97 – 105 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NEDLANDS.SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ‘OBJECTION TO THIS PROPOSAL’MAY 2020.

Figure 1:Diagrammatic representation of proportion and scale from northeast…. NWS.

“…. there remains no strategic justification for a building of this scale in this location, and the proposal does not deliver the level of amenity appropriate for development of this nature. The building typology and scale is suitable for a CBD, or major metropolitan centre but not a Local Town Centre located on an Activity Corridor without a TOD context….” State Design Review Panel 20th April 2020

NOTICE OF OBJECTION(DA20-46330) MIXED - USE DEVELOPMENT AT NOS. 97-105 STIRLING HIGHWAY, NEDLANDS

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the above proposal for the following reasons:

1. The proposal DOES NOT conform with the objectives and provisions of State Planning Policy 7.0 Design of

the Built Environment (SPP 7.0) and State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 –

Apartments (SPP 7.3.

2. Heights

The proposed heights are excessive, overwhelming, without justification and out of context with both the

existing and possible future built form.

The proposal does not, in any way, warrant bonus considerations for height or plot ratio.

The proposal fails to satisfy the Good Design provisions of SSP 7.0 Design Principles Schedule 1, item 3:

“good design ensures that the massing and height of development is appropriate to its setting and

successfully negotiates between existing built form and the intended future character of the local area.”

3. Bulk and Scale

The proposal fails to demonstrate Good Design qualities consistent with expectations stated in SPP 7.0

Design of the Built Environment.

The proposal presents a continuous, uninterrupted massing of approximately 110m in length (from Dalkeith

Road to Baird Avenue) and an unbroken height of 35.5m above ground (plus the roof structure); effectively

10 storeys in height with a bulk and scale that is undesirable, out of context, inappropriate and insensitive to

the existing or possible future built form.

The massing provides no permeability and is without diversity, relief, or distinction. It instead presents a

monotonous sameness. These attributes are contrary to SSP 7.0 Design Principles Schedule 1, item 3, item 7

and item 10 provisions:

Item 3.” Good design ensures that the massing and height of the development is appropriate to its setting

and successfully negotiates between existing built form and the intended future character of the local

area.”

Item 7. “Good design results in buildings and places that are legible, without clear connections and

easily identifiable elements to help people find their way around.”

Item10. “Good design is the product of a skilled, judicious design process that results in attractive and

inviting buildings and places that engage the senses”

1

4. Plot Ratio

The proposal exceeds the Plot Ratio (PR) allowance for this site, seeking a bonus to the allowable scheme

control of PR 3.0 by almost 100%.

The granting of a PR bonus is at the discretion of the City, in special circumstances where Design Excellence is

demonstrated; including appropriate and well-conceived solutions that benefit the aspirations of the City of

Nedlands and the Nedlands community.

This proposal is unremarkable in its design. It fails to satisfy the Good Design provisions set out in SSP 7.0

Design Principles. It fails to show any consideration for the character and context of the local area. It fails to

identify and engage with the special nature of this landmark site. It fails to identify the importance of corner

elements, entry points and ground level permeability to integrate and connect this proposal with a possible

Town Centre precinct. It fails to engender a sense of place that resonates with the community and City at

large and, therefore fails to warrant any consideration of PR bonus.

5. Character and Context

The proposal bears no relation to the local context and character, with little evidence of a sympathetic and

sensitive response. It overwhelms neighbouring and adjoining properties – even within the context of

possible future development – having heights of 78m and 88.5m, and setbacks of 7.0m to adjoining

boundaries.

The proposal fails to meet the definition of Good Design as outlined in SSP 7.0 Design Principles Schedule 1,

item 1 “Good design responds to and enhances the distinctive characteristics of the local area,

contributing to a sense of place”.

6. Traffic Impact and Parking

Located between one controlled and one uncontrolled intersection with Stirling Highway, the proposal will

generate traffic pressures that will be unmanageable with the current infrastructure.

Access to Stirling Highway will be so difficult, that traffic will defer to access to and from the north, placing

enormous pressure on existing residential streets. This poses an unacceptable risk to the safety and amenity

of these streets, which also form part of the recognised network of bicycle and pedestrian routes in the area.

The proposal fails to achieve the aims of SPP 7.0:

Item 6: “Good design provides successful places that offer a variety of uses and activities while optimising

internal and external amenity for occupiers, visitors, and neighbours, providing environments that are

comfortable. Productive and healthy”, and

2

Item 8: “Good design optimises safety and security, minimising the risk of personal harm and supporting

safe behaviour and use”.

