Principle 10: Aesthetics
3. Compliance with LEP 2012 (LEP Mapping Restrictions)
The proposal has been assessed against the LEP 2012 Map Sheets as follows:-
LEP 2012 MAPPING - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED COMPLIANCE
Floor Space Ratio Nil N/A Yes
Allotment Size 4,000m2 Combined site area is approx. 2.24 hectares. Yes Building Height 16m (pre-LEP 2012
housekeeping amendments) 36m (current standard)
38.3m (roof ridge)
39.4m (lift overrun) No, see comments below.
Building Height
The application was lodged prior to the gazettal of the LEP 2012 housekeeping amendment and it was accompanied by a written request to vary the 16m building height limit (which was the applicable standard at the time of lodgement) and the draft 36m building height limit under the provisions of clause 4.6 of LEP 2012. The proposal exceeds the 16m height limit by 22.3m or 139.3% measured to the top of the roof and
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 13 OCTOBER, 2015
23.4m or 146.2% measured to the lift overrun top. In terms of the draft 36m height limit, the proposal exceeds this height limit by 2.3m (6.4%) in the centre of the building at the points where the required 12 storey stepped on top of Block A occurs, and a variation of 6.4% (to the top of the roof) and 9.4% (to the top of the lift over-run) is sought in that regard. The housekeeping amendment to LEP 2012 was gazetted on 17 July 2015 which changed the maximum allowable building height for the subject site from 16m to 36m.
Refer to the diagram below extracted from the section drawing submitted with the application which shows the extent of variation.
The objectives of the building height standard under clause 4.3(1) in LEP 2012 are as follows:
(a) to ensure the height of buildings is compatible with that of adjoining development and the overall streetscape.
(b) to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact, and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas.
The application is accompanied by a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard as outlined below. It should be noted that this request was written when the amendment to the building height in LEP 2012 was still in draft form and the applicable height limit was 16 metres. As noted in the history table above the housekeeping amendments to the LEP was gazetted on 17 July 2015 which includes correction of the maximum allowable building height for the subject site from 16m to 36m.
Applicant’s written request:
“Exceedance of the current LEP height limit of 16m :
The highest point of the proposed additional levels are RL 59.80, being the lift overruns this RL equates to a 146% increase in height above the current 16m height limit. It is this exceedance that the following Cl 4.6 exception justification refers to. The main part of the top storey roof is at RL57.8 which equates to a 139.3% increase over the 16m limit.
Exceedance of the current draft LEP height limit of 36m:
The proposed additional 16 units are provided in the stepped 12 storey building form now proposed. The proposed contravention of the draft LEP 36m height limit is an exceedance of parts of the roof by up 2.4 m and for the 2 lift overruns by up to 3.4m.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 13 OCTOBER, 2015
Thus the proposed variation is required 4.6 1(b) "to achieve better outcomes for and from development... "
Regarding exceptions to both the current and draft height limits
The contravention of both the current 16m height limit (and the 36m draft height limit) are justified because compliance with the development standard is in regard to 4.6(3)(a)
"...unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case." These circumstances are that a stepped 12 storey built form was required by Council's DCP panel in their recommendation on the best urban design outcome for development once the sites are combined. The DCP now in force over the site embodied this stepped built form by requiring a 10/12/10 storey top to block A by Council's DCP panel and embodied in the DCP now in force. The DCP thus requires the additional units to be provided as 5 additional units on the approved level 10 and adding 11 additional units directly above to create level 11. This would achieve the stepped silhouette outcome required. And, as sought by the panel, the stepped form would re-establish the stepped relationship of Blocks A, B and C and the slope of the site towards Darling Mills Creek as per the superseded DCP for the No. 25 site prior to amalgamation with No. 23. Clearly the current 16m height limit is not reasonable with regard to the DCP desired outcomes.
Further justification for the variation is because: (b) that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.
The environmental planning grounds for contravening the standard arise from the relationship between the DCP urban design vision, its controls and the numerical nature of the LEP height map. Also from the circumstance that the DCP was amended specifically to accommodate this DA and the LEP height map amended to facilitate the vision of the DCP and this DA.
Dyldam made a submission on the exhibited draft 36m height limit requesting a 40m height limit for the site so as to accommodate the 12 storey form required by the DCP.
At its meeting of 28 October 2014 Council adopted a 36m height limit in its report (pg 114) with the following rationale:
"b. Building Height for 23-25 North Rocks Road (previously 19-21 Windsor Road Target Site) (Item 2.4 in Schedule B of Attachment 1)
Issue:
One (1) submission raised concern with the proposed building height for the 25 North Rocks Road from 16m to 30m. The submission notes that the proposed height is inconsistent with recently adopted changes to Council's DCP 2012. The submission proposes a 40m height limit be applied to 23 and 25 North Rocks Road.
The existing and proposed heights as exhibited are set out below in Figure 6.
Comment:
The recent development control amendments in relation to the site came into force on 7 October 2014 and transferred 16 approved units on 23 North Rocks Road to 25 North Rocks Road resulting in an amalgamated development site with a maximum height of 12 storeys on a portion of the site. As a result of the development control plan amendments it is acknowledged that the 12 storey portion of the tallest building may exceed 30m as proposed in the housekeeping amendment as the height to the roof line would reach 36m from ground level. Accordingly, to accurately reflect the revised site boundary and future built form outcome as adopted by Council it is proposed to that the maximum height of buildings for the target site be amended to 36m.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 13 OCTOBER, 2015
An increase to 40m across the site as requested in the submission is not warranted and has the potential to facilitate a scale of development would be inconsistent with Council's strategic outcomes for this location. Should it be required any further minor variations to the maximum height be required this can be considered under Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards of the local environmental plan, based on merits, as part of any future development application for the site.”
