Bulk and scale of the proposal and its compatibility with the existing and future character of the Bangalow HCA
70The experts agreed that a two storey form on the site is anticipated by the controls and I accept their agreement.
71In Mr Layman's view, the density of the proposal is excessive, which is demonstrated by its non-compliance with the density control for multi-dwellings in DCP 2010, as the 8 units proposed equates to 1 dwelling per 140sqm and not 1 dwelling per 150sqm and the commercial area equates to 23% of the total floor space and not the minimum 25%, by the relevant prescriptive measures at D3 of DCP 2010. The experts agreed that the proposal complies with the FSR development standard of 1:1 in LEP 2014, with an FSR of 0.84:1. The applicant submits that the density control for number of dwellings does not have a minimum or maximum number of bedrooms per dwelling and the proposal has more dwellings as they are 1 and 2 bedroom units.
72According to Mr Brooks, the roof form of the proposal is excessively complicated and consists of a large, flat area with a hipped roof form around the edges. The roof design, in his view, is an unsuccessful attempt to disguise the bulk and scale of the proposal and does not relate to the heritage character of Station Street. According to Mr Layman, the roof, which does not comply with the 9m maximum height limit in LEP 2014, is a complex shape and a bulky design, which is not architecturally consistent with the traditional hipped roof forms in Station Street and the rear portion of the building could be lowered by 900mm to ameliorate some of the bulk of the overall form of the proposal. In Mr Staas' view, the proposal's roof form is compatible with the pitched roofs in Station Street.
73Mr Brooks noted that there is a dramatic shift in character in Station Street, when compared to Byron Street, as Station Street consists of buildings in a landscaped setting, whereas in Byron Street the buildings are more dominant and form a street wall along the main street. In his view, the proposal's amalgamation of lots will result in a single mass of two storeys and changes to the subdivision pattern within a conservation area are generally regarded as generating an adverse effect on the scale and character of the locality. While he could support the absolute height of the proposal, it is the height over such a huge building with a predominately flat roof which results in a bulk and scale that detracts from the character of the streetscape.
74According to Mr Staas the proposal is a transitional building between the A&I Hall and the cottages in Station Street and its mass will be barely perceivable, as the design has been carefully considered to break up the form and height of the proposal. Station Street consists of an eclectic streetscape of buildings of varying heights and the proposal will be most closely considered in relation to the nearby A&I Hall, the Scout Hall and Gate House. In Mr Staas' opinion, the bulk and scale of the proposal is appropriately modulated by the articulated built form and is compatible with the existing eclectic historic character of the town and achieves an acceptable fit in the varied streetscape character. He acknowledges it will be larger when viewed from south, when compared to a number of the established buildings in Station Street.
75Mr Layman noted that the existing character of Station Street is different to that of Byron Street, as Byron Street is typified by street wall commercial development, whereas Station Street typically has dispersed built form in a landscaped setting. Mr Layman considered that the bulk and scale of the proposal is excessive and will have an adverse impact on the built environment of the locality.
76Mr Layman referred to the planning principle in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 (Project Venture planning principle) and in his opinion, the proposal's height, setback and landscape are inconsistent its Station Street context, as in Station Street, the landscape dominates the buildings, as opposed to Byron Street, where the buildings dominate the landscape. The relationship between built form and open space is addressed in the Project Venture planning principle, 'compatibility in the urban environment', as follows:
22 There are many dictionary definitions of compatible. The most apposite meaning in an urban design context is capable of existing together in harmony. Compatibility is thus different from sameness. It is generally accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is harder to achieve.
23 It should be noted that compatibility between proposed and existing is not always desirable. There are situations where extreme differences in scale and appearance produce great urban design involving landmark buildings. There are situations where the planning controls envisage a change of character, in which case compatibility with the future character is more appropriate than with the existing. Finally, there are urban environments that are so unattractive that it is best not to reproduce them.
24 Where compatibility between a building and its surroundings is desirable, its two major aspects are physical impact and visual impact. In order to test whether a proposal is compatible with its context, two questions should be asked.
Are the proposal's physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.
Is the proposal's appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?
25 The physical impacts, such as noise, overlooking, overshadowing and constraining development potential, can be assessed with relative objectivity. In contrast, to decide whether or not a new building appears to be in harmony with its surroundings is a more subjective task. Analysing the existing context and then testing the proposal against it can, however, reduce the degree of subjectivity.
