DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY 17 MARCH 2020
ATTACHMENT TO ITEM DV20.25
LOT 100 (NO.28) KINGSLAND AVENUE, CITY BEACH
The Town of Cambridge does not warrant the accuracy of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the Town of Cambridge shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information. 1:1000
Date:
WILLIS DESIGN GROUP P/L
ACWillisDesign/Drwn:
Builder to note:
All dimensions and levels to be verified on site.Ensure all materials, products,fixtures fit neatly into place and fixed according tomanufacturer's instructions and recommendations. Figured dimensions takeprecedence over scale. All work to conform to local council, BCA regulatoryrequirements, current Australian Standards and good trade practice.
Copyright:This drawing is the property of Willis Design Group P/L and is not to bereproduced wholly or in part without written permission; it has been prepared ingood faith. By accepting this sketch and const. drawings the client indemnifiesWDG should there be any breach of copyright by others owing to either: 1 plansprovided by owner. 2. Prepared a plan under instruction by the owner. 3.Supplied information by the owner. This indemnity also applies to the contractorengaged to carry out the works.
Drawing #Project #
CONSULTANT:STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS:
Structerre
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Heritage, Urban Design & Planning
Project Design Managers
54 Stoneham Road, Attadale, Western Australia 6156.
Tel: 93305297 Mobile: 0415950570
Email: [email protected] Webpage: www.acwdesign.com.au
Sept 2019
12813/6/2019
#28 KINGSLAND AVECITY BEACH
ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS
GROUND FLOOR
UPPERFLOORFFL: 22.029
FFL: 19.2
GARAGEFFL: 17.743
19.5
19.34
18.2817.918.0
17.08
17.05
17.46 16.94
16.18
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
15.5
15
14.5
14
15.7915.87
SITE PROPOSAL 1:200
LOT 100 #28
KINGSLAND AVENUE
NORTH
UPPERFLOOREXTENSION30m2
7500
R12.5FRONT SETBACK7.5m
11500
5000
GROUNDFLOOREXTENSION5m2
AMENDMENT18/2/2020 additional5000mm x 1000mm
AMENDMENT18/2/2020 additional3500mm x 374mm
E1
NORTH
UPPER FLOOR PROPOSAL1:100
#28 KINGSLAND AVECITY BEACH
ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS
Sept 2019
CONSULTANT:STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS:
Structerre
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Heritage, Urban Design & Planning
Project Design Managers
54 Stoneham Road, Attadale, Western Australia 6156.
Tel: 93305297 Mobile: 0415950570
Email: [email protected] Webpage: www.acwdesign.com.au
Project # Drawing #
Design/Drwn:
Builder to note:
All dimensions and levels to be verified on site.Ensure all materials, products,fixtures fit neatly into place and fixed according tomanufacturer's instructions and recommendations. Figured dimensions takeprecedence over scale. All work to conform to local council, BCA regulatoryrequirements, current Australian Standards and good trade practice.
Copyright:This drawing is the property of Willis Design Group P/L and is not to bereproduced wholly or in part without written permission; it has been prepared ingood faith. By accepting this sketch and const. drawings the client indemnifiesWDG should there be any breach of copyright by others owing to either: 1 plansprovided by owner. 2. Prepared a plan under instruction by the owner. 3.Supplied information by the owner. This indemnity also applies to the contractorengaged to carry out the works.
