Development Assessment Commission 11 February 2016 1 AGENDA ITEM 3.1 52 Brougham Place Pty Ltd 020/A080/15 Mixed use development comprising four towers accommodating serviced apartments, retirement living units, retail and restaurant; works (including partial demolition) affecting State and Local Heritage places. TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA REPORT ATTACHMENTS 1: APPLICATION & PLANS a. Application Form, CTs & Planning Report – Phillip Brunning & Associates b. Plans – Pruszinski Architects c. Architect’s Statement – Pruszinski Architects d. Heritage Significance & Conservation Report – Ron Danvers Cultural Landscapes e. Heritage Impact Report - Ron Danvers Cultural Landscapes f. Acoustic Report – Resonate Acoustics g. Traffic Impact Assessment – GTA Consultants h. ESD Statement – Lucid Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd i. Building Services Statement – Lucid Consulting Australia j. Waste Management Statement – Pruszinski Architects k. Landscape & Public Realm Concept Design – Oxigen l. Pedestrian Wind Environment Statement - Windtech m. Apartment Data Analysis – Pruszinski Architects n. Apartment Storage Analysis - Pruszinski Architects o. Structural Condition – Wallbridge & Gilbert Consulting Engineers p. Preliminary Site Investigation – LBW Environmental Projects 2: AGENCY COMMENTS – Government Architect 3: REPRESENTATIONS 4: RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS
Transcript
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
1
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
52 Brougham Place Pty Ltd 020/A080/15 Mixed use development comprising four towers accommodating serviced apartments,
retirement living units, retail and restaurant; works (including partial demolition)
storage space should be provided within the dwelling/apartment with the remainder provided in the basement or other communal areas.
Serviced Apartments are of adequate size to accommodate storage within each apartment
(apart from the 7 studio apartments which are undersized)
YES NO PARTIAL
Refer to assessment on Residential Amenity
8.2 Land Use and Character
The Desired Character Statement for the Main Street (O’Connell) Zone anticipates a
range of retail, commercial, entertainment and community activities, restaurants, cafes
residential and tourist accommodation. This is reinforced by Objective 1 and Principle of
Development Control (PDC) 1, which specifically envisage all of the land use elements
proposed as part of the development, including:
Consulting Rooms
Dwellings
Offices
Restaurants
Residential flat buildings
Retirement Village
Shop or group of shops
Tourist accommodation
Importantly, the Desired Character Statement also anticipates:
Uses that generate a high frequency of pedestrian activity and activate the street such as shops, restaurants and cafés will be located on the ground floor. Active street frontages will be promoted through a high proportion of display windows and frequent pedestrian entrances. The mix of complementary land uses will extend activity into the evening to
enhance the vibrancy and safety of the area and provide visual interest after hours, including by having no external shutters. Residential development above ground level is envisaged.
Further, for catalyst sites (sites greater than 1500 square metres), the Desired Character
Statement also envisages a range of land uses to increase the economic activity, extend
use of the site throughout the entire day and provide an active public realm.
Higher density living is specifically identified as desirable on integrated development sites
and land south of Tynte Street (including the subject site), while medium scale
development is desirable elsewhere.
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
13
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Retirement Living is desirable in locations within easy walking distances to essential
facilities, and as such, the city is an ideal environment for such development. The
Associate Government Architect also states: “The desire to integrate a retired independent living community within the proposed residential use is a welcome and appropriate land use for the location, particularly given its proximity to the CBD and essential services.”
In summary, the diversity of uses (retirement living, serviced apartments, commercial
offices, retail, and restaurant land uses will) contribute to the vibrancy of the main
street, are consistent with the land use mix envisaged in the Main Street (O’Connell)
Zone and are therefore supported.
8.3 Design and Appearance
The Main Street (O’Connell) Zone includes specific policies around design and
appearance. In summary, development is expected to complement the closely developed
historic commercial built form edge to O’Connell Street and acknowledge the low rise
horizontal massing of built form with the continuity of parapets, verandahs, balconies
and with podium elements on the street frontage and setbacks at upper levels.
Development on corner sites should include buildings that present a strong built form
edge to the secondary street boundary.
Development on catalyst sites will exemplify quality and contemporary design that is
generally greater in intensity that its surroundings.
The following provisions in the Development Plan are particularly relevant:
PDC 9: Development should enhance the cohesive streetscapes along O'Connell, Ward and Archer
streets through built form massing and frontage proportions consistent with the Zone's traditional commercial architecture.
10 Buildings should: (a) complement the streetscape character with regard to scale, massing, siting, composition, architectural detailing, materials and colour. (b) be modelled and incorporate design elements such as verandahs and balconies, decoration and ornamentation. (c) exhibit a high proportion of solid to void in the composition of façades above verandah
or awning level of the podium element.
(d) incorporate pedestrian shelters along O'Connell Street and other major street frontages. (e) maintain or re-establish the continuity of low-scale buildings situated close to or abutting the major streets. (f) on corner sites of the major streets reinforce the townscape importance of these sites with appropriately scaled buildings abutting the street frontages.
11 The street wall height of buildings fronting O’Connell Street should be designed to reinforce the prevailing datum heights and parapet levels of the street through design elements that reflect the street wall heights of adjacent buildings and provide a clear distinction between the levels below and above the prevailing datum line.
12 The continuity of parapets, verandahs and balconies should emphasise the horizontality of
the townscape. Podium elements should maintain the horizontal massing of built form while incorporating vertical proportions in the composition of façades.
13 Long, blank façades which are unsympathetic to the established streetscape in terms of scale, design and architectural character are inappropriate.
14 The frontages to O'Connell Street at ground floor level should be composed of display
windows, doors and openings and should avoid blank surfaces and solid infills. A variety of
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
14
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
building materials and colour should be allowed but the use of black or very bright colours should be minimised.
Setback
16 Buildings (excluding verandahs, porticos and the like) on O’Connell Street should be built to the primary road frontage.
Council Wide
Height, Bulk and Scale
167 Development should be of a high standard of design and should reinforce the grid layout and distinctive urban character of the City by maintaining a clear distinction between the
following:
(a) the intense urban development and built-form of the town acres in the Capital City, Main Street, City Frame and Residential Zones; (c) The historic character of the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone; and
Corner Sites 190 New development on major corner sites should define and reinforce the townscape
importance of these sites with appropriately scaled buildings that: (a) establish an architectural form on the corner; (b) abut the street frontage; and (c) address all street frontages.
The proposal aims to provide a group of contemporary buildings, featuring predominantly
curtain-glass facades to the retirement living buildings and masonry facades and glass to
the western serviced apartment building.
The statement by the applicant’s architect indicates with respect to the built form: “The forms, detailing and materials of the buildings have a cohesion across all four buildings so that they read as a family of buildings – all related but with individual character. The three retirement buildings have a closer link in terms of site arrangement and architectural language to express their common function. The serviced apartment
building now has a solidified expression with small openings to convey the function within.”
The podium level facing O’Connell Street is 2 storeys in height and will be constructed of
stone with glazed openings that are restricted in width intentionally to continue the
narrow rhythm of the O’Connell Street shopfronts. The Ward Street and Brougham Place
podiums will also be finished with a combination of stone and glazing to relate to the
northern face of the listed ‘stables’ and the Local Heritage Place.
The statement by the applicant’s architect indicates with respect to the podium and
external finishes: “The strong, two storey podium forms of stone, coloured concrete and glass weave around the site and link together the new and heritage buildings whilst also providing a visual
connection with adjacent Lincoln College. Recesses and cantilevers have been deployed above the two storey podiums to provide separation from the lower built forms and to allow the heritage places to influence the form of the tower above.”
With respect to the design and appearance of the proposal, the Associate Government
Architect indicates:
“I support the massing distribution on the site that references both the existing streetscape pattern along Brougham Place and the scale and proportion of the existing apartment complex opposite on O’Connell Street. I also support the central location of the 16 storey building to optimise views and balance the distribution of mass.”
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
15
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
With regards to the architectural expression, the Associate Government Architect
indicates: “I support the intent for the articulation and modelling established by the expression of simple tower forms above a podium, and the architectural expression of alternating
masonry and glass that strengthen the identity of the various buildings in the scheme.”
Further refinement of the architectural expression is recommended by the Associate
Government Architect; this has been included as a condition should the Commission
support the proposal.
Overall, the grain and rhythm of the proposed development along O’Connell Street is
reflective of the typical North Adelaide streetscape of narrow shop fronts. The proposed
development also reinforces the corners and the listed places through land use,
materiality and built form.
8.4 Height
The Main Street (O’Connell) Zone contains a suite of provisions that relate to ‘catalyst
sites’ which are defined as sites greater than 1,500 square metres. The subject site has
an area of 5,400 square metres and is therefore a catalyst site. The subject site is
located adjacent to the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone to the east.
The Desired Character statement for the Zone indicates with regards to height:
‘whilst medium scale development is desirable throughout the Zone, higher built form is envisaged on integrated development sites, including the North Adelaide Village and in the area south of Tynte Street’.
In particular, Principle of Development Control 18 provides guidelines around building
height for the zone, but specifically excludes catalyst sites from these requirements: 18 Except on sites greater than 1500 square metres in area (which may include one or
more allotment), development may be built to the following maximum building height: (a) 14 metres – north of Tynte Street; or
(b) 22 metres – south of Tynte Street.
The Main Street O’Connell Zone provisions for catalyst sites envisage medium to high
scale residential development that is carefully integrated with non-residential
development that contributes to the vibrancy of the main street through building designs,
(refer to Zone PDCs 20 to 24). The scale of development on catalyst sites should also
respond to its context.
The height and design of new development with an interface to the North Adelaide
Historic (Conservation) Zone should be designed to carefully manage the interface; in
particular, the Desired Character Statement for the zone states that:
Developments on catalyst sites will exemplify quality and contemporary design that is generally greater in intensity than their surroundings. However, development will be designed to carefully manage the interface with sensitive uses in the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone, particularly with regard to massing, proportions,
overshadowing, and traffic and noise related impacts.
The proposed development will see a lower tower adjacent to the Historic (Conservation)
Zone (11 storeys); then a rise in height to the tower facing Brougham Place located
within the centre of the site (16 storeys); a smaller tower facing Ward Street given that it
is constructed to the front property boundary (ie 9 storeys); the development then
consists of a tower of 12 storeys facing O’Connell Street.
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
16
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
The applicant’s architect has provided a number of study diagrams which seek to
demonstrate that while the overall height of the proposed building is substantially greater
than that on adjoining land, a suitable transition is achieved to the adjoining
development through the use of ‘suitable setbacks and modulating the form of the
proposed building together with the use of podiums’, (Planning Report by PBA, dated
October 2015)
Generally development along O’Connell Street and Ward Street is of low scale with
buildings of 2 levels; Lincoln College on the abutting site to the east consists of buildings
of 2 to 4 levels. An approval over the former Le Cornu site (some 7,500 square metres)
exists for a development of some 58.2 metres which will transform the appearance of
this section of O’Connell Street.
It is acknowledged that development would be limited to 22 metres (approximately 6
levels) if not a catalyst site. However, the catalyst site provisions seek to allow proposals
to benefit from exceeding the height limits given that a larger site area creates
opportunities for an appropriate design response that manages the interface.
Given that the policies do not expressly state a maximum building height, and the overall
height is considered to be achieving a quality development from a design perspective,
the height must be considered in the context of Principles of Development Control (Zone)
21 and 21 which refer to the management of interface impacts: 21 Catalyst sites should be developed to manage the interface with the North Adelaide
Historic (Conservation) Zone with regard to intensity of use, overshadowing, massing, building proportions and traffic to minimise impacts on residential
amenity. 23 The scale of development on catalyst sites should respond to its context,
particularly the nature of adjacent land uses and the interface treatments required to address impacts on sensitive uses.
It is evident that the design philosophy has been to have the most intense form of
development to the centre of the site to provide a greater transition in scale between the
development and the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone to the east.
The Associate Government Architect indicates: “I also support the central location of the 16 storey building to optimise views and balance the distribution of mass. The podium treatment is extended within the site to manage the change of scale between the buildings and ground plane. The significant transition in height at the boundary between the eastern apartment building and Lincoln College (which is
located within the Historic Conservation Zone) is managed through the 4.6 metre high wall along the service ramp boundary, and narrow footprint of the stage one building.”
In summary, while it is acknowledged that the taller elements of the proposal will be
significant in the North Adelaide context, the buildings have been designed to be viewed
in the round and it is considered that the overall height has been well managed through
the distribution of mass and other design features, with particular consideration given to
how the development reads at ground level.
As indicated in the catalyst site policy framework above, interface management will be
discussed below.
8.5 Interface Management
The proposal interfaces with the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone. In addition
to the catalyst site policies described above, Principle of Development Control 8 of the
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
17
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Main Street (O’Connell) Zone also places an emphasis on ensuring development does not
compromise the adjacent zone.
8 Development should ensure a high quality living environment is achieved for residential development within the Zone and the adjacent North Adelaide Historic (Conservation)
Zone.
Given the site abuts a residential zone, development should provide for a transition and
reasonable gradation from the character desired. Council Wide Principle of Development
Control 270 envisages that development should not unreasonably restrict the
development potential of adjacent sites, and should have regard to possible future
impacts such as loss of daylight/sunlight access, privacy and outlook.
Massing
The design approach for the development has been to locate the taller building elements
towards the centre of the site to reduce the overall mass to the adjacent residential areas
along Ward Street and Brougham Place.
There were concerns raised during the public notification process with regards to the
height and massing of the structures; in particular, that the heights should be closer to
the height limit of 22 metres.
Although there will be significant difference in height from the lower storey form to the
proposed tower heights, the proposed towers have been either setback from Ward Street
or lowered in height to create an appropriate transition to the lower storey form. As
indicated by the Associate Government Architect, the massing at the interface is
considered to be treated by setbacks from the zone boundary as well as in the expression
of designing ‘simple tower forms above a podium’.
The massing is therefore considered acceptable, albeit a contrast to the predominant low
rise character.
Visual privacy
Council Wide Principle of Development Control 67 and 68 seek that medium to high scale
development to minimise overlooking into habitable rooms. These Principles do not
regulate overlooking into private open space, but instead are measures to attain
“reasonable” development and privacy outcomes.
67 Medium to high scale residential or serviced apartment development should be designed
and sited to minimise the potential overlooking of habitable rooms such as bedrooms and living areas of adjacent development.
68 A habitable room window, balcony, roof garden, terrace or deck should be set-back from boundaries with adjacent sites at least three metres to provide an adequate level of amenity and privacy and to not restrict the reasonable development of adjacent sites.
The proposed tower to the east of the site has been setback more than 3 metres to
balconies, and upper level windows to protect the future privacy of potential development
on the Lincoln College site.
Solar Access
The Development Plan contains a range of objectives and principles within the Council
Wide section under the heading Micro-climate and Sunlight. Most relevant to this
assessment, is PDC 173:
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
18
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
173 Development in a non-residential Zone that is adjacent to land in a City Living Zone or the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone should minimise overshadowing on sensitive uses by ensuring: (a) north-facing windows to habitable rooms of existing dwellings in a Residential Zone or the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone receive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight over a portion of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21
June;
(b) ground level open space of existing residential buildings in a Residential Zone or the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone receive direct sunlight for a minimum of 2 hours between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June to at least the smaller of the following:
(i) half of the existing ground level open space; (ii) 35 square metres of the existing ground level open space (with at least one of the area’s dimensions measuring 2.5 metres).
Shadow diagrams have been prepared by Pruszinski Architects and illustrate the shadow
impact on June 22 (winter solstice) and for 22 December (summer solstice) for at 9 and,
12 pm and 3 pm. The diagrams are provided in the ATTACHMENTS and are shown
below for the Winter Solstice:
These diagrams demonstrate that overshadowing will occur predominantly over the
Parklands during winter. Although there will be overshadowing onto the Lincoln College
institution, there will still be access to sunlight during the winter mornings.
8.6 Street Activation/Pedestrian Amenity
The Main Street (O’Connell) Zone seeks active street frontages, promoted by a high
proportion of display windows and frequent pedestrian entrance.
The proposal is considered to satisfy the above requirements as it has been designed
with ground level active land uses along O’Connell Street and further around to Ward
Street with the Well Being Centre as well as the listed ‘stables’ building proposed for a
cafe with outdoor dining.
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
19
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Clear sightlines into and out of the entrance foyer areas for each tower is available to
residents and visitors, with the serviced apartments, retirement living units and
commercial entrances separated and clearly identifiable within the overall design of the
building.
Canopies are proposed along both O’Connell Street and Ward Street to enhance
pedestrian amenity. Council administration support the encroachments.
8.7 Residential Amenity
Serviced Apartments
There are a number of specific relevant policies regarding serviced apartment amenity
within the Adelaide (City) Council Development Plan in the areas of:
Provisions for useable private open space
Minimum unit sizes
Sufficient level of outlook from living areas
Access to natural light and ventilation
Storage availability.
