ASTP-Resp_To_IR

RESPONSE
Please refer to the accompanying amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting (Appendix 1), as
show on Drawings DD-02 & DD-04, the design has been revised to provide a compliant site cover of 40% and
compliant plot ratio of 0.4.



            ITEM 2:
            Eastern elevations have not been provided for the proposed deck extension to Unit 1.

            2.    Provide elevations inclusive of the proposed changes to Unit 1 to allow an assessment
                  against the relevant overlooking and privacy provisions.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the supporting amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting (Appendix 1), which
provide an Eastern Elevation (Drawing No. DD-17) and an Eastern Perspective (Drawing No. DD-13).

The Eastern Elevation demonstrates that the proposed re-development of Unit 2, will have no further impact to
the residents of the unit development located at #2 Martin Street, given that the interface between Unit 1 of
the development and the adjoining development has not been modified. For clarity, the proposed garage roof
pergola for Unit 2 is located ~19m from the adjoining property, which exceeds the privacy criteria contained
within AO6.4 and AO6.5 of the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code.



            ITEMS 3 & 4:
            3. Provide amended plans showing a minimum the building setback of 1.5 metres from the
                northern property boundary and demonstrate how the ‘Garage Roof Deck’ will not
                compromise the amenity and privacy of the occupants of the adjoining premises.
            4. Reduce the overall height and dominance of the wall/fence. This may be achieved by
                providing soft landscaping, off-setting the fence and introducing landscaping.

RESPONSE
Within the ‘Issue’ section of Information Request Items 3 and 4, Council details that in their opinion, the
proposed development does not satisfy Performance Outcome PO2 of the Medium Density Residential Zone,
on the following basis:
     •     Impact of the ‘Garage Roof Deck’ on the adjoining northern property;
     •     The built to boundary garage will cause adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining property and does
           not provide a high level of amenity to users of the adjoining premises;
     •     The setback does not allow for planting between the building and northern property boundary; and,
     •     The proposal is not consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape.

These points will be separately addressed below. In considering the response provided, it is important to note
that the design of the Unit 2 interface to the north has been slightly modified to provide a 1.5m setback to the
pergola structure located on top of the garage (refer to the amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design
& Drafting (Attachment 1). By satisfying the minimum setback requirements for the height of the structure (up
to 4.5m) the ‘Garage Roof Deck’ is compliant with AO12.1 and further commentary in relation to this has not
been provided.



                                                                                                          Page 2 of 8
Our ref: 220311