Visual prominence
50The Council contended that the development will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality due to its visual prominence, and that it results in development that is inconsistent with the scale and character of the locality and adjoining residential buildings and the wider locality from which it is visible. As noted above, this contention was pressed in relation to the impact on visual amenity of those properties in Corinth Drive adjoining the site which share a view similar to that of Location B in the revised montages. That is a reference to the three photomontages in evidence (exhibit 6), showing the view of the proposed development from location A, which is on Forum Drive North to the north east of the proposed building; location B, taken from the rear verandah of 101 Corinth Drive; and location C, taken from the rear verandah of 95 Corinth Drive.
51Expert evidence on visual impacts was provided by Ms Pinfold, Mr Crosbie Lorimer (landscape architect), and Mr Peter Brooker (architect) on behalf of the Council, and by Mr Mark Kuhne (landscape architect), Dr Richard Lamb (visual impacts), Mr Michael Harrison (architect), and Mr Lindsay Fletcher (planner) on behalf of the applicant. The experts had regard to the recommendations made by Mr Cooper for acoustic barriers in their assessment of visual impacts. In their joint report (exhibit 5) the experts agreed that location A is the point of highest visibility from the public domain; location B is the location from which the proposed building will be most prominent; and location C is the property that is the closest location to the proposed building, with the image taken from a position approximately 40m from the proposed building. We accept that evidence, which is consistent with the view.
52The experts agreed that the visual impact of the proposal is acceptable when viewed from the public domain. In assessing the visual impact from locations B and C, the experts considered the colour modifications proposed by the applicant, and amendments to the design of the undercroft carpark area suggested by Mr Lorimer to incorporate blade walls or panels, to relocate the rainwater tank further to the southeast of the site; and the incorporation of toughened glass screens to the undercroft carpark to meet the bushfire requirements. In a supplementary report (exhibit 8), Mr Brooker, Mr Lorimer, Mr Kuhne, Dr Lamb and Mr Fletcher agreed that blade walls or panels of approximately 3m in height, up to 340mm wide, and 1200-1500mm depth in sawn sandstone facing would further improve the visual impact when viewed from the rear of the Corinth Drive properties. They agreed on relocation of the water tank, and a proposed colour scheme, and agreed that with those amendments the visual impact from location C would be acceptable.
53The experts disagreed as to location B. Dr Lamb, Mr Kuhne and Mr Fletcher maintained their earlier opinion that the visual impact from location B was acceptable, noting that the colour changes were an improvement. Mr Lorimer and Mr Brooker acknowledged that the colour change was an improvement, however they still considered there to be an unacceptable visual impact from that location.
54In assessing the visual impact of the proposed development in its context we have had regard as required to the objectives of the Environmental Housing (Bushland) zone, and to the considerations for urban design in cll 48 and 50 of the LEP, and in Chapter 3: Urban Design in the DCP. The zone objectives relevantly include allowing development that is of a scale and nature that complements the natural surroundings of the zone, protecting or restoring existing bushland and other natural features, and ensuring the character of the zone, as one comprised predominantly of dwelling houses, is not diminished by the cumulative impacts of development. Clause 50 of the LEP applies to non-residential development in residential areas, and relevantly requires consideration of the extent to which the proposed building will integrate into the locality, and the extent to which it will respond to the local character and relate to the scale, streetscape setbacks and use of materials of residential buildings. Part 3.b.7 of the DCP applies to non-residential development in residential zones; point 3 provides that side walls are to be articulated to prevent continuous linear walls and promote variation and interest to setback areas and these walls, and point 4 provides that where the height of any podium or elements erected on a podium is visually intrusive when viewed from a neighbouring property or public place, the elevation of the podium must be designed so that articulation, landscaping, level changes or the like are used to minimise the visual impact. The objectives of part 3 are to provide visual and acoustic privacy, control overshadowing of adjacent properties, provide deep soil zones for tree planting, provide adequate access for emergency services, reinforce the desired spatial character of an area, and mitigate the visual intrusion of building bulk on neighbouring properties. We have also had regard to the planning principles expressed in Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007] NSWLEC 428 in relation to assessment of height and bulk, and in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191 in relation to compatibility in an urban environment. Those planning principles identify further relevant questions to be considered, including in Veloshin whether the impacts of a proposal's height and bulk are consistent with impacts that could reasonably be expected under the planning controls, and whether the proposal fits into the existing character of the area, and in Project Venture Developments, whether the appearance of the proposal is in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street, considering (in an urban context) height, setbacks and landscaping.
55The site is located on a slope, and the proposed building is situated near the ridge top. We accept that vegetation removal required to create and maintain an IPA for bushfire safety reasons limits the screening of the proposed building that might otherwise be obtained through landscaping. Based on the plans (DA201A), while there will be trees removed to construct the proposed meeting hall, most of those trees on the slope between the building and the properties at 95, 97, 99 and 101 Corinth Drive will remain, which will retain a significant element of the existing bushland surroundings.
56We accept the evidence of Mr Harrison that approximately 20m, or two thirds of the balcony to the main hall, will be visible from the rear of 101 Corinth Drive. We are satisfied that the proposed colour scheme and the amended design of the undercroft area assist in better integrating the proposed building in the context of the natural landform. However, the upper level of the building with meeting hall and foyer presents as a large continuous structure, and given the height of that structure relative to the surrounding residences and its length, we accept that the building will be visually prominent. We agree with Mr Fletcher that the setback between the proposed building and its nearest residential neighbour, at 40m, and the residence from which it is agreed to be most prominent, at approximately 75m, and the oblique view angle, assist in mitigating that impact.
57While the site is presently vacant, it is not part of the national park, and is zoned to permit residential development, and certain forms of non-residential development including that presently proposed. Given the topography of the site, we are of the view that any permissible development on the site is likely to be visible from the adjoining properties in Corinth Drive, and would be likely to have a visual impact. Having regard to the height, design and location (including setbacks) of the proposed building, we accept the agreed expert evidence, which is consistent with the view, that while the building will be visible from the public domain, the visual impact is acceptable. Based on the view and the revised drawing forming part of exhibit 8, we accept the expert evidence that the visual impact from location C would be acceptable. In relation to location B, we are satisfied that while there is a visual impact, that it is not unreasonable, and would not of itself warrant refusal of the application.
58We accept the agreed expert evidence that there are no overshadowing impacts. The proposed conditions prohibit use of the external balconies on the northern and eastern sides of the building except for emergency egress (condition 96), and alarms are proposed for the gates on those balconies and the door leading from the meeting hall to the northern balcony (exhibit M). External lighting is required to comply with Australian Standard AS4282- Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting so as not to cause a nuisance or adverse impact on amenity of residents or motorists (condition 89). We are satisfied that there is no reasonable likelihood of overlooking of the residences in Corinth Drive, and that there are no adverse privacy impacts.