Alford v Brisbane City Council
[2015] QPEC 54
•6 November 2015
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Alford & Ors v Brisbane City Council & Anor [2015] QPEC 54
PARTIES:
RICHARD ALFORD, DALLAS NICHOL, SALLI HOOD, VIRGINIA PROWSE, TIM PROWSE, SARA GRAHAM, JOHN FEATHERSTON, RICHARD FEATHERSTON, COLLEEN CANNIFFE, MELISSA BRATIC, ALEX BRATIC & ANDREW EDWARDS
(Appellants)
v
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(Respondent)
&
BA APARTMENTS PTY LTD
(ACN 161 700 321)
(Co-Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
BD4557/14
DIVISION:
Planning & Environment
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Planning and Environment Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
6 November 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATES:
27-30 April, 14-15 & 17 September 2015
JUDGE:
Searles DCJ
ORDER:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Parties will be heard on any necessary consequential orders.
CATCHWORDS:
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT – DEVELOPMENT – MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – CONFLICT - Appeal against Council decision to approve proposal for three-storey residential apartment – Whether height, bulk, scale and design of proposal conflicts with intended planning outcomes - Whether proposal achieves the intended character planned for the subject site and surrounding locality – Whether sufficient grounds exist to approve proposal despite any conflict.
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) ss 314(2)-(3), 324, 326, 493(1), 495(2)
Brisbane City Plan 2000
Brisbane City Plan 2014
Calvisi v Brisbane City Council [2009] 164 LGERA 119
Friend v Brisbane City Council [2014] QPELR 24
Gorman v Brisbane City Council [2004] QPELR 29
Hankamer & Ors v Brisbane City Council [2013] QPELR 800
K Page Main Beach Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2011] QPELR 406
KPRA v Brisbane City Council [2014] QPEC 64
Mackay Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council [2013] QPELR 661
Main Beach Progressive Association Inc v Gold Coast City Council [2008] QPELR 675
SDW Projects Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2007] QPELR 24
Skurr v Brisbane City Council (1973) 133 CLR 242
The Purcell Family v Gold Coast City Council [2004] QPELR 521
Westfield Management Limited v Pine River Shire Council & Anor [2004] QPELR 337
Wingate Properties Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council [2001] QPELR 272
COUNSEL:
Mr A Skoien for the Appellants
Mr B Job for the Respondent
Mr D Gore QC, Mr M Batty for the Co-Respondent
SOLICITORS:
Norton Rose Fulbright for the Appellants
Brisbane City Legal Practice for the Respondent
Thynne & Macartney for the Co-Respondent
Contents
Topic Page Number
Appeal4
Proposed Development5
Minor Change5
Surrounding Locality6
City Plan 2000 Designation6
City Plan 2014 Designation7
Disputed Issues7
Statutory Assessment Regime7
Submitters8
Planning Evidence8
Opinions of Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley in Joint Planning Report9
City Plan 20009
Building Form9
Character13
Conclusion re: conflict with City Plan 200014
City Plan 201415
Mr Buckley’s Individual Report 14 April 201517
Opinions of Mr Brown Expressed in Joint Planning Report17
City Plan 200017
Low-medium Density Residential Area17
Holland Park-Tarragindi District Local Plan18
Precinct 8 – Hillside Character Precinct18
Hillside Character Precinct – Performance Criterion P220
Hillside Character Precinct – Performance Criterion P420
Hillside Character Precinct – Performance Criterion P621
City Plan 201421
Multiple Dwelling Code – Overall Outcomes23
Multiple Dwelling Code – Assessment Criteria23
Assessment Criteria for Hillside Character Precinct NPP-00825
Pattern of Development25
Individual Report of Mr Brown Dated 13 April 201527
Number of Storeys?28
Grounds Relied Upon in Event of Conflict with Planning Scheme29
The Evidence of Mr R Olsson – Visual Amenity and Architecture Expert 30
City Plan 2014 Issues48
Sufficient grounds?51
Mr Olsson’s Conclusion52
Evidence of Mr Mark Elliott – Architectural Photo Illustrator52
Previous Similar Approvals52
Parties’ Submissions53
Appellants’ Arguments53
City Plan 201456
Categorisation of Extent of Conflict with City Plan 2000 and City Plan 201457
Arguments of Co-Respondent (BA)57
Weight to be given to Council Approval 59
Visual Catchment60
Proximity to Multipurpose Centres61
Height, Bulk and Scale61
City Plan 201462
Issues Raised by the Appellants64
Reasonable Expectations67
Council’s Submissions68
Consideration of Matter68
Valid Reasons in the Event of a Conflict?71
Ground Relied Upon by Co-Respondent in the Event of a Conflict71
Appellants’ Argument re: Need71
Appellants’ Arguments re: Lack of Grounds72
Need73
Conclusion re: Sufficient Grounds74
Final order74
Appeal
This is a submitter appeal against Council’s decision to approve (subject to conditions) a development application by the Co-Respondent (BA) for a development permit for material change of use for a Multi-Unit Dwelling (15 units) and preliminary approval to carry out building work (Development Application) in respect of land described as Lot 17 and 18 on RP42245 situated at 40-42 Donaldson Street, Greenslopes (Site). The development application was lodged on 28 March 2014, when City Plan 2000 (CP2000) was still in operation, and some three months prior to 1 July 2014, when City Plan 2014 (CP2014) came into force. The Development Application is to be assessed against the provisions of CP2000 in terms of s 495(2) of The Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA), but the court may give weight to any new laws and policies considered appropriate. That raises for consideration the relevance of the provisions of CP2014.
Proposed Development
Of the 15 residential units proposed, 11 will be two bedroom and 4 three bedroom units. The Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the proposed development is 1,479m2, on a land area of 1,348m2, giving a GFA of approximately 109% of the site area.[1] The building is proposed as a 3 storey structure with a maximum building height of 9.5m above ground level to the underside of eaves; though there is an issue as to the number of storeys. Mr Brown, the Appellants’ town planner, considers that in some respects the building will present as a 4 storey building. Frontage to Donaldson Street is 25.2m along its southern boundary, and vehicular access is proposed from Donaldson Street to a basement/ground level car park. The proposed development has been designed for one unit at ground level to obscure the car parking area, and 24 car parking spaces are proposed: 20 to be dedicated for resident use, and four for visitors.
[1]Exhibit 3(1), p 6.
Minor Change
At the hearing, the Co-Respondent applied to change the approved plans by reconfiguring the level three entrance from the lift for units 14 and 15 by removing an eastern part of level three and the roof, amending the ridgeline of the roof to align with the northern end of the lift, and amending the north eastern section of the roof by providing a minor diagonal 3° slope to the east.[2] It was not opposed, and I found that it constituted a minor change and ordered accordingly.
Surrounding Locality[3]
[2]Exhibit 32, p 2; affidavit of Mr C Buckley paragraph 9.
[3]Exhibit 5, paragraph 3.2.
The site is located in Greenslopes, some 5km southeast of the Brisbane CBD, accessed via Logan Road and well served by public transport by virtue of that main arterial road and its proximity to the Brisbane CBD. The site is on the eastern side of Logan Road in a locality that has a hilly topography and a residential character. It is in close proximity to the Greenslopes Mall, on the corner of Logan Road and Sackville Street. This centre is identified as a corridor hub/growth node under CP2014 and is a prominent non-residential land use in a locality.
Immediately adjoining the site to the east and west are existing dwelling houses, but the land immediately adjoining the site to the north contains an existing 3-storey unit development, Cromwell Court at 33 Curd Street. The town planning experts agree that this building was erected either in the late 1960s or early 1970s.
Two house allotments to the east of the site is a 3 storey dwelling at 46 Donaldson Street. Apart from those 3 storey buildings, the immediate locality contains mainly 2 storey dwellings mostly in attached houses. There is a 2 storey dwelling at 29 Donaldson Street which appears to the planning experts to have been developed in the 1990’s.
Peppered through the wider locality are multiple unit developments of 2- and 3-storey height so that the land use in the local and wider locality cannot be said to be homogeneous.
City Plan 2000 Designation
Under CP2000, the site is located within the Low-medium Density Residential Area (LMDR Area) and the Holland Park-Tarragindi District Local Plan (Local Plan). Within that local plan site is identified in the Hillside Character Precinct.
City Plan 2014 Designation
Under CP2014, the land is in the Low-medium Density Residential Zone (2 or 3 storey mix Precinct) and in the Holland Park-Tarragindi District Neighbourhood Plan. Within that neighbourhood plan is included within the Hillside Character Precinct (NPP-008).[4]
[4]Joint planners report, Exhibit 5.
Disputed Issues
Broadly speaking, the disputed issues as identified by the town planners in their joint report[5] are these:-
·whether the proposed development form (in particular, height, bulk, scale and design) is in conflict with the intended planning outcomes for the subject site and surrounding area;
·whether the proposed development can achieve the intended character planned for the subject site;
·whether the proposed development form is in conflict with the intended planning outcomes of the current planning scheme, CP2014; and
·whether sufficient grounds exist to consider approval of the proposed development despite the alleged conflict with the planning scheme.
[5]Exhibit 5, paragraph 6.0.2.
Statutory Assessment Regime
The subject development application is impact assessable, and is to be assessed in accordance with SPA s 314(2) and (3) and decided in accordance with ss 324 and 326. While the appeal is a submitter appeal, BA bears the onus of establishing that approval should be granted and the appeal dismissed.[6] The appeal is by way of hearing anew.[7] Any decision must not conflict with the Planning Scheme.[8]
[6]SPA s 493(1).
[7]SPA s 495.
[8]SPA s 326.
Submitters
There were 27 submissions received by Council, of which it considered 21 valid and six invalid.[9] All submissions objected to the proposal.
[9]Exhibit 3(1), p 414.
Of those submitters who elected to become Appellants, affidavit evidence was received from Colleen Canniffe, Richard Fetherston, Virginia Prowse, and Dallas Nichol. None of them was cross-examined. A summary of the issues raised in those affidavits is:-
§ The size and height of the proposed development will negatively impact upon the privacy of adjoining landowners, and upon the amount of natural light provided to adjoining properties.
§ The bulk and scale of the proposed development is incompatible with existing buildings in the immediate locality, particularly as compared to other multi-unit developments in the area, in that the development is excessive and much larger.
§ The proposed development will, negatively, be clearly visible within the area, posing as a dominant, out-of-character object on the hilltop.
§ The proposed development does not comply with the traditional character scale of the locality.
Planning Evidence
Evidence was given by three town planners: Mr Denis Brown (Appellants), Ms Jennifer Morrissy (Council) and Mr Chris Buckley (Co-Respondent/BA). They all contributed to a joint town planning report.[10] Mr Brown and Mr Buckley also provided individual reports.[11]
[10]Exhibit 5 dated 19 March 2015.
[11]Exhibit 17 (13/4/2015) and Exhibit 7 (14/4/2015) respectively.
Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley identified relevant provisions of CP2000 they say are relevant to the appeal. Those provisions are set out in Schedule A.
Opinions of Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley in Joint Planning Report
City Plan 2000
Building Form
Mr Buckley and Ms Morrissy point to a range of housing types and sizes envisaged in the Residential Areas generally, in both the Low-medium Density Residential Area (LMDR Area) and in the Holland Park-Tarragindi Local Plan area, with higher density housing envisaged in or near multi-purpose centres, near public transport and along arterial roads. Further, they say residential buildings larger than houses are anticipated in both those areas provided they co-exist comfortably with neighbouring houses; are compatible in scale and design with neighbouring houses; and are of a size and bulk consistent with the low to medium density of the locality. They say the peppering of the wider locality with multiple dwellings is an indication of the way CP2000 has been implemented. Units are mixed with detached houses, with the multiple unit developments having varying degrees of exposure and visibility depending on their context.
Mr Buckley adds that the locality is not homogeneous, in that the proposed development is not the first of its kind and will be a continuation of the relatively small proportion of land in the area being developed for multi-unit residential purposes as the Intent of the LMDR Area anticipates.
