SOS Report – finds Curlew 5-7 Non-compliant to many regulations.

This report is a summary of the extent of Over-development proposed for Curlew Court.

If you are up against a well funded building corporation, then Save Our Suburbs  ( SOS) might be able to help you, like they did for us.  http://www.saveoursuburbs.org.au/ 

SOS have quite a lot of resources on their site for you. They can also refer you to town planners willing to review plans on your behalf if you want them to.

Save Our Suburbs

Save Our Suburbs

Ian Wood is a qualified  planning consultant, who we accessed via SOS. (For a very reasonable price.) He did find many things in this planning submission, that every day people just would not see.

IAN WOOD
BSc, Dip.Ed, Grad.Dip.Envir.& Planning, Member PIA
Planning Consultant.

We are very happy with what he has done for us.

Mind you, it doesn’t mean we should sit back, there is still a lot of things for us to do, and local knowledge is as important as regulations.

 

PL11/021877:   5-7 Curlew Court Doncaster

 

SUMMARY OF NON-COMPLIANCE
There is no doubt this site is appropriate for an increased degree of medium density development as envisaged for Precinct 2A, particularly since it is a consolidated lot. However, the issue is one of degree. A larger lot is an opportunity to not only cater for increased density but to also provide a design that comfortably meets the planning guidelines, including local neighbourhood character – part of the concept of excellent design that this proposal fails to provide:

The proposal fails to meet these SPPF Urban Design Strategies:
* Minimise detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
* should respond to its context (urban character, cultural heritage, natural features, local landscape)
* Encourage retention of existing vegetation or re-vegetation

The proposal fails to meet LPPF guidelines:
* excess visual bulk exacerbated by sub-standard front setbacks due to wing walls and roofs provided for most front and rear terraces
* almost no graduation for all 3 storeys (west view) and only 5m for the top level viewed from the east      (due to terraces walls and roofs, the ground floor actually extends beyond the lower ground floor)
* Ground and first floor side setbacks are similar over most of their length
* terrace wing walls & roofs also effectively decrease both front and rear setbacks
* Three storey, contemporary developments are ok on consolidated sites min. 1,800m2 but this site is         only 1630m2;  2-storey apartments or 8 x 2-storey units would be more appropriate in a court

The proposal fails to meet these DDO8 controls:
* max. height should be 10m but reaches 11m (centre, E elevation)
* front setback varies from only 4-5m (should be min. 6m) – corroborated by applicant (p29)
* no gradation of front setbacks with height
* basement car park located only 1.5m from side boundaries – too close for screen planting
* building mass fails to adequately step down at the rear
* 1st floor footprint is 81% of ground floor area
* excessive screening is required around 3 sides of the building to minimise overlooking

The proposal fails to meet these Rescode standards & objectives for:
* Front setback (4 instead of 6m)
* Building Height (11 instead of max 10m)
* Site Coverage (over 65%) & Permeability (17%),
* Side & Rear Setbacks (inadequate by 0.6 to 1m),
* Private Open Space (some units substantially less than minimum for ground level or balcony area)
* Waste management – no area onsite temporary holding area provided: would require deletion of half the             front garden & crown tree and temporary storage of waste adjacent to private terraces

The proposal fails to meet Residential Amenity & Sustainability standards
Shared floors, walls & ceilings minimize window location opportunities, internal light access and cross-flow ventilation (U2 bedroom has no windows; 10 units have “tunnel windows”)

CONCLUSION:
An appropriate medium density apartment block development for this site that still met urban consolidation objectives under DDO8 would be two-storey rather than three and would incorporate much larger setbacks for the side, front and rear elevations of the ground and first floor – ie, a significant reduction in the footprint of both the ground and first floor relative to the current proposal to avoid all the above design deficiencies.

2 Responses to “SOS Report – finds Curlew 5-7 Non-compliant to many regulations.”

  1. Lewica says:

    Thank you, I’ve just been searching for info about this subject for ages and yours is the best I’ve discovered till now. But, what about the conclusion? Are you sure about the source?

    • Less says:

      Thanks Lewica,
      We are on the journey ourselves, we realise we need to join voices, and draw on others experience to make our difference. We are sharing what we have so far, making it easy for others to follow and join in. And when possible linking to others to understand the next steps. – see todays article about the “Planning Backlash” group and other groups..
      feel free to use our information, and tell us who else you’ve seen that is worth linking up with – the bigger the voice, the more impact it will have.
      Less.

Leave a Response

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.