WILLIS DESIGN GROUP P/L
ACWillisDate:
2813/6/2019 3
WC
ENSUITE
BEDROOM # 1
UPPER LIVING
BALCONY
LIVING
MEALS
VIEW TOWARDS OCEAN
FFL: 22.030
GROUND FLOOR PROPOSAL 1:100
existing 13cconcretebeam over
existing250UC89steelbeam
ADDITIONUPPERFLOORPROPOSALOVER
existing low retaining wallTOW: 17.743
BEDROOM #2
BEDROOM #3
ENTRYFFL: 19.2
GARAGE
FFL: 17.743
low wallTOW:19.2
TOW:18.257
TOW:18.257
down
up
down
15.87
17
16.5
16
16.18
boundary
boundary
7.5m street setback
FPL: 18.257 (-11c)
17.08
17.08
LIFT
LIFT
NATURAL GROUNDAND SPOT LEVELSMARKED IN RED
17.08
16.95
VIEW TOWARDS OCEAN
5000
remove wall
17
16.5
17.08
16.95
retain part low wall @ 36cand install new glassbalustrade behind toprevent climbing
replacewindow
bench
raking ceiling
column
new 620solidcore door
FUTUREMEZZANINEFLOOR
'Lotus' Glas-Staxframeless glassmoving wall system
cut down cornerbrick pier to 36creplace column withstainless steel
relocate a/c to allow for newrear access door
GARAGE STOREADDITION 5m2
2400
EXISTING HOUSE0531DA - 2012
EXISTING HOUSE0531DA - 2012
cut down cornerbrick pier to 36creplace column withstainless steel
roofbelow
UPPER LEVELAMENDMENT
GROUNDLEVELAMENDMENT
columnfixed window
openingwindows
existing30 deg roof500 eaves
2896 374
7021
499
DIMENSIONSTAKEN FROMPLANNINGAPPROVED PLANS7/MARCH 2018
APPROVEDUPPER LEVELADDITION7/MAR 2019
AMENDMENT18/2/2020 additional3500mm x 374mm
AMENDMENT18/2/2020 additional5000mm x 1000mm
E2
2657
2521
62c
33c
31c
0c
FFL: 22.030
FFL:19.2
Ceil 24.55
25c
58c
36c 36c shelf
FPL: 18.257- 11c
5914EXIST
66c
6600EXIST
garage FFL: 17.743 (-17c)
20c
25c
28c
58c58cnew window
6429EXIST
#28 KINGSLAND AVECITY BEACH
ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS
Sept 2019
CONSULTANT:STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS:
Structerre
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Heritage, Urban Design & Planning
Project Design Managers
54 Stoneham Road, Attadale, Western Australia 6156.
Tel: 93305297 Mobile: 0415950570
Email: [email protected] Webpage: www.acwdesign.com.au
Project # Drawing #
Design/Drwn:
Builder to note:
All dimensions and levels to be verified on site.Ensure all materials, products,fixtures fit neatly into place and fixed according tomanufacturer's instructions and recommendations. Figured dimensions takeprecedence over scale. All work to conform to local council, BCA regulatoryrequirements, current Australian Standards and good trade practice.
Copyright:This drawing is the property of Willis Design Group P/L and is not to bereproduced wholly or in part without written permission; it has been prepared ingood faith. By accepting this sketch and const. drawings the client indemnifiesWDG should there be any breach of copyright by others owing to either: 1 plansprovided by owner. 2. Prepared a plan under instruction by the owner. 3.Supplied information by the owner. This indemnity also applies to the contractorengaged to carry out the works.
WILLIS DESIGN GROUP P/L
ACWillisDate:
2813/6/2019 4
17
16.516.75
7857EXIST
2012 NATURAL GROUND LEVELS
LEVELS AS OF 2019
EXISTINGRETAININGWALL
7500EXIST
KINGSLAND AVE - STREET VIEW - SOUTH(Levels to eaves)1:100
exist door
existing tiledroof
continue metal roof30 deg with 500 eaves
6772EXIST
7843EXIST& PROPOSAL
garage FFL: 17.743 (-17c)TOW 17.743
2012 & 2019 NATURAL GROUND LEVELS
EXISTING GARAGE
EXTENSION
6429EXIST
7150EXISTINGGROUND TOCEILING
7800NEW
EAST 1:100
removecorner
brickwork- level offat @ 36cexisting.
WEST 1:100
26.4
NGL 17
9700Existing
26.7
17driveway
stone claddingapplied overexist render
texture coatedfinish colour tomatch existing
roof to matchexisting
58c
retain part roof
26.7 ridge beyond
new stonecladding
replaceexistingbalustradewith newglass
1600typical
continue metal roof
NORTH 1:100
newdoor/frame
existingroof
removecorner
brickwork- level offat @ 36cexisting.
26.7
26.1
36cexisting wall - retain
2600
NEW STORE TO SIDEOF GARAGE1000 depth
NEW STORE
Surfmist
texture coated wallsfinish to matchexisting.Colorbond surfmistroof
NEWSTOREtexture coated walls
surface finish tomatch existing.Colorbond surfmistroof
replace steelcolumn with newstainless steel
replace steelcolumn with newstainless steel
replace steelcolumn with newstainless steel
f f
f
surface texturefinish - colour tomatch existing
a a a a a
2657
2521
62c
33c
31c
0c
FFL: 22.030
FFL:19.2
Ceil 24.55
25c
58c
36c 36c shelf
FPL: 18.257- 11c
5914EXIST
66c
6600EXIST
garage FFL: 17.743 (-17c)
20c
25c
28c
58c58cnew window
6429EXIST
#28 KINGSLAND AVECITY BEACH
ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS
Sept 2019
CONSULTANT:STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS:
Structerre
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Heritage, Urban Design & Planning
Project Design Managers
54 Stoneham Road, Attadale, Western Australia 6156.
Tel: 93305297 Mobile: 0415950570
Email: [email protected] Webpage: www.acwdesign.com.au
Project # Drawing #
Design/Drwn:
Builder to note:
All dimensions and levels to be verified on site.Ensure all materials, products,fixtures fit neatly into place and fixed according tomanufacturer's instructions and recommendations. Figured dimensions takeprecedence over scale. All work to conform to local council, BCA regulatoryrequirements, current Australian Standards and good trade practice.
