30 Assessing the heritage impact on No 11 Wolseley Street, Ms Newell stated, [Note: Exhibit 5 p 7, para 5.10]:
[The proposed stair] would not have an unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of No 11 Wolseley Street and that it is consistent with the aims stated in cl 2(a) of the Drummoyne Local Environmental Plan 1986 (Amendment No 44) in that it is an alteration and addition that is in scale and character with the surrounding land (in this instance No 11 Wolseley Street).
It is my view that the proposed tower is consistent with performance criteria P4, P8, P11 of s 4.4 of the DCDCP in that its location and scale means that it is unlikely to be able to be viewed from No 11. It matches the style, form and detailing where possible of No 9 and thereby No 11 and its form and materials generally complement the dominant façade character (windows, gables/roof pitch, masonry, render) of No 11.
31 Assessing the heritage impact on surrounding heritage items and streetscape, Ms Newell stated, [Note: Exhibit 5, p 8, para 5.17]:
Because the Wolseley Street streetscape has no apparent or discernable heritage values or streetscape characteristics or elements with potential heritage values, and because the proposed stair tower would have an acceptable heritage impacts on No 9 and no discernable heritage impact on No 11 (as viewed from the street and otherwise), it is my opinion that the proposed tower would have no effect, in heritage terms, on the streetscape of Wolseley Street and its overall form and scale would not detract from the current streetscape.
32 Ms Newell concluded, [Note: Exhibit 5, p 9, para 6.1]:
…the design of the proposal would be generally acceptable from a heritage viewpoint, subject to the following recommendations and modifications:
· A mostly glass connecting section between the roof and the stair tower (roof materials need not be glass but should not be tiled) to clearly distinguish new from original elements.
· All effort should be made to reduce the height of the proposed tower, while retaining its capped roof form so that the degree it stands proud of the east-west gable ridgeline is reduced.
Subject to implementation of the above conditions, I consider that the proposal would satisfy the heritage objectives and provisions contained within the DLEP and DCDCP.
33 Once having determined the height and likely impact of the stair tower on the site inspection, Ms Newell did not insist on any further lowering or modifications of the stair tower, as set out in dot point 2 above.
34 Mr Witherdin for the council indicated that he was content, given the evidence of Ms Newell, and that there was no longer any issue in respect of the height, bulk and scale of the proposed stair tower.
35 Nearby residents gave evidence on the site inspection and expressed concern for the height and character of the proposed stair tower.
36 Ms Spanos of No 11 Wolseley Street, Drummoyne, whose dwelling abuts the subject land to the west, was of the opinion that the proposed stair tower "…does not have a heritage ambiance and not aesthetically pleasing and quite ugly."
37 Mrs Heslop of No 34 Collingwood Street, Drummoyne, whose dwelling abuts the land to the south, was not so concerned about the tower. She did request that if approval were contemplated by the Court, that the south facing windows of the tower be translucent above the ridge of the existing dwelling at No 9 Wolseley Street. The purpose of this request was to ensure that the occupants of the stair tower could not look into her dwelling. The applicant agreed to a condition to this effect.
38 I accept that the parties have reached a measure of agreement as to the impact of the height of the proposed stair tower and I agree with Ms Newell that despite their being some visual impact due to the imposition of the stair tower on the existing building, the impact on the heritage significance of No 9 Wolseley Street would be acceptable. I am satisfied that there would be no discernable adverse heritage impact on No 11 Wolseley Street when viewed from the street and from other viewpoints to which I was taken to on the site inspection. I am also satisfied that there would be no adverse effect, on the streetscape of Wolseley Street. I would not refuse the application for this reason.
Bulk height and scale of the garage in the streetscape
39 During the course of the hearing the applicant agreed to lower the height of the ridge over the studio by a further 250mm. This had the effect of reducing the visual impacts of the proposal when viewed from the street and from the neighbouring property to the south at No 34 Collingwood Street.
40 Mr Witherdin had previously assessed the streetscape impact of the proposed two-storey garage and concluded, [Note: Exhibit 4, p 4 para 5.5]:
…the height of the proposed garage dwarfs any other similar ancillary development within Raglan Street and as the proposed siting of the garage introduces a two storey element forward of the established two-storey building line, the garage as proposed will have an obtrusive appearance within the street and therefore have a detrimental impact on the streetscape contrary to objective O3 and O5 and performance criteria P2 and P4 and minimum standard M13 of Part 6.12 of the DCDCP and minimum standard under M5 Part 6.5.
