Describing the Building - Case Study Example

? DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSMENT Application No: Lot 7 D.P 56047 Application Site: Redfern Estate conservation area, CA42, George Street. Proposal: Minor alterations for the change of use of an existing commercial building to four self contained residential units including their strata subdivision. Background: The building has a traditional two storey terrace form and constructed in the early eighties. SITE AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT The building lies within the redfern estate conservation area. The site is not a part of the collective group with the same terrace at the streetscape. It has traditional two storey terrace form and scale appears its construction was on early eighties and has is in an unsympathetic face which is not consistent with the area as a conservation area. It also lies within the visual vicinity of various heritage items such as style terrace house which is a two storey Victorian Italianate, star house, a three storey Victorian free classical style building and C.1888 (Number 18 George and James street cornering and heritage item number 525). This subject falls under visual vicinity and therefore this proposal will affect the item imperceptibly or inconsequentially since the building remains virtually existence. These minor works are designed in such a way to complement and respect the surrounding environment. The residential use and also the design of the building is sensitive to the local environment and is responsive socially to the community and have imperceptible and inconsequential results on the setting of the adjoining items of the heritage. This therefore gives sufficient room to the casual observer in interpreting and appreciating the contributory elements for the heritage listing. PROPOSAL The application of this proposal seeks for consent from the council for minor alterations on use from commercial building use to a four self contained residential building. The proposed works that are involved include; i. Enclosing the square head opening for creating separation on units. ii. Creation of stud walls for creating room amenities. iii. Replacing the aluminum doors and windows with new ones. iv. Removing grills for fire safety purpose. v. Replacing kitchen with three new kitchens servicing each unit. vi. Removing the hard paved area and incorporating soft landscaping. vii. Removing three existing bathrooms and create new one viii. Upgrade fire safety appropriately ix. New fences SOCIAL, ECONOMICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposal application is assessed under the Section 79C of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. This also included consideration of matters following. a. Environmental planning instruments and DCPs City of Sydney DCP 1997 The proposal satisfies aims, objectives and also controls of DCP1997. The Specific controls of DCP are detailed below; Height, scale, floor space ratio and site area division In accordance with DCP 1997 Part E 2.3 the height control is of 12m consistency after the amendment, this is in compliance since the existing 7.4m external height is to be maintained which is more than adequately complies with the recommended draft planning control. DCP 1997 Part E 2.2 requires consistency with FSR objectives; the proposal has 0.97:1 FSR more than adequately complies with draft DCP of 1.5:1 according to the recommended draft planning control. According to the DCP 1997 Part F 1.2.1 it is required the dwelling places should relate to the site conditions and matches the scale of the streetscape. The proposed building is in compliance with this since it will virtually remain unchanged apart from the external stair cases which create no additional effects. In accordance with DCP 1997 Part F 1.1.1 the building should permit a variety of a lot of sizes as long as the allotment size and shape relate to the existing street patterns, site and size. This proposal incorporates the strata subdivision into 4lots. Private Open Space and Site Coverage According to DCP Part F 1.1.2 ensures that private open space is usable and meets the user requirements of about 16m2 in principal and minimum 45m2 or 35m2 for the total houses and a maximum site coverage of 66% and where the private open space is not provided in ground floor then this should be provided for by the roof decks; this proposal satisfies the DCP 1997 requirement as it has principal open space of 26.20m2, 21.84m2, 9.32m2 and 5.87m2 for unit 1, unit 2, unit 3 and unit 4 respectively and this proposed design provide ample of the private space courtyard relative to the size of units. An improvement is done from 100% to 86% and first floor provides ample private open spaces in form of balconies. Building envelope and setbacks In accordance with DCP 1997 part E 2.1 Building form and intensity should respect the scale, character and density of an existing development and does not affect the amenity. This is permitted with addition of an external stair case which will have imperceptible and inconsequential effects on built form. The DCP 1997 part E 2.4 on setbacks front should respond to the continuity in street setback building line, this is in order since the building remain as the existing. Rear setback is also complied with. Part E 2.5 of DCP 1997 requires less than 50% transparency with maximum height of 1.2m high which is complied with due to the existing masonry front office is maintained as existing. Also the site design of building should meet projected user requirements for visual and acoustic privacy so as to ensure development minimizes noise and overlooking to adjacent developments as part E 4.1 of DCP 1997 states; the proposal recognizes and respect the reasonable need for privacy as it achieves this through 1.8m high courtyard fencing and landscaping. Solar access and Energy Efficiency DCP 1997 part E 5.1 and part E 5.4 the proposal form and scale remain as existing hence no effects on overshadowing and has intention to upgrade water fixtures and light fittings to achieve a high standard of energy efficiency. Facade treatment and front verandas In accordance with DCP 1997 Part F 1.2.4 and Part F 1.2.3 proposed development should encourage verandas and balconies which are designed to provide a reasonable level of acoustic and visual privacy for occupants and add architectural interest to the facade. Also should ensure facades of new dwellings, including garages, fences and screen wall to relate sympathetically to an existing building nearby and to the streetscape of heritage significance. This proposed building facade and verandas will be maintained as existing. Parking access and servicing DCP 1997 part F 1.1.3 ensures that parking satisfies the needs of the occupants and located to protect the quality and integrity of the streetscape. In the existing one off street parking space is dedicated as a visitor space hence has no adverse effects on street parking. City of Sydney Heritage DCP 2006 The subject site lies within the Conservation Area and hence subject to the DCP provisions. The building is taken as a contributory building in the conservation area. This DCP does not encourage disruption on original fabric of contributory buildings in conservation area. The revised building design is superior in retaining the significant fabric of the heritage to the original design and will also retain the originality in building’s form and materials. The proposal therefore complies with aims and objectives as well as controls of the DCP 2006 on heritage. City of Sydney LEP 1998 The site is Zoned 10 Mixed uses consistency with zone objectives and in accordance with LEP 1998. The subject site is proposed to be a residential at Redfern Estate conservation area under Zone 10 Which is a mixed uses consistency with Zone objectives. The proposal is consistent with Assessment criteria within the zone hence permissible the Council’s consent since it satisfies the objectives. b. Other Impacts of the Development The proposed development is complying with the Assessment criteria LEP 1998.Consideration made is that this proposal will have no detrimental impacts to the environment, social or economical on the locality when appropriate conditions are imposed. c. Suitability of the site for the Development The proposal keeps the overall function of the site since under appropriate circumstances the mixture of compatible land uses such as residential, commercial, retail, and industrial development is enabled. d. Public interest Proposal is considered to have no detrimental effect to the public in relation to the conditions proposed. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Section 94 contributions The development is not under this section (section 94 contribution) CONSULTATONS The proposal has been discussed at length with the Duty planner and suggestions made that Pre-DA meeting would not be necessary based on the information he had been provided with. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The development does not have adverse effect on landscape or scenic quality on the natural, built environment or locality. It will not generate adverse effects socially or economically and is considered compatible to the locality and adjoining lands. The subject proposal is not constrained by reason of its being subject to flooding, subsidence, slip or bush fire. The development has available and adequate utility services and does not place undue demands on existing public transport and likely future amenities. Having considered all the appropriate conditions that are involved, this proposal is considered as acceptable and is highly considered for the approval. The proposal has met all the Assessment criteria and overall objectives as per the LEP 1998 and DCP 1997 provisions. To our opinion the proposal has imperceptible and inconsequential effects on the adjoining amenity. Application is approved under delegated Authority of Council. The undersigned declare that with their best knowledge they have no interest either pecuniary or otherwise for this development application and also to the persons that are associated with this proposal and have assessed it impartially. Report prepared by: Application determined by: Planner: Area planning manager: Read More