the balustrade of the wrap around balcony is the existing parapet, and that the building steps down towards the rear of the site…..the majority of the existing buildings along both sides of Wardell Road in the vicinity of the site extend to the side boundaries., and towards the rear.
30 I find that the proposal when viewed from Wardell Road will have an acceptable impact on the existing and future streetscape. The difference in height between the single storey houses and the two storey proposal is not so great as to be out of scale, particularly when there are a number of other two storey developments on either side of the street. In a streetscape with no clear character and no development control plan to guide the type of development proposed, it is difficult to assess whether the detail of a balcony, setback and roof form are appropriate.
31 As a mixed use development, I consider that the proposal should respond to the two storey mixed use developments built to the street alignment with parapets and flat roofs on the opposite side of Wardell Road. The proposal has instead attempted to respond to its residential context, particularly through its pitched roof. In the context of the existing streetscape, the existing use rights of the site and the lack of evidence on desired future character, this level of detail is not a reason to warrant refusal of the application as the overall form and bulk of the development from Wardell Road is acceptable. However, this level of detail would be important for future development to achieve a consistent streetscape on both sides of Wardell Road.
32 The experts did not raise issue with the relationship of the proposed development to Murray Lane. The height, form, bulk and setback of the proposal is acceptable when viewed from the lane however, the treatment of the setback area is less than adequate. This lane is narrow and mainly provides access for developments with driveways, large areas of hard stand and little landscaping. In the setback area, the proposal provides a basement driveway, two surface car spaces, a garbage area, side entry to the dwellings and a single palm tree. It can be argued that this responds to the existing context, but I see no point in responding to a context that is degraded. A redevelopment of the site and other sites along the lane should endeavour to change and improve this context, particularly through landscaping. The constraints of the site, particularly its width, and the amount of development result in little opportunity for landscaping.
33 I find the relationship of the proposal to the context of the adjoining properties to be unacceptable. Its relationship to the future context is also unacceptable, whether this envisages residential development, consistent with the current zoning, or a multi unit development which Mr Lovell considers would be a more appropriate zone.
34 The subfloor of the existing shops, the basement car park and its access ramp occupy most of the site. Units 2 and 3 are separated by a 3.5m gap between the buildings. From the northern boundary, the ground floor of the new dwellings is set back 1m with recessed entries setback 1.8m. The first floor is setback 1.8m.
35 From the southern boundary, the new dwellings are set back between 2m and 3.8m. The ground floor terraces are built to the boundary. These terraces are elevated above existing ground level. To provide privacy a masonry wall is proposed to extend about 27m along the boundary at a height ranging from about 2.4m (adjacent to the dining room window of No 248 Wardell Street) to about 3.2m.
36 The applicant proposed a condition for part of this wall to be reduced by 1m with privacy screens or alternatively for amended plans which reduced the level of the car park and the terraces and consequently the height of the wall. This would assist in reducing the impact of the wall from No 248. However, the bulk of the development extends along the length of this boundary. The gap between the buildings, their articulation and variation on setbacks and the landscaping in planter boxes would assist in breaking up the bulk of the building but not sufficiently to achieve an acceptable relationship with the adjoining property.
37 The bulk of the proposal when viewed from No 244 is likely to have greater impact due to the lack of setback and landscaping along the boundary other than vines. The landscaping in the plater boxes under awnings is unlikely to provide screening that would mitigate the bulk of the building. While the height is no different to that to be expected from the development of a two storey house, the length of the development along almost the whole boundary results in an unacceptable impact.
38 The use of the setback areas as outdoor spaces and for access to the dwellings is also different to a dwelling house where side setbacks have limited use and can therefore be of minimal width.
39 The side setbacks and bulk of the building would not fit into a future character were the adjoining sites to be developed with large dwellings or dual occupancies. Such development could adversely impact on the proposal through overlooking of the outdoor areas and overshadowing of the north facing windows. This would be exacerbated were the adjoining sites to be developed individually for multi unit development as this would involve a greater number of dwellings in close proximity with associated amenity and bulk issues, particularly on the northern boundary where a setback of 1m is clearly inadequate for multi unit development. This results in a form of development that has an unacceptable relationship with its existing and likely future adjoining properties.
Impact on adjoining development.
40 In addition to the impacts of bulk addressed above, the proposal will increase overshadowing of the rear yard at No 248, however, Mr Faridy and Mr Lovell agreed that this was acceptable. The proposal would remove the existing solar access into the dining room of No 248, although this is likely to result from the development of even a two storey house on the site. The experts agreed that the proposed fixed anodised glass louvres on the north façade eliminate overlooking of No 244 and that there was acceptable visual privacy between No 248. There will be overlooking of 248 from the first floor level of the proposal from bedroom windows which is acceptable however, the potential for overlooking from the kitchen of Unit 1 has not been addressed by the experts.
41 Mr Faridy considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable aural privacy impact due to the proximity of the terraces to No 248 and the access footpath along No 244. Mr Lovell held the contrary opinion that given the size of the development these impacts are reasonable. I accept Mr Lovell's opinion.
Amenity of the development
42 Mr Faridy and Mr Lovell agreed that Unit 4 would not achieve an acceptable level of solar access either internally or to its open space due to the existing adjoining development to the north. They agreed that Units 1 and 5 would achieve acceptable solar access both internally and externally, but disagreed on whether the solar access to Units 2 and 3 was acceptable.
43 Mr Lovell stated that despite the obscure glass louvres, Units 2 and 3 would receive three hours sunlight to the living dining area. Mr Faridy stated that the areas would receive daylight not sunlight and that this would not be a meaningful amount for three hours as it would fall on corners of the kitchen in Unit 2 and be limited by the walls in Unit 3 to a narrow shaft.
44 In relation to solar access to the out door areas, this was not raised as an issue and Mr Faridy considered it to be of less importance than solar access to the internal areas but considered it to be unacceptable for units 2, 3 and 4. Mr Lovell considered it to be acceptable for Units 2 and 3. The shadow diagrams indicate that the courtyards adjoining the southern boundary will receive no sun in midwinter. The terrace of Unit 3, which is covered will receive sun above the balustrade and below the roof at 9am but not at other times of the day. The terrace of Unit 2 will be largely in sun between 12-2pm with limited amount at other times of the day.
45 Given the constraints of the site, the proposal has been designed to try to maximise solar access to the units. However, Unit 4 will not receive an acceptable level of solar access and while there will technically be solar access to Units 2 and 3 through obscure glass, for three hours in midwinter, the extent and usefulness of this is questionable. The solar access to the outdoor spaces Units 2 and 4 also does not achieve an acceptable standard. Due to the lack of setback from the boundary, the level of solar access would be difficult to maintain with any future redevelopment of the No 244.
46 The outdoor spaces of Units 1 and 5 receive an acceptable level of solar access however, the amenity of these areas is questionable as they provide little privacy and in the case of Unit 5, overlook a main road with no noise attenuation. Unit 1 overlooks the surface car park and Murray Lane. The amenity of this unit could be improved if a landscaped setback were provided.
Orders
47 For the above reasons the Orders of the Court are: