2020-09-08 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                   8 SEPTEMBER 2020


The bonus provisions allowed Council the discretion to grant floor space bonuses for developments
that provided improved public amenities and pedestrian facilities. The scheme provided floor space
bonuses in the form of up to 4m2 of additional floor space for every 1m2 of public amenities and up
to 3m2 of additional floor space for every 1m2 of pedestrian facilities. The 1990 planning scheme
limited the maximum plot ratio to 1.6:1 where the bonus provisions were applied, the 1997 scheme
amended the maximum plot ratio where bonus provisions were applied to not more than 50% of
the base plot ratio which for sites under 2,000m2 equated to 1.2:1.
For the Neighbourhood Centre Zone of the superseded planning scheme the maximum plot ratio
is as follows —
a)    0.8:1 for site areas up to and including 2000m2 ; and
b)    0:3:1 for that area of a site in excess of 2,000m2.
As the subject site is 271m2 in area the permissible plot ratio is 0.8:1 which equates to 216.8m2.
The superseded planning scheme does not include any bonus provisions.
The current approval has approximately 452m2 of gross floor area which equates to a plot ratio of
1.67:1. This exceeds the superseded planning scheme and is also in excess of the maximum
allowable plot ratio which was permitted when the bonus provisions applied.
A plot ratio of 1.67:1 also exceeds the most recent development approvals within proximity of the
site at 8 Kingfisher Drive and 216 David Low Way where the approved plot ratio was 1.13:1 and
1.4:1 respectively. Both of these approvals were issued under the 1997 planning scheme and each
development provided for public toilets with the development at 216 David Low Way also providing
pedestrian access through the site. The approved plot ratios were generally in alignment with the
additional floor space bonuses afforded by the 1997 planning scheme.
Whilst the development at 4 Kingfisher Drive has a plot ratio of approximately 1.88:1 the related
approval was issued in 1979 at which time plot ratio was not regulated noting there have been five
subsequent versions of the planning scheme since the time of the 1979 approval.
The proposed plot ratio of this development is more than two times the amount permissible under
the superseded planning scheme. The plot ratio significantly exceeds the plot ratios of buildings
approved under the 1997 Planning Scheme bonus provisions and notably the proposed
development does not provide for any public benefit (such as public toilets of pedestrian links). As
such, the proposed plot ratio is excessive. The excessive plot ratio results in the development
being inconsistent with the scale of surrounding development and presents an appearance of
excessive bulk to adjacent properties, roads and the village green. As discussed by Council’s
architectural expert a reduced plot ratio will allow for development at this site to be compatible with
the surrounding development. This can be achieved if it is more broken up in its form, stepping in
and out, providing more articulation.
Other matters
It is also noted that the proposed flat roof does not provide for the roof form sought by the
superseded planning scheme which seeks the use of soft and articulated pitched or curved roof
forms of no less than 5 degrees.
Furthermore, during the appeal Councils architectural expert noted:
      It is noted that the existing approval makes no allowance for equitable access to level 1 and
      the roof terrace, i.e. no elevator for the disabled. The building would be unlikely to pass the
      requirements of the Building Code of Australia nor satisfy the Disability Discrimination Act
      and it is reasonable to consider that a lift, or chair lift associated with the stair, would need to
      be contemplated
The provision of a lift will require alteration to the approved plans and will likely result in the
development exceeding the maximum 8.0 metre height limit due to the inclusion of a lift.
Furthermore the inclusion of a lift would also result in changes to the internal configuration of the
development and as such the development would not be able to proceed as approved.

                                                                                        Page 43 of 154