Useable Private Open Space
Council Wide Principle of Development Control 59 requires minimum private open space
requirements; namely: Studio: no minimum but some provision is desirable 1 Bedroom: 8 square metres
This policy also allows for a shortfall providing a communal open space area is provided.
The serviced apartments will be serviced with an outdoor dining deck as well as indoor
dining area.
It is evident that the majority of the serviced apartments are not provided with a private
balcony space. However, although it is policy to provide balcony space for serviced
apartments, the nature of the serviced apartments are such that they are occupied
primarily on a short-term basis; occupants wishing to stay longer, may likely book those
apartments that offer a balcony space.
Accordingly, given the short term nature of the occupancy and its accessibility to the
Parklands, the private open space shortfall in this instance, is considered acceptable.
Apartment Sizes
Council Wide Principle of Development Control 70 states:
70 Medium to high scale residential or serviced apartment development should provide a high quality living environment by ensuring the following minimum internal floor areas: (a) studio (where there is no separate bedroom): 35 square metres. (b) 1 bedroom dwelling/apartment: 50 square metres
(c) 2 bedroom dwelling/apartment: 65 square metres (d) 3+ bedroom dwelling/apartment: 80 square metres plus an additional 15 square metres for every additional bedroom over 3 bedrooms.
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
20
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Note: Dwelling/apartment “unit size” includes internal storage areas but does not include balconies or car parking as part of the calculation.
All 1, 2 and 3 bedroom serviced apartments satisfy the minimum apartment sizes; in
most circumstances, the apartment sizes are much larger the minimum requirement.
There are 7 studio apartments which do not satisfy the minimum apartment size; that is,
they are each 30 square metres instead of 35 square metres. However, given that a total
of 7 out of 120 apartments (6% approximately) are short, and the serviced apartments
are aimed at providing short term accommodation, the departure is not considered fatal
to the proposal.
In addition, those studio serviced apartments are provided with an outlook to the
common open space area at the centre of the site and some studio apartments offered
with an oblique view to the Parklands.
Outlook, Light and Ventilation
Each apartment enjoys an outlook. Each apartment has access to natural light and
ventilation with no bedrooms relying on borrowed light.
In addition, the proposal has been setback sufficiently to satisfy the Development Plan
policy of 3 metres from a side boundary to balconies and windows, (Council Wide
Principle of Development Control 67).
Storage
Council Wide Principle of Development Control 81 indicates that serviced apartment
development should provide the following minimum storage facility sizes: (a) studio: 6 cubic metres (b) 1 bedroom dwelling/apartment: 8 cubic metres (c) 2 bedroom dwelling/apartment: 10 cubic metres
(d) 3+ bedroom dwelling/apartment: 12 cubic metres 50 percent of the storage space should be provided within the dwelling/apartment with the remainder provided in the basement or other communal areas.
Although there are no separate storage facilities in the basements, each serviced
apartment (apart from the 7 studio apartments which are undersized by 5 square
metres) measure greater than the minimum apartment size requirement. Accordingly,
each apartment will have sufficient space for storage should there be a need.
Serviced Apartment Entry
The entrance to the serviced apartment will be off O’Connell Street; visitors enter a
spacious reception and lobby which also has direct views through window to the
retirement village.
Apartment entries have been off set slightly from one another in that the doors are not
positioned directly opposite one another. There are instances where the entries are
located opposite a lift entrance which is not ideal; bedrooms are however not positioned
in the direct line of sight.
Retirement Living Units
The Development Plan is silent with regards to requirements for useable private open
space, minimum unit sizes and storage for retirement living.
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
21
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Notwithstanding, each unit exceeds the minimum unit size, and provides sufficient
storage facilities within the unit; communal storage facilities are also available for most
apartments.
In terms of private open space, the majority of the apartments will be provided with a
conservatory of at least 8 to 12 square metres; these conservatories offer operable
windows, allowing the space to be closed.
In addition to the private open space, the development also proposes both active and
passive ‘outdoor’ and ‘indoor’ spaces to cater for the recreational needs of the occupants.
For example, a private courtyard is located at the centre of the site, between the towers;
a gymnasium overlooks the courtyard. The roof top in Stage 1 comprises of a multi
purpose room and lounge for an alternative space to congregate.
In conclusion, with respect to both the serviced and retirement living units, the
Government Architect indicates: “The apartment layouts are broadly supported, including the floor layouts, orientation of living spaces and access to natural light. The current distance between towers is appropriate to enable apartment amenity to be maintained. The winter gardens are
supported, demonstrating site-specific learning from the existing building has been incorporated into the proposal.”
8.8 Heritage
The applicant is seeking the following as part of the development of the site:
- Partial demolition of the State Heritage Place (dwelling and stables) with an
extension to the rear for adaptive reuse as a dwelling and the stables as a cafe
- Continued use of the Local Heritage Place as an office
- Removal of components of the fencing associated and listed as part of the Local
Heritage Place to allow for visual connection through the ground floor land uses
The diagram below illustrates the extent of demolition:
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
22
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
The diagram below illustrates the location of listed places within the locality on adjacent
sites:
There are three aspects to consider with respect to demolition:
- Demolition of heritage fabric
- Compatibility of alterations and additions to the listed places
- The adequacy of the transition to the adjacent Heritage Place (Lincoln College
Institution site which contains a number of listed items (State Heritage Places) as
indicated in the Figure above.
With regards to demolition, Council Wide Principle of Development Control 156 and 157
indicate: “A State heritage place should not be demolished or removed, in whole or in part, unless: (a) That portion of the place to be demolished or removed does not diminish the heritage
value of the place; and (b) A heritage impact assessment has been prepared that reviews the heritage values of
the place and includes an assessment of the impacts on those values by the proposed
development.”
