 Precinct ML2 is bounded on all sides by land zoned for Residential R20, in Precincts ML1 and MY1. It is these precincts that form the locality and context for Precinct ML2. A similar height limit applies as to Precinct ML2 but minimum front setbacks are defined as 6 metres, compared with 4 metres, as per R-Codes in ML2. There is little difference between the requirements for three precincts. The principal differences are the lesser front setback requirement for ML2 (4 metres compared with 6 metres for the R20 precincts) and The R Codes Guidelines note that the use of medium density codes in infill areas results in a hybrid of open, suburban character and traditional urban character. In these areas, care is to be taken to protect elements of setback and open space to maintain the difference in context between medium and high density urban areas. At R40, Precinct ML2 is a medium density enclave within a low density locality. The locality within which 94 Kitchener Road is situated is suburban, rather than urban in character. The streetscapes are characterised by wide verges and front setbacks with no or low front boundary walls. Dwellings are in the main single storeyed, detached and fairly regularly spaced. Future character of the neighbourhood context At R20, the surrounding neighbourhood is likely to retain a similar character to what currently exists. In keeping with the trend elsewhere, new infill buildings may increasingly be 2 storeys high. Although technically possible within the permitted overall maximum height of 10.5 metres/9 metres wall height for flat roofs, 3 storey homes are unlikely in this area as there are no particular features such as views or other elements of high amenity that would provide an incentive for such development. Front setbacks of newer homes reflect the required 6 metres. As more of the original homes are replaced, 6 metres will become the predominant setback. The narrow lot subdivisions have introduced a new pattern of closer spaced housing, more frequent vehicle crossovers and more prominent garages which will eventually change the character of the street to more closely spaced buildings. Grouped housing developments are required to orientate towards the street and hence are likely to mimic the spacing and scale of single houses. Traditionally, homes in this area did not have front fences, however it is becoming more common for new houses to introduce a front boundary wall and this is likely to continue. In keeping with the requirements of the R-Codes, the new front boundary walls are typically highly visually permeable. In summary, over time it is expected that the area around 94 Kitchener Road will evolve to contain: > More 2 storey buildings > More front fences, visually permeable > Detached houses, regularly spaced > Infill development on battleaxe lots > 6 metre front setbacks Future desired built form Clause 6.1 of the R Codes refers to multiple dwelling development occurring with due regard to the existing development context and/or desired future built form for the locality. The locality in the case of 94 Kitchener Road is the surrounding area which has a different coding from the site itself. By zoning the land R40 the City did not Page 21

22 expect that development in Precinct ML2 would be the same as that in the surrounding area. The intent of CPS5 and the R-Codes however is clearly that there be compatibility between adjoining but differently coded areas. Key elements of built form that would assist in making the development at 94 Kitchener Road compatible with the surrounding area include: Along with controls on building height, setbacks and open space, plot ratio is the default control of building bulk and scale. A well designed development could exceed the specified plot ratio and it would not be obvious from external observation of the development. If a higher plot ratio is contemplated however this should only be entertained for good design which makes a positive contribution to the amenity of the locality. Similar street setbacks to that permitted on lower coded adjacent sites, if not for the entire street frontage than at least for a distance along it from the adjoining lower coded land sufficient to separate the bulk of the development on the higher coded land from that on the lower coded land. Similar wall height at street frontage to that anticipated on the lower coded adjacent sites. Where additional height greater than two storeys is contemplated, the additional height should be set back from the street so that its impact on the perceived scale of the building from the street is minimised and additional floors set back within a height plane approximating line of sight from the footpath in front of the building. Articulation of the roofline to assist vertical articulation of the building. Where a parapet is proposed, differing parapet heights should be used, where a traditional pitched roof is proposed hips and gables should be incorporated. Where a building height greater than two storey is contemplated, additional height should be set back from adjacent lots to prevent new development visually overwhelming and potentially overshadowing the neighbouring development. Vertical articulation of a building or buildings on both street frontages to reflect a similar rhythm or pattern as the rest of the street. Number of vehicle crossovers to be minimised and preferably access to the site from a single crossover. Front setbacks to be landscaped as gardens similar to development on lower coded land with car parking in the front setback to be avoided if at all possible Street boundary fences (primary and secondary) to be largely visually permeable to allow for passive surveillance of the street from the ground floor as well as upper floors. Short lengths of solid wall may be considered to afford privacy for occupants of ground floor units where the setback is used for private open space. Multiple building entrances for pedestrians reflective of the pattern of frequent front doors along the remainder of the street. Other key conclusions from the independent peer review were: In principle additional height can be supported however the distribution of height and its impact on the character of the surrounding area is relevant to consider Ground floor apartments are important however it is noted that none are orientated towards Cotrill Street other than at the very corner of the building. Given the long frontage to Cotrill Street compared with frontages of properties opposite further treatment of this frontage is considered necessary. Page 22