Copyright:This drawing is the property of Willis Design Group P/L and is not to bereproduced wholly or in part without written permission; it has been prepared ingood faith. By accepting this sketch and const. drawings the client indemnifiesWDG should there be any breach of copyright by others owing to either: 1 plansprovided by owner. 2. Prepared a plan under instruction by the owner. 3.Supplied information by the owner. This indemnity also applies to the contractorengaged to carry out the works.
WILLIS DESIGN GROUP P/L
ACWillisDate:
2813/6/2019 4
17
16.516.75
7857EXIST
2012 NATURAL GROUND LEVELS
LEVELS AS OF 2019
EXISTINGRETAININGWALL
7500EXIST
KINGSLAND AVE - STREET VIEW - SOUTH(Levels to eaves)1:100
exist door
existing tiledroof
continue metal roof30 deg with 500 eaves
6772EXIST
7843EXIST& PROPOSAL
garage FFL: 17.743 (-17c)TOW 17.743
2012 & 2019 NATURAL GROUND LEVELS
EXISTING GARAGE
EXTENSION
6429EXIST
7150EXISTINGGROUND TOCEILING
7800NEW
EAST 1:100
removecorner
brickwork- level offat @ 36cexisting.
WEST 1:100
26.4
NGL 17
9700Existing
26.7
17driveway
stone claddingapplied overexist render
texture coatedfinish colour tomatch existing
roof to matchexisting
58c
retain part roof
26.7 ridge beyond
new stonecladding
replaceexistingbalustradewith newglass
1600typical
continue metal roof
NORTH 1:100
newdoor/frame
existingroof
removecorner
brickwork- level offat @ 36cexisting.
26.7
26.1
36cexisting wall - retain
2600
NEW STORE TO SIDEOF GARAGE1000 depth
NEW STORE
Surfmist
texture coated wallsfinish to matchexisting.Colorbond surfmistroof
NEWSTOREtexture coated walls
surface finish tomatch existing.Colorbond surfmistroof
replace steelcolumn with newstainless steel
replace steelcolumn with newstainless steel
replace steelcolumn with newstainless steel
f f
f
surface texturefinish - colour tomatch existing
a a a a a
Development application site photographs Property Lot 100 (No. 28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach Proposal Alterations/Additions to Existing Two-storey Dwelling DA reference DA19/0282 Date of photographs 9 January 2020 Photograph 1: View of subject site from intersection of Kingsland Avenue and Elouera Way, looking north-east.
Photograph 2: View of site from Kingsland Avenue, looking north.
W I L L I S D E S I G N G R O U P P/L 5 4 Stoneham Road, Attadale WA 6156 [email protected] (mob 0415950570)
Att City of Cambridge
Lot 100 (#28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach.
January 29, 2019
Att Ryan Munyard Senior Statuary Planning Officer. Lot 100 (#28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach.
Current Action: Further to our meeting 30/1/2020, the owner is seeking to continue in seeking planning approval for alterations and additions. In view of this attention is drawn to the following previous development applications and their status.
1. 0531DA-2012; 11 Feb 2013…… enacted - Yes (approved and built) 2. 0531DA – 2012.01; 4/Mar 2014….. enacted – No (approved - did not proceed with build) 3. 0091DA – 2018; 25/September….. enacted – No (approved - did not proceed with build) 4. DA 19/0062; 8/May 2019…… enacted (approval current, have not as yet proceeded with build) 5. DA 19/0192; 29/July 2019…. enacted (approval current have not as yet proceeded with build) 6. DA 19/0282; 29/1/2020…. Currently under assessment (owner seeking further changes)
Documentation attached:
A. Existing house plans: 0531DA-2012 11/Feb 2013. B. Currently planning approved plans: DA 19/0062 8/May 2019 & DA19/092 29/July 2019 - with overlay.
“DA19/0062 established all the main elements of the currently approved upper level extension design ( roof ridge heights and lengths, also front wall heights), whereas DA/0192 contains only minor modifications to the existing Bed 1 window and existing balcony balustrade.