7. Setbacks

The boundary setbacks to Dalkeith Road and Baird Avenue, together with the rear setback, are inadequate

to sustain soft landscaping of any reasonable size. They do not comply with the deep soil and tree canopy

requirements of SSP 7.3 Volume 2.

Setbacks to the North boundary are grossly inadequate (a 7.0m setback to a proposed height of 88.5m!) and

do not comply with the requirements of SSP 7.3 – Volume 2 – Table 2.7 Building separation for buildings

over 9 storeys

The eastern apartments tower overhangs the Stirling Highway/Dalkeith Road truncation boundary (excluding

the road widening) from level L1 to its full height. This is a substantial intrusion over a public road reserve

which does not contribute any benefit to the local community and could in fact be detrimental to the future

road widening which will be hastened by a development of this size.

8. Safety & Security

The public areas to the North, including the pedestrian laneway, are a potential source of noise and

nuisance. Their concealed location, in the absence of active and passive surveillance form the street or

adjacent apartments, could encourage anti-social behaviours that threaten the sense of safety and security

enjoyed by the community.

The concealed ramp and service areas on the north of the building severely compromise the safe use of the

‘pedestrian accessway’; this is a vehicle zone, and hardly a pedestrian area.

The proposal fails to satisfy the expectations for the Good Design provisions in SSP 7.0 Design Principles

Schedule 1, item 8: “Good design optimises safety and security, minimising the risk of personal harm and

supporting safe behaviour and use”.

9. Noise

The public areas to the North including the pedestrian laneway, the Level 1 terraces and apartment

balconies present a source of noise generating activities and behaviours. Potential noise sources from

apartments, hospitality areas (including external dining areas), pedestrian traffic and waste collection

vehicles substantially compromises the neighbouring residents’ reasonable expectations of peace, comfort,

and privacy; their amenity is severely compromised.

The proposal fails to satisfy the required outcomes for Good Design provisions in SSP 7.0 Design Principles

Schedule 1, item 6:“Good design provides successful places that offer a variety of uses and activities while

optimising internal and external amenity for occupants, visitors and neighbours, providing environments

that are comfortable, productive an healthy”

3

10. Landscaping deep soil and tree canopy

The proposal does not meet requirements for deep soil area and tree provisions of SSP 7.3 Volume 2,

Apartments 3.3 Tree canopy and deep soil areas.

The absence of sufficient deep soil planting limits opportunities for mature canopy trees and high-quality,

landscaped publicly accessible outdoor spaces.

11. Privacy and Overlooking

The proposal does not comply with the rear boundary setback requirements of SPP 7.3 - Volume 2 – Table

2.7 Building Separation which requires a setback of 12 metres for buildings over 9 storeys. The proposal

indicates rear setbacks of 7.0 metres to the balconies which will significantly contribute to the lack of privacy

and sense of intrusion from overlooking apartments and commercial tenancies.

12. Waste Management

The waste generation potential of the proposed development for both commercial and residential waste is

substantial given the population occupancy associated with 301 apartments, 6 restaurant and cafe’s, 9

offices and a motor vehicle showroom. The high volume of waste generated will result in frequent and

prolonged collections. With the only means of access to the multiple garbage rooms and loading areas being

on the northern ground floor, each waste collection event will result in substantial and prolonged noise

generation from the activation and deactivation of bollards, opening and closing of roller doors to collection

bays, vehicle reversing alarms (due to the narrow laneway width) as well as the noise associated with the

emptying and movement of waste bins.

The proposal notes the provision of roller doors to garbage collection bays that are 50% open. This provides

no assurance of containment of odours and vermin associated with food and other waste products. The

frequency, duration, and location of waste collection activities coupled with the high exposure to adjoining

dwellings, will have a substantially detrimental impact on the well-being of neighbouring residents.

Notes:

(i) Further comment supporting the objections is contained in the assessment report addressing State

Planning Policy 7.0 and 7.3 which is appended to this notice of objection.

(ii) The conduct of the community engagement process has NOT conformed to the City’s community

engagement policy in that:

(a) The advertising period or 21 days within which the community was expected to make informed

comments and submissions was inadequate for a proper and thorough assessment.