23 The use of obscure glass for windows in bedrooms is considered to be a poor outcome for the amenity of the apartments themselves and consideration should be given to other methods of preventing overlooking such as projecting blades that prevent line of sight in particular directions. The usefulness of landscaped courtyards for apartments residents is questioned and more planting with less hard surface is favoured which may assist in minimising potentially adverse acoustic conditions and provide some visual relief. Given that there are a number of rooms within the apartments that have no external outlook and have highlight windows this issue is considered to warrant further consideration Planning assessment: The revised proposal which has been submitted for reconsideration as part of the SAT mediation process has been assessed and is considered to satisfy all of the relevant provisions contained within CPS5, Part 6 of the R-Codes and Council Policies, with the exception of those matters listed below: Development Required Deemed to Comply / CPS5 Provision Proposal Building Height 9m m Plot Ratio 0.6 (3631m 2 ) 1.28 (7756.5sqm) The above matters are considered to be interrelated and are usually assessed together, in conjunction with setbacks, open space and overshadowing, as to whether the bulk and scale of a proposed development is suitable. It is noted that the proposed development satisfies the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R-Codes in relation to boundary setbacks, open space and overshadowing. Consequently, only an assessment as to the merits of the proposed building height and plot ratio remain. Building Height CPS5 prescribes an 8m eave height and 10.5m overall height for the subject site having regard to Council policy. Council Policy 066: Height of Buildings states that where a building is designed with a flat or concealed roof, such as the proposed development, that the maximum wall height applicable is 1m greater than the prescribed CPS5 eave height for the Precinct. As such, the maximum wall height for the subject development is 9m. Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of CPS5 provide the ability to vary the height requirement. Clause 4.2 requires in summary that development of land conform with the CPS5 Statement of Intent and that where Council considers that a proposed variation is likely to affect owners or occupiers in the general locality that they be consulted and their views be considered prior to the determination being made. Clause 4.2 further requires that the decision maker be satisfied that approval of the development would be appropriate having regard to the criteria set out in Clause 7.8 and that the noncompliance will not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality. Page 23

24 Clause 4.3 does not provide further criteria against which to assess a development which proposes to vary the height requirements of CPS5. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal should be assessed against the objectives of CPS5, other relevant provisions of CPS5 (Cl. 4.2 and Cl. 7.8), the objectives of the R Codes and Design Principle of the R-Codes. Design Principle states: Building Height P2 Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: Adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; Adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; Access to views of significance; Buildings present a human scale for pedestrians; Building façades designed to reduce the perception of height through design measures; and Podium style development is provided where appropriate. Assessment of height is included under the heading bulk and scale below. Plot Ratio The development site is located within Precinct ML2 of CPS5 and is coded R40. Within Precinct ML2, plot ratio is as per the R Codes. Clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of CPS5 provide the ability to vary the plot ratio requirement. Clause 4.2 requires in summary that development of land conform with the CPS5 Statement of Intent and that where Council considers that a proposed variation is likely to affect owners or occupiers in the general locality that they be consulted and their views be considered prior to the determination being made. Clause 4.2 further requires that the decision maker be satisfied that approval of the development would be appropriate having regard to the criteria set out in Clause 7.8 and that the non - compliance will not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality. Clause 4.3 does not provide further criteria against which to assess a development which proposes to vary the plot ratio requirements of CPS5. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal should be assessed against the objectives of CPS5, other relevant provisions of CPS5 including Cl. 4.2 and Cl. 7.8, the objectives of the R Codes and Design Principle of the R-Codes. Part 6 of the R-Codes prescribes a maximum plot ratio of 0.6 for R40-coded properties. Clause allows the plot ratio to be varied where the decision maker considers the criteria met. Page 24

25 Design Principle states as follows: Building size P1 Development of the building is at a bulk and scale indicated in the local planning framework and is consistent with the existing or future desired built form of the locality. Assessment of plot ratio is included under the heading bulk and scale below. Bulk and Scale The variations sought to height and plot ratio require consideration under the abovementioned R-Codes Design Principles. Due regard is also required to be given to R-Codes objectives and to the objectives and other relevant clauses of CPS5. Design Scenarios To assist the City in its consideration of the previous proposal, the City obtained a 3D hypothetical graphic of a multiple dwelling development in a similar configuration to the proposed development and a compliant grouped dwelling development of the site. The multiple dwelling 3D graphic shows that a development which is compliant with plot ratio would essentially be a two storey residential development if the development footprint were to occupy the whole of the site. The 3D grouped dwelling graphic shows that if the site were developed as a grouped dwelling development in a two storey configuration, a hypothetical plot ratio in the order of 0.95 could be achieved. It is noted that Part 5 and Table 1 of the R Codes does not include plot ratio control for grouped dwellings. The 3D grouped dwelling graphic also indicates that a compliant two storey grouped dwelling development could be situated in closer proximity (approximately 1.5m-2m from the boundary dependent upon design) to the southern boundary than the proposed development (8.8m 10m). Taking the above into account, various alternative design configurations could be proposed for the development of the subject site which may either comply with or seek variation to plot ratio and/or building height. The impact of these alternative development configurations on the streetscape and adjoining properties is largely dependant upon design. For example, a two storey grouped or multiple dwelling development located in close proximity to the rear boundary of the site could have significant bulk and privacy impacts for the adjoining neighbours. It is arguable that a development located further away from the boundary such as is proposed could have equal or lesser impact. For this reason, it is important that the resultant impacts of the proposal is assessed taking into account the surrounding context, as well as compliance with the statutory planning provisions,. Where the exercise of discretion is sought in relation to height and plot ratio, the potential impacts as a result of the proposal are required to be assessed and it must be demonstrated that all potential impacts can be appropriately mitigated. Where a development is well designed to mitigate the potential impacts there is a case for grant of planning approval. Page 25

26 Assessment The reasons for the refusal of the previous plans by the JDAP centred upon the distribution of the proposed height and its impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. Since this decision, the building has been reduced in height by one storey above ground level through the creation of a basement. This has created a visible built form of three storeys. The plot ratio now proposed represents a slight reduction on that previously proposed. Noting that the locality is experiencing some transition and is likely to experience further transition in the future, the key issue for consideration is whether the proposed height and bulk of the development is consistent with the future desired built form of the locality. As outlined above, a height of up to 9m (which could allow three storey development) is permitted on the subject site and within the surrounding R20 coded areas, however it is considered unlikely to be commonplace in this locality. The proposed development has been modified to reduce the overall height of the building above ground level by 2.5m to now appear as a three storey building. The setbacks of the second floor level in relation to the floor below have also been increased to result in the building appearing two storey from the verge adjacent to the site on Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street. This would have some effect on mitigating bulk and height impact from both street frontages. In addition, further façade treatment has also been added to the Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street elevations to provide rhythm in the design and to make the development appear as a two storey townhouse-style development rather than multiple dwellings. These design responses improve the pedestrian scale of the development and ensure the building is more cognisant of the existing single house / grouped dwelling developments within the surrounding area. It is noted however that the building will still appear three storey when viewed from a greater distance away than the footpath adjacent to the building. It is arguable that from greater distance the impacts of building bulk and scale are not as significant. It is noted however that with the total height is reduced by 2.5m rather than a more significant reduction. It is considered that the overall effect of the discretion sought on height together with the discretion sought on plot ratio would be a building scale which is out of character with the surrounding locality. It is noted that the height and plot ratio of the proposed development in relation to the eastern and southern boundaries is also mitigated through the increased setbacks that are provided. The proposed development will appear two storey adjacent to the eastern boundary with the third level setback 9.5m from the boundary. These setbacks, in addition to the landscaping proposed along the boundary, ameliorate the building bulk impacts along this boundary and the landscaping, once matured will soften the appearance of the building. Page 26

27 The appearance of the building from the rear of the subject site is mitigated through the reduction in the overall height, the substantial setback proposed from the southern boundary, in particular, the setback of the second floor level and the landscaping proposed along the southern boundary. The substantial setback from the southern boundary is predominantly by virtue of the rear car parking and access area. This setback mitigates the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties, reduces the level of overshadowing of the adjoining properties backyards and provides greater privacy setbacks. In addition, once mature, the proposed landscaping along the rear boundary would further soften the appearance of the building and provide further privacy. The height of the proposed building at its south east corner is up to 11.1m as a result of the fall of the site from front to rear. The potential impact of the height at this point in relation to adjoining properties is considered to be in part mitigated by the substantial setback of the upper floor from the rear boundary as well as the landscaping proposed along the boundary however the height at this point together with the plot ratio variation sought generates a scale of building considered to be out of character with the surrounding locality. There are not considered to be views of significance in the area. In addition to the above, CPS5 includes specific objectives to enhance the character and amenity of existing residential areas and to promote a high standard of residential development while providing housing choice. For the abovementioned reasons, it is considered that the revised proposal is not fully consistent with the intentions of the Design Principles in Part 6.1 of the R-Codes in relation to height and plot ratio and does not completely address the concerns raised in the previous JDAP refusal. Further Matters of Consideration As outlined above, the conclusion of the RAR dated 30 August 2013 included comment on further modifications considered to be required to the previous proposal which was refused by the JDAP. The manner in which these points have been addressed in the revised proposal is outlined below: 1. As proposed, the height of the development as it presents to Kitchener Road is considered to be out of context with the future character of the surrounding R20 area and it is considered does not present a human scale for pedestrians as required by R-Codes Design Principle and requires further mitigation. An appropriate method to achieve this mitigation would be for the floor above two storey to be set back within a height plane approximating line of sight from the footpath in front of the building. The peer assessment including the context analysis, noted that the wall height at the street frontage should be similar to that anticipated on the lower coded land and that additional height should be set back from the street. Furthermore, R-Codes Design Principle states that buildings should present a human scale for pedestrians. At three storeys on the front setback, it was considered in the previous proposal that the development would not be compatible with the Page 27

28 future character of the surrounding R20 area and would not be a human scale for pedestrians in the context of the locality. Since the publication of the RAR dated 30 August 2013, the height of the building has been reduced by one storey above ground level. This reduction has resulted in the proposed building height of the ground floor and first floor at the front setback line on Kitchener Road being between metres and metres respectively above natural ground level (two storey). The maximum height of the second floor along the Kitchener Road frontage is proposed at between metres above natural ground level. The second floor level is proposed to be setback a sufficient distance from the front, side and rear boundaries in a podium style design to ensure that the second floor is less visible, and where it is visible, the bulk impact is further reduced. The appearance of the Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street elevations is also improved to increase the articulation in both facades through staggered setbacks, use of materials and location of openings. The design modifications described above are intended to create a building that is of a pedestrian scale and is consistent with the intent of the building height provisions in of the Residential Design Codes. 2. Likewise, the Cotrill Street elevation is considered to require similar modification especially as the setback to Cotrill Street is reduced and the elevation less detailed. The Cotrill Street elevation has been significantly amended since the JDAP refusal as follows: Apartments are now proposed to be provided on the ground floor level where there was previously a blank car park/ store rooms wall, Greater articulation of the facade is proposed through varied setbacks, the use of a mix of materials and additional openings and balconies, The setback of the upper floor has been increased from 1m to 4m, and An entrance is proposed on the ground floor level. The combination of the above measures has improved articulation, passive surveillance and reduced the overall bulk of the building on Cotrill Street. The increased setback of the second floor in particular has enhanced the pedestrian scale of the development and would result in the development being more in keeping with the current and future desired built form of the locality. 3. Further information as to the proposed external materials, colours and finishes should be provided in order to improve the elevation treatments, better delineate floors and reduce the perceived height. Additional information has been provided by the Applicant in respect of the proposed external materials, colours and finishes. The varied materials proposed in conjunction with the design of the Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street frontages are intended to assist the development being perceived as multiple storey townhouses within the streetscape, rather than multiple dwellings. Page 28