“A local heritage place should not be demolished or removed, in whole or in part, unless: (a) the portion of the place to be demolished or removed does not diminish the heritage value of the local heritage place; or (b) the structural condition of the place is seriously unsound and cannot be rehabilitated.
With respect to the policies that speak to the design response to listed places.”
Although there was no referral response received from the State Heritage Unit (DEWNR),
there were concerns raised throughout the Pre Lodgement Service process in relation to
the partial demolition of the State Heritage fabric of the building. In addition, it was
indicated that the stables are historically linked to the main dwelling, and therefore, any
severance of this link, (such as the proposed stage 1 tower) will significantly impact on
the heritage value of the place and its setting.
Council, as a representor, has also raised a concern with respect to the partial demolition
of the listed fence, (Local Heritage Place).
Mr Ron Danvers, on behalf of the applicant, has prepared a Heritage Significance and
Conservation Report. Mr Danvers concludes:
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
23
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
49 Brougham Place North Adelaide
- the heritage value of the dwelling at 49 Brougham Place is primarily one of
environmental significance as an item of character, not architectural merit, in the
streetscape
- the residence including its front fence is not of sufficient heritage value to support
its current listing as a State Heritage Place. Its environmental significance
(streetscape) is almost entirely associated with the front section facing Brougham
Place
- therefore, the rear section of the dwelling does not make any significant
contribution to its environmental value and could therefore be demolished.
- the stables is also not of sufficient heritage value to support listing as a State
Heritage Place because its heritage value has been assessed from 1982 as an
isolated streetscape item in an overwhelmingly hostile environmental context
- the dwelling and stables need not be considered as tied to one another in heritage
terms, because there appears to be no evidence that they were constructed
together for the same owner.
56 Brougham Place North Adelaide
- The remainder of the fence/wall on the western side of 58 Brougham Place
continuing around the corner into O’Connell Street is no longer of any significant
value as part of the Local Heritage Place because it has become visually isolated
from the Residence as a streetscape component
Mr Danvers also supports the design of the proposed development and its response to
the heritage value of the listed places.
It is considered that there is significant tension between the aspirations of the Mainstreet
(O’Connell) Zone as they relate to catalyst sites and those provisions regarding
preservation of heritage items and fabric. Noting that the proposed demolition does not
eliminate the dwelling and the stables nor, therefore, the contribution these make to the
Brougham and Ward Street streetscapes respectively, it is considered that the proposal
overall acceptably navigates this tension.
Based on the above conclusion, the next issue to consider is whether the proposed
development is carefully designed to manage the interface with the abutting Lincoln
College Institution site and the listed items on the subject site.
In this respect, the Associate Government Architect indicates: “The significant transition in height at the boundary between the eastern apartment building and Lincoln College is managed through the 4.6 metre high wall along the service ramp boundary, and narrow footprint of the stage one building. I support the setback and
consequent visual connection through the site adjacent the eastern boundary.” “In relation to the heritage items on site, I consider the development successfully integrates the existing heritage items into the overall scheme. While the proposed buildings present relatively abrupt transitions in scale, overall I support the relationship between the heritage items and the new buildings. The impact on the Heritage items is mitigated by
providing significant setbacks and the neutral backdrop of green podium wall at the
interface. I encourage the continued involvement of a heritage architect to refine this integration.”
Based on the above, and on the catalyst site provisions which seek a more intense
development on an integrated site, the proposed development is considered to manage
the interface with the listed items successfully.
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
24
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
In addition, the applicant will be using materials removed from the listed places within
the development itself to provide some reference to the past.
8.9 Technical Matters
Pedestrian and Cyclist Access
The proposal incorporates numerous access points for pedestrians and cyclists. Across
the site it is considered that there is a high degree of permeability and legibility. There
are no concerns with the proposal in this context.
Vehicle Access
The proposal incorporates:
a two-way vehicle crossover on Ward Street
a one-way porte cochere on Brougham Place (with entry and exit crossovers)
a one-way vehicle thoroughfare between Brougham Place and Ward Street
an existing crossover to Brougham Place at the eastern side of the site.
No vehicle crossovers are proposed along the O’Connell Street frontage of the site.
The Ward Street crossover will provide vehicle access to the proposed basement car park
and service vehicle access to a loading bay to the rear of the heritage listed stable
building (which loading bay also is dedicated to stages 1, 2A and 2B).
The porte cochere will be used for drop-off and pick up movements connected with
stages 1, 2A and 2B (the residential components of the proposal).
The thoroughfare between Brougham Place and Ward Street will be available to vehicles
servicing the building proposed against the O’Connell Street frontage of the site proposed
serviced apartment building only (stage 3).
The existing crossover to Brougham Place will be used by residents of the State heritage
listed dwelling.
No concern has been raised by Adelaide City Council in respect of the location or
configuration of the vehicle access points nor the service vehicle movements and
arrangements. It is therefore considered that these are acceptable.
Bicycle Parking
Within the Main Street (O’Connell) Zone, bicycle parking should be provided in
accordance with rates set out in Table Adel/6. These are set out below:
Land Use Bicycle parking space standard for employees
and/or residents
Bicycle parking space standard for customers, visitors and/or shoppers
Bicycle Parking Space Provision
Sought
Aged care facility (low care, high care, nursing home or retirement home)
1 per 7 people the facility is capable of accommodating
1 per 60 people the facility is capable of accommodating
27 for residents and 3 for visitors(based on apartment occupancy of 2 persons and total capacity of 186
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
25
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
persons)
Café / Restaurant 1 per 20 employees 1 per 50 seats 1 for employees and 4 for visitors (up to 200 seats anticipated)
Indoor Recreational Facility
1 per 4 employees 1 per 200 square metres of gross leasable floor area
1 for employees (up to 4 employees anticipated) and 1 for visitors (approximate GLA of 200 square metres)
Serviced Apartment 1 per 20 employees 2 for the first 40 rooms, plus 1 for every additional 40 rooms
2 for employees (up to 40 employees) and 4 for rooms (100 rooms)
Total provision 43 spaces
A total of 168 bicycle parking spaces are to be provided across the site. Of these spaces,
13 will be in the form of racks at ground level (available to employees and patrons of the
various non-residential uses forming part of the proposal), 56 will be spread across the
two basement levels and the remaining 99 in storage compartments.