Ms Morrissy agrees that the proposal complies with the principles of the Intent of the LMDR Area, given that the locality already accommodates a mix of houses, single unit dwellings and multiple dwellings, as evidenced in Figure 8 of the Joint Report.[12] It involves a 3 storey built form in an area that already accommodates 3 storey residential buildings, further the site is located in close proximity to the Greenslopes Shopping Mall, a district centre, and bus stops on Logan Road, an arterial road, thus being well placed to provide increased residential densities. Ms Morrissy’s above comments stand notwithstanding that the proposed GFA of 109% will exceed the maximum GFA of 50% or 60% in close proximity to public transport or an arterial road in the Intent of the LMDR Area paragraph 5.4.1.
[12]Exhibit 5, p 49.
Mr Buckley agrees with Ms Morrissy that compliance is achieved, notwithstanding the GFA exceedance, observing that in some cases an indication of a high GFA reflects an inability to meet other performance criteria, such as, height, lack of landscaping, tight car parking or a single “fat” building. As to the current proposal, however, he says the setting on the site and its height are within reasonable expectations and the proposed building’s presentation to all boundaries, particularly the street, displays a high design quality.
As to the proposed development being able to comfortably co-exist with neighbouring houses, being of a scale and design consistent with neighbouring houses and being of a size and bulk consistent with the low to medium density of the locality, both Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley agree that:-
·the proposal meets the current CP2014 acceptable outcomes for building height in terms of metres, except for a minor intrusion above the 9.5m roofline;[13]
·3 storey residential buildings exist in the locality and the mix of residential land use is the result of a longstanding planning policy;
·front, side and rear boundary set backs are generally compliant with the provisions of both CP2000 and CP2014 with opportunities for deep planting (landscaping) notwithstanding the basement car park;
·the building’s Donaldson Street façade has a house compatible scale and design in that it incorporates the use of design elements and materials consistent with the scale and type of elements found in a house; and
·whilst the proposed building is of a scale larger than neighbouring houses, a built form larger than house scale is anticipated in the LMDR Area and in the Hillside Character Precinct of the Holland Park-Tarragindi Local Plan.
[13]T4-58.45.47 – T4-59.1-4.
As to the bulk and scale of the proposed building, both Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley agree that it has been reduced by the adoption of most of the methods listed in the acceptable solutions that correspond with the requirement for residential development to be compatible with traditional character houses, namely:-
·use of significant recesses and projections along all elevations;
·articulation and changes in the roof;
·varied roof geometry;
·varied elevation and roof treatments (materials, colours and finishes);
·the use of balconies, sunhoods, overhangs, timber batten balustrading and visual screens, two types of timber cladding, rendered masonry and colour bond roofing;
·third storey of the building at the rear of the site at its highest contour elevation incorporated within the roof space area; and
·articulation of all elevations resulting in no uniform unarticulated elevations exceeding 10m in length.
As to provisions of the Residential Design – low Density Character and Low-medium Density Code, raised by the Appellants in the grounds of appeal, Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley say:-
(a) the size and bulk of the proposed development is consistent with the low to medium density nature of the locality for reasons already stated;
(b) front building setbacks to Donaldson Street are varied, ranging from 3.4m to 12.6m which desirably, does not reflect a consistent or uniform front setback;
(c) complementing the existing variable setbacks, the proposal will have varied setbacks of 6m, 8m and 10m respectively to Donaldson Street;
(d) potential for overlooking and privacy issues has been addressed through the location of private screens to balconies, the imposition of a private screen condition of approval;
(e) whilst some overshadowing of neighbours’ houses will occur, particularly during the winter solstice (21 June) at 9am, the sun shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicates the loss of sunlight will be short lived as shadowing is well reduced by 12pm. On this basis, the proposed development will not significantly reduce daylight to open space or habitable rooms in adjacent developments; and
(f) waste disposal and collection areas are located within the basement car park area, will be unobtrusive and unlikely to have adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.
For all the above reasons, Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley considered that on balance, the proposal has been designed to co-exist comfortably with neighbouring houses and meets the intended planning outcomes for a multiple dwelling located in the LMDR Area and Hillside Character Precinct of the Local Plan of CP2000.
Character
As to whether the proposal will achieve the intended character planned for the subject site, Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley observed that, where a development is to be located on major ridge lines in the Holland Park-Tarragindi Local Plan Area, as here, it must be designed to be sympathetic to existing streetscape and/or traditional character so as to minimise visual impact and protect significant views and vistas. It must also be compatible with traditional character house scale. Having said that, however, they make the point that, in their view, the proposed multiple dwelling is not thereby required to replicate or imitate traditional housing scale or building form; the test is one of compatibility rather than replication or imitation. I agree with that view.
In their view, the proposal demonstrates compatibility with traditional housing scale by virtue of these features:-
(a) the detailed and broken up design of the Donaldson Street façade giving the appearance of two attached houses/identifiable elements, an important aspect of the Hillside Character Precinct NPP-008 within which it will be located;
(b) segmenting of the side elevations of the building through recesses giving the building an appearance of three attached buildings;
(c) the adoption of a house compatible building height which does not significantly exceed surrounding building height resulting in it not being visually prominent or out of character in the locality;
(d) building height and bulk is reduced through the articulation of all elevation through:-
· distinct floor levels, recesses to increase building setbacks, balconies, overhangs, sunhoods, batten balustrading and privacy screens;
· use of a variety of building materials;
· variation in building material colour; and
· the incorporation of the third storey at the rear of the development within the roof space;
(e) adoption of clearly distinguishable parts similar in scale to houses; and
(f) a proposed building height which will not dramatically interrupt the rhythm of stepping rooflines in Donaldson Street.
In their view, the above identified features are integral to the design and form of the building and are not merely superficial as suggested by Mr Brown. Further, whilst the finished product will be of a scale bigger than any house in the area, it does not render it unacceptable because multiple dwellings are contemplated in the area and its appropriateness is to be determined, not by the sum of its parts, but their design relationship to each other and the overall quality.
Conclusion re: conflict with City Plan 2000
Accepting that the issue of the existence or otherwise of any conflict with CP2000 is a matter for the court, Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley agree that the only one area where a conflict could arise, is the GFA exceedance, but both consider that any conflict thereby found would be minor. In that event they say the following grounds in the public interest would justify approval notwithstanding any such conflict:-
(a) there is a need for the proposed development;
(b) it would not be out of character with the surrounding development but rather a part of the anticipated character of the area;
(c) no unacceptable amenity outcomes will flow;
(d) the site is well located with close and convenient access to shopping facilities, employment, health and education facilities and public transport;
(e) it would contribute towards the achievement of desirable town planning objectives in City Plan 2000 and City Plan 2014 and the South East Queensland Regional Plan;
(f) it incorporates high quality architectural features which will make a positive contribution to the character of the area; and
(g) will contribute towards affordability and diversity of housing in the area.
City Plan 2014
After identifying the relevant provisions of CP2014, Mr Buckley and Ms Morrissy made the following comments in relation to that plan:-
(a) there is no significant change in planning intent for the Holland Park-Tarragindi Local Plan Area;
(b) given the site is in a Low-medium Density Residential Zone (2 or 3 storey mix precinct) and Donaldson Street has a reserve width of 15.5m, the applicable assessment table identifies a multiple dwelling of 3 storeys and 11.5m in building height as Code assessable where any part of the site is within 400m walking distance of a dedicated public access point or a railway or bus way station;
(c) as with CP2000, the current plan evidences an intent of the Low-medium Density Residential Zone for a mixture of dwelling types such as houses, duel occupancies and multiple dwellings, a mix of residential built form including 2 and 3 storey buildings and higher density and larger built form locations within easy walking distance of a public transport node, near public transport and near large centres or key destinations.
(d) notably, the Overall Outcomes for the relevant zone which is specific to the 2 or 3 storey mix precinct relevant here is the recognition that residential uses other than a dwelling house are to be of a “scale and bulk that co-exists with an adjoining dwelling house, even though it might have a bulk and scale greater than a dwelling house”;
(e) the Multiple Dwelling Code paragraph 9.3.14 includes similar tests to those in CP2000.
In their view, CP2014 does not introduce any additional provisions or tests that would result in any proposed development being in conflict with the applicable intended planning outcomes.
Mr Buckley makes the further observation that the Multiple Dwelling Code in CP2014 will have the effect of creating greater separation between multiple dwellings in the future in subject areas. He points to what he describes as an almost complete abandonment of the concept of Gross Floor Area as a regulator of formal of residential land use with that concept being irrelevant in 95% of new multiple dwelling developments in Brisbane. In place of reliance upon the GFA is a focus on separation of proposed buildings from existing buildings over and above boundary setbacks. He sees this provision (PO8-Multiple Dwelling Code) requiring greater separation between multiple dwelling buildings will result in fewer multiple unit developments resulting in the favouring of large sites such as the subject site for such development.
Mr Buckley’s Individual Report 14 April 2015[14]
[14]Exhibit 7.
In his individual report, Mr Buckley reinforces his view in relation to CP2014 and concludes that the proposal has significant merit; there being no town planning matters warranting refusal. He considers it achieves a desirable built form, fitting comfortably within the site and the broader local context without creating any unacceptable impacts on the amenity of surrounding developments. He points also to the rigorous assessment process of council leading up to the eventual approval, concluding that, in his view, the development should be approved.[15]
[15]Exhibit 3, volume 1, tabs 9 and 10 shows that Council issued a detailed Information Request of 6 May 2014 calling for a significant redesign. Further, by letter of 22 August 2014 Council still considered the scale and bulk not consistent with the prevailing development pattern and form of the locality. Only after all issues were addressed did the approval issue.
Opinions of Mr Brown Expressed in Joint Planning Report
City Plan 2000
Low-medium Density Residential Area
Mr Brown referred to the Intent of the Low-medium Density Residential Area,[16] stating that: “this area will contain a mix of houses up to 2 storeys and 2 and 3 storey multi-dwellings and single dwellings and that any new development must be designed to co-exist comfortably with neighbouring houses to be reflected in the intensity and scale of development and a strict adherence to a maximum (gross) floor area of 50% rising to 60% if located in close proximity to public transport or on arterial roads.”
[16]Exhibit 5, p 96 at para 5.4.1.
He referred also to Desired Environmental Outcome (DEO) 1[17], which allows for higher densities and 3 storey buildings near public purpose centres, public transport and along arterial roads. Finally, he referred to the purpose of the LMDR Code requiring new developments to be compatible in scale and design with neighbouring houses, and to Performance Criterion P1, for multi-unit dwellings in Low-medium Density Residential Areas[18], as requiring development size and bulk to be consistent with the low to medium density of the locality.
[17]Ibid p 96 at para 5.4.2.
[18]Ibid p 133 at para 4.3.
Mr Brown sees the locality as comprising predominately 2 storey detached houses and multi-unit developments, generally consistent in character with detached house development on separate allotments. As to the 3 storey multiple dwelling developments, he says, “for the most part, they occurred prior to the introduction of CP2000”. As to the proposed development, he considers its bulk and scale, when compared to the surrounding predominant form of development, to be in conflict with P1 of the LMDR Code as not being a development of size and bulk consistent with the locality. Likewise, he considers it in conflict with the purpose, being incompatible in scale and design with neighbouring houses.
Holland Park-Tarragindi District Local Plan
Mr Brown further concluded that the substantial dimensions and scale of the proposal, given the size of the site and characteristics of the locality, rendered it in conflict with Development Principle 2.3 of the Local Plan. That principle speaks of any new development being sympathetic to existing streetscapes and/or traditional character of the district and contributing to the distinctive and identifiable character and sense of place of the local neighbourhood and district as a whole.
Precinct 8 – Hillside Character Precinct
Again, Mr Brown finds conflict between the proposal and Performance Criterion P1 of the Hillside Character Precinct,[19] which speaks of residential development being compatible with traditional character house scale; to be designed and sited to retain and reinforce the predominant development pattern and form of the area being separate allotments whether or not the site area exceeds predominant lot sizes or is an amalgamation of allotments; with tradition character house scale uniformly spaced and consistently stepped across well treed hillsides when viewed from the visual catchment.
[19]Ibid p 114.