29 Furthermore, the reduction of the proposed overall building height by one storey and the increased setbacks to the second floor has also reduced the impression of height so to appear more consistent with the surrounding single and two storey residential area. 4. The long blank ground floor level frontage along Cotrill Street requires improvement to incorporate openings and future articulation and landscaped to break up the bulk of this wall. The changes to the Cotrill Street elevation are explained in (2) above. These improvements are considered to have satisfied the above comment. 5. The parking bay located closest to Cotrill Street along the southern boundary should be deleted to enable landscape screening to the parking area. The design of the parking area has been significantly altered since the JDAP refusal due to the sinking of the car parking area below ground level. No parking is now visible from the street. 6. The middle units on the first and second floor levels facing Cotrill Street are considered unsatisfactory as the studies have less access to daylight and the units compromise the ability to achieve a courtyard as per the other blocks. These units should be deleted and the other two units on each floor along Cotrill Street enlarged to three bedroom units instead. The two central apartments on the first and second floors have been deleted from the revised plans and the apartments either side are shown to be increased in size. 7. Given that setbacks are related to the amount of open space and Clause 5.2 of CPS5 allow the Council to require setbacks to be compatible with existing residential development, and in light of the Context Analysis undertaken, front, setbacks may warrant further consideration. It should be noted that the proposed development entirely satisfies the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R-Codes in relation to boundary setbacks and open space, however CPS5 does allow Council to request greater setbacks where it is deemed necessary to be compatible with the surrounding existing residential development. The ground and first floor setbacks from Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street have remained predominantly the same; however the setback of the second floor has been increased as follows: The second floor setback adjacent to the corner of Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street has been increased by 1.1 metres to a setback of 7.6 metres. Along the Kitchener Road frontage, the second floor level is now proposed to be setback from between metres from the front boundary. The balcony balustrades are also proposed to sit 1 metre behind the setback line of the floor below. The second floor level along Cotrill Street is now proposed to be setback an additional 1 metre to now be 4 metres from the secondary street boundary and the balcony balustrade has been pushed back an additional 1 metre to sit behind the line of the first floor level below. Page 29

30 The abovementioned measures are considered to be acceptable in ensuring the development is consistent with the current and desired built form of the surrounding locality. Additional setbacks are not considered warranted for the following reasons: There are other developments within the surrounding locality which exhibit reduced front setbacks. The standard R20 front setback requirement is 6m, however an averaging approach can be applied which allows for the minimum setback to be 3m provided the average setback is 6m. This averaging approach is frequently applied to new developments and it is anticipated that as the surrounding area transitions that the instances of varied setbacks will increase. The front fencing along Kitchener Road has been pushed back off the front boundary by 1.5 metres with landscaping separating the footpath and front setback areas of each ground floor dwelling. This will soften the appearance of the development at street level. 8. Given the importance of open space in the street setback areas in contributing to the streetscape, detail should be provided with the development application to enable the City to assess its suitability. Detail of proposed landscaping treatment of the internal landscaped courtyards should also be given attention as this is considered important for apartment resident; more planting and less hard surface may effectively minimise potentially adverse acoustic conditions and provide some visual relief. A landscaping plan has been submitted which details the proposed planting within the front setback areas, along the side and rear boundaries and within the internal courtyards. This planting will soften the appearance of the development within the streetscape and from the adjoining properties. The planting along the boundaries will also increase the privacy between the subject property and the adjacent properties and vice versa. The landscaping along the southern and eastern boundaries would also be the subject of a legal agreement between the City and the Applicant to ensure that the vegetation is retained in perpetuity. 9. Alternatives to the use of obscure glass for windows in bedrooms and living rooms could be considered, such as projecting blades on the exterior of the building to prevent line-of-sight in particular directions where this can be demonstrated to be feasible or effective. Projecting blades are not considered likely to be an effective solution in obscuring the line of sight from the major openings and balconies of the proposed development toward the adjoining southern properties given the large setback distance of the building from the rear boundary. It is noted that the obscure glazing which was previously proposed for the second and third floor Living and Bedroom windows along the southern elevation has been amended to now only be proposed on the first floor level windows. The Applicant has provided justification in support of the second floor windows remaining un-obscured in that for a person standing 0.5m away from the window on the second floor, the wall of the floor below limits their line-of-sight down and effectively prevents overlooking of the backyard area of all of the adjoining properties Page 30