Thus the rationale for not adopting the requested 40m height limit related to ''potential to facilitate a scale of development would be inconsistent with Council's strategic outcomes for this location."
Nonetheless the 36m height limit was adopted by Council with the willingness to consider a variation relating to this particular DA which is tied to the site specific DCP with its 12 storey vision. In this way the proposal demonstrates sufficient merits for the minor variation of the height limit under Cl 4.6, as referred to in the underlined part of the planners report to Council quoted above. With the proposed variation, the DCP vision can then be achieved without applying to the site to a blanket 40 height limit that may
"….facilitate a scale of development would be inconsistent with Council's strategic outcomes for this location."
By remaining consistent with DCP vision, the proposal meets the objectives of LEP height limit in cl 4.3: to “(a) to ensure the height of buildings is compatible with that of adjoining development and the overall streetscape," also objective "(b) to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact, and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas."
Thus are established "the sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard", (ie building height limit of 16m), under C14.6 3b. In the same way the proposed exception to the 36m height limit of draft LEP 2012 is justified in terms of EPA S79C(1)(a)(ii).
Asupplementary statement was provided by the applicant in regard to the height of the lift overrun which exceeds the 36m building height standard by 3.4 metres or 9.4%
citing the provisions under clause 5.6(3) in LEP 2012, as follows:
THLEP Cl. 5.6(3) provides as follows:
"(3) Development Consent must not be granted to any such development unless the consent authority is satisfied that:
(a) the architectural roof feature:
(i) comprises a decorative element on the uppermost portion of a building, and (ii) is not an advertising structure, and
(iii) does not include floor space area and is not reasonably capable of modification to include floor space area, and
(iv) will cause minimal overshadowing, and
(b) any building identification signage or equipment for servicing the building (such as plant, lift motor rooms, fire stairs and the like) contained in or supported by the roof feature is fully integrated into the design of the roof feature.
The proposed roof feature complies with this clause as follows:
Cl. 5.6(3)(a) (i) - Decorative Element
The proposed feature would be of metal sheeting that is perforated and corrugated. The decorative purpose of these is to both to allow light to penetrate the form and be reflected
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 13 OCTOBER, 2015
from it, producing a sculptural effect. This effect, combined with its proposed curved form would create a roof feature that is integrated with the building composition. This integration is achieved by its complimentary relationship in shape and proportions to the curve of block C as a whole. Its design and placement is conceived to enhance the stepped roof form and silhouette as sought by the DCP and currently proposed.
Cl. 5.6(3)(a)(ii) - No advertising structure
No advertising structure is proposed on the roof feature.
Cl. 5.6(3)(a)(iii) - No floor space area
The proposed feature would serve no other purpose than to screen the lift overruns and provide a decorative adjunct to the top of the building. It would have no roof and have perforated walls, rendering it incapable of being converted to floorspace - habitable or not.
Cl. 5.6(3)(a)(iv) - Minimal overshadowing
The shadow of the roof element would be confined to the flat roof of block C.
Cl. 5.6(3)(b) – Containment and integration of lift overruns, etc.
The lift overruns and roof top plant would be visually integrated with the feature through its purpose to enclose, contain and screen these necessary items.
Comment:
The proposed development will result in a maximum building height of 38.3 metres (measured to the roof top) and 39.4 metres (measured to the top of the lift overrun) which exceeds the development standard of 36 metres by 6.4% and 9.4% respectively.
The proposed overall height of the structure is dictated by the built form envisaged in the Target Site DCP. The proposed additional 16 units on Block A comply with the 10 and 12 storey built form and deliver the desired scale and character by creating a landmark building that reinforces the gateway to The Hills Shire LGA.
In considering the proposed variation to the development standard, the following comments are made addressing the relevant provisions under clause 4.6(4) of LEP 2012:
Clause 4.6 (4) of LEP 2012 states:
Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:
(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:
(i) the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and
Comment: The applicant has adequately addressed the matters required to be addressed by subclause (3).
(ii) the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and Comment: As detailed above, the proposal is an appropriate development outcome and is consistent with the objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone.
(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 13 OCTOBER, 2015
Comment: Council has assumed concurrence under the provisions of Circular PS 08–003 issued by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
In view of the above, it is considered that the variation to the maximum height of buildings satisfies Clause 4.6 of LEP 2012.
The applicant has adequately demonstrated that the proposed development is in the public interest and is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 ‘Height of Buildings’
and the SP2 Infrastructure zone. In this regard, the variation to building height will not create a building of excessive height, bulk or scale nor will it cause undue impacts upon the amenity of adjoining or surrounding properties. A variation to the building height in this instance is considered to be satisfactory given that the application of the development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary
In regard to the height of the lift overrun which exceeds the 36m height limit by 3.4 metres or 9.4%, the justification provided by the applicant satisfies the criteria outlined in clause 5.6(3) of the LEP.
In this regard, the variation to the building height standard under clause 4.3 of LEP 2012 is justified and therefore supported.
4. Compliance with DCP 2012 Part D Section 9 – Target Site 23-25 North