26 For a new development to be visually compatible with its context, it should contain, or at least respond to, the essential elements that make up the character of the surrounding urban environment. In some areas, planning instruments or urban design studies have already described the urban character. In others (the majority of cases), the character needs to be defined as part of a proposal's assessment. The most important contributor to urban character is the relationship of built form to surrounding space, a relationship that is created by building height, setbacks and landscaping. In special areas, such as conservation areas, architectural style and materials are also contributors to character.
27 Buildings do not have to be the same height to be compatible. Where there are significant differences in height, it is easier to achieve compatibility when the change is gradual rather than abrupt. The extent to which height differences are acceptable depends also on the consistency of height in the existing streetscape.
28 Front setbacks and the way they are treated are an important element of urban character. Where there is a uniform building line, even small differences can destroy the unity. Setbacks from side boundaries determine the rhythm of building and void. While it may not be possible to reproduce the rhythm exactly, new development should strive to reflect it in some way.
29 Landscaping is also an important contributor to urban character. In some areas landscape dominates buildings, in others buildings dominate the landscape. Where canopy trees define the character, new developments must provide opportunities for planting canopy trees.
30 Conservation areas are usually selected because they exhibit consistency of scale, style or material. In conservation areas, a higher level of similarity between the proposed and the existing is expected than elsewhere. The similarity may extend to architectural style expressed through roof form, fenestration and materials.
77According to Ms McCabe, Station Street is an eclectic mix of buildings with religious, institutional, commercial and residential buildings, including single storey detached dwellings, some located close to street and others set back. The proposal's rear alignment matches that of the Scout Hall adjacent, it is appropriately a two storey scale, with pitched roofs. In her view, the planning controls anticipate a change in scale in Station Street and the bulk and scale of the proposal is in keeping with both the saved controls and those under the new planning regime. Importantly, in her opinion, the planning controls do not distinguish between Byron Street and Station Street, except for one sentence.
78I accept and adopt Mr Brooks' evidence regarding the effect of amalgamating the allotments and proposing a single mass across the amalgamated site, which results in an uncharacteristically large building in Station Street. As noted by the experts, there is a shift in character in Station Street, as Byron Street has a main street urban character and the buildings in Station Street have a landscape setting.
79While the planning regime, both saved and now in force for the local centre zone, anticipates a greater density of form that the existing cottages in Station Street (two storeys with pitched roofs and increased site coverage), the reality is that the desired future character of a conservation area is fundamentally the preservation of the existing character and that is why it is identified as a conservation area. The future character of the the Bangalow HCA will be dictated by the identified heritage values of the area and infill development in the Bangalow HCA has to fit within these constraints. The singular bulk and scale of the proposal and the lack of articulation of the overall form is not appropriately respectful and deferential to its historic context.
80I accept Mr Brooks' evidence that the overall height of the proposal is not the issue and the experts agreement that a two storey building is acceptable, had the proposal been appropriately articulated with hipped or gabled roofs with ridges at a similar height to the proposed flat roof. It is the large, unarticulated mass of the proposed building that exacerbates the overall bulk and scale of this building and makes it impossible to design a pitched roof, without resorting to the flat section in the middle. I agree with Council's experts' evidence that the roof design is unnecessarily complex and an unsuccessful attempt to disguise the bulk and scale of the proposal and that when seen in three dimensions, it would not successfully relate the proposal to the existing pitched and gabled roofs in Station Street.
81The proposal, in order to ameliorate these impacts, requires a much greater articulation in its form, so as not to appear as one single mass, but instead to have a projecting wing or wings, for example, in order to acknowledge the original subdivision pattern and scale of Station Street, and to incorporate courtyards with landscaping, so that the building retains a landscape setting and a scale in keeping with its deferential position close to the heritage listed A&I Hall.
82The proposal is not in harmony with the existing or future character of Station Street. It is not compatible and has not responded to the essential elements that make up the character of the surrounding urban environment. The form and scale of the proposal has an adverse impact on the heritage values and existing character of Station Street and the Bangalow HCA and the heritage items in Station Street, particularly the A&I Hall. The proposal is contrary to the aim of LEP 2014 to protect the cultural heritage of Byron Shire and it would have a detrimental impact on the identified heritage significance of the Bangalow Heritage Precinct.