L04 Response To NC IR

  Page 2
Aside from the basement encroachment, the building and its eaves projections have a lesser impact
on the POSCWP setback than the existing approval over Lot 8.

The rotation of Building 4B has resulted in some minor setback encroachments relative to Lot 9, as
noted above, however this amendment has been considered on balance.


Item 3: Please provide plans indicating existing and finished levels around the building confirming the
        proposal is no more than 4 storeys in height at any point.

Applicant’s Response to Item 3: Given the topography of the site, as with the adjacent Emerald
building, meeting the requirements for height is challenging. Both buildings, particularly Building 4A,
have been cut into the natural ground levels to mitigate the relative height of the western facades.

The amended plans detail a step in the ground floor apartments which maintains a basement soffit
level that does not exceed one metre above natural ground level along the western facade of Building
4B, where the natural ground level is at its lowest.

Whilst the western elevation of Building 4A may appear to represent a five storey structure, the point
at which the face of level 4 falls over the basement is compliant with the 1m allowable basement
projection above natural ground on the northern elevation.

Amended drawings DA18 & DA29 provide more clarity as to the extent by which the basements of
each building extend above the natural ground line.

Drawing DA32 illustrates height incursions relative natural ground levels. Whilst the southern edge of
Building 4A narrowly exceeds the height limit, this building is otherwise well within its height limit
relative to natural ground.

Finished ground levels to the north of Building 4A are below natural ground levels, however this is
driven by the public pathway and the desire to ensure that it remains as low as practically possible
relative to both Building 4a and the adjoining Emerald building to maximize security and privacy.

Based on the placement of the buildings, their applicable levels relative to both the adjacent Emerald
and Iluka buildings, the slope of the site and the areas of intrusion not being visible to the surrounding
level the minor height encroachments are considered to be appropriate.


Item 4: The driveways and carparking code seeks 84 onsite parking spaces. The proposed plans
        include 82 carparking spaces. Please amend the plans to comply with the car parking
        requirement.

Applicant’s Response to Item 4: Amended plans are submitted that detail a total of 84 car parking
spaces on site:



Item 5: Provide an updated Bushfire Assessment and Plan for the development site and any
        strategies necessary to mitigate bush fire risks to an acceptable level. The assessment and
        plan shall be undertaken by a qualified person, which is considered to be a person with a
        minimum of 6 years current experience in the field of bushfire assessment and management.

Applicant’s Response to Item 5: Attached is a bushfire attack level assessment prepared by LEC
Land and Environmental consultants. The report concludes that the proposed development is able to
comply with relevant standards.