(b) The advertisement inviting community comment was made during a period of strict COVID-19

restrictions which made it impossible to reasonably access, assess and make informed comment.4

(c) A reasonable request for an extension of time for a proper process of community assessment

(particularly in view of the COVID-19 restrictions) was denied.

(d) The Community has NOT had fair and equal access to the public engagement process. The applicant’s

supporting Pre-Lodgement Community Consultation findings rely solely on a “Door Knocking” campaign

over a small target area as compared to the substantial scale of the development. Most people who will

be impacted by the proposal have not been consulted.

(e) The applicant’s town planning report by Urbanista repeatedly refers to the Nedlands Town Centre

Precinct Plan to justify context and planning and design assessments. The Nedlands Town Centre

Precinct plan is a preliminary document in its early stages of development. It is NOT a document that has

been endorsed by Council, it is NOT a policy document and it has NOT been accepted by the Western

Australian Planning Commission. The applicant’s reliance on this document for the determination of its

planning justification is premature and potentially misleading.

_______________

Signature

Name:

Address:

Date:

5

DRAWINGS RELATED TO THE CONTEXT OF THIS REPORT (From proponent’s submission…NTS)

Figure 2: Elevations, Massing and Height Context

6

Figure 3: Plans, showing little opportunity for landscape or separation of public and private realm

7

Figure 4: Podium Level, 9M above street

8

1.0 State Planning Policy 7.0 Design of the Built Environment (SPP 7.0)

SPP 7.0 underpins the Policy Objectives and the Element Objectives of Parts 3 and 4 in SPP 7.3 –

Residential Design Codes Vol 2 – Apartments, and both Policies should guide the outcomes of this

proposal.

The proposal repeatedly refers to and references the Nedlands Town Centre Precinct Plan to justify its

planning and design. This is premature and potentially misleading. The Nedlands Town Centre precinct Plan

is a preliminary document which has neither been endorsed or accepted as policy by Council and the

WAPC.

1. CONTEXT AND CHARACTER

Good design responds to and enhances the distinctive character of the local area, contributing to a sense

of place.

The proposal FAILS to demonstrate good design by its sheer bulk and size, its overwhelming height, its

contempt for the local context (including its character and amenity) and its adverse effects on the liveability

and well-being of its neighbours.

The design justification relies heavily on an assumed future context as being the ‘predominant context’,

however that context is only up to 5 storeys, and the existing local area context is of 1 and 2 story houses.

By imposing heights of up to 88.5m at just 7.0 m from the north boundary, the proposal FAILS to achieve

good design outcomes, with the ‘future predominant context’ providing no convincing justification.

2. LANDSCAPE QUALITY

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable

system, within the broader ecological context.

The proposal FAILS to treat the building and landscape as an integrated whole and makes no use of a large

site to offer any semblance of an ecological context.

The Stirling Highway landscape interface between the street and the building relies heavily on the

‘landscaped boulevard ‘referred to in the applicant’s planning report.

Once the road widening is carried out the amount of onsite landscaping will be reduced to just 4 small

triangulated areas. This severely limits the opportunity for good size trees and planting to provide a

softening transition between the public realm and the overbearing scale of the proposed built form.

Landscaping in the road widening reserve should NOT form part of the landscaping requirements for the

proposed development, and so a ‘landscaped boulevard’ cannot be assumed.

9

Minimal 1.0m setbacks to Baird Avenue, Dalkeith Road and the North boundary within the proposed

basement structure are INADEQUATE, amounting to almost no space to support good shade trees or hedges

in an in-ground situation. There is little or no opportunity for trees and canopy to soften the imposing

building mass at ground level, or to enhance the local environment and amenity.

3. BUILT FORM AND SCALE

Good design ensures that the massing and height of the development is appropriate to its setting and

successfully negotiates between the existing height form and the intended future character of the local

area.

The proposal is contained within 2 sites (with a total area of 6044m2) and presents a ground floor massing

covering practically the whole site, with a length of continuous built form stretching approx. 110m East

/West along Stirling Highway.

While the serrated plan form provides some articulation, the use of a continuous 2 storey arch element

accentuates the magnitude of the form and the overbearing scale at street level.

The height of the proposal is overwhelming and without justification within either the existing or the

possible intended future local area character and scale. The heights of the proposal, indicative of 22 ( 79m ),

17 ( 63m ), 9 ( 38m ) and 23 ( 89m ) storeys, substantially contrasts with the 2 and some 3 storey ( 6 to 9m )

height typical to the surrounding area; in particular the residential area to the North ( the 2 story residence

adjacent to this proposal along Dalkeith Road will have a 88.5m tower just 7.0m from its boundary ).