31 at the rear. Furthermore, a number of these properties have large trees which provide screening or roofed areas which can be overlooked. Whilst the above point is acknowledged, it is noted that Cl. 7.8 of CPS5 and the CPS5 objectives also require consideration of the impact of development on the amenity of the area. Furthermore, objective 6.4 of the R-Codes requires consideration that buildings be designed and located to meet the needs of residents and minimise the potential impact of development on adjoining properties. The building setback from the southern boundary is in excess of the R-Codes deemed to comply requirements, and the setback to major openings and balconies comply with visual privacy requirements, however it is considered that there is a potential amenity issue which warrants consideration. The R-Codes Explanatory Guidelines (Part 7.1 Visual Privacy; Clauses and 6.4.1) note that there are four basic ways of preventing or ameliorating overlooking: designing windows, balconies and decks to achieve an effective privacy separation distance providing greater than normal setbacks to achieve an effective privacy separation distance providing intervening screening, or ensuring that overlooking windows cannot be opened and are opaque or highlight windows The R-Codes Explanatory Guidelines notes that often the most effective results will come from a combination of these. The use of fixed screening is not considered appropriate in the interests of minimising bulk; however additional measures could be installed to mitigate the potential amenity impacts, whilst still maintaining the amenity of the future occupants of the development. As a result, the following measures are considered to be warranted l: 1 Replacement of the proposed Crimson Sentry Maple planting along the southern boundary with a tall and fast-growing non-deciduous species (such as bamboo, cypress fir, Sysygium (lilly-pilly). This will ensure that the trees provide additional privacy throughout the year, not just during summer. 2 Replacement of the glazed balustrade on the second floor level balconies along the southern elevation with a solid planting trough to provide a continuous landscape zone with planting. This will have numerous benefits including: Ensuring that planting is implemented. Provide greater screening. Provide a stronger finish to the top of the wall (the glass balustrade looks weak as a parapet). Raise the planting to a level that it can provide a green fringe to the top of the wall. Avoid the maintenance issue of planting against glass. 3 Replacement of the glass balustrade to the first floor balconies along the southern elevation with a solid balustrade to reduce the capacity for overlooking, provide greater privacy for the residents, hide miscellaneous Page 31

32 items on the balcony (such as cloth dryers and air conditioning condensers), and maintain architectural consistency with the above measure (2). Replace the lower panes of glass in the first floor bedroom windows along the southern elevation with opaque spandrel panels. This will reduce the capacity for casual overlooking, enable better use of the bedroom space (for example, enable a desk to be located below the window), provide greater privacy for residents and would reduce the cluttered appearance when items are left on the floor. It is acknowledged that the above measures will not completely avoid overlooking, however, would reduce the capacity for casual overlooking and would, arguably, improve the appearance of the proposed building and improve the amenity of its future residents. 10. Where rooms that have no external outlook and appear to be proposed with highlight windows and could experience poor amenity as a result this is considered to warrant further consideration. There are still some rooms which face the internal courtyards which have highlight windows. These rooms are second bedrooms and studies and the highlight windows are proposed to provide additional privacy as they are located adjacent to the common walkways or internal courtyards. Due to the nature of these rooms, the impact upon their amenity as a result of the use of highlight windows is not anticipated to be significant. 11. Bicycle parking in accordance with R Codes requirements should be indicated on the plans in addition to the private stores shown on the plans. Bicycle parking is now proposed in accordance with the requirements of the R- Codes. Traffic and Parking Following the re-design of the proposed development, the number of apartments proposed reduced by three. This reduction in the number of apartments is anticipated to have an insignificant impact upon the traffic generated by the overall development, consequently, an amended traffic impact assessment was not considered necessary as part of the revised application. Accordingly, the commentary relating to the assessment of traffic and parking from the RAR dated 30 August 2013 is repeated below: In terms of traffic generation, the traffic impact assessment notes: both intersections (Kitchener Road / Cotrill Street and Kitchener Road / North Lake Road) will still continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the proposed development impacting the primary road network less than 5% during the respective am and pm peak hours. The minimal increases in vehicular traffic on the boundary road system are concentrated on a short section of Cotrill Street with the additional traffic on Kitchener Road and Cotrill Street easily accommodated within their respective existing practical capacities and functional road classification. Page 32