In Mr Brown’s view, the conflict with P1 stems from the following:
(a) While located on two lots, the built form does not continue to reflect the traditional subdivisional patterns and includes separate allotments. In that regard, he points to the multi-unit developments at 20 and 24 Bindaree Street[20] and 80 Plimsoll Street, Greenslopes[21] He considers those developments as compatible in scale, height and bulk in terms of P1, compliant with the Local Plan and reflecting the rhythm of the surrounding detached house development. He considers those developments each present as a number of separate buildings, as does 29-31 Donaldson Street.
[20]Ibid p 69. See also T-5.46.20-25; T-5.73.45-46; T-5.74.7-40.
[21]Ibid p 59. See also T-5.48.30-37; T-5.75.15-40.
(b) Given the proposed building length of 44m, its width extending to 20m and the site cover of approximately 55%, all under one roof, the proposal does not retain a traditional scale of built form, presenting as a single large building on the site.
(c) The building footprint is much greater than traditional housing adjacent lots.
(d) The setbacks from the basement to both side boundaries is inadequate to provide for deep planting landscaping with large trees/shrubs along its full length, resulting in the treed hillside character not being maintained. From Donaldson Street the hillside will present as dominated by a relatively large bulky building, occupying the majority of the site.
Hillside Character Precinct – Performance Criterion P2
Mr Brown regards the proposal as also conflicting with Performance Criterion P2 of the Hillside Character Precinct, which provides for any residential development to be compatible with traditional character houses when viewed from the visual catchment as to height, scale and proportions.[22] He acknowledges that the proposal has utilised many of the design elements in the corresponding Acceptable Solutions A2.2 of P2, but regards these as superficial design treatments which do nothing to alter the bulk and scale of the building to alleviate the conflict with P1. He points to A2.2, which refers to building height exceeding the prescribed Acceptable Solutions, which are to be found in the Residential Design – Low Density Character and Low-medium Density Code[23], where Acceptable Solution A1.2 refers to a building height, at any point, to be no more than 8.5m above ground level and 2 storeys. The proposal has a maximum height of 10.8m at the northern corner and the building. It is 3 storeys in height within the definition of ground level in CP2000, but 4 storeys under CP2014.
[22]Exhibit 5 p 114 at para 5.10.
[23]Ibid p 131 at p 132.
Hillside Character Precinct – Performance Criterion P4
Next, Mr Brown considers that the proposal also conflicts with Performance Criterion P4 of the Hillside Character Precinct, which provides that a development along ridgelines is not to dominate the skyline and must contribute to a consistent rhythm and sense of scale along the ridgeline when viewed from the visual catchment. In Mr Brown’s view, the proposal will be the largest building in the locality and unsympathetic to its surroundings, hence the conflict.
Hillside Character Precinct – Performance Criterion P6
Finally, Mr Brown considers the proposal in conflict with Performance Criterion P6 of the Hillside Character Precinct by virtue of its overall size and scale and its setting. P6 speaks of residential developments being designed to retain or reinforce the landscape character and physical setting of the locality and to break up building bulk so that the development appears, relevantly, as separate buildings consistently spaced along major ridgelines.[24]
[24]Ibid p 116.
City Plan 2014
Contrary to the view of Ms Morrissy and Mr Buckley, Mr Brown considers the proposal conflicts also with CP2014, in the following respects:-
· The site is within the Low-medium Density Residential Zone (2 or 3 storeys Mix Zone Precinct). The purpose of the Low-medium Density Residential Zone Code is to provide for a range and mix of dwelling types including dwelling houses and multiple dwellings[25] to be achieved through the following relevant Overall Outcomes for:-
[25]Ibid p 161 para 6.2.1.2(1).
(a) development location and uses;[26]
[26]Ibid p 161 para 4(d).
(b) development form;[27] and
[27]Ibid p 162 para 5.
(c) zone precincts, including the 2 and 3 storeys ix precinct zone.[28]
[28]Ibid p 163 para 7.
· Location and Uses Outcomes
Overall outcome 4(d) requires development to co-exist with dwelling houses, duel occupancies or multiple dwellings. Mr Brown considers that the excessive bulk and scale of the proposal, relative to surrounding development, renders it in conflict with overall outcome 4(d).
· Development Form Overall Outcomes
Overall outcome 5[29] speaks of the height, bulk, scale and form of any development being tailored of its specific location and site characterises, with a building height and bulk responding to the nature of adjoining dwellings and their site characteristics (shape, frontage, size, orientations, slope and nature). Further, adjoining sites are to have sufficient privacy and good access to sufficient daylight, sunlight and breezes to enable intended use of indoor and outdoor spaces. Mr Brown says the proposal is in conflict with those overall outcomes when its excessive size and discordant character is compared with the predominant character surrounding it. He sees the proposal as one building comprising multiple dwellings with substantial dimensions of height and length particularly, resulting in its excessive size.
· 2 or 3 Storey Mix Zone Precinct Outcomes
The relevant Zone Precinct Outcomes Mr Brown identified[30] are 7(a)-(d) which speaks of development being of no more than 2 storeys, or 3 storeys in height where located within easy walking distance of a public transport node (undefined), located on suitable sites, in accessible locations near to public transport and larger centres or key destinations. Scale and bulk must be such as to co-exist comfortably with adjoining dwelling houses, even if the bulk and scale are greater than a dwelling house. Height and setbacks are to provide a sensitive transition for adjoining dwelling house or land or residential development to incorporate setbacks and landscaping to contribute to a cohesive and compatible human-scale streetscape. Finally, any development must respond by protecting view corridors, reinforcing a green landscape character and responding to the surround character and architecture.
[29]Ibid p 162.
[30]Ibid p 162 at para 7.
Mr Brown considers that the proposal conflicts with the above outcomes, especially he says, because the building is a 4 storey building under CP2014. It conflicts with outcomes 7(a)(i) (3 storeys where located within easy walking distance of a public transport node), 7(c) (scale and bulk co-existing comfortably with adjoining dwelling house even if of larger scale and bulk) and 7(d) (design height and setbacks to provide a sensitive transition at the edge to adjoining dwelling house or land). Again, Mr Brown says that attempts, through design features, to mitigate impacts, does not change the fact that the proposal presents as a very large building and will be overbearing in its setting, out of character with neighbouring detached dwellings and, more generally, with the predominant character of the wider locality, comprising of smaller and lower buildings, including multiple dwellings.
Multiple Dwelling Code – Overall Outcomes[31]
[31]Ibid p 192.
Next Mr Brown points to Overall Outcomes 2(e), 2(h)(v), 2(l)(ii) and 2(q) of the Multiple Dwelling Code. These provisions deal with the bulk, scale, form and intensity being integrated with the intended neighbourhood structure for the area (2(e)), ensuring a high level of amenity for adjoining residents including access to natural light, sunlight and breezes (2(l)), mitigation of amenity impacts including protecting personal privacy through appropriate separation of buildings and screening (2(q)). Brown considers that the proposal conflicts with all of these outcomes.
Multiple Dwelling Code – Assessment Criteria
He relies upon Performance Outcomes PO5, PO6, PO8 and PO11[32] to found his opinion. These deal with bulk and scale being consistent with the character of the local area and street (PO5), building height consistent with streetscape, local context and intent for the area, having regard to the predominant height of existing and approved buildings in the street and the provision of appropriate separation and sensitive transition between houses and higher scale building forms (PO6). PO8 deals with separation from existing buildings, to be consistent with the form and character intent for the local area and the protection of residential amenity, including access to natural light, sunlight and breeze. Finally, PO11 deals with a requirement that the side boundary setback minimise the development’s impact on amenity and privacy of neighbours, contribute to the rhythm and pattern of the streetscape and provide for natural light, sunlight and breezes. In Mr Brown’s view the dimensions and form of the proposal renders it simply too large to satisfy the above assessment criteria, resulting in it having unacceptable impacts upon adjacent properties with the result that it conflicts with the above provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Code.
[32]Ibid p 193.
Holland Park-Tarragindi Neighbourhood Plan – City Plan 2014
Mr Brown sees the proposal as conflicting also with Overall Outcomes for Hillside Character Precinct NPP-008 within which the site is located.
The Overall Outcomes relied on are 11(a), 11(b) and 11(c)[33] which deal with the maintenance of hillside character through sympathetic development, minimising visual impact within its visual catchment, contribution to a consistent rhythm and sense of scale along the ridgeline of residential development to provide for the appearance of traditional character houses uniformly spaced and stepped across well-treed hillsides with compatible building height, bulk and proportion. Again, the conflict Mr Brown identified relates to the proposal’s size, scale and overall dimensions in its setting.
Assessment Criteria for Hillside Character Precinct NPP-008[34]
[33]Ibid p 169.
[34]Ibid p 173.
Mr Brown also considers that the proposal conflicts with Performance Outcomes PO17, PO18 and PO22 of the Assessment Criteria for the Hillside Character Precinct NPP-008. PO17 speaks of residential development being compatible with traditional character house scale and design and sited to retain and reinforce dominant development pattern and form of separate allotments (whether or not exceeding predominant lot sizes in the area or amalgamation of allotments), buildings of traditional character house scale uniformly spaced and consistently stepped across well-treed hillsides when viewed form the visual catchment. PO18 speaks of height, scale and proportions of any development being compatible with traditional character houses when viewed from the visual catchment and PO22 calls for the design of residential development to retain or reinforce landscape character and the physical settings of the locality, breaking up the building bulk so as to appear as a collection of separate buildings uniformly sited on well-treed hillsides or separate buildings consistently spaced along major ridgelines. Once again, Mr Brown’s conclusion as to conflict with the above criteria rests on his opinion that the proposal presents as one building of substantial proportion, out of character with the surrounding detached house development and not presenting as a collection of separate buildings.
Pattern of Development
Mr Brown concluded his assessment of the proposal against CP2014 by returning to what he considered to be the existing form and pattern of development in the locality. That, he says, predominately comprises 2 storey detached houses and 2 storey multiple dwelling developments, generally having an appearance consistent in scale and form with detached housing on separate allotments. He says any three level multi-unit development within the locality represents a relatively small proportion of the total development within the Hillside Character Precinct. He refers to Figures 8 and 9 of the joint report[35] prepared by Ms Morrissy. Figure 8 identifies multiple dwelling sites in the relevant precinct NPP-008. Figure 9 identifies 3 storey residential buildings within the precinct and is to be read with Figure 9(b) containing a series of photographs of the buildings on those sites. Table 3 to the report comprises of Mr Brown’s comments on each of the P1 sites identified in Figure 9.
[35]Exhibit 5, pp 49-50.
Mr Brown acknowledges that Figure 8 shows 30 existing multiple dwelling sites currently developed within the precinct. Figure 9 identifies 12 multiple unit dwelling developments of 2/3 storeys or 3 storeys in height, two of which front Logan Road and/or are immediately adjacent to the Greenslopes Shopping Mall. Figure 9 also includes eight detached houses, four being 2/3 storeys or 3 storeys and four being 2 storeys in height.
He considers that development, since the introduction of the City Plan 2000 Holland Park-Tarragindi Local Plan, has the form, pattern and scale consistent with the intent of the Hillside Character Precinct with the more recent development generally at a house compatible scale and having the appearance of a collection of separate buildings. That accords with the view expressed by Mr Buckley and Ms Morrissy above.[36]
[36]Paragraph 28.
In conclusion in relation to CP2014, Mr Brown expressed the view that the intent and purpose of the Holland Park-Tarragindi District Local Plan under CP2000, including the Hillside Character Precinct, is essentially unchanged by the neighbourhood plan for Holland Park-Tarragindi in CP2014. The particular circumstances and character of this part of Greenslopes are, in Mr Brown’s view, reflected in the local planning instruments in both CP2000 and CP2014. He sees those intentions as reflected in multiple dwelling developments that have taken place in more recent years since CP2000 came into effect in 2003. He contrasts that with the older Cromwell Court at 33 Curd Street, Greenslopes[37] which he says was built in the 1970’s. He does not accept that events have overtaken the planning intent in those two planning schemes so as to reduce the importance of height, scale and bulk as substantial issues for adjoining residents and within the wider locality. Mr Brown repeats that the proposal does not appear as a collection of separate buildings, is not compatible with traditional character house scale, nor designed and sited to retain a dominant development pattern and form of development on separate allotments. It conflicts with both planning schemes and he puts that these schemes are the proper foundations of the reasonable exceptions of the community in this locality for residential development.