In addition to the above bicycle parking spaces, it is proposed that a total of 18 gopher
parks are to be provided. This is in recognition of the expected occupant mix.
It is considered that the proposed rate of bicycle parking provision is appropriate.
Car Parking
Within the Main Street (O’Connell) Zone, car parking should be provided in accordance
with rates set out in Table Adel/7. These are set out below:
Land Use Minimum Provision Car Parking Spaces Sought
Medium to High Scale
Residential or
Serviced Apartment
1 space per dwelling up to 200 square metres building floor area (including serviced apartment)
191 (191 apartments / serviced under
200 square metres in area)
At least 2 spaces per dwelling greater than 200 square metres building floor area
6 (3 apartments greater than 200
square metres in area)
Non-residential
Development
(Excluding Tourist
Accommodation)
3 spaces per 100 square metres
of gross leasable floor area
26 spaces (870 square metres non-
residential floor area)
Total provision sought 223 spaces
The proposal incorporates a total of 218 car parking spaces. All but two of these (those
adjacent the state heritage dwelling at ground level) are located within the proposed
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
26
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
basement. The departure from the rate of provision sought by Table Adel/7 is considered
minor.
The proposed basement car park is to be secured. In other words, visitor access to it will
not be permitted. This is considered acceptable noting that Table Adel/7 does not
explicitly identify a desire for provision of visitor car parking spaces for the various land
uses forming part of the proposal.
The distribution of the proposed car parking spaces across the 3 stages of the
development is considered acceptable (this accords with the rate of provision sought by
Table Adel/7 for each of the stages).
Local Road Network Impacts
No concern is held with respect to the number of vehicle movements the proposal is
expected to generate on the local road network and the ability of the local road network
to accommodate these in a safe manner.
During the pre-lodgement process it was identified that the proposal is expected to
generate a significant increase in pedestrian movements in a southerly direction from the
site (towards the Adelaide Oval and the CBD). This, in turn, gave rise to some concern
that the absence of an east - west pedestrian activated crossing on the southern side of
the intersection of O’Connell Street and Brougham Place may lead to unsafe pedestrian
movements. Ultimately this is not considered a significant concern due to the availability
of a pedestrian activated crossing on the northern side of this intersection and the
provision of pedestrian infrastructure in Brougham Gardens to the south of the site
(which provides alternate opportunities for pedestrian access to the south).
Waste Management
A waste management statement prepared by Pruszinski Architects details the proposed
approach to waste management.
the waste path within stages 1, 2A and 2B (the residential buildings forming part
of the proposal) is as follows:
waste generated within apartments is transported by occupant to waste chutes on
each level of each building (one chute for general waste, a second for comingled
recyclables)
waste chutes transport waste to ground level waste rooms within each building
wherein bins for general waste and comingled recyclables (1,100 litre where
possible; 660 litre where not possible) are accompanied by a 240 litre bin for
green waste
bins within the waste rooms will be transported by the property cleaner to the
waste staging area adjacent the basement ramp for collection.
The bin rooms on the ground level of each of the residential buildings will also contain
space for hard electronic waste. Such waste will be transported manually to the waste
rooms by property cleaners on an as needs basis.
The waste path within stage 3 (between serviced apartment and the waste room on
ground floor) is similar to that for stages 1, 2A and 2b yet managed by cleaning staff by
virtue of the commercial nature of the accommodation therein.
Waste generated within the wellness centre will be manually transported on an as needs
basis to the ground floor waste room in the stage 2A building. The restaurant and café
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
27
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
tenancies proposed each posses separate waste storage rooms that are conveniently
located relative to the service vehicle loading bay adjacent the thoroughfare between
Brougham Place and Ward Street.
The waste management approach proposed has been developed in accordance with the
guidance provided by the Design Guide for Residential Recycling Appendix 2: Waste
Resource Generation Rates produced by the Adelaide City Council. It is considered that
the waste storage capacity within the various waste rooms is sufficient.
It is proposed that waste collection occur every 2 days between 7.00am and 8.00am to
minimise disturbance to occupants and neighbours. This is considered acceptable.
Acoustics
Council-wide Principles of Development Control 89 to 99 provide guidance with respect to
acoustic amenity. Together these seek incorporation of noise attenuation measures
within development to protect the acoustic amenity enjoyed by both nearby and internal
noise sensitive uses.
Resonate Acoustics were engaged by the applicant to review the acoustic
performance of the proposal. With respect to potential noise impacts on
neighbouring and nearby land uses, Resonate Acoustics find that:
the components of the proposal having potential to generate noise are the car
park, mechanical plant and patrons of and music played within the wine bar
forming part of the proposal
noise associated with the car park will be within World Health Organisation
recommended external noise levels at adjacent noise sensitive receptors (these
being the boarding houses within the Lincoln College premises to the immediate
east and the site and the residential uses to the north of the site on the opposite
side of Ward Street)
it is not possible to determine whether noise generated by mechanical plant will
be at this as detailed information regarding the plant to be employed is not yet
available (on this basis it is recommended that future testing be undertaken
following selection and installation of plant)
patron and music noise emanating from the wine bar is not likely to be contrary to
the directions provided by Council-wide Principle of Development Control 92.