33 The City s Technical Services have assessed the Transport Impact Assessment and concur that the anticipated additional 450 vehicular trips will only result in a minor impact upon the existing road networks, and mainly during the peak hours. Cotrill Street is designated as an Access Road within the Main Roads WA Functional Road Hierarchy. The City has no traffic counts currently available for Cotrill Street; however the City s Technical Services have not raised any concerns regarding the use of Cotrill Street as the singular access point for the development. Under the abovementioned hierarchy, Kitchener Road is designated a Local Distributor road. Local Distributor Roads have a carrying capacity of up to 6,000 vehicles per day. Kitchener Road is currently operating at around 3,800 vehicles per day. Accordingly, the anticipated 450 vehicles per day could be adequately accommodated without detriment to the functioning of Kitchener Road. The City s Technical Services have however noted that the additional traffic generated by the proposal may result in further delays at the North Lake Road / Canning Highway intersection. For this reason, the City s Technical Services recommend that a more detailed Traffic Impact Assessment be undertaken to identify downstream impacts upon the road network. This recommendation has not been actioned in the course of the assessment as the estimated additional 450 vehicles per day is within the carrying capacity of Kitchener Road and therefore flows into surrounding areas at these levels should be anticipated and planned for by the City and Main Roads into the future. In addition to the above, it is considered that the existing use of the subject site as an indoor sports centre should also be taken into account, as this business currently contributes to the existing traffic volumes in the area. The Applicant has reviewed the operation and typical attendance of the Centre within the Amenity Impact Statement and has stated that the traffic generated by the proposed development would be comparable to the existing traffic demands of the indoor sports centre during afternoon and night times. It is anticipated that some future occupiers of the proposed development will make use of the bus routes in the locality which run frequently during peak hours. Figure 4 below shows the existence of multiple bus stops just outside of a 250m walking catchment of the site. The travel route between the subject site and Marmion Street is made easy by the fact that walkers can cut through Marmion Reserve which creates a direct route rather than being limited to pedestrian footpaths around a block. Page 33

34 Figure 2 250m radius of the subject site As a result of the above, it is concluded that the proposed development will not result in a detrimental impact in terms of the functioning of the surrounding road network. 169 on-site car parking bays are proposed which more than satisfies the Deemed to Comply provisions of the R-Codes as are required. Bicycle bays have been provided for each module of apartments and complies with the requirements of the R-Codes. The Applicant proposes an additional 14 embayed parking bays on the road reserve. The proposed embayed parking bays in addition to the proposed street trees are considered to improve the streetscape of the area. Furthermore, these amenities will act as traffic calming measures along Kitchener Road, which although designated a 50km road, currently operates at an 85 th percentile speed of 64km per hour. The proposed parking embayments will be available to the public and will not be restricted for the use of only occupants and visitors to 94 Kitchener Road. Accordingly, the proposed parking bays and street trees are considered to be of community benefit. Waste Due to the amendments to the proposed development, bin storage areas are now proposed within the basement level and rubbish collection is now proposed by the City rather than a private contractor. In order to justify that the proposed bin storage areas are sufficient, the Applicant has provided the following information: Page 34