C. Current submission DA 19/0282 29/1/2020 owner seeking changes – plans. 1 – 5 • Attention is drawn to B (Drgs ‘X’ & ‘Y’) where the owner is seeking a 600mm adjustment outwards for both
the south and east upper approved level walls. Note: the window to bed 1 will now not proceed, neither the carport. A small store is sought adjoining the garage (east wall) and a new store mezzanine within the garage.
• The roof line (ridge/hips and valleys over the proposed addition) approved on this plan will not alter – remaining the same.
• Drawings 1 – 5 (R1) show the proposals: plans, elevations and perspective. Finishes shown on drawings. The owner has acknowledged how policies have recently altered and by this proposal the intent has been to deliver a more benign, less bulk/invasive solution. Trusting this meets with your approval Yours faithfully,
Alex C Willis Planner, Design Manager and Heritage Consultant. M.Planning (Professional) (Urban Design Spec); M.Cult.Heritage; P.Grad Dip. Cult. Heritage; P.Grad Cert. Planning (Urb Des); Cert BPArch; Dip Bldg. Des/Tec; Dip. Int Des; Cert IV Arch. Drft. MDIA; MPIA; Aff RAIA; M.ICOMOS; Aff AIM; Aff.AIB.
W I L L I S D E S I G N G R O U P P/L 5 4 Stoneham Road, Attadale WA 6156 <[email protected]> (mob 0415950570)
Att City of Cambridge
DA 19/0282
Lot 100 (#28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach.
December 4, 2019
Att Ryan Munyard Senior Statuary Planning Officer.
In response to requested information.
1. Ridge – new/existing
This is best explained by referring to the attached plans A & B Further investigation and demonstration reveals the following on ‘A’:
Ridge 2 (meals) table 3 (B), complies with (iii) & (iv)
Ridge 3 complies with in 9m
Ridge 1 exceeds height by 0.5m . Owing to the code allowance of 6m ridge length at this height the ridge length with the addition becomes 7.2m long. Therefore justification is sought for the additional 1.2m ridge length for the following reasons:
As per sketch plan B the distance of the ridge as viewed is 31m away and is obscured by roofs in font, therefore difficult to define. Furthermore, according to R.D.Codes 5.1.6 Building Height P6, the ridge does not create an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape……” Adequate access to direct sun, open spaces, daylight to major openings too. It is a contributing part of the overall access to views of significance enjoyed by the addition.
2. Roofing Colour:
colorbond shale grey to match existing
3. Construction materials:
Rendered double brick to match existing
4. Confirming the upper floor level is indeed 22.030
This relates to the original feature survey dated 3/12/2012 showing a ground floor of 19.2, then, allowing a build off 31c (2657 on the original built elevations)) to ceiling, then 172mm (similarly denoted on elevations)for slab thickness.
Therefore 19.2 + 2.657 + 0.172 = 22.029 (22.030 has been for rounding purposes)
Any plans submitted in the interim by others do not relate to the original and have been ignored.
5. The car port on DA 19//0192 was never built.
It does not form part of this renewed application.
Yours faithfully, Alex C Willis Planner, Design Manager and Heritage Consultant. M.Planning (Professional) (Urban Design Spec); M.Cult.Heritage; P.Grad Dip. Cult. Heritage; P.Grad Cert. Planning (Urb Des); Cert BPArch; Dip Bldg. Des/Tec; Dip. Int Des; Cert IV Arch. Drft. MDIA; MPIA; Aff RAIA; M.ICOMOS; Aff AIM; Aff.AIB.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
W ILL I S DES I G N G R 0 U P P /L
54 Stoneham Road, Attadale WA 6156
<[email protected]> (mob 0415950570)
To Town of Cambridge
1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat.
Sept27,2019
Planning:
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Lot 100 (No28) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - Proposed Extensions to Single Dwelling.
(Note: previous: amendments 0091DA-2018; DA 190062)
The proposal is to build, a small upper level addition to the exiting living room.
A seamless extension continuing along, and in line with the balcony, returning
back over the garage.
Currently, all existing wall heights exceed the current, deemed to comply,
Residential Codes 2015 and revisions (5.1.6) (C6 Category B) with exception
to: top of 25 deg pitched roof (Table 3) (iii) (iv). Interestingly, neither did the
wall heights comply with the Acceptable Development 2010 Codes (6.7.1)
(A 1.1); although the top of roof pitch demonstrates within limits of 2010 and
2015 Codes.
The house was built in 2012. However, it would appear approvals were likely
granted, at the time, assessed on: meeting the objectives of Building Height
Requirements (6.7) and performance criteria (6.7.1). City Beach is unique,
owing to there being many large houses, taking advantage of ocean views,
topographical hilly, conditions and meeting local occupiers expectations.