With respect to the acoustic amenity the proposal will offer occupants of the residential
and serviced apartments proposed, Resonate Acoustics have provided recommendations
regarding the glazing that should be used in all buildings forming part of the proposal to
provide an appropriate degree of attenuation of noise from O’Connell Street (this being
the main generator of noise within the locality).
It is considered that the proposal responds appropriately to Council-wide Principles of
Development Control 89 to 99. It is recommended that any consent granted the
proposal be subject to a condition requiring incorporation of the measures recommended
by Resonate Acoustics.
Wind
Council-wide Principle of Development Control 125 provides:
Development that is over 21 metres in building height and is to be built at or on the street frontage should minimise wind tunnel effect.
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
28
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
The proposal includes buildings exceeding 21 metres in height. Therefore it is necessary
to consider potential wind impacts of the proposal on the surrounding public realm in
particular.
The proposal is informed by a desktop analysis of the likely impacts of the proposed
development on the local wind environment undertaken by Windtech. This finds that:
the Brougham Place public pedestrian area won’t be adversely affected by wind
conditions generated by the proposed development (due to substantial setbacks
and existing street trees)
the O’Connell and Ward Street public pedestrian areas are potentially exposed to
less than ideal wind conditions due partly to the proposed development (by virtue
of accelerated wind flows around the corner north-western and south-western
corners of the proposed serviced apartment building) but also to the alignment of
these streets (which permits easy entry of prevailing winds)
some parts of the private outdoor space within the interior of the site between the
buildings proposed (particularly the thoroughfares along the southern boundary of
the site) will be exposed to potentially adverse wind impacts
the ground level outdoor dining area adjacent the Ward Street frontage of the site
will potentially be exposed to adverse wind conditions
some parts of the various roof top decks and some balconies are potentially
exposed to adverse wind conditions due to the absence of adjacent and nearby
buildings capable of providing shielding against prevailing winds.
Windtech recommends inclusion of a number of features that would ameliorate the above
potentially adverse wind conditions. These include the planting of densely foliating trees
throughout the site, provision of a canopy along O’Connell Street and Ward Street,
provision of arbours within the interior of the site and installation of impermeable screens
and balustrades at the edges of specified decks and balconies. These features are, in the
main, incorporated within the proposal. It is therefore considered that the potential wind
impacts of the proposed development (particularly on the public realm surrounding the
site) are acceptable.
Ecologically Sustainable Development
A number of Council-wide policies of relevance to the proposal seek that development
embody measures aimed at maximising efficiency in energy and water consumption.
Lucid Engineering was engaged by the applicant to provide a statement of the
measures proposed to be implemented in response to these policies. This
identifies incorporation of the following measures within the proposal:
natural ventilation (all habitable rooms are to include an openable window)
external shading structures (most north facing windows are to be equipped with
sunshades to passively control solar gain)
high performance materials aimed at achieving an average 6 star rating and a
minimum 5 star rating under the Nationwide Energy Rating Scheme)
motion detection lighting activation systems coupled with low energy luminaires
demand management car park ventilation
high efficiency lifts.
The statement prepared by Lucid also identifies that post development connection of the
site to the Glenelg to Adelaide Pipeline (which transports treated wastewater from the
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
29
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Glenelg waste water treatment plant to the Adelaide Parklands) will be considered in
order to source water for irrigation of landscaping.
These measures, together with satisfaction of the energy efficiency standards mandated
by the Building Code of Australia, lead to the conclusion that the proposal embodies an
acceptable response to relevant Development Plan policy regarding ecologically
sustainable development.
Infrastructure and Services
Lucid Engineering was engaged by the applicant to provide preliminary site services
infrastructure information to inform the proposal. This identifies that
the existing transformer on Ward Street currently servicing the site is not capable
of servicing any stage of the proposal and the resultant replacement transformer
will be located internally within the site adjacent the proposed basement ramp
multiple connections to the existing sewer mains within O’Connell Street and Ward
Street will be required and are acceptable to SA Water
multiple connections to the existing potable water mains within O’Connell Street,
Ward Street and Brougham Place will be required and are acceptable to SA Water
the existing low pressure gas mains along O’Connell Street, Ward Street and
Brougham Place are not capable of servicing the site and, therefore, connection of
the proposal to gas services will be dependent on an extension of the high
pressure gas mains from the intersection of O’Connell Street and Ward Street to a
new gas meter enclosure to adjacent the proposed basement ramp
a new booster system for fire fighting will be required and is to be installed
adjacent the proposed basement ramp.
No issue is held with the proposed means of servicing the site with utility and emergency
service infrastructure.
Site Contamination
A Preliminary Site Investigation was undertaken by LBW Environment Projects to inform
the proposal. This found that:
a range of potentially contaminating activities (including importation of
uncontrolled fill, application of termite treatment activities, a brewery and a
service station activity) have previously occupied the various parts of the site with
those of greatest potential severity having occupied that part of the site adjacent
O’Connell Street
a preliminary intrusive investigation should be undertaken to characterise the
contamination status of soils and groundwater and, potentially, soil vapour within
the site.
In light of these findings, it is recommended that any consent granted the proposal be
subject to a condition requiring submission of a remediation validation report.
9. CONCLUSION
The two primary issues associated with the proposal relate to heritage impact and height.
Design and appearance of the development is heavily influenced by the heritage context
and integral to the sought heights and success of the scheme, in order to achieve the
outcome expected of catalyst sites.
It was through the pre lodgement service that the design and appearance evolved
significantly, to carefully address and manage the interface, as well as respect the
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
30
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
heritage value of the listed places. The height, design and appearance are supported by
the Associate Government Architect.