The design is out of context in built form and scale and does not, in any way, reflect or respect the existing

nature of forms and scales of the neighbourhood or the possible extent of the future scale

The language of arches is not evident within historical civic buildings or the wider Nedlands area. The scant

evidence of arches in the local context (UWA and the Captain Stirling Hotel) does Not provide justification for

such a prominent and excessive element. The arched element highlights a repetitive, monotonous, unbroken

rhythm along Stirling Highway and wrapping around Baird Avenue and Dalkeith Road - further emphasising

the extent and excessive bulk of the building.

The building form does not address the corners as clearly articulated, clearly legible elements to enhance

identity. There is no attempt to present corner elements as special, gateway, landmark, or reference points.

The rear setbacks , particularly to the Dalkeith Road tower and to the terraces to the Baird Avenue end are

inadequate ( 7.0m each ) and not only allow an intrusive lack of privacy to the adjoining residential , by its

overbearing scale, but also pose a psychological threat to the wellbeing of its residents.

4. FUNCTIONALITY AND BUILT QUALITY

Good design meets the needs of users efficiently and effectively, balancing functional requirements to

perform well and deliver optimum benefit over the full life cycle

10

The proposal Fails to clearly identify ground level entry points to the apartments at either Dalkeith Road

or Baird Avenue.

The proposal does not deliver a legible or distinctive ground level entry point to the ‘arcade’ and ‘public

piazza’ and associated social and interactive facilities. There is no clear integration or permeable interface or

engagement between these facilities and the Stirling Highway public realm.

Furthermore, there does not appear to be any of the required toilets or change rooms facilities for the

hospitality area restaurants/ cafe’ and bar staff and there are no dedicated ‘end of trip’ facilities adjacent to

the bike storage areas in the basement.

The apartment lobbies, located on Dalkeith Road and Baird Street do not provide direct access for the

residents to the pedestrian arcade and piazza active area i.e. they can only be reached by exiting the lobby’s

at ground floor and walking around to either the Stirling Highway arcade entry or the rear laneway. Similarly,

visitors who park in the basement ( no other parking available ) have no means of accessing the ground level

shops, food and beverage outlets, community markets or other facilities other than by the same external

means or through a ‘commercial lobby’ at ground level which may lead to conflict of use and security issues.

The proposal provides no convenient visitor or patron short term carparking on ground level resulting in

concerns that patrons will park along the only source of on ground parking within close proximity i.e. along

Baird Avenue and Bedford Street and the Northern end of Dalkeith Road causing further congestion,

disruption and adverse impact on neighbouring residents.

The anticipated visitors parking in the basement is inconvenient, lacks clarity and assurance of availability

which could lead to safety and security concerns. The proposed parking arrangement relies wholly on

reciprocity being achieved between occupants and visitors which could result in conflict due to competing

demands and will be difficult to manage as a shared public/private car park.

The proposal does not achieve a level of ‘exemplary design’ to justify the extraordinary bonus height and plot

ratio claims. The proposal’s build quality is that of a purely ‘commercial’ development that is neither unique,

innovative, beautiful, inspiring, special, or deserving of being of ‘good design’.

5. SUSTAINABILITY

Good design optimises the sustainability of the built environment, delivering positive environmental,

social, and economic outcomes.

The building footprint is excessive, leaving little opportunity for on-ground landscaping, particularly for deep

soil landscaping.

The basement walls have boundary setbacks of approx. 1.0m and considering the infrastructure required to

retain the site (prior to building the basement walls), to a depth of 3 levels, severely limits opportunities for

appropriate screening and shade landscaping.

11

The proposal fails to provide adequate on-ground landscaping to satisfy the requirements of SPP 7.3 R-Codes

Volume 2 – Apartments 3.3 Tree canopy and deep soil planting.

It is likely that the provision of retail, food and beverage, community markets and other public/community

facilities will result in an increase in private car use with consequential increase in emissions and pollutants,

contrary to the assertions made in the Urbanista Report section 7.0 Planning Assessment and Justification,

part 5.0 Sustainability.

The design is orientated East/West and as such may seem to provide winter solar access to the North facing

units, however, the depths of the balcony plus the structural elements will severely limit solar gain into these

apartments. This limitation of design coupled with the lack of winter sun to the Southern Apartments will

impose a high heating demand on mechanical air conditioning systems and associated energy requirements,

contrary to the views asserted in the Report.