[37]Ibid p 53.
Individual Report of Mr Brown dated 13 April 2015
In Mr Brown’s individual report of 13 April 2015,[38] he repeats his earlier views that the character and scale of the proposed building is inconsistent with the locality and broader planning area. In his view, the appearance and presentation of the proposed building is to be considered from both the immediate locality, in relation to adjacent development, and from nearby streets, particularly Donaldson Street. He considers that CP2000 and CP2014 intend, essentially, the same form and scale of development for Precinct 8 to reflect compatibility with traditional character house scale, design and siting to retain and reinforce the predominant development pattern of the hillside locality. The proposal being one large building 43m in length and up to 4 storeys in height illustrates the conflict with PO19 of the Neighbourhood Plan Code[39] which speaks of development being designed, sited and landscaped to minimise the impact of incompatible building bulk. That Performance Outcome has no corresponding Acceptable Outcome.
[38]Exhibit 17.
[39]Exhibit 5 p 174.
Mr Brown acknowledges that nothing may turn on what he describes as a technical or legalistic construction of the planning scheme to precisely calculate the particular number of storeys in the proposal but says it is still necessary to determine the height of the proposal, both in storeys and absolute terms, to enable comparison with existing and intended development in the locality. He sees the real issue as how the proposed building presents in terms of height, bulk and scale.
Number of Storeys?
In Mr Brown’s view the plans the subject of the minor change order shows[40] the proposal is a 4 storey building under both CP2000 and CP2014. He refers particularly to drawing number A3-100[41] and takes issue with the opinion expressed by Mr Buckley and Ms Morrissy[42] that the third storey of the proposed building, where the site is at the highest contour elevation, is incorporated within the roof space area.[43] In his view when sections 1 and 2 on that plan are considered together the height of what he says is level four, of 10m and slightly higher in parts above ground level, does not present as being within roof space but presents as an additional fourth storey.[44] That, coupled with the 3m northern boundary clearance, exacerbates the impact of bulk and scale upon neighbouring residential properties by extending the highest levels of the proposed building on the site adjacent to those neighbouring properties.[45]
[40]Exhibit 32; Exhibit 5 p 6, Table figure 1: Proposal Plans Subject of Minor Change Order.
[41]Exhibit 32 p 24.
[42]Exhibit 5 at paragraph 7.1.4.
[43]Exhibit 17 at paragraph 18.
[44]See also plan number A2-100. Exhibit 32 p 18.
[45]Ibid p 19, plan no. A2-101.
Mr Brown concluded his individual report by saying that the proposed development substantially conflicts with both CP2000 and CP2014 and exceeds the reasonable expectations of the site to be derived from the provision of those two plans.
Grounds Relied Upon in Event of Conflict with Planning Scheme
As to the grounds proposed by Mr Buckley and Ms Morrissy, as being sufficient grounds in the event a conflict with the planning scheme is found, Mr Brown says there are not sufficient grounds to approve the application despite what he sees as a substantial conflict with the clear planning strategy in both CP2000 and CP2014. In support of that view he makes seven points:-
(a) no need has been established for the form of development proposed;
(b) the proposal is out of character with surrounding development, both existing and intended;
(c) the size and scale of the proposal in terms of its overbearing nature in the locality and likely shadowing would bring adverse amenity impacts;
(d) attributes of the site, namely access to shopping, employment and public transport, remain the same independently of the scale and size of the proposal;
(e) the relevant local planning instruments applying to the locality are an outcome of the intentions of City Plan 2000, City Plan 2014 and the South East Queensland Regional Plan;
(f) architectural features do not overcome the inherent conflict with the planning scheme and will be present in the event of a complying building; and
(g) the contribution towards affordability and diversity of housing in the locality could be similarly achieved with a compliant building consistent with the character and scale of character of detached housing in the locality.
The Evidence of Mr R Olsson – Visual Amenity and Architecture Expert
Mr Russell Olsson, visual amenity and architecture expert, provided a report dated April 2015[46] and gave evidence. In a very carefully thought out report, he firstly identified grounds relied upon by the appellants, including the further issues raised at trial by Mr Brown and addressed each of those issues seriatum. Set out below are those issues and Mr Olsson’s response to them.
[46]Exhibit 8.
Issue
The proposal is generally inappropriate and in conflict with the Intent of the Low-medium Density Residential Area of CP2000 due to:-
·Failure to design to co-exist comfortably with neighbouring houses;
·significant exceedance of maximum Gross Floor Area of 50% (60% if in close proximity to public transport) intended to be strictly adhered to in the Low-medium Density Residential Area.
Response
Mr Olsson considers the development co-exists comfortably with neighbouring houses given that:-
(a) its height is acceptable, it is no more than 3 storeys in height and is on a site located a short distance from public transport services;
(b) the street, side and rear setbacks create a built form compatible with surrounding houses;
(c) potential privacy issues are resolved through setbacks, window designs, balcony screening and landscape screening;
(d) it is compatible with the surrounding house forms when viewed within the visual catchment;
(e) the design is of high quality and fits comfortably with its surrounds, particularly given that the catchment includes a variety of dwelling types of varying design and appearance;
(f) whilst the GFA is greater than .5 times the site area the above design strategy results in an acceptable development within its context which will ultimately provide a high quality built form comfortably co-existing with its surrounds; and
(g) no unacceptable amenity impacts result and it would support the character of the area.
Issue
The proposal does not meet DEO1 of the Low-medium Density Residential Area in CP2000 because it is not of a house-compatible scale and does not ensure the area is predominately no more than 2 storeys.
Response
DEO1 allows of a 3 storey house compatible scale building here multi-purpose centres, near public transport and along arterial roads. The proposal is of a house compatible scale given:-
(a) It has a similar scale to existing houses in Donaldson Street and is 3 storeys in height and, when viewed from Donaldson Street, the roof edge of the house to the east of Lot 19[47] is approximately the same height as the highest point of the proposed roof as viewed from Donaldson Street. This is achieved by the proposed car park being at a lower level than the base of the existing house on Lot 19 which house has its lowest floor level raised above ground level. The house on Lot 20[48] is of similar height and scale as that on Lot 19 and of the proposal.
[47]Appellant Colleen Canniffe – Exhibit 2 p 4.
[48]Appellant Sarah Graham – Exhibit 2 p 4.
(b) The proposal is designed with its roof pitching down towards the side boundaries to minimise height differences with neighbouring houses.
(c) The house on Lot 16[49] addresses Holland Street and the rear of the house is approximately 12m from the western side of the proposed building, with its ridge at floor level of level two of the proposal. The proposal has its pitched roof down towards the existing house. The combination of the building separation and sloping roof creates acceptable transition of built form. Ms Strasser’s garage is an auxiliary building to the house and visually separates the proposal from the house on Lot 16.
[49]Louise Strasser – Exhibit 2 pp 4 and 9 – originally an Appellant.
(d) Level 3 of the proposal, the topmost level, is substantially setback from Donaldson Street and is in the centre of the block. The slope of the land results in it being two and a half to three storeys above natural ground level towards the rear of the proposal. It is setback 5.9m to 6.8m from the western boundary and 4.5m to 5.4m from the eastern boundary, which setbacks substantially reduce the overall scale of the proposal relative to adjoining houses.
(e) The 3 storey proposal merely replaces a 3 storey house historically located on the site.[50]
(f) The proposal will be consistent with existing built form in the area comprising a mix of 2 and 3 storey houses and multi-unit dwellings and will be located a short walking distance from high frequency bus services along Logan Road, Chatsworth Road and at Greenslopes Mall.
[50]Exhibit 6 – photographs of the previous house.
Issue
The proposal conflicts with the Intent of the Hillside Character Precinct of the Holland Park-Tarragindi Local Plan because it is not of compatible building height, bulk or proportion.
Response
The proposal is compatible in height, bulk and proportion to development in the Hillside Character Precinct given the following:-
(a) Its height is compatible with houses in Donaldson Street as a result of houses on Lots 19 and 20 having their ground level raised above ground level on a base (Lot 19) or above a garage (Lot 20) and their roof ridges are similar in height to the proposal when viewed from Donaldson Street.
(b) Building height in the precinct follows the topography. The proposal steps down the hill from the northwest to the southeast and in that line the land falls 3m and the building steps down 1 storey, thus maintaining a relatively consistent relationship with the hillside, reinforcing the topography.
(c) The proposal’s bulk is minimised by stepping the building plan and elevation to make a highly articulated overall built form, further modulated with a range of balcony types and building materials and colours to create a range of small scale elements in all elevations. The Donaldson Street building frontage is divided into a series of bays stepping from the south towards the east and ranging from a distance of 6m to 10.6m from the street boundary. This results in the creation of two wider bays and one narrower bay, the former containing units 1, 2 and 8 and each being approximately 8m wide, 9m with roof eaves. Those widths are similar to the widths of many houses in the precinct. For instance, houses on lots 12, 13, 19 and 20[51] are all 8m to 10m in width as are others in Curd Street, Holland Street and Donaldson Street.
[51]Exhibit 2 p 9.
(d) Whilst the proposed building is wider overall than houses in the precinct, the bays facing Donaldson Street are similar in width to many houses in the area and assist in breaking down the scale of the development, resulting in it fitting appropriately with its surrounds and contexts.
(e) Bays include open balconies, vertically proportioned solid walls with punched windows, and vertical and horizontal screening to balconies and windows. The roofs are also broken into three distinct parts, each with a different orientation resulting in the building being broken down into different but complimentary forms, thus minimising the appearance and bulk and relating the scale of the building to houses in the Hillside Precinct.
(f) Other multi-unit developments in the precinct have similar proportions, height and bulk as the proposal so it is not unique to the area.
Issue
The height, bulk, scale and design of the proposed development is contrary to the community’s reasonable expectations of the Low-medium Density Residential Area.
Response
The Intent of the Low-medium Density Residential Area in City Plan 2000 contemplates 3 storey multi-unit dwellings and land in that Area is located close to public transport networks or centres. The height, scale, bulk and design of the proposal is consistent with that Intent, with the bulk being substantially reduced with steps and setbacks in plan and elevation to create a series of discrete segments. The architecture includes environmental design elements such as horizontal and vertical batten screens and window hoods providing sun protection. The reasonable expectations of community is to be assessed against the fact that the locality contains a mix of multi-unit dwellings and large houses, often 3 storeys in height, which is unsurprising given the proximity to the Brisbane CBD. For the above reasons the proposal comfortably satisfies the reasonable expectations of the community.
Issue
The proposal presents as a 4 storey building to Donaldson Street and will be significantly out of character with the immediate locality.
Response
As is evident from the perspective drawing number AO-000[52] the proposal presents to Donaldson Street as a 3 storey building, not a 4 storey building. No point in the building is more than 3 storeys above ground level with the height being 3 storeys above ground level at any point as the building steps down the hill. Level three at the top floor is set back 20.4m from Donaldson Street, it denies a reading of the building as 4 storeys from Donaldson Street.
[52]Exhibit 32 p 8.
Issue
The proposal conflicts with the Holland Park-Tarragindi District Local Plan, Hillside Character Precinct including Performance Criteria P1, P2 and P3 and does not meet corresponding Acceptable Solutions because it is not compatible with traditional character house scale.
Response
In response to this issue, Mr Olsson says:-
(a) The proposal is in scale and compatible with traditional character houses as its forms are clearly articulated in plan and elevation to create forms at the scale of existing houses. Importantly, to be “compatible” does not mean to be “identical” or “the same”. Mr Olsson repeats his earlier statements that the two wider bays facing Donaldson Street being approximately 8m wide (9m with roof eaves) are similar to the widths of many houses in the precinct as outlined above.
(b) Further, articulations give a visual break between the front and middle apartments, namely recessing of the lift lobby from the façade which is glazed and screened. Blade walls are projected on either side of units 3 and 9 to create a clearly expressed 2 storey box.