41 Ms McCabe for the applicant addressed the height, bulk and scale of the proposed two-storey garage/studio from the streetscape and on views from No 34 Collingwood Street. She was of the opinion that as amended the proposal would, [Note: Exhibit D, pp 4 and 5]:
· improve the impact of the building when viewed from Raglan Street;
· impact to a lesser extent on the outlook to the northeast when viewed from No 34 collingwood Street first floor balcony;
· not significantly adversely impact upon the streetscape or adjoining development to such an extent that it would dominate…, and
· be an improvement on the original design in terms of appearance from the street and impacts on outlook and could be approved.
42 Mrs Heslop of No 34 Collingwood Street, spoke about the enclosing effect of the proposed garage/studio, adding to the sense of enclosure caused by the newly erected boundary walls and sheds in the rear of No 9 Wolseley Street. From the first floor balcony off a bedroom she observed that the peak of the roof, as shown by height staves, would be much higher than she had previously thought and she was concerned that all she "…would see from that balcony was the bank of tiles of the roof and a wall across her existing view of the flats at No 7 Wolseley Street." She acknowledged that the amended proposal that shaved off the eastern end of the studio, by setting back a further 1.5m and adding a Dutch gable, did go some way to addressing her concerns about view loss. However, she remained concerned about bulk and height of the garage/studio in the streetscape.
43 Mr Newport submitted that the view sharing principles in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 would be met by the amended proposal and that there would be no primary views of Mrs Heslop that now would be affected. He pointed to the retention of water views towards the east from the first floor of No 34 Collingwood Street.
44 Mr Newport submitted that the amendments mean that the proposal's ridge would now stretch around 7m in a east west direction and would be reduced in height by 250mm to 25.41m AHD. He referred to Court to the building envelope controls M3 and M5 under the DCDCP at p 56 in respect of maximum floor space ratio, height of two storeys and side boundary setbacks. In particular, he submitted that the exception to side boundary setbacks under M5 should be applied and this would allow a lesser setback for the garage/studio where walls do not contain windows. He submitted that those exceptional circumstances apply in this case.
45 Ms Wauchope submitted that the proposal that included a habitable room above the garage should be setback from the rear a minimum of 6m. She submitted the studio should be much smaller and much less bulky than proposed.
46 I prefer the expert evidence of Ms McCabe to that of Mr Witherdin in relation to the height, bulk and scale of the proposed garage/studio. I have also considered the objection of Mrs Heslop, and I am satisfied that when viewed from No 34 Collingwood Street, the greater bulk of the garage/studio roof would be in front of the blank end wall of the residential flat building at No 7 Wolseley Street. However, the proposed garage/studio would cut out some distant views of neighbourhoods to the northeast from both the ground and first floor of that dwelling. Some respite is offered by the applicant, in the further cutting back the studio by around 1.5m and adding a Dutch gable. When viewed from the top floor balcony of No 34 Collingwood Street, there would remain a view down Raglan Street to the neighbourhood to the northeast. No view of water would be lost from the first or ground floor as a result of the erection of the proposed garage/studio. The primary views to the east of water and distant land views would remain.
47 I am satisfied that the height, bulk and scale of the proposed garage/studio would not be inappropriate in the streetscape and would meet the objectives of the DCDCP.
Public Interest
48 The council received two objections from Ms Spanos and Mrs Heslop, when the application was advertised. I am satisfied that the expert witnesses have adequately addressed those objections. I would not refuse the application for any of the reasons given.
49 Mrs Heslop raised one objection in relation to the need to back out of the proposed garage. The backing out of cars from the garage is not unlike the manoeuvre required by drivers exiting other garages in the vicinity. The backing operation is made slightly more difficult as the garage is at an angle to the kerb. Also there is likely to be some merging with cars backing out of the garage on No 34 Collingwood Street onto Raglan Street. However, as drivers become familiar with the orientation of the garage it is likely that with care and skill this backing manoeuvre will be negotiated successfully. I would not refuse the application for this reason.
50 For the above reasons, the appeal is upheld.
Conditions
51 The conditions are those found in Exhibit 4, Annexure 2, and that were emailed to the Court on about 7 December 2005, and as amended during the hearing.
52 Condition 1(a) was added to clarify the terms of the consent and to reduce overlooking to the south and No 34 Collingwood Street as follows).
The glazing on the southern elevation of the tower shall be amended to include a transom around 500mm above the sill height and at a level of 27.74m AHD. The glazing above the transom at shall be coloured/tinted glass.
53 The plan numbers in Condition 1 were amended to reflect the plan numbers of the amended plans in Exhibit A. Conditions 13 and 41 were also amended.
Costs
54 There were no submissions made in respect of costs, I understand that each party will pay its own costs.
Orders
55 My orders are:
- The appeal under s 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is upheld.