The extent of carparking wholly within the basements is both inconvenient and dysfunctional, as it limits

accessibility to the ground level activities as it does not satisfy short term parking requirements. This will

impact upon already severely restricted street parking in the surrounding residential streets, and lead to

congestion, reduced road safety (for all road users including cyclists and pedestrian crossings) and loss of

amenity for neighbouring residents.

6. AMENITY

Good design provides successful places that offer a variety of uses and activities while optimising internal

and external amenity for occupants, visitors, and neighbours, providing environments that are

comfortable, productive and healthy.

The proposed development severely impacts on the neighbouring residential amenity of the area in the

following ways:

It greatly overwhelms the adjoining residents through its sheer height and bulk.

Vehicular traffic from this development will add significantly to existing Stirling Highway traffic

congestion at both the controlled intersection at Dalkeith Road and at Baird Avenue.

This will encourage traffic to the North through residential streets to access Smyth Road, Railway

Road or Aberdare Road and impact adversely on the amenity of this predominantly residential area.

Hospitality and social activities (restaurants and bars) to the pedestrian laneway, public piazza and arcade

are likely to promote noise, public nuisance and anti-social behaviour and impact adversely on the existing

residential amenity.

The pedestrian laneway, public piazza and arcade are possible attractors of anti-social behaviour due to their

concealment from the street or apartments (which are generally well away from this zone) which would

otherwise provide effective passive surveillance. The arrangement of these publicly accessible areas

12

engenders a sense of being unsafe and unsecure which will compromise their amenity regardless of whether

the risk of anti-social behaviour is realised.

The concentration of high noise emanating functions such as restaurants, cafes and bars and waste

collection and delivery vehicle movements to the north, within the pedestrian laneway and public piazza

areas, will be result in loss of amenity to neighbouring residents.

7. LEGIBILITY

Good design results in buildings and places that are legible, with clear connections and easily identifiable

elements to help people find their way around.

The design fails to provide clearly defined flow paths from points of arrival ( the carpark, bus or on foot ) to

the destination point; e.g. there is no distinct, clear pathway from the car park to the restaurants/ bars etc

on the ground level piazza. There are no distinctive elements to clearly identify the entries to the apartments

from Dalkeith Road and Baird Avenue. There is no distinctive, clearly visible entry element identifying access

to the pedestrian arcade that connects Stirling Highway to the shops and piazza facilities.

In general, the entries are unclear and poorly conceived – they lack visual ‘cues’ to where they are and how

to get to them. They are also convoluted and do not promote good way finding or navigation for residents,

workers and the visiting public.

The internal circulation at ground level is ambiguous and difficult to navigate. To access the toilets from the

public piazza one must go through the commercial lobby west of the arcade. These toilets also serve the

showroom, shops and offices. Similarly, there is no clear and direct path from the apartment lobbies to the

public piazza, forcing residents to gain access via the public footpath. The location (suggested in the Report)

that these facilities are provided on the ground floor and within the shared tenant/public toilets is an

undesirable and inadequate response.

The repetitive nature of the podium 2 story arched element promotes confusion and reinforces the lack of

recognisable entries. The proposal makes no attempt to address the Stirling Highway corners with

distinctive, clearly recognisable statements and fails to respond to the importance of the corners as vantage

or reference points.

The repetitive nature of the elevations ‘frames and balconies’ fail to provide good design and lacks

distinction resulting in a sameness throughout, without diversity or relief, without clear expression between

elements and without recognition and sense of place. Instead, what is proposed is a very large scale, non-

permeable block, with an overwhelming sense of anonymity.

8. SAFETY

Good design optimises safety and security minimising the risk of personal harm and supporting safe

behaviour and use.

13

The proposed design incorporates multiple and competing functions that could pose a public safety risk. The

rear lane provides access to the public hospitality and public piazza located adjacent at ground level. At the

same time the pedestrian laneway is also accessible by vehicles controlled by retractable bollards to Dalkeith

Road and Baird Avenue accessways. Given the relatively small amount of back of house areas for each of the

hospitality venues, frequent daily traffic movements from commercial vehicles can be expected.

This arrangement, with its restaurants and bars, encourages large gatherings to congregate and socialise in a

boisterous, intrusive manner and as such will adversely impact the amenity, health and well-being of

neighbouring residents.

