ordinary meeting of council to be held on tuesday, 26 april 2005 at ...

Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> Council - 26 April 2005 19 / 51
2 <strong>to</strong> 4A Finlay Road, Turramurra
Item 19
DA1270/04
6 April 2005
ii.
iii.
iv.
The Deep Soil Zone provision is 48.2%, rather than the 50.6% as suggested within the
application. A SEPP1 is required for this departure from the standard. (Refer LEP194 Section
25I(2)(c)) (N.B. Further details contained within the Statement <strong>of</strong> Basic Facts. This can
likely <strong>be</strong> resolved by increasing the setbacks <strong>of</strong>f the site boundaries for the pool and retaining
walls <strong>to</strong> a minimum 2.0m <strong>to</strong> comply with LEP194).
Tree #1/54 Nyssa sylvatica (Tupelo) located adjacent <strong>to</strong> the eastern site boundary and
adjoining heritage listed property is not shown <strong>to</strong> <strong>be</strong> retained. The tree provides amenity <strong>to</strong>
the site and the adjoining property. As the tree is outside <strong>of</strong> development works, it is required
<strong>to</strong> <strong>be</strong> retained. This will require some alteration <strong>to</strong> the proposed landscape works/turf area.
The proposed swimming pool, located in the south-east corner <strong>of</strong> the site, has a setback <strong>of</strong>
approximately 1.4m <strong>to</strong> the water line. To maximise landscape amenity and deep soil
landscaping, the pool should have a minimum 2.0m setback from site boundaries <strong>to</strong> the outer
coping edge.
Residential amenity
v. The proposed development fails <strong>to</strong> provide for adequate visual privacy, internal amenity and
outdoor open space in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> DCP55.
Particulars
a. The application provides instances where the privacy <strong>of</strong> future residents is not assured.
In particular, the pedestrian ramps will have negative impact on those dwellings
immediately <strong>to</strong> the front <strong>of</strong> the ramp. Specifically, there are concerns with respect <strong>to</strong>
the northern pedestrian ramp and views in<strong>to</strong> Unit B11 at RL177.00, and from the central
pedestrian ramp in<strong>to</strong> Units C21 and C22 at RL174.00 (Refer: DCP55, Part 4.5).
b. The application provides several instances where the internal corridor layout width, and
the width at lift lobbies, is narrow. This provides for limited manoeuvring space for
furniture removals (Refer: DCP55, Part 4.5, Control C-5).
c. The application fails <strong>to</strong> provide open space with dimensions in accordance with DCP55.
In particular, units C11, C21, D11, D21 and D31 are undersized or have minimal
widths (Refer: DCP55, Part 4.5, Controls C-1, C-2, C-4).
Site access
vi.
The raised pedestrian entry ramps are <strong>of</strong> minimum width with no landing. This will prevent
pedestrian access along the frontage <strong>of</strong> this site, particularly if a vehicle is parked on Finlay
Road.
Energy efficiency
vii.
The proposal fails <strong>to</strong> provide for an adequate NatHERS energy efficiency rating in accordance
with the provisions <strong>of</strong> DCP55. Only 57% <strong>of</strong> the units have achieved a 4.5 star rating, where it
is anticipated that at least 90% <strong>of</strong> the units should achieve a 4.5 star rating (Refer: DCP55,
Part 4.8.1, C-4).
N:\050426-OMC-PR-03090-2 TO 4A FINLAY ROAD TURRA.doc/klithgow/51