Planning evidence
14Mr Reid told the Court that the modification of the design to incorporate the changes in the deferred commencement condition satisfactorily addressed the Council and the residents' concerns in respect of bulk, scale, privacy, view loss and solar access. In particular, Mr Reid assessed that the revised design of dwelling 4 improved the view loss and solar access caused by the development to the bedrooms in the flat building at 3 Kenneth Street. While he conceded that the view loss caused to the bedroom in unit 4 in 3 Kenneth Street was only marginally improved by the amendments, he agreed with Ms McKay that the impact was acceptable. I
15With respect to Ms James' specific concerns the experts made the following comments in the supplementary report. Ms James' unit is located on the middle level of 7 Kenneth Street and extends from south the north. Windows are located in the northern, southern and western elevations of the unit. While there will be some additional overshadowing to the western elevation of unit 3/7 that impact is acceptable for the following reasons:
(i) The sunroom to the street has a north facing window which is unobstructed by the proposed development;
(ii) The alignment and scale of the building at the Kenneth Street frontage is within Council controls and is of a form and scale anticipated by the controls;
(iii) The degree of overshadowing of windows on an elevation located within 1.4m of a side boundary in a densely settled environment is one that is reasonable in these circumstances;
(iv)The reduction of Apartment 4 in depth will improve the degree of overshadowing at summer and equinox to the siting room and kitchen window.
16With respect to the view loss the experts note that Ms James enjoys extensive views from the windows in the southern elevation of her unit and these 180 degrees views will be maintained despite the development. Although the proposed built form will eliminate a view from the lounge room and the window in bedroom 2 (which can only be enjoyed from an angle close to the window) that view loss is considered to be acceptable because it could not reasonable be anticipated that those views would be maintained given the context of the site and surroundings. With respect to privacy issues arising from the proposed development the experts assessed that given the proximity of the built forms between numbers 5 and 7 Kenneth St and, the existing mutual overlooking, that the proposed 2.8m separation between the buildings will ensure that the privacy impacts to her unit are minimal and reasonable in the context.
17With respect to noise impacts to her amenity from the car lift the experts assess that there will be no unreasonable acoustic impact caused by the car lift which is to be located in the centre of the development provided it complies with the requisite Australian Standards, which is a condition of the approval. In conclusion the experts assess that notwithstanding the noncompliance with the numerical controls in the Council's DCP the view and amenity impacts to the adjoining units at 7 Kenneth Street generally and more specifically to Ms James' unit at 3/7 Kenneth Street are not unreasonable.
18The experts also agree that the siting of the building in respect of the front boundary, side boundaries and the rear boundaries as amended by the deferred commencement condition is an appropriate response to the site having regard to the alignments and setbacks of the other buildings along the southern side of Kenneth Street. Furthermore, the orientation of the balconies towards the view at the south and the location of the main useable space at the rear of the proposed building do not result in unreasonable visual or acoustic privacy impacts for the neighbouring buildings.
19The experts agreed that the unscreened terraces along the eastern and western elevations with a width of about 1m did not pose a privacy concern for the adjoining neighbours because the principal access to those balconies is from bedrooms and not a main living area. Having regard to that fact the experts agreed that the narrow terraces would not be a usable space for gatherings and unlikely to cause unreasonable visual or acoustic privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. In other areas where screening was necessary to provide privacy the experts agreed it has been provided. For example along the eastern edge of dwelling 4 where louvres are to be installed.
20When viewed from the coastal walk in the context of the adjoining built form at 3 and 7 Kenneth Street, the planners' assessment is that the development fits within the location. In their assessment they do not believe that the building from that area will be visually bulky or intrusive.