Laneways are known attractors of anti-social behaviours that risk safety and security. The opportunities for

concealment, free of active and passive surveillance from streets and apartments presents an unacceptable

risk to the neighbouring residents and community at large.

9. COMMUNITY

Good design responds to local community needs as well as the wider social context, providing

environments that support a diverse range of people and facilitate social interaction.

The proposal fails to provide clear legibility at ground level and as such does not create opportunities for the

public to connect with and integrate with the public/pedestrian areas of the arcade and piazza hospitality

precincts.

The proposal lacks permeability and interface with Stirling Highway and the broader precinct possibilities to

the south.

The proposal lacks clear access and connectivity from the apartment lifts to the piazza precinct effectively

excluding residents from internal access and requiring them to go outside the building to approach the

restaurant/bar hub via the service laneway, or the arcade off Stirling highway.

There is no clear invitation for the local community to engage with any of the development’s community

facilities (other than the ground level restaurants and bars) thus excluding any active engagement in social

activities.

Therefore, there are limited opportunities for meaningful interaction between residents and the wider

community which does not promote long-term, positive, community-building, housing diversity in the

Nedlands area.

10. AESTHETICS

Good design is the product of a skilled, judicious design process that results in attractive and inviting

building and places that engage the senses.

The proposal fails to achieve an ‘exemplary design’ for such a large, prominent, and iconic site. The special

height or plot ratio bonuses that are being sought are therefore unjustified. Furthermore, the design

14

planning and aesthetics fails to demonstrate a judicious, highly resolved, design process with a well-

considered approach to context, height, scale, mass, ground level connectivity with clear and legible facades

and entry points. The proposal disregards the special nature of corners as landmarks and lacks an inviting

interface between any public approach path and the arcade/piazza precinct.

The proposal’s consideration of aesthetics and arrangement of built form is indicative of a project driven by

commercial considerations only.

The proposal fails to provide any innovative form, materials, construction, or resolutions. It fails to

acknowledge the ‘special’ aspects of the site or induce a sense of ‘memorability and distinction’ deserving

for its prominent location.

The design and aesthetics are unremarkable and present an anonymity to place that could see this

development in any city in Australia, without any relevance to the ‘special’ sense of place within the context

of the City of Nedlands.

15

2.0 State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 (SPP 7.3)

The objectives of this Policy are as follows:

- To provide residential development of an appropriate design for the intended residential purpose, land

tenure, density, place context and scheme objectives.

- To encourage design consideration of the social, environmental, and economic opportunities possible from

new housing, and an appropriate response to local context.

- To encourage design that considers and respects local heritage and culture.

- To facilitate residential development that offers future residents the opportunities for better living choices

and affordability when seeking a home, as well as reduced operational costs and security of investment in

the long term.

- To encourage design that is responsive to site size and geometry.

- To allow variety and diversity of housing choices where it can be demonstrated this better reflects context or

scheme objectives.

- To ensure clear scope for scheme objectives to influence the assessment of proposals.

- To ensure certainty in timely assessment and determination of proposals, applied consistently across State

and local government.

The development DOES NOT respond sufficiently to these objectives….

- The social, environmental, and economic consequences are most likely more negative than positive

- Local heritage and culture are NOT recognised in any discernible way.

- Apart from orientation and height above the street, diversity and affordability choices are minimal

- Internal commercial and living environments will need to be mechanically controlled, and operational

costs will be high.

ASSESSMENT:

Section 3 of SPP 7.3 – Siting the development - is sufficient to assess this proposal, and to conclude that the

proposal is materially deficient in addressing both its broad context and its immediate site.

SECTION 3 – Siting the Development.

3.1 SITE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RESPONSE

“…. A thorough and systematic site analysis is a critical part of the design process, undertaken at the outset of a

project to inform a positive response to the opportunities and constraints of the site…”

Design Guidance 3.1.5 [Design Review]:

16

“… it is recommended that early presentations of site analysis and design diagrams are conducted to achieve timely

and effective resolution of any major design issues that could influence the development approval…”

The State Design Review Panel (SDRP) report states that no early presentation or review was carried out.

There is no documented evidence of concept diagrams that justify this response to the site.

The SDRP concludes that: “…. there remains no strategic justification for a building of this scale in this

location and the proposal does not deliver the level of amenity appropriate for development of this

nature. The building typology and scale is suitable for a CBD, or major metropolitan centre but not a Local

Town Centre located on an Activity Corridor without a TOD context….”

