Ms A Hancock, 45 Campbell Street
Ms D Costello, 33 Campbell Street
Mr and Mrs Page, 43 Campbell Street
Mr A Berry, 40 Campbell Street
Mrs Slowgrove, 28 Campbell Street
Mr L Kordilio, 49 Campbell Street
Mr D Zammit, 41 Campbell Street
Mr and Mrs Gratis, 39 Chamberlain Street
21 The concerns of the residents are similar to those raised as issues by council. While they generally supported redevelopment of the site, they were concerned about the height of the proposal, its proximity to their houses resulting from the lack of setback and landscaping. They considered that this would result in a development, which had an unacceptable bulk and scale that would adversely impact on their properties, particularly from their back gardens, which faced the proposal. They also had concerns about overlooking from the proposal and resultant privacy impacts as well as overshadowing impacts. Residents also raised concerns about the parking provided and the traffic that would be generated by the development using the narrow laneway, which has no footpath. These issues are discussed further below.
Impact on residential area
22 The key difference between the experts was whether the height of the proposal and its setback from Cleland Lane would have an appropriate impact on the adjoining residential area.
23 The opinion of Mr Kirk and Dr Lamb can be summarised as being that the building is too tall and results in an inappropriate interface with the residential area to the rear. This is exacerbated by the rear setback of the building and the lack of landscaping.
24 The ground level car park and first and second level balcony are built to the alignment of Cleland Lane. The building on the first and second level is set back 2.2m. The third level is set back further and appears as a roof form with dormers. Despite these setbacks, Mr Kirk and Dr Lamb considered that the building would appear as a four storey building which does not comply with the height limit of three storeys in cl 4.2 of DCP 72. The setback requirement in cl 5.6 of the DCP of 6m from the laneway, to provide a 12m separation with adjoining residential development, is also breached. As stated above, the experts disagreed on whether the FSR of the proposal complied with the requirements of the LEP and DCP. As I have found that the bulk of the proposal to be unacceptable I have not dealt with whether or not the FSR technically complies. I note that the Master Plan proposes a FSR of 1.8:1 for the site.
25 Both these experts recognised that the height and setback of the proposal were consistent with that of the adjoining building to the north but considered that this building did not typify the existing form of development along the laneway as most buildings are setback from the lane and are one or two storeys. Nor did they consider that the proposed development exemplified the form of development envisaged by either DCP 72 or the Master Plan.
26 In Mr Kirk and Dr Lamb's opinion, the main difference between the two approaches was that the Master Plan proposed two storeys built to the alignment of the laneway (a six metre high street wall), whereas the DCP proposed three storeys but set back six metres from the laneway.
27 Dr Lamb stated that the Master Plan was not an envelope control that permitted a two storey street wall adjoining the lane and extra storeys within a 30 degree angle. Rather it permitted two storeys and a pitched roof form. He accepted that this latter form of development could be built to the street alignment and to achieve an appropriate transition between development on Rocky Point Road and the single storey residential development off Campbell Street. However, he did not consider that a higher building along the laneway would provide an acceptable transition. He recognised that the two levels above the car park would be the most visible from the adjoining residential area and that the fourth storey, because of its setback and roof form, would only be visible from limited vantage points. None the less he considered that the current proposal was too high and too bulky and not an appropriate model for development along the laneway.
28 In Dr Lamb's opinion the DCP model of a three storey height and six metre setback from the laneway provided an appropriate transition, particularly as it provided opportunities for landscaping to soften the visual bulk of the development and to improve the amenity of the laneway, as well as improve access to sunlight and reduce the problem of overlooking and resultant privacy impacts.
29 Mr Chambers and Mr Kennedy held the alternate position that the height and setback of the proposal were acceptable in the context of the adjoining building to the north and the height of other buildings in street, although they recognised that these generally did not abut the laneway. In their opinion the laneway was a "hard edged environment" as there was little soft landscaping and garages generally defined its eastern side. On this basis they considered development built to the alignment of the western side of the laneway, as envisaged by the Master Plan, to be an appropriate model. They considered that landscaping to the laneway to be unnecessary as it was essentially a service laneway with little pedestrian usage and that planter boxes on the balconies of the proposal would be sufficient to soften the building.
30 Mr Chambers held the opinion that the setback met DCP control 5.13 which permits a lesser setback if certain criteria are met. Mr Kirk did not agree that this clause was applicable as it related to Balconies and Verandahs and, even if applicable, was not satisfied as the criteria require no adverse impact to result form the reduced setback and landscaping between the building and the boundary of the site.
31 In Mr Chambers and Mr Kennedy's opinion, the Master Plan was an envelope control that would permit a greater number than two storeys up to a maximum height of 15m and that the proposal was consistent with this. Mr Chambers and Mr Kennedy accepted that the proposal did not comply with the three storey height limit in DCP 72, but considered this to be acceptable as it was consistent with the existing context and that envisaged by the Master Plan.
32 The experts for both parties agreed that the overshadowing of the adjoining residences that would result from the proposal complied with the requirements of DCP 72. In relation to overlooking, the experts agreed that the proposed privacy louvers, screens and planter boxes would prevent overlooking and achieve acceptable privacy for the adjoining residents. However, both Mr Kirk and Dr Lamb considered that the problem could have been avoided through alternate design rather than solved through privacy devices that reduced the amenity of future residents of the development, particularly the white laminated glass privacy screen which while preventing overlooking, would also limit the outlook from future residents.
33 As stated above, DCP 72 is the planning framework within which the development must be assessed. This specifies particular controls to achieve particular objectives. These controls should only be varied if the objectives can be achieved through other means or if there are particular circumstances, which would mean that compliance with the controls is unnecessary. In this case I do not accept that the objectives have been met or the argument that consistency with the Master Plan is sufficient justification to not comply with the DCP, even if that consistency existed.
34 In particular the objectives in relation to streetscape, height and setback aim to minimise adverse impacts of bulk, integrate new development into the context of surrounding development, provide adequate separation between buildings with setbacks that spatially define the street and allow for landscaping and open space. I find that the proposal does not achieve these objectives.
35 The site is located in an area which is clearly experiencing pressure for redevelopment. It is important that this development should occur within a clearly articulated planning framework. The model for development envisaged by the Master Plan and the DCP are clearly inconsistent in their relationship of built form to the laneway. While there are obviously arguments for both models it is important that the model adopted by Council after consultation with the community is implemented consistently. To have some development built to the alignment and others set back would result in uncoordinated form of development and poor urban design outcomes.
36 The model that has been adopted through the DCP is for building to be set back six metres from the laneway. This provides an appropriate transition between development along Rocky Point Road and the residential development. It also provides opportunities for landscaping, greater separation between residential development that will reduce overlooking and provide greater solar access to both the development and adjoining development.