M3024 - Change representations (2)

.




Figure 4 – Illustrates the existing view and extent of impact

As demonstrated in the above images the revised design (Refer to Figure 3) has evolved considerably and is comparable
with the outcome for a compliant setback. In this regard, we consider that the inclusion of the low set planter box even
improves on a compliant outcome by further softening the western façade and reducing the perceived bulk of the
building when viewed from the adjoining premises (Unit 7, 28/34 Duke Street).

In addition to the reduced bulk the revised design also maintains the key visual elements of the current view being the
ocean and the two Norfolk pines (refer to Figure 4 above). These elements remain prominent features in the revised
design and are further enhanced when viewed from other parts of the balcony i.e. further forward or against the rail.

It should be recognised that the primary views from unit 7 are predominantly to the south and the south-east. The
easterly view is more of an incidental view which requires someone to turn 90 degrees when stepping out onto the
balcony. The view analysis prepared by Blackburne Jackson Design is based on an eastwards view from the western
corner of the balcony which allows for an objective (or even conservative) assessment of the proposal’s view impact.

 The revised proposal as illustrated in Figure 3 demonstrates that the amended proposal will have negligible impact on
views from and visual impact on the adjoining premises.

In our opinion, the revised development proposal ensures compliance PO13 (as extracted above) for the following
reasons:
     The building design delivers a high level of residential amenity for future guests and for the adjoining premises.
     The proposed design does not unreasonably obstruct views when viewed from adjoining premises as
        demonstrated in Figure 3 above, due to an increase in setbacks and the use of low-rise landscaping and clear pool
        fencing.
     The proposal provides adequate side setbacks between adjoining landuses
     The proposal incorporates low rise landscape features which soften the built form.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                Page 7