3.2 ORIENTATION

“Development IS TO ACHIEVE…. Layouts that respond to streetscape, topography and site attributes while

optimising solar and daylight access within the development….”

The development does NOT achieve a site responsive layout.

The building overhangs the S.E. corner of the site boundary, impacting the public domain.

The development does NOT achieve optimal solar and daylight access within itself.

Apartments are either on the north or south, so at best only 50% receive any solar access.

All apartments back onto an internal corridor, so there will be NO opportunities for cross ventilation.

3.3 TREE CANOPY AND DEEP SOIL AREAS

Development IS TO ACHIEVE – “… deep soil areas, or other infrastructure to support planting on structures, with

sufficient area and volume to sustain healthy plant and tree growth…. in locations best suited to the development of

a viable tree canopy and landscaping...”.

Other than small pockets on the Stirling Highway boundary, the development does NOT achieve any real

opportunity to sustain healthy plant and tree growth where it would be most beneficial.

This site is not ‘highly urbanised’ and is therefore required to have a minimum of 800sqm of deep soil

planting area. (Tables 3.3a & b)

Raised planting areas over basements, or planting to terraces are additional to, and not substitutes for

deep soil areas.

3.4 COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE

Development IS TO ACHIEVE – “…. Quality communal open space that enhances resident amenity and provides

opportunities for landscaping, tree retention and deep soil areas…”

Ground level communal open space relates to proposed to restaurants away from the public realm.

Residents can only access this space from Stirling Highway, and not directly from residential entries.

Public can only access this space past commercial lobbies, and not directly from any street frontage.17

Rather than being permeable, the space is a ‘dead end’.

No allowance is made for deep soil areas to help define a strong sense of place.

3.5 VISUAL PRIVACY

Development IS TO ACHIEVE - “… orientation and design of building, windows and balconies that minimise direct

overlooking of habitable rooms and private outdoor living areas within the site and of neighbouring properties…”

In the east tower, 22 floors of north facing apartment balconies are 7.5M from the neighbouring

residential boundary. The mid – upper levels should be a minimum of 12M. (Tables 3.5, 2.7).

3.6 PUBLIC DOMAIN INTERFACE

Development IS TO ACHIEVE - “… transition between the private and public domain that enhances the privacy and

safety of residents, and street facing development and landscape design retains and enhances the amenity and

safety of the adjoining public domain including the provision of shade…”

The east tower overhangs the S.E. corner boundary and thus the public realm by some 3M.

No overhang, natural shade, shade structure or canopies are provided along the entire south façade,

which incorporates the primary residents’ and public access to the communal space.

3.7 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND ENTRIES

Development IS TO ACHIEVE - “… connection to and address of the public domain with an attractive street presence,

and… the experience of residents and visitors walking into an apartment building should be comfortable, safe and

easy to navigate…”

The entire primary street frontage is devoid of visual cues as to access and egress for public.

The one entry lacks visual connection from the footpath to any space beyond a wall.

All elevations have identical design treatment, with no definition of pedestrian entry points.

The eastern residents’ entry has no identity, being next to a restaurant.

The western residents’ entry has no identity, being flanked by a sales office and a car showroom.

No public [or private] access is available from either side street to the major communal space in the rear.

3.8 VEHICLE ACCESS

Development IS TO ACHIEVE - “… vehicle access points that provide safe access and egress for vehicles and to avoid

conflict with pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles, and are designed and located to reduce visual impact on the

streetscape…”

The vehicle access in the locations proposed takes away any opportunity for public/private interface with

proposed communal open space, and the possibility of an east-west public place as part of that communal

space.

18

Onsite public parking is supposedly allowed for in the basement/s, but there is no differentiation of access

for public, private and/or service vehicles.

3.9 CAR AND BICYCLE PARKING

Development IS TO ACHIEVE - “… car parking provision appropriate to the location with possible reduced provision in

areas that are highly walkable and/or have good public transport or cycle networks, and/or are close to employment

centres…”

No visible parking is available on site for public support of the street level retail facilities.

Bicycle parking is shown within the public realm, in a completely unsheltered and exposed location.

There are NO end of trip facilities provided for the commercial or communal accommodation.

While the dimensions of carparking bays (2.4 x 5.4m) and aisles (5.8m) are to the Australian Code, the

overall layout has little or no distinction between public, private and service access or egress, and the

overall functionality is likely to be very questionable.

19