(c) On the northeast façade a blade wall is projected next to the terrace of units 6 and 12 to visually separate them from units 5 and 11. Similar vertical blades terminate the side balconies of units 5, 11, 4 and 10 to further articulate the side façades so that each 2 storey stack of apartments is expressed as a discrete built form, assisting in relating the proposal to the scale of the existing houses in the area.
(d) The following elements, materials and colours further break down the scale of the building, namely different roof pitches, balcony balustrades, vertical and horizontal slat screening, window hoods, lightweight cladding materials which relate to the existing timber and tin character of traditional houses in the area.
(e) As to the previous house on the site[53] it was a square brick building 19m wide in the same width as the proposal but lacking the benefit of stepped street elevation or lightweight materials to breakdown its overall scale. In contrast the proposal is an attractively designed building compatible with its surrounds.
[53]Exhibit 6.
Issue
The proposed building footprint, size, boundary setbacks and siting in relation to adjoining development does not reflect the predominant development pattern and form of development in the area.
Response
In response to this issue Mr Olsson says:-
(a) the building footprint is broken down into discrete bays as already described.
(b) the setbacks from the front and side boundaries reflect the predominant development pattern and form of development in the area. The setback from Donaldson Street relate to existing house setbacks in Donaldson Street and in the southwest corner the proposed setback from the street is 6m whereas the house on Lot 16 is setback approximately 3m with its garage set back approximately 9m from Donaldson Street. It can be seen then that the proposed setback of 6m is an average of the house and auxiliary garage building setbacks of Lot 16 (Mr Strasser), its primary setback being the house.
(c) The proposed setback of the southeast corner from Donaldson Street is 10.5, the same as the setback of the house on Lot 19 (Appellant Cannife) to Donaldson Street. The proposal makes a transition between the two existing house setbacks by the use of discrete bays in the street façade, already referred to.
(d) As to the setbacks from Holland Street to the houses on Lots 12 (Appellant Hood), 13 (Appellant Alford) and 14[54] (Appellant Nichol) they range from approximately 6m to 10.5m, similar to the setbacks of the proposal to Donaldson Street.
[54]Exhibit 2 p 9.
(e) The proposal’s side boundary setbacks range in distance from the front to the back of the site. At the front of the site near Donaldson Street the side setbacks relate to existing side setbacks between houses in the area which are generally 1m to 3m. Lots 19 and 20 in Donaldson Street are setback 1m to 2m from side boundaries creating separations between dwellings of 2m to 4m. In Curd Street the side setbacks range from 1m to 2m creating separations between dwellings of 2m to 4m. The proposal has a minimum side setback of 2.2m from the southwest boundary in units 1, 2 and 8 creating a separation of approximately 3.93m between the proposal and the garage on Lot 16. The living rooms and bedrooms of units 1, 2 and 8 have side setbacks of 3m creating a separation to the garage on Lot 16 of approximately 4.38m this being consistent with separations and setbacks in the area.
(f) As to units 7 and 13, they have a minimum side setback of 3m from the north eastern boundary representing a separation of approximately 4.7m between the proposal and the house on Lot 19, again consistent with separation and setbacks in the area. The side setbacks increase further towards the centre of the site in response to the existence of rear yards in existing houses, resulting in setback of 4.5m to the wall and 3.61m to the balcony on units 3 and 9 creating an overall separation distance between the proposal and the rear façade of the house on Lot 14 of approximately 11.4m, sufficient to achieve privacy between the two buildings. Additionally, the master bedroom of units 3 and 9 have a window sill of 1.5m from the floor preventing any potential overlooking of the house or rear yard of Lot 14. The terrace and balconies of those two units are screened in front of the living room windows to avoid overlooking.
(g) The side setbacks of the proposal increase further towards the rear of the site in response again to the existence of rear yards in existing houses. It is setback 5.9m to the wall and 5.1m to the balcony of units 4 and 10, creating an overall separation distance between the proposal and the rear façade of the house on Lot 13 of approximately 14.5m, again sufficient to achieve privacy between the two buildings. Again, bedrooms one and two of units 3 and 9 have a windowsill height of 1.5m from the floor to avoid any potential overlooking of the house or rear yard of Lot 13, and again, the balcony of unit 10 has screening to achieve the same purpose.
(h) As to unit 14 on level 3 the side setback increases at the rear of the block again for the same reasons as outlined above. Setback is 5.9m to the side wall of the living room and 5.1m to the balcony of unit 14 and 9m back to the window wall of the dining room creating overall separation distances between the rear façade of the houses on Lots 13 and 14 and the proposal of approximately 14.5m and 18m respectively, again sufficient to achieve privacy between the buildings.
The side windows to the living room of unit 14 has a windowsill height of 1.5m from the floor, and the dining room window’s sill height of 1.3m, avoiding the reality of overlooking the rear yards of Lots 13 and 14. Further, the section of overlooking has been mitigated by the design of the roof form with roof cladding wrapped over unit 14 to create a mansard roof with high level dormer windows, thus reducing the overall visual scale of the proposal and the perception of being overlooked.
(i) On the northeast boundary there is lesser visual impact on Lot 19 compared to Lots 13 and 14 due to the topography which is not as steep in the existing landscape separation which provides a greater buffer on Lot 19. In response to those different conditions the proposed side setbacks with Lot 19 are slightly smaller, though with the same design strategies of screen balconies, windows and high windowsills to avoid overlooking.
(j) The rear bound setback is 5.48m to the rear wall of the proposal and 3.8m to the balcony which are acceptable given that the existing building in Curd Street is an apartment building and there is a substantial landscape buffer at the rear of the site which will be reinforced with further landscaping in the proposal. The existing Curd Street apartment building is setback approximately 16.2m from the rear boundary which when coupled with the proposed setback from the rear boundary to the balcony creates a building separation of 20m, more than sufficient for visual privacy. The proposal’s deep soil planting for landscaping will allow substantial screen planting at a range of heights to be achieved.
(k) Screen planting in deep soil is provided to all side and rear boundaries which will place the proposed building in a landscaped setting when viewed from adjoining properties. When coupled with the above mentioned privacy strategies, this landscaping will provide further privacy to the proposal and adjoining buildings and will reflect the landscaped character of the Hillside Precinct.[55]
[55]See Exhibit 3(1) P 211 for Revised/Final Landscape Concept Plan.
Issue
Proposed development height, scale and proportions are not compatible with traditional character housing when viewed from the visual catchment.
Response
Mr Olsson commences to answer this issue by repeating that, again, for a development to be compatible with traditional character houses it does not have to be identical or the same as those houses. He makes the following points to found his opinion that the proposal is compatible with traditional character houses when viewed from the visual catchment:-
(a) View Figure 1[56] on drawing A2-305 in the Joint Planning Report is a photograph viewing the proposal from the southwest in Donaldson Street and demonstrates that the proposal will be screened by landscape but even if visible from that point would be compatible with its surrounds, given its sympathetic design. View 2[57] shows the proposal would not project through the landscape canopy on the ridgeline. These views demonstrate the compatibility of the proposal with the traditional character houses when viewed from the visual catchment.
[56]Exhibit 5 p 85.
[57]Ibid.
(b) Views 1, 2, 3 and 4, and drawing A2-301[58] further demonstrates the compatibility of the proposal with traditional character houses. View 1 is the view from Bindaree Street and shows the existing landscape setting and that the topmost floor is not visible from Bindaree Street because the floor is setback and Bindaree Street falls away from the site towards the southeast. View 2 shows that the proposal is consistent with the skyline silhouette of the house on Lot 16, Donaldson Street. The roof slope to the side boundary and the setback top floor demonstrates its compatibility with neighbouring houses.
[58]Ibid p 83.
(c) View 3 demonstrates how the mansard roof minimises the appearance of bulk at the rear of the site and assists in visually relating the proposal to the existing house forms in Holland Street which it compliments.
(d) View 4 (wrongly marked view 3 on the exhibit) shows that whilst the proposed top floor and mansard roof would be visible without landscaping, the proposed landscaping would screen those features from view.
Issue
The proposal is not designed to appear as a series of separate blocks, each of a size and scale similar to that of a traditional character house.
Response
The proposal has been designed to appear as a series of separate blocks, each of a size and scale similar to that of a traditional character house. This has been addressed above in paragraph [69].
Issue
The proposal conflicts with the Residential Design Low-medium Density Code including Performance Criteria P1, P4, P12, P13 and P22 and does not meet corresponding Acceptable Solutions because it is not of a size and bulk consistent with the locality.
Response
This has been dealt with above in paragraphs [59] to [62]. The proposal is of a size and bulk consistent with the locality.
Issue
The Gross Floor Area of the proposal is far greater than 0.5 times the site area.
Response
Accepting that the proposed GFA is greater than 0.5 times the site area, design strategies employed have resulted in a proposal acceptable in relation to Performance Criteria P1. That conclusion is based on the proposal’s acceptable height, being no more than 3 storeys, its short distance from public transport services, with street, side and rear setbacks rendering it compatible with surrounding houses, and potential privacy issues resolved through setbacks, window design, balcony screening and landscape screening resulting in the proposal being compatible with surrounding house forms when viewed from the visual catchment. It is still an acceptable development despite the exceedance of the GFA of 0.5 times the site area.
Issue
The proposed building height exceeds 8.5m and 2 storeys.
Response
Whereas the proposal is nominally above 8.5m from natural ground level, its proposed built form is consistent with the low-medium density nature of the locality which contains a number of 3 storey buildings, one being the apartment building at the rear of the side in Curd Street. In contrast to that Curd Street apartment building and other 3 storey brick buildings in the area, the proposal is well articulated and employs lightweight cladding and metal roof materials characteristic of traditional homes in the precinct. It relates well to the topography as it steps down the hill, minimising the appearance of built form when viewed from a distance within the visual catchment. Apart from a small corner of level three and the lift overrun, the building sits below the 9.5m height plane. Those elements exceeding 9.5m are setback well from Donaldson Street and are acceptable within the views from the visual catchment. The proposal complies with Performance Criteria; the size and bulk is to be consistent with the low to medium density nature of the locality.
Issue
The front building setback does not complement the setbacks prevailing in the street.
Response
This has been addressed in paragraph [71] above.
Issue
Habitable spaces of the proposed development will directly overlook dwellings on the adjacent land.
Response
Potential overlooking of dwellings on adjoining land is avoided by the employment of design strategies such as site setbacks, high level windows, screened windows and balconies and substantial planting of various heights to the side and rear boundaries in deep soil, dealt with above in paragraph [71].
Issue
The proposed development will significantly reduce daylight to open space and habitable rooms of adjacent development.
Response
The proposed building retains daylight to the houses and rear yards of Lots 13, 14 and 16 for at least three hours per day between 9am and 3pm on 21 June with marginal overshadowing of the rear yard created at 12 noon by the rear fence of Lots 13, 14 and 16. There is no overshadowing between 12 noon and 3pm. This is an acceptable outcome. There is overshadowing of the rear facades of the houses and rear yards on those lots at 9am on 21 June but there is no overshadowing of these areas at 9am on 21 December. The shadow will progressively diminish at 9am for every month between June and December. This is an acceptable outcome. The side setback of units 3, 4, 9, 10 and 14 of the proposal in the centre of the block is greater than the minimum standard and is intended to minimise the overshadowing of the adjoining properties. The provision of at least three hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm in midwinter and the progressive reduction of shadow at 9am from June to December is an acceptable outcome. In summary, the outcomes are more than satisfactory.
Issue
Waste disposal and collection areas of the proposed development will adversely impact on neighbouring properties.
Response
Refuse storage will be on-site in the basement and bulk bins collected on-site b7. No adverse effects on neighbouring properties will result. The waste collection measures are consistent with multi-unit dwellings standard practice. Furthermore acoustic impacts were assessed and considered acceptable during the development application assessment process and Council has advised that waste and recycling collection can be made from the site.
Issue
The proposed development conflicts with Residential Design Character Code including Performance Criteria P1, P2 and P3 and does not meet corresponding Acceptable Solutions because the proposed roof form does not complement the roofing style of pre-1946 houses nearby in the street.