In view of this, any such future work on the house is challenged architecturally
and with its own amenity, when applying deemed to satisfy on current
Residential Code conditions, specifically wall heights (not ridges). As with the
2012 assessment, the proposal is seeking to meet approval based upon
adopting 2015 design principles (5.1.6 ) (P6). TOWN 9F (;1;., ~~?DGE RECEB v n:.:.
1 OCT 2019
1 TIME:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Furthermore, in determining the proposal does not assert that, it should ignore
the impact on surrounding buildings, neither the topography outlined in Local
Council Policy 3.3: Building Height Policy purposes and (Policy 1.0 a,b) , the
author has conducted a street analysis (accompanying information). Owing to
the length of Kingsland Avenue, the number of houses (30+), broader
observations and perceptions were engaged to demonstrate architectural
comparisons, specifically through form.
Interpretation:
2015 Residential Design Codes, Part 5, Buildings that comply with Table 3 for
Category B area buildings except where stated otherwise in the scheme, the
local planning policy, local structure plan or local development plan (refer fig
series, 7).
Tops of external wall (roof above) (ii) = 6m
Top of pitched roof (iii) (iv) = 9m
Demonstration:
By continuing the living room wall (street elevation) tops of walls exceed (if
taken from original ground level) by 1843 (6000 requirement actual 7843),
consistent with the 2012 approval.
Top of pitched roof meet the deemed to satisfy requirements then (2010 and
2015 Codes) of being well within. Two instances: central ridge allowed 9m +
0.5 (ridge less than 9m, therefore may add 0.5) = 9.5. Again the ridge over the
living room is 9m (potentially reaching, 10.5m).
Architecture:
Currently the architectural style (contemporary modern) displays much in the
way of a mass and void interaction; a positive and negative building form.
Articulation is noticeable such that there is passive space (void) between the
solid forms creating a visual interaction. The proposal is to acknowledge and
legitimize the architecture further by extending the void beneath the garage
while increasing the mass over. Translucency, through glazing, is attained
demonstrating a continuation of the symmetry of subtraction and addition for
the style.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R.Codes - Design Principles:
It within the opinion of the author and on behalf of the owner justification is
sought to apply Design Principles (5.1.6) P6, with respect to the proposal
specifically pertaining to the wall heights (not the ridges - they comply):
Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of
adjoining properties, or, the streetscape, including road reserves and
public open space reserves, and where appropriate maintains:
Adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant
spaces:
Adequate daylight in major openings into habitable rooms; and
access to views of significance.
Observations:
i) Accompanying information demonstrates that the extension is
consistent with the predominant height of buildings within the
surrounding area (Local Planning Policy 1.0 a).
b), The natural topography of the site responds and whether the
building height considers and responds to topography.
Comment: The slope falls from the rear of the lot to the
street front. Currently, the garage and adjoining porch steps
account for change in levels by being at a lower level than the
principle house floor. Similarly an existing screen wall screens
the house and delivers a terraced outcome. The proposal, the
upper floor extension, does not interfere, neither contradicts with
the existing topography, and responds to existing circumstance.
Eaves line has been maintained; a continuation of existing,
similarly the roof pitch matches existing. Windows of the same
material. Render and colour to match existing with stone feature
tiling. An added bonus is the extension extends over the garage
under providing additional weather protection.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) Setbacks: The proposal is well beyond the minimum streetfront
setback (7.5m); actual 11.5m. And, side setback of 4m
(average) (i.e.: wall length 9m x 8m wall height) therefore 1.5m
min required. Visual privacy (5.4.1) P1.2 ensures oblique
viewing without disadvantaging neighbours views (note: #26
should a new build be desired front setbacks provide opportunity
without restriction.
d) Street Surveillance (5.2.3) P3 is enhanced with views towards the
ocean (common area and enjoyed by many others) and street.
e) Open space and site coverage are not affected by the extension.
f) Context (5.1) Complying with: -
a) To ensure the residential development meets
community expectations in regard to appearance, use and
density.
b) To ensure that designs respond to the key natural and built
features of the area and respond to the local context in terms of
bulk and scale...
c) To ensure adequate provision of direct sun and ventilation for
buildings and to ameliorate the impacts of building bulk, privacy
and overshadowing on adjoining properties.
g) Special Purpose: (5.5) Complying with: -
a) To ensure residential development is provided to
accommodate people with or without special needs.
The couple, retired (elderly), has recently installed a lift, which
connects the garage, entry (ground floor facilities) and the upper
living and main bedroