Amended Statement of Environmental Effects & Written Statement · Amended Statement of Environmental Effects & Written Statement Date: 17th of November 2015 Attention: Louise Mansfield

Suite 6F, Level 6, 9-13 Redmyre Road Strathfield NSW 2135 Ph/Fax 9746 6993 [email protected]

ABN 88 288 149 971

Amended Statement of Environmental Effects & Written Statement

Date: 17th of November 2015

Attention: Louise Mansfield

Project: Demolition of Existing Two Storey House and Swimming Pool & Construction of a new

Two Storey House & Swimming Pool.

Site: 21 Howard Street, Strathfield

We provide the following summary as a part of our S82A submission to review the rejection of

the DA No. 2016/035 Prepared by Cracknel Lonergan Architects.

The General Manager

Strathfield Municipal Council

PO Box 120

Strathfield NSW 2135

Proposed 82A Front Elevation


ABN 88 288 149 971

AMENDMENT SUMMARY TABLE

Articulation &

Materials/

Finishes

The Refused design was lacking in indentation and was comprised of a single

monolithic mass in both form and materiality. Our new scheme seeks to create

meaningful indentation over the two stories Predominately to the long northern

& Southern Elevations. It effectively breaks up the buildings masses using both

form and materiality to create a balanced composition.

A finishes schedule is attached.

Indentation of First Floor Plan

Refused DA Issue C by Cracknell & Lonergan

Southern Elevation (Flat)


Northern Elevation (Flat)


Indentation of First Floor Plan

Proposed 82A by BC&A


ABN 88 288 149 971

Southern Elevation (With Indentation)


Northern Elevation (With Indentation)


New Entry Path The Entry path in the previous scheme was a dominant wide splaying path that

did not relate to the rectilinear architectural style. The proposed entry path

compliments the architectural style, and makes more efficient use of surface

area thereby increasing the amount of pervious landscaped area in the front

setback.

Front Entry Path



ABN 88 288 149 971

Front Entry Path


Basement Stair

to Backyard

The Refused scheme had a significantly reduced side setback to the spiral stair

connecting the basement to the outdoor entertainment area. This adverse

affected the southern Neighbor and reduced the amenity of the properties side

access. The proposed scheme increases the side setback from approximately 1

meter to over 1.8 meters.

Non-Compliant Fire Stair Location



ABN 88 288 149 971

Compliant Fire Stair Location



ABN 88 288 149 971

Outdoor

Entertainment

area &

Roof/Pool/

outbuilding

reconfigured

The Refused design has a long entertainment area built along the southern

boundary. The raised decking provided little privacy to the rear neighbors and

also would have increased overshadowing (however it was omitted from the

shadow diagrams) on the southern elevation. This outdoor Area also came at

the expense of the Queensland Fly Wheel Tree. This Scheme also creates a

longer strip of “dead space” behind the pergola that reduces the size &

amenity of the garden.

The new scheme has reorganized the rear entertainment areas & Swimming

Pool which now enables the existing Queensland Fly Wheel, Frangipani, Lemon

Scented Tea Tree, Black Tea Tree & Jacaranda to be retained in the rear garden

Privacy screening is proposed on both sides, the decking is closer to the natural

ground level. The proposed deck with its length oriented in a north- south

direction no longer adversely affect its neighbors.

Rear Entertainment Area (Northern Elevation)


Rear Entertainment Area (Ground Floor Plan)


Rear Entertainment Area (Southern Elevation)



ABN 88 288 149 971

Rear Entertainment Area (Ground Floor Plan)


New Front Fence

The Front Fence of the refused design was flat and monolithic, It did not specify

a material and did not respond to the topography. The fence also had a tacked

on lattice work pattern that created a busy and dated look.

We have proposed a new low impact front fence comprised of a simple stone

and timber material pallet that incorporates landscaping into the design. We

have used simple forms and a design that does not feel displaced from the

house.

Front Fence Elevation





ABN 88 288 149 971

Internal Ground

Floor Stairs

Added

The Refused scheme had a ground floor that was set at a single level. This

created a height breach above natural ground that was greater than a meter

in the rear living area. This would adversely affect the privacy of the neighbors

An internal Stair has been added to ensure the building responds to the

downward sloping site. The height breach above the natural surface is

documented on the plans. In general it is less than one meter above natural

ground.

The Front of the building is raised to reduce the length & steepness of the

driveway ramp. However the ground floor at its highest point remains virtually

level to the street frontage and does not present as a raised building. The

outcome of this is a better streetscape presentation.

Driveway Section


Driveway Section



ABN 88 288 149 971

Queensland

Flywheel

Retained

As per councils list of reasons for refusal of the original DA, The

Queensland Fly Wheel (Tree 6) has been retained in this proposal. A

number of other trees have also been retained as a result of this

proposal that were originally proposed for removal.

Removed Queensland Fly Wheel


Retained Queensland Fly Wheel



ABN 88 288 149 971

Response to Reasons for refusal for Notice of Determination of Development

Application No. 2016/035

1. The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of Section 3.2 (a), (b), (d), (e), (i)

and 0) of Part A of the SCDCP 2005 in that the dwelling is inconsistent with the established streetscape character in Howard Street (Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979). 2. The application does not achieve compliance with Section 3.3.2 (1) and (2) of the SCDCP 2005 in that the proposal is not in keeping with the dominant character of the streetscape and is inconsistent with the massing of surrounding residential dwellings (Section 79C (1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979). 4. The proposed flat roof of the dwelling fails to integrate with other roof forms in the immediate streetscape and therefore fails to comply with Section 3.3.3 (1) of the SCDCP 2005 (Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) ofthe Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

We have proposed a new front elevation that

compliments the use of brick and contains more

secondary elements and articulation than the rejected

design. The Building is similar in height and bulk as much

of the existing streetscape. While still retaining a flat non

trafficable roof. We have collaborated with council

accepted and implemented constructive criticism.

Council have indicated support for the final design. And

we feel the proposal should satisfy the objectives on its

merits.

Streetscape Elevation


Streetscape Elevation



ABN 88 288 149 971

3. The proposal fails to satisfy the

objectives of Section 5.2 (a), (b),

(c) and (e)

of Part A of the SCDCP 2005 in that

the proposal seeks to utilise

contemporary-style building

materials and finishes which are

incompatible

with existing dwellings in the

streetscape in terms of type, form

and colour

(Section 11 .3.2 of Part A of the

SCDCP 2005 (Section 79C(1)(a)(iii)

of the

Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979).

The design has removed the contemporary styled metal

cladding and replaced with traditional Brick, Stone

Render & Timber finishes. We note the design Mixes a

Dark & Light Colour pallet which can also be found in the

streetscape that is itself a mix and match.

Streetscape at 19 & 17 Howard Street

Streetscape Roofs Vary in colour from traditional terracotta to

dark brown to black. The cool hues complement the bark and

leaves of the existing gums with a hint of warmth lent by the

Timber Look Zebrano grain vertical screening.



Finishes Schedule



ABN 88 288 149 971

5. The proposal fails to achieve the

minimum 4 hours sunlight for the

adjoining

southern dwellings located at 23A

Howard Street required under

Section

6.3.1 of Part A of the SCDCP 2005

(Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) and (1)(b) of

the



The scheme has made improvements in preventing

overshadowing to its southern neighbours particularly 23A

Howard Street This is due to the increased setback to the

southern boundary (from 1905 mm to 2260) & additional

setbacks on the first floor.

As can be seen in the shadow diagrams the dwellings do

receive 4 hours of sunlight on the shortest day of winter.

We have also provided equinox shadow diagrams on

page (82A.07) that show there is substantial amounts of

sunlight received throughout the majority of the year

Shadow Diagram



ABN 88 288 149 971

6. The proposed stairwell on the

southern elevation of the dwelling

only

provides a 0.8m side setback from

the site's southern boundary

contrary to

Section 1 0.3.2 of Part A of the

SCDCP 2005 which requires a

minimum

1.5m side setback. Whilst the

dwelling generally complies with

the numeric

side setback controls, the building

fails to provide any meaningful

articulation

throughout thus failing to reinforce

a sense of openness in the locality.

(Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the


Assessment Act

1979).

We have resolved to reposition the stairwell

approximately 1.8m away from the southern boundary.

Compliant Fire Stair Location


7. The proposal seeks to remove the

Queensland Firewheel (Tree 6)

contrary

to Section 9.3.4 which requires new

development to retain and protect

existing trees especially near

property boundaries. The tree

could easily be

retained through the re-design of

the rear decked area of the

dwelling.

(Section 79C(a)(iii) of the


Assessment Act

1979).

We have resolved to retain the Queensland Flywheel.

Retained Queensland Flywheel


8. The application has not been

accompanied by sufficient

information

regarding the proposed driveway

gradient of the site and therefore

provides

no certainty for the driveway's

compliance with AS2890 (Section

79C(a)(iii)

of the Environmental Planning and


We have provided a driveway section that shows

gradients, RLs and demonstrates compliance with AS2890

Driveway Section



ABN 88 288 149 971

Calculation Sheet

Total Site Area: 727.2 m²*

Zoning = R2 Low Density Residential

Permissible Height = 9.5 metres 2 levels

Permissible FSR = 0.58 :1 or 418.1 m²

Proposed FSR 0.57 :1 or 417.75 m²

Min Landscaping 42% 305.424 m²

Proposed Landscaping 42% 305.74 m²

In Conclusion, we are confident that the above mentioned design changes indicated in the

submitted plans and additional reports adequately address the issues raised by Council.

Should you have any query or clarification in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact our

office

Kind Regards

GIHAD BECHARA B.Arch (UNSW)

D i r e c t o r

Documents

Amended Statement of Environmental Effects & Written Statement · Amended Statement of Environmental Effects & Written Statement Date: 17th of November 2015 Attention: Louise Mansfield