Response
The proposal contains roof and wall materials which complement the pre-1946 buildings in the precinct. The roof and gutters are metal, the range of pitchers from low pitch to steeper pitch. The walls, majority of bedrooms and lift overrun are clad in lightweight cladding and balcony balustrades and walls on the upper levels also have lightweight cladding which will complement the timber and tin materials of nearby houses.
Issue
The building height and bulk of the proposed development does not complement the predominant scale of pre-1946 houses nearby in the street.
Response
The building height and bulk of the proposal does complement the pre-1946 houses nearby as set out in paragraphs [60] to [63] above.
Issue
The proposed development does not complement the traditional setting of the pre-1946 houses nearby in the street.
Response
The proposal does complement the traditional setting of the pre-1946 houses nearby as set out in paragraphs [61], [63] and [69] above.
Issue
The proposed development conflicts with Residential Design Low-medium Density Code including Performance Criteria P1, P4, P12, P13 and P22 and does not meet the corresponding Acceptable Solutions because it is not of a bulk and size consistent with the locality.
Response
The bulk and size is consistent with the locality as set out in paragraphs [61] and [62] above.
Issue
Performance Criterion P4 provides that development along ridgelines does not dominate the skyline and must be designed as to contribute to a consistent rhythm and sense of scale along the ridgeline when viewed from the visual catchment.
Response
View 1 and View 2 on drawing A2-305 previously referred to, show context views towards the site. View 1 shows the proposal would be screened by landscaping and viewed from the southwest perspective in Donaldson Street. View 2 shows the proposal would not project through the landscape canopy on the ridgeline, this demonstrates that the proposal would not dominate the skyline when viewed from the visual catchment. Figures 1 to 8 in Mr Olsson’s report[59] show that the proposed building would not dominate the skyline when viewed from Curd Street, Holland Street, Donaldson Street and Bindaree Street.
[59]Exhibit 8 p 22-26.
Issue
Performance Criterion P6 of the Hillside Character Precinct provides that residential development must be designed to retain or reinforce the landscape character and physical setting of the locality and designed and situated to break up building bulk such that the development appears as a collection of separate buildings uniformly sited on well-treed hillsides or separate buildings consistently placed along major ridgelines.
Response
The proposed building is designed within a landscape setting with vegetation in the Donaldson Street front setback and in deep soil areas to the southwest, northwest and northeast boundaries. The building is broken up by stepping and elevation, previously referred to, to make a highly articulated overall built form. When viewed from Donaldson Street the front façade is broken into three narrow bays stepped to create a smaller scale set of forms. The overall form and length of the building is not visible in its entirely from Curd Street, Holland Street and Donaldson Street with only partial views available which are not dominant in relation to the ridgeline.
City Plan 2014 Issues
Issue
City Plan 2014
Zoning and Zoning Code
Development locations and uses overall outcomes:
4(a) development comprises a mix of low and low-medium rise, low-medium density development
4(d) development provides for co-existence of dwelling houses, dual occupancies or multiple dwellings
Development form overall outcomes:
5(a) development for a residential building is of a height, bulk, sale and form which is tailored to its specific location and to the characteristics of the site within the low-medium density residential zone and the relevant zone precinct;
(b) development provides for a building that has a building height and bulk that responds to:
(i) the nature of adjoining dwellings
(ii) site characteristics including the shape, frontage, size, orientation, slope and nature of adjoin dwellings
(d) development supports sub-tropical character by ensuring that:
(i) the building form, spacing orientation and design ensure dwellings are well designed and sensitive to the city’s climate;
(ii) residents on the site, as well as residents of existing and future dwellings on adjoining sites, have sufficient privacy and good access to sufficient daylight, sunlight and breezes to enable the intended use of indoor and outdoor spaces;
(e) development provides quality private and public open spaces and landscaping, including deep planting that softens the scale of the dwellings
Response
The proposal successfully co-exists with existing houses and apartment buildings in the locality, which has been already set out, and includes a mix of 2 and 3 storey multi-unit dwellings and houses.
Issue
The 2 or 3 storey mixed zone precinct outcomes include:
a) Development comprises a mix of low-medium rise, low-medium density residential buildings:
(i) Of no more than 2 storeys, or of no more than 3 storeys in height where located within in easy walking distance of a public transport node;
(ii) Located on suitable sites, in accessible locations, near to public transport and larger centres or key destinations.
(b) Development for residential uses are predominantly of dwelling houses, dual occupancy, apartment and row-house style multiple house dwellings.
(c) Development for residential use other than dwelling house is of a scale and bulk that co-exists comfortably with an adjoining dwelling house, even though it might have a bulk and scale greater than a dwelling house.
(d) Development design, height and setbacks provide a sensitive transition at the edge of the site to an adjoining dwelling house or land in a low density zone or zone precinct.
(e) Development for residential use other than for a dwelling house incorporates setbacks and landscaping which contribute to a cohesive and compatible human-scale streetscape.
(f) Development responds to characteristics, such as protection of view corridors, reinforces a green landscape character and responds to the surrounding character and architecture.
Response
See paragraphs [59] and [61] above dealing with City Plan 2000.
Issue
Holland Park – Tarragindi Neighbourhood Plan
Building height, scale and proportions:
PO18 Development for residential use achieves height, scale and proportions that are compatible with traditional character houses when viewed from the visual catchment.
Conclusion re: Sufficient Grounds
If any of the matters raised by the Appellants do constitute a conflict with CP2000, I consider any such conflict would be minor, and that the grounds relied upon by the Co-Respondent are sufficient to approve the proposal notwithstanding any such conflict.
Final Order
The result of this judgment is that the appeal is dismissed which I so order. I shall hear the parties on any necessary consequential orders.
SCHEDULE A - Relevant extracts of City Plan 2000
Chapter 3: Areas and Assessment Process
5. Residential Areas
Residential Areas are the main component of Residential Neighbourhoods in the Strategic Plan.
The Plan has 5 different Residential Areas:
• Low Density Residential Area
• Character Residential Area
• Low–medium Density Residential Area
• Medium Density Residential Area
• High Density Residential Area.The general location of the Residential Areas throughout the City is indicated on Map C—Residential Areas. Reference should be made to the Scheme Maps to determine the exact Area Classification of a parcel of land.
The different Residential Areas reflect different living environments envisaged in different parts of the City. Accordingly the scale and intensity of built form will vary between Areas and Council will regulate development through minimum lot sizes for houses, make no provision for the subdivision of existing or approved buildings involving a house, minimum site area and intensity for multi–unit and single unit dwellings and controls on demolition or removal of pre–1946 housing.
An important characteristic of the City’s older suburbs is the traditional architecture. Demolition Control Precincts are locations in the older suburbs where pre–1946 housing is still dominant. Specific provisions apply in the Demolition Control Precincts to preserve and complement much of this architectural character, by requiring:
• an application for demolition of a building
• compliance with the Residential Design—Character Code for new residential development.Planning Scheme Maps show Demolition Control
Precincts.Residential Areas will be comprised mainly of dwellings. However, Residential Areas will also accommodate activities servicing local neighbourhood needs, such as shops, child care centres and other community facilities. Incompatible activities such as industry and service stations will be excluded from Residential Areas.
5.1 General provisions
5.1.1 Desired environmental outcomes
The following DEOs apply to all Residential Areas. Refer also to DEOs for each specific Area.
1. A range of housing types, sizes, tenures and affordability is provided throughout the City to enable residents to remain in their neighbourhood for their entire life if they wish.
2. …
3. Housing is predominantly low density, with higher densities in or near Multi–purpose Centres and near public transport.
4. …
5. Dwellings have reasonable access to daylight, sunlight and breezes and have privacy.
6. …
7. …
8. …
9. …
10. …
11. …
12. …
5.4 Low-medium density Residential Area
5.4.1 Intent
The Low–medium Density Residential Area will contain a mix of houses up to 2 storeys and 2 and 3 storey multi–unit dwellings and single unit dwellings. Land in this Area is located in those parts of the City that are close to public transport networks or centres.
During the life of this plan, a relatively small proportion of land in this area will be redeveloped for multi–unit residential. New development must therefore be designed to co–exist comfortably with neighbouring houses. This will be reflected in the intensity and scale of development and a strict adherence to a maximum Gross Floor Area of 50%, or 60% if in close proximity of public transport or on arterial roads.
Single unit dwellings are intended to encourage appropriate density and provide increased housing choice within neighbourhoods, whilst minimising impacts to residential amenity. Single unit dwellings also encourage the retention of character houses by allowing their retention on a very small freehold lot and their integration in development sites.
Parts of the Low–medium Density Residential Area are included in the Demolition Control Precincts. At these locations pre–1946 ‘timber and tin’ housing will be retained and new development will reflect pre–1946 architectural character. Where feasible, development in Demolition Control Precincts will incorporate pre–1946 dwellings at the front of the new development.
Building envelopes for houses on small lots are defined so that amenity impacts to nearby dwellings and their private open spaces are minimised, in terms of maintaining access to sunlight, daylight and privacy. The building envelopes also seek to increase safety from fire hazard, maximise private landscaped space for new houses and avoid overbearing development that would occur if the bulk and setbacks of houses were out of scale or character with houses on adjoining lots.
5.4.2 Desired Environmental Outcomes
1. Low–medium density living environments comprise houses, among multi–unit and single unit development at a house–compatible scale, predominantly of no more than 2 storeys. Higher densities and 3 storey buildings occur near Multi–purpose Centres, near public transport and along arterial roads.
2. The Area has a mix of housing types and forms at different levels of affordability with adequate safety, privacy, quiet and comfort. New residential developments are well designed and sensitive to the City’s climate.
3. …
4. In Demolition Control Precincts pre–1946 ‘timber and tin’ buildings are largely retained and new buildings reflect many of the Precinct’s architectural themes.
5.4.3 Level of assessment
See 5.2.3—Level of assessment—Low Density Residential Area, Character Residential Area and Low–medium Density Residential Area.
Chapter 4 - Holland Park–Tarragindi District Local Plan
2 Development principles
2.1 The locality is to maintain a vibrant, diverse and safe living environment through the provision of a variety of housing types, employment opportunities, and recreational and community facilities.
2.2 A mix of housing densities and types are to be provided to serve the needs of the community, especially the District’s young adult and elderly populations. Groupings of pre–1946 character housing will be protected and higher density development in proximity to major employment nodes and public transport will be encouraged.
2.3 New development is to be sympathetic to the existing streetscapes and/or traditional character of the District. Development should contribute to the distinctive and identifiable character and sense of place of both local neighbourhoods and the District as a whole.
2.4 Significant views and vistas are to be protected. Development proposed in visually prominent locations such as major ridgelines and hilltops is designed to achieve minimal visual impact. Development forms that require cut and fill and disturbance of vegetation are to be avoided.
3 Precinct intents
3.8 Hillside Character Precinct
This precinct indicates the presence of steeper residential areas containing traditional character housing and significant ridgelines. Hillside character is derived from the relationship of buildings to their physical setting. Traditional character housing built following an historic subdivision pattern and located on well–treed hillsides results in a unique character of important visual significance in the local context. This hillside character is to be retained and enhanced through sympathetic development that minimises visual impact within its visual catchment.
Residential development in particular, is to provide and/or incorporate:
• the appearance of traditional character houses uniformly spaced and stepped across well–treed hillsides
• compatible building height, bulk and proportions
• construction methods, such as posts or piers, that minimise the amount of alteration to site topography
• design and siting that responds to the physical setting and minimises impacts to existing vegetation and sufficient area between buildings for the provision of trees and landscape requirements.5 Holland Park–Tarragindi District Local Plan Code
3 Precinct intents
3.8 Hillside Character Precinct
This precinct indicates the presence of steeper residential areas containing traditional character housing and significant ridgelines. Hillside character is derived from the relationship of buildings to their physical setting. Traditional character housing built following an historic subdivision pattern and located on well–treed hillsides results in a unique character of important visual
significance in the local context. This hillside character is to be retained and enhanced through sympathetic development that minimises visual impact within its visual catchment.Residential development in particular, is to provide and/or incorporate:
• the appearance of traditional character houses uniformly spaced and stepped across well–treed hillsides
• compatible building height, bulk and proportions
• construction methods, such as posts or piers, that minimise the amount of alteration to site topography
• design and siting that responds to the physical setting and minimises impacts to existing vegetation and sufficient area between buildings for the provision of trees and landscape requirements.Development along major ridgelines in the precinct should contribute to a consistent rhythm and sense of scale along the ridgeline when viewed from the surrounding visual catchment.
