Ervin Mahrer & Partners v Strathfield Municipal Council

Ervin Mahrer & Partners v Strathfield Municipal Council - [2002] NSWLEC 47 - NSWLEC 2002 case summary — Zoe

[6]

That Report had included the following relevant content concerning recommended changes to the draft DCP 20 - The major change to the DCP however, has been the need to vary building heights. In light of Council's decision not to retain the proposed link road between Station Street and Elva Street in the DCP, a supplementary Traffic Study for the Corridor area was prepared so as to determine whether the dwelling densities needed to be revised. A copy of the Supplementary Traffic Study minus the figures is attached . The Traffic Consultant has concluded that following Council's decision not to retain the link road proposal as a future road linkage to the south of the railway line, densities within the Parramatta Road Corridor Area east of the Markets must be reduced to compensate. The consultant has indicated that the potential number of dwelling units needs to be reduced by between 700 and 800. In Council's Supplementary Housing Strategy submitted to DUAP, it was estimated that the redevelopment of the area had a potential yield of approximately 4000 additional dwellings. The draft DCP for the Parramatta Road Corridor Area prepared by Consultants provided for an estimated potential increase of 3956 dwellings. Following the public exhibition this was revised up to 4405 due to alterations to building envelopes and development opportunities in the Columbia Lane area and along Loftus Crescent between Subway Lane and Crane Street. As stated earlier, the Traffic Consultant has indicated that given the existing traffic constraints within the area, a reduction of between 700 and 800 dwellings is required to satisfy future traffic demands. Consequently, the revised potential dwelling increase for the Parramatta Road Corridor is limited to a maximum of 3600 dwellings or 400 less than originally estimated. In real terms and as a percentage of the potential across the whole of the Strathfield Municipality which was estimated to be 6 351, a reduction of 400 dwellings is not substantial and therefore not expected to be questioned by DUAP. Council has, by undertaking a supplementary Traffic Study, justified on traffic grounds what the maximum development potential of the area can ultimately be. The fairest way of reducing the required net number of dwellings units is best achieved by reducing the heights across the whole area east of the Markets. The optimum number of dwellings can be achieved by the following actions 1. Reducing the four storey buildings to three storeys 2. Reducing the nine storey buildings to a combination of six and seven storeys 3. Reducing a couple of the twelve storey buildings to nine storeys

[84]

Professor Droege's Report (Exhibit 5) contains the following comments in respect of the proposal's adverse impacts on Parramatta Road: - Residential design quality is a major concern through the metropolitan area. In this context this part of western Sydney needs careful concern for the aesthetic future of the area, and also for future economic development, identity and market acceptance reasons. The general quality of the Sydney residential market and consumer awareness have climbed significantly in the decade or so since which this proposal has been developed. Were it to be built today it would risk instant stigmatisation and rejection of the project and with it, the entire area, certainly among market participants with choice. The small-scale setting at this crowned, slightly bent U spot along Parramatta Road has its own important and qualitatively high significance which must be respected and worked with. The absurd dwarfing of the theatre and the building enclave is most grotesque, but unfortunately not the only aspect of the development's proposed appearance which should be rejected. Notwithstanding the paucity of graphic material presented it is sufficient to ascertain its inconsistency with SPSO by virtue of constituting a seriously negative aesthetic impact of the proposed hulking presence of the development on Parramatta Road, out of scale with the context. …….. …….. Had a basic urban design analysis been applied to the site in its setting the applicant may well have arrived at similar conclusions as did the authors of the Parramatta Road Corridor Masterplan, that is, that the site is too large to be sensibly developed as an isolated project, but will benefit from separation into two manageable city block halves: one along Parramatta Road and one to the rear of the present site. The Masterplan outlines a rational structure in which a coherent street system along these lines can be developed at some point in the future. Indeed, there is at least one development in the block in question which has foiled this worthy goal in its pure form; still, reasonable efforts can still achieve a variation of this concept, albeit at a normalised scale, height and density, and without reliance on a massive - podium parking structure. …….. …….. The development flies in the face of clause 2.5 of DCP 20 in that it threatens to not only not create an interesting skyline, and does not enhance views from adjoining development but, to the contrary, mars the skyline of the area and represents an unhappy view onto a generic development that has not been designed with specifically relevant qualities in mind. The excessive height, in combination with an insensitive architectural language, results in a less-than-interesting, urbanistically insensitive skyline and the downgrading of views from adjoining developments across the site boundaries and as well as across Parramatta Road. …… …… The concept is basically misguided, structured as an internalised world on a podium, where a more carefully considered approach should be deployed, to set the project in harmony with its surroundings and to create a set of more internal areas which are manageable and open in fit their urban outcome. This would not be possible at the development intensity proposed -an illustration of the fact that the site and its inhabitants would suffer from project overdevelopment under this scheme.

[85]

To similar effect are the following criticisms contained in Professor Weirick's Report (Exhibit 8): The proposed development locates a 10-storey building (Building 1) next to the Homebush Theatre, and a 5-storey building (with roof deck) two doors away at 71-77 Parramatta Road (Building 5). The bulk and scale of these buildings - which feature minor setbacks, inconsistent fenestration and awkwardly articulated balconies - will overwhelm the form and façade of the cinema building, rob it of its landmark status, and generally dominate the heritage node it forms with the Horse & Jockey Hotel. This will diminish tho heritage value of the two listed buildings, and significantly degrade the rare streetscape quality of this section of Parramatta Road. The scheme attempts to mitigate the scale and bulk of the major new buildings by (1) creating a south-facing alley entranceway from Parramatta Road, which separates Building 1 from the Homebush Theatre; and (2) incorporating a minor, 2.0m, setback from the property line at Level 1 behind a screen wall which mimics, in outline, the traditional 2-storey scale of commercial buildings in the neighbourhood. Building 5 has a similar screen element incorporated in its south façade. Building 1 has a further setback, and south-facing terrace, at Level 6. These elements will not significantly reduce the perceived scale and bulk of the new blocks, particularly as seen from the south side of Parramatta Road. This is due to the general awkwardness, and aggressiveness of the architectural composition, with its inconsistent fenestration, blank walls and heavy balconies. …… …… The architectural and landscape elements which aim to mitigate the bulk of Buildings 1 & 5 are incidental in the context of a 10-storey building mass, 30m high and 31m deep in the case of Building 1; 21m high and 38m deep in the case of Building 5. DCP 20 aims to establish a building height of 6-storeys in this location, with indicative built form 19m high and 18m deep. DCP 20 has been formulated to ensure a coherent street scale and compatibility with the existing urban fabric. The proposed development does not meet these objectives, and if approved, the result will be visually prominent in the approach to the subtle but distinct highpoint of the shale ridge at Homebush. The proposal will diminish the significance of the heritage buildings and compromise, if not destroy, the well-proportioned containment of street space in this location. …… …… The architectural expression of the project is undistinguished, if not crude, with what appear to be full-height blank walls in face brick, on the north, south, east and west facades; splayed verandahs divided down the middle by blade walls; and a prominent pattern of punched fenestration. This is a landmark Sydney does not need.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (129 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (3)

Cited By (4)