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

Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> Council - 26 April 2005 20 / 29
1 & 1A Lamond Drive, 1444 &
1444A Pacific Highway,
Turramurra
Item 20
DA1099/04
13 April 2005
‘SEPP 65 : Good design achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the buildings
purpose, in terms <strong>of</strong> building alignments, proportions, building type and the
manipulation <strong>of</strong> building elements…’
The built form <strong>of</strong> this development is acceptable in terms <strong>of</strong> its height. However, the inadequate
setbacks <strong>to</strong> Lamond Drive and Pacific Highway along with the 72 metres length <strong>of</strong> the building will
create an over<strong>be</strong>aring built form in comparison with other buildings in the area. This built form
will not have the appearance <strong>of</strong> a building set in landscaped open space, due <strong>to</strong> its excessive length
and the inadequate landscaping possibilities in the narrow front setback.
Density:
‘SEPP 65 : Good design has a density appropriate <strong>to</strong> its site and its context, in terms <strong>of</strong>
floor space yields ( or num<strong>be</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> units or residents)…’
Acceptable. The density complies with LEP 194 and DCP 55 requirements.
Resource, energy and water efficiency:
‘SEPP 65 : Sustainability is integral <strong>to</strong> the design process. Aspects include…layouts
and built form, passive solar design principles,…soil zones for vegetation and re-use <strong>of</strong>
water.’
The proposal is generally acceptable in this regard. The environmental design <strong>of</strong> the proposal
complies with SEPP 65 and Residential Flat Design Code guidelines. There is, however, a
variation in respect <strong>of</strong> the deep soil requirements and minimum NatHERS thermal requirements
specified in DCP 55.
Landscape:
‘SEPP 65 : Good design recognises that <strong>to</strong>gether landscape and buildings operate as
an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in greater aesthetic quality and amenity
for both occupants and the adjoining public domain.’
Not acceptable. In particular, the proposal does not allow for adequate deep soil landscape zones
around the two frontages. In addition, part <strong>of</strong> the north-eastern boundary cannot <strong>be</strong> adequately
screened due <strong>to</strong> an inadequate setback and a significant tree on the south-western boundary is likely
<strong>to</strong> <strong>be</strong> detrimentally affected.
Amenity:
‘SEPP 65 : Optimising amenity requires appropriate room dimensions and shapes,
access <strong>to</strong> sunlight, natural ventilation, visual and acoustic privacy, s<strong>to</strong>rage, indoor and
outdoor space, efficient layouts, and service areas, outlook and ease <strong>of</strong> access for all
age groups and degrees <strong>of</strong> mobility.’
N:\050426-OMC-PR-03122-1 1A LAMOND DRIVE 1444.doc/cswanepoel/29