Performance Criteria and Acceptable Solutions
5.10 Hillside Character Precinct
Performance criteria Acceptable solutions Development pattern and form P1 Residential development must be compatible
with traditional character house scale and designed and sited to retain and reinforce the predominant development pattern and form of:
• separate allotments, whether or not thesite area exceeds predominant lot sizes in the area or the site is an amalgamation of allotments
• buildings of a traditional character house scale uniformly spaced and consistently stepped across well treed hillsides when viewed from the visual catchment
A1.1 Building footprint size, boundary setbacks and siting in relation to adjoining development reflects the predominant development pattern and form of development in the area
A1.2 Buildings feature orthogonal plan forms with outside walls aligned to those on adjoining allotments or within the development
Building height, scale and proportions P2 Residential development height, scale and
proportions must be compatible with traditional character houses when viewed from the visual catchment
A2.1 Large buildings are designed to appear as a series of separate blocks, each of a size and scale similar to that of a traditional character house, using either physical separation and/or:
• significant recesses and projections of the exterior wall plane
• articulation through steps in the
horizontal plane of the roof
• roof geometry incorporating significant variety e.g. pitched roofs of minimum 27.5 degree pitch
• elevational and roof treatment using a variety of materials, colours and finisheS compatible with traditional character houses to achieve the appearance of separate blocksA2.2 Building heights exceeding the prescribed Acceptable Solution are only possible where:
• use of traditional character elements or site–responsive construction methods has resulted in non–compliance with the
prescribed Acceptable Solution, and• any additional building height or
storeys are incorporated into a building form appearing to comply with the prescribed Acceptable Solution e.g. where 2 storey development is prescribed, any third storey is incorporated into a
roofspace area
Note: site–responsive construction methods, such as posts or piers minimise the amount of alteration to site topography. Traditional character elements are pitched roofs of a minimum 27.5
degree pitchA2.3 Site cover exceeding the prescribed
Acceptable Solution is only possible where the development is designed to reduce building bulk in accordance with A2.1
A2.4 Eaves heights reflect the predominant development pattern and form of development in the area:
• along undulating ridgelines
• horizontally across hillsides
• vertically down hillsides
A2.5 The length of a uniform elevational
treatment above ground level without variation, articulation or openings is no more than 10m
P3 Development must be designed, sited
and landscaped to minimise the impact of
incompatible building bulk
A3 No Acceptable Solution is prescribed P4 Development along ridgelines does not
dominate the skyline and must be designed and sited to contribute to a consistent rhythm and sense of scale along the ridgeline when viewed from the visual catchment
A4 No Acceptable Solution is prescribed Landscape character, physical setting and topography P5 Development must minimise impacts to
existing significant vegetation and provide
replacement vegetation on the site of advanced size and maturity where significant vegetation is removed
A5 Buildings or other structures, driveways and hardstand areas are designed and sited to maximise the retention of vegetation on the site. Significant vegetation removed as a result of the development is replaced with vegetation of advanced size and maturity that contributes to the special character of the area
Note: trees featuring a trunk diameter width of 250mm or greater measured at 1m above ground level are considered significant vegetation.
Advanced size and maturity is vegetation of 100 litre minimum stock size planted in sufficient quantity to achieve a total canopy area of 50% of
the removed vegetation when mature. Vegetation considered to contribute to the special character of the area is identified in the Holland Park–
Tarragindi District Local Plan Preferred Plant Species ListP6 Residential development must be designed to retain or reinforce the landscape character and physical setting of the locality and designed and situated to break up building bulk such that development appears:
• as a collection of separate buildings
uniformly sited on well–treed hillsides, or
• separate buildings consistently spaced along major ridgelines
A6.1 Communal open space and ground floor private open space required for residential development is provided at a minimum dimension of 5m
A6.2 Boundary setbacks are a minimum of:
• 6m to the rear boundary
• 12m to the rear boundary on sites
steeper than 1 in 8 gradient (long
axis from the front boundary to rear
boundary of the site)
• 6m to any adjoining site’s front or rear boundary in the case of rear allotments Car parking and manoeuvring areas are located at least 3m from rear boundaries and
the setback is planted to provide a dense landscape screen
Note: in the case of corner lots, the rear boundary is that boundary which abuts other rear
boundariesP7 Development, including buildings or other
structures, driveways and hardstand areas must be designed and sited to minimise cut and fill disturbance on the site
A7.1 Development incorporates:
• foundation systems of a type that
minimise disturbance to the landscape, such as post and pier type foundations
• slab–on–ground foundations only on those parts of a site with gradients less than 1 in 8 and where no cut and fill is required or cut and fill is minimal
• benching, cut and fill, or construction of retaining walls of a minor nature only and designed so as not to be noticeable after construction has been completed
• driveways and hardstand areas only on those parts of a site with gradients less than 1 in 4Note: cut and fill is considered to be of a minor nature where fill does not exceed 1m and/or the combined height of any retaining wall and fence does not exceed 2m
A7.2 Retaining walls are set back from any boundary and are stepped or terraced and are landscaped to soften visual impact
Chapter 5 – Residential Design – Low Density, Character and Low-medium Density code
3 Purpose
As the Areas to which this Code applies will contain a mix to houses and multi–unit development, the purpose of this Code is to effectively manage impacts of the new development on neighbours while:
• ensuring new development is compatible in scale and design with neighbouring houses
• …
• retaining pre–1946 dwellings or ensuring new development in Demolition Control Precincts is in keeping with pre–1946 architectural themes
• encouraging multi–unit development that provides a pleasant living environment for its occupants
• …
• …4 Part A—Performance Criteria and Acceptable Solutions
4.3 Multi–unit dwellings in Low–medium Density Residential Areas
Performance Criteria Acceptable Solutions P1 Development size and bulk must be consistent with the low to medium density of the locality A1.1 Gross Floor Area is no more than:
• 0.5 times the site area
OR
• 0.6 times the site area where the site has frontage to a road with a reserve width of 15.5m or more, and:- any part of the site is within 200m radius of any pedestrian entry to a railway or busway station, or
- any part of the site fronts an arterial route, or
- no part of the site is next to a house (where no approval for a multi–unit or single unit dwelling exists)
Refer to Figure n
5 Part B—General Performance Criteria and Acceptable Solutions for multi–unit dwellings
Performance Criteria Acceptable Solutions Building design and setting P1 The appearance of building bulk must be reduced by design elements A1.1 The building bulk is reduced by a
combination of:
• verandahs
• recesses
• variation in materials, colours, and/or
textures including between levels
• variation in building form
Refer to Figure dA1.2 Roofs include pitches, gables or skillions
A1.3 Services structures and mechanical plant are screened or designed as part of the building
P2 The development must be orientated to the street and facilitate casual surveillance of the street
Note: north or north–east facing windows, balconies or decks may be permitted to provide lesser levels of
privacy than would otherwise be allowed by this Code where this will significantly improve passive solar
designA2 Building has large windows or balconies facing the street
Refer to Figure d
P3 Screening and partial enclosure of balconies is limited to provide privacy for neighbours and comfort for residents without resulting in unattractive buildings or an appearance of excessive bulk or restricting opportunities for
passive surveillance of the street
A3.1 Screening of balconies is limited to the side and rear boundaries and the sides of balconies between those units where needed to prevent noise and overlooking of other units or dwellings and recreation areas
A3.2 Street frontages of balconies are not
screened or enclosed by shutters, glazing, louvres, or similar permanent stuctures
P4 The front setback must complement the
setbacks prevailing in the street
A4.1 In established areas, the front setback
is within 20% of the average setback of adjoining buildings
A4.2 In newly developing areas, the setback from a street frontage is a minimum of 3m
P5 Landscaping must be consistent with the
established landscape character of the area and accommodate the retention of existing vegetation, including street trees
A5 Established trees are retained where removal is not required to site new buildings P6 The development must include landscaping that contributes to a pleasant and safe environment and integrates well with the neighbourhood A6.1 Landscape design allows the overlooking of the street and pedestrian entry areas
A6.2 Landscape design emphasises a clear
pedestrian entry point
P7 Fencing and walls must:
• assist the development to be orientated
towards the street
• assist safety and surveillance of the street and entry areas
• enable use of private open space abutting the street
• assist in highlighting entrancesA7.1 High solid front fences are avoided so that each dwelling unit can observe the street
A7.2 Height of fences/walls on any road
alignment does not exceed:
• 1.5m if 50% transparent
• 1.2m if solidA7.3 Solid front fences/walls above 1.2m high are provided only on arterial or suburban routes and:
• living areas can maintain surveillance of the street
• fences longer than 10m have gates,
indentations or detailing to provide
visual interest
• the fences are limited to 60% of thefrontage where private open space fronts the street
P8 The location, height, extent and materials of retaining walls must be designed to minimise visual impact A8.1 Combined height of retaining wall and fence does not exceed 2m
A8.2 Retaining walls are set back from any
boundary and are stepped or terraced, so that landscaping can soften visual impact
P9 Development must provide sufficient
communal and private open space for residents needs
A9.1 A minimum 30% of the site is provided as open space each with a minimum dimension of 2m
A9.2 A landscape area of minimum dimension of 2m is provided along the full frontage of any road frontage (excluding crossover and pedestrian access only)
A9.3 For a ground floor dwelling, ground floor private open space is provided with:
• minimum area of 35m2
• minimum dimension of 3mA9.4 For a dwelling unit above ground level, private open space is provided as a balcony with a minimum dimension of 3m
P10 Communal open space for clothes drying and common recreation facilities must be provided where a significant proportion of dwellings do
not have access to ground floor private open space
A10 Where more than 25% of dwellings do not have access to ground floor private open space, communal open space for clothes drying and common recreation facilities is provided with at least one continuous area a minimum of 50m2 with a minimum dimension of 4m Character P11 Buildings built prior to 1900 must be retained whether in a Demolition Control Precinct or not A11 Buildings built prior to 1900 are reused, refurbished and retained Privacy and access to sunlight P12 Habitable spaces must not directly overlook dwellings on adjacent land
Note: north or north–east facing windows, balconies or decks may be permitted to provide lesser levels of
privacy than would otherwise be allowed by this Code where this will significantly improve passive solar
designA12 Where habitable room windows look
directly at habitable room windows in an adjacent dwelling within 2m at ground floor level or 9m at levels above ground floor, privacy is protected by:
• sill heights a minimum 1.5m above floor level
OR• fixed opaque glazing in any part of the
window below 1.5m above floor level
OR
• fixed external screens
OR
• fencing to a minimum 1.5m above
ground floor level (only applies to
overlooking from windows at ground
floor level)
OR
• achieving the privacy solution shown in Figure e
OR
• where screening of decks is required, it is solid translucent screens, perforated panels, or trellises that are permanent and durable and have a maximum of 25% openings
Refer to Figures e, f, g and h
P13 Development must not significantly reduce daylight to open space and habitable rooms in adjacent development Boundary walls must be limited in dimensions and openings, to minimise the impact on neighbours A13.1 The side boundary setback, except for a wall built to the boundary, is a minimum of:
• 1.5m for a wall up to 4.5m high
• 2m for a wall up to 7.5m high
• 2m plus 0.5m for every 3m (or part of 3m) over 7.5m height for a wall over 7.5m high
• less than 1.5m where the wall is no
more than 3.5m high and no more than 15m longA13.2 A wall built to a side boundary has:
• a maximum height of 3m, unless it abuts a higher existing or simultaneously constructed wall
• a maximum length of 15m where it does not abut an existing boundary wallNote: where a wall built to the boundary has a height less than 2m measured on the adjacent property, it can extend the full length of the
boundary, less any front or rear boundary setback
A13.3 Minimum rear boundary setback is 6m
Note: minimum setbacks do not apply to eaves and sun shading devices
P14 Development must achieve a pleasant, attractive and manageable living environment Dwellings must receive daylight and allow passage of cooling breezes through habitable rooms
Note: north or north–east facing windows, balconies or decks may be permitted to provide lesser levels of
privacy than would otherwise be allowed by this Code where this will significantly improve passive solar
designA14.1 The optimal number of units are orientated to within 20o either side of north
A14.2 Orientation of main living area windows to within 20o either side of north is maximised
A14.3 The majority of private open space has good access to sunlight
A14.4 Window placement and internal layout allows cross–ventilation
Car accommodation and vehicle access P15 Garages, driveways and parking structures must not visually dominate the street frontage Vegetation must soften hard stand areas
Refer to Figures i and j
A15.1 Carparking is located underground or within a building
A15.2 Vehicle movement areas are broken up by alternative materials, patterns, or threshold treatments. Crossovers are a minimum width of 3.5m
P16 Vehicle access and parking must be safe and convenient for residents, visitors and service providers Resident and visitor parking provision must be
provided according to:
• the number, size and type of dwellings proposed
• the availability and acceptability of kerbside parking adjacent to the site
• local traffic or parking management
• the likely preference of the occupier or target market
Note: resident parking provision may be reduced from the rate specified in the Acceptable Solution where public transport is available within a reasonable walking distance or where low demand is indicatedA16 Off–street parking spaces are provided:
• where qualifying for a subsidy for aged persons or persons with disabilities accommodation under any law, 1 car space per 3 dwellings
• otherwise, as in Table 1, the total
rounded up to the nearest whole numberP17 Vehicle access and parking design and location must minimise impacts on neighbouring dwellings Noise disturbance must be mitigated by parking area location and fencing A17.1 Vehicle parking is:
• screened to minimise reflection of car headlights onto dwelling windows and attenuate noise
• lit at night
• separated from habitable windows to minimise noise and fumes disturbanceA17.2 Vehicle parking structures are designed and located:
• behind the building setback, or
• behind or below the building so they are not visually dominant from a public street - Refer to Figure k
• to be compatible with overall building design in terms of height, roof form, detail, material and colours
• as close as possible to the dwellings to beservedA17.3 The location of visitor parking is discernible from the street
A17.4 Acoustic screening is provided next to any vehicle movement or vehicle parking areas along the side or rear boundary
OR
A 2m wide vegetated buffer is provided next to any movement or parking areas along the side or rear boundaryP18 Vehicle access to the site and neighbouring sites must not impede the traffic flow on arterial routes
The development must have safe and
convenient vehicle access to dwellings and the street networkA18.1 The proposal does not use an arterial route for vehicle access to the site
A18.2 Vehicle access is provided to abutting sites that only have frontage to an arterial route, to facilitate access to the abutting site via an alternative street
Managing light and noise impacts P19 Light nuisance must be minimised A19 Outdoor lighting complies with the
requirements of the AS4282—Control of theObtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting
P20 Noise from the development must not affect existing or likely future dwellings on adjacent land unreasonably A20.1 Vehicle movement areas are located a minimum of 3m from any adjoining dwellings, or are provided with acoustic screening to the boundary
A20.2 Any air conditioning plant is located toward the centre of the site
A20.3 Communal open space is located a
minimum of 3m from adjoining dwellings or provided with acoustic screening
A20.4 The development complies with the Noise Impact Assessment Planning Scheme Policy
P21 Exposure of new dwellings to noise must be minimised A21.1 Noise impacts on dwellings located within 150m of a Centre, Industry Area, rail corridor, road corridor (suburban routes, motorways and arterial routes) or within a noise exposure of 20ANEF or greater are
mitigated to comply with the requirements of the Noise Impact Assessment Planning Scheme Policy
Refer to Figure mUtilities and services P22 Waste disposal and collection areas must be unobtrusive, and adverse impacts on neighbouring properties must be mitigated A22.1 Garbage bin storage and collection areas are located on site and are screened from view
A22.2 For buildings of ten or more units, on–site bin storage:
• is not located within 5m of a property boundary
• is located where it can be accessed by refuse collection services
• is located within the main building
Chapter 5 – Residential Design – Character Code
1 Application
This Code only applies to Residential Areas in the Demolition Control Precinct (all Character Residential Areas are included in the Demolition Control Precinct).
This Code will apply in assessing material change of use and/or building work for a house or multi–unit dwelling. Where a Centre Activity on a site in the Demolition Control Precinct, the Centre Design Code (P14/A14.2 and P20/A20 in particular) will be considered in assessing the character of new development, rather than this Code.
3 Purpose
The purpose of this Code is to:
• encourage development in Demolition Control Precincts to reflect or strengthen pre–1946 housing character through compatible form, scale, materials and detailing
• in conjunction with the Demolition Code, ensure that precincts of pre–1946 houses are retained and redevelopment in those precincts complements the pre–1946 houses.
P1 Buildings use materials that complement the building materials used predominantly in pre–1946 houses nearby in the Demolition Control Precinct
Buildings have roof forms that complement the roofing styles of pre–1946 houses nearby in the streetA1.1 Buildings use traditional materials consistent with those most commonly used in pre–1946 houses in that part of the Demolition Control Precinct, including sloping roofing with eaves of similar proportions to pre–1946 houses nearby in the street
Note: traditional materials are most likely
painted timber walls and tin roofing
Additional requirements for sites that contain pre–1946 building/s:
A1.2 Pre–1946 building/s are sited at the front of the site at the street frontage
A1.3 Building/s built prior to 1900 are reused, refurbished and retainedP2 The building height and bulk must
complement the predominant scale of pre–1946 houses nearby in the street
Refer to Figure g
A2.1
For houses (including small lot houses):
Where the topography is generally flat, the eaves height is within 20% of adjoining eaves heights
OR
A2.2
For multi–unit dwellings:
Buildings that are taller or wider than the type of building prevalent in the street consist of clearly distinguishable parts similar in scale to existing pre–1946 housingRefer to Figures g and h
P3 The building setting must complement the traditional setting of pre–1946 houses nearby in the street
Notes: this traditional setting usually involves a single width driveway and a fairly uniform building line
This Performance Criterion does not apply to rear access lots
A3.1 Buildings are set back from any road
alignment (excluding eaves, awnings, stairs
and garage) within 20% of the average front
setback of the nearest pre–1946 buildings
fronting the same street
Additional requirements for house/s (including
small lot houses)
A3.2 Garages are setback from any road
alignment in a position similar to garages
located on sites of pre–1946 houses nearby
in the street
A3.3 The crossover width is a maximum of 3m
Additional requirements for sites that contain pre–1946 building/s:
A3.4 Pre–1946 building/s are located at the front
of the site
A3.5 Building/s built prior to 1900 are reused, refurbished and retainedP4 The building form must complement the
traditional elements of pre–1946 houses nearby in the street
Note: this traditional building form usually comprised a solid core with attached or integrated verandahs
raised above the ground on timber supports. Enclosed areas under houses generally maintained the street
appearance of lightweight supports to upper floors and reflected the layout of upper floor verandahsA4.1 The building includes a solid core with
attached or integrated lightweight verandah
or balcony structures
A4.2 Different floor levels are distinguished with the use of entries, windows and balconies
A4.3 Where the building is located at the front of the site, living areas, verandahs and
windows are orientated towards the street
Refer to Figure i
Additional requirements for houses (including small lot houses):
A4.4 The ground floor of the building gives the appearance of a lightweight support to the upper floor and reflects the layout of upper floor verandah or balcony structuresP5 Roof form must reflect traditional roofs in that part of the Demolition Control Precinct A5.1 Predominant roof forms will include one or more of a combination of pyramids, hips or gables of a similar pitch and proportions to those of pre–1946 houses nearby in the street
In a sloping street where the rhythm of
stepping levels and roofs is a characteristic of the streetscape, that stepping is maintainedRefer to Figure c
A5.2 The building includes eaves that are of
similar proportions to eaves on pre–1946
houses nearby in the streetA5.3 Roof materials are similar to the roof
materials on pre–1946 houses nearby in the
streetP6 External elements, materials and detailing must reflect pre–1946 architectural themes, and reduce building bulk and form a transition with the external landscape A6.1 External elements such as lightweight
verandahs and stairs, eaves, overhangs,
sunhoods, lattice screens and batten panels
are evident to reflect those of pre–1946
houses nearby in the street and are sufficient
to cast shadows and provide three–
dimensional effects
Refer to Figure j
A6.2 Where masonry is used it is rendered
and/or painted and used in conjunction
with other more lightweight materials,
particularly to define upper and lower
levels.
For houses (including small lot houses) these lightweight materials predominateP7 Front fencing must reflect pre–1946
architectural styles and complement the
building designA7 Any front fences are compatible in
materials, height and transparency with
other fencing on sites of pre–1946 houses
nearby in the street
Note: traditional fences are usually low and
reasonably transparent with timber paling or wire
SCHEDULE B - Relevant extracts of City Plan 2014
Holland Park-Tarragindi Neighbourhood Plan
Table 7.2.8.1.3.A – Criteria for assessable development
| Performance outcomes | Acceptable outcomes |
| General | |
| PO1 Note—Development that exceeds the intended number of storeys or building height can place disproportionate pressure on the transport network, public space or community facilities in particular. | AO1 Development complies with the number of storeys and building height in Table 7.2.8.1.3.B. Note—Neighbourhood plans will mostly specify a maximum number of storeys where zone outcomes have been varied in relation to building height. Some neighbourhood plans may also specify height in metres. Development must comply with both parameters where maximum number of storeys and height in metres are specified. |
Low-Medium Density Residential Zone Code
(4) Development location and uses overall outcomes are:
(a) Development comprises a mix of low and low-medium rise, low-medium density residential development.
...
(d) Development provides for co-existence of a dwelling houses, dual occupancies or multiple dwellings.
(5) Development form overall outcomes are:
(a) Development for a residential building is of a height, bulk, scale and form which is tailored to its specific location and to the characteristics of the site within the Low-medium density residential zone and the relevant zone precinct.
(b) Development provides for a building to have a building height and bulk that responds to:(i) the nature of adjoining dwellings;
(ii) site characteristics, including the shape, frontage, size, orientation, slope, and nature of adjoining dwellings.
...
(d) Development supports a subtropical character by ensuring that:(i) the building form, spacing, orientation and design ensure dwellings are well designed and sensitive to the city’s climate;
(ii) residents on the site, as well as residents of existing or future dwellings on adjoining sites, have sufficient privacy and good access to daylight, sunlight and breezes to enable the intended use of indoor and outdoor spaces.
(e) Development provides quality private and public open spaces and landscaping, including deep planting that softens the scale of the dwellings, provides spaces for outdoor activity areas and encourages outdoor living.”
(7) 2 or 3 storey mix zone precinct overall outcomes are:
(a) Development comprises a mix of low-medium rise, low-medium density residential buildings:
(i) of no more than 2 storeys, or of no more than 3 storeys in height where located within easy walking distance of a public transport node;
(ii) located on suitable sites, in accessible locations, near to public transport and larger centres or key destinations.
(b) Development for residential uses are predominantly a mix of dwelling houses, dual occupancy, apartment and row-house style multiple dwellings.
(c) Development for a residential use other than a dwelling house is of a scale and bulk that co-exists comfortably with an adjoining dwelling house, even though it might have a bulk and scale greater than a dwelling house.
(d) Development design, height and setbacks provide a sensitive transition at the edge of the site to an adjoining dwelling house or land in a lower density zone or zone precinct.
(e) Development for a residential use other than for a dwelling house incorporates setbacks and landscaping which contribute to a cohesive and compatible human-scale streetscape.(f) Development responds to local characteristics, such as protection of view corridors, reinforces a green landscape character and responds to the surrounding character and architecture.
| Performance outcomes | Acceptable outcomes | ||
| PO5 | AO5 Refer to Figure b and Figure c. | ||
| PO6 | AO6.1 AO6.2 | ||
| PO8 PO11 | AO8.1
| ||
| Table 9.3.14.3.B – Site requirements and building height for a multiple dwelling, retirement facility or short-term accommodation | |||
1
0
1