Overall, the retirement living units, supported by the serviced apartments land use, as
well as the activated ground floor land uses, will offer a valuable contribution to the
community. Although there are some areas (private open space, storage) that the
serviced apartments do not satisfy, the nature of the serviced apartments are such that
they are occupied predominantly for short term periods.
In conclusion, the proposal is considered to exhibit sufficient merit when assessed
against the policies of the Development Plan, and in particular the catalyst site
provisions, to warrant consent.
8 RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:
1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with the
policies in the Development Plan.
2) RESOLVE that the Development Assessment Commission is satisfied that the
proposal meets the key objectives of the Main Street (O’Connell) Zone.
3) RESOLVE to grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal by 52 Brougham
Place Pty Ltd for The demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a
mixed use development comprising the following: three towers for retirement
living with a ground level cafe and wellness centre; a tower for serviced
apartments with ground level retail, cafe and restaurant land uses; basement
carparking and site works; works affecting State and Local heritage places
including partial demolition, subject to the following conditions of consent.
PLANNING CONDITIONS
1. That except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by
conditions imposed by this application, the development shall be established in strict
accordance with the details and following plans submitted in Development
Application No 020/A080/15:
2. Drawings/Plans by Pruszinski Architects numbered DAC01 to DAC29 and dated 15
October 2015.
Reports/Correspondence:
Planning Report by PBA (Phil Brunning and Associates) dated October 2015
Heritage Significance and Conservation Report as well as Heritage Impact
Report by Ron Danvers and dated May 2015 and October 2015 respectively
Acoustic Report by Resonate Acoustics dated 19 May 2015
Traffic Impact Assessment Report by GTA Consultants dated 30 September
2015
Sustainability Report by Lucid Consulting Australia dated 22 September 2015
Infrastructure Statement by Lucid Consulting Australia dated 22 September
2015
Waste Management Statement by Pruszinski Architects dated 14 October
2015
Landscape and Public Realm Concept Design by Oxigen dated October 2015
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
31
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Pedestrian Wind Environment Statement by Windtech dated 23 September
2015
Structural Condition Report on 49 Brougham Place North Adelaide prepared
by Wallbridge and Gilbert and dated 17 August 2015
Preliminary Site Investigation Report prepared by LBW Environmental Projects
and dated 21 October 2015.
3. The applicant shall submit, for approval by the Development Assessment
Commission, further information as to the resolution of the detail facade and podium
design and final details of materials, finishes and colours, in consultation with the
Government Architect, prior to final Development Approval for substructure.
4. The on-site Bicycle Parking facilities shall be designed in accordance with Australian
Standard 2890.3-1993 and the AUSTROADS, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice
Part 14 – Bicycles.
5. The proposed car parking layout and vehicular entry points shall be designed and
constructed to conform to the Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 (including clearance
to columns and space requirements at the end of blind aisles) for Off Street Parking
Facilities; Australian Standard 2890.6-2009 Parking facilities – Off street commercial
vehicle facilities and designed to conform with Australian Standard 2890.6:2009 for
Off Street Parking for people with disabilities.
6. That all external lighting of the site, including car parking areas and buildings, shall
be designed and constructed to conform with Australian Standards and must be
located, directed and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or loss
of amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.
7. Mechanical plant or equipment shall be designed, sited and screened to minimise
noise impact on adjacent premises or properties. The noise level associated with the
combined operation of plant and equipment such as air conditioning, ventilation and
refrigeration systems when assessed at the nearest existing or envisaged noise
sensitive location in or adjacent to the site shall not exceed 50 dB(A) during daytime
(7.00am to 10.00pm) and 40 dB(A) during night time (10.00pm to 7.00am) at the
most affected residence when measured and adjusted in accordance with the
relevant environmental noise legislation except where it can be demonstrated that a
high background noise exists.
8. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be prepared and
implemented in accordance with current industry standards – including the EPA
publication “Environmental Management of On-site Remediation” - to minimise
environmental harm and disturbance during construction. The management plan
must incorporate, without being limited to, the following matters: a. air quality,
including odour and dust b. surface water including erosion and sediment control c.
soils, including fill importation, stockpile management and prevention of soil
contamination d. groundwater, including prevention of groundwater contamination e.
noise f. occupational health and safety.
For further information relating to what Site Contamination is, refer to the EPA
Guideline: 'Site Contamination – what is site contamination?':
www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/guide_sc_what.pdf A copy of the CEMP shall be provided to
the Development Assessment Commission prior to the commencement of site works
for both the hospital and car park.
9. The applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment
Commission a remediation management plan prior to Development Approval for any
substructure works upon the site.
Development Assessment Commission
11 February 2016
32
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
ADVISORY NOTES
a) The development must be substantially commenced within 3 years of the date of this
Notification, unless this period has been extended by the Development Assessment
Commission.
b) The authorisation will lapse if not commenced within 3 years of the date of this
Notification.
c) The applicant is also advised that any act or work authorised or required by this
Notification must be completed within 9 years of the date of the Notification unless
this period is extended by the Commission.
d) The applicant has a right of appeal against the conditions which have been imposed
on this Development Plan Consent or Development Approval.
e) Such an appeal must be lodged at the Environment, Resources and Development
Court within two months from the day of receiving this notice or such longer time as
the Court may allow.
f) The applicant is asked to contact the Court if wishing to appeal. The Court is located
in the Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide, (telephone number 8204
0289).
Notes from Adelaide City Council
g) Any removal or pruning of Council’s street trees required to accommodate the
development will be subject to Council’s Amenity Tree Evaluation Formula Policy. The
developer will be required to liaise with Mr Kent Williams, Senior Consultant – Parks,
Water & Environment, on 8203 7814 to discuss this matter further if necessary
Concetta Parisi
SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT and INFRASTRUCTURE
