23.03.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Ordinary Meeting <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Council - <strong>26</strong> April <strong>2005</strong> 20 / 5<br />

1 & 1A Lam<strong>on</strong>d Drive, 1444 &<br />

1444A Pacific Highway,<br />

Turramurra<br />

Item 20<br />

DA1099/04<br />

13 April <strong>2005</strong><br />

2. STREETSCAPE IMPACT<br />

The proposal is inc<strong>on</strong>sistent with Clause 25I (1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Part IIIA <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance in th<strong>at</strong> the proposal will have a<br />

detrimental impact <strong>on</strong> the residential character <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the area and adjoining<br />

properties due <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the scale <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the built form, lack <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> area proposed for landscaping<br />

and minimal setbacks proposed.<br />

Particulars<br />

2.1 Less than 50% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the site area is proposed as deep soil landscaping and<br />

fails <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>at</strong>isfy Clause 25I 1(2) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> LEP 194 which requires 50%.<br />

2.2 The building width <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Lam<strong>on</strong>d Drive measures approxim<strong>at</strong>ely 72m and<br />

exceeds the 36m maximum required by Clause 4.4 C-3 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> DCP55. There<br />

is a c<strong>on</strong>cern with the length <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the building as it “fills up” the entire<br />

Lam<strong>on</strong>d Drive fr<strong>on</strong>tage which <strong>on</strong>ly measures ±61m. The resulting tunnel<br />

effect blocks out all views/glimpses <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the north and <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the west.<br />

An improved outcome may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> achieved by splitting the development in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

two more symp<strong>at</strong>hetically scaled modules which reflect the character <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

the locality. The scale <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these modules should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> in keeping with the<br />

recommended building envelopes provided in DCP 55 - Multi-unit<br />

Housing: Railway/Pacific Highway Corridor and St Ives Centre.<br />

2.3 The proposal fails <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> maintain a fr<strong>on</strong>t setback z<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Lam<strong>on</strong>d Drive <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 10-<br />

12m as required by Clause 4.3 C-1 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> DCP 55. Terraces and the basement<br />

car park are shown with setbacks <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 7m.<br />

2.4 The 7m setback <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Lam<strong>on</strong>d Drive and the 72m length <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the building will<br />

cre<strong>at</strong>e an over<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aring built form in Lam<strong>on</strong>d Drive. The built form will<br />

undermine the streetscape setting, by reas<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> its limited landscaped<br />

character; prominence <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the street boundaries and the cramped<br />

arrangement <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the structure due <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the disproporti<strong>on</strong><strong>at</strong>e distributi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

the open space areas compared <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the existing character <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the locality.<br />

The already limited scope for landscaping within the 7m setback is further<br />

reduced by:<br />

a. the extensive retaining walls required in the setback area due <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<br />

>5m height difference <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween street level and ground levels;<br />

b. the resulting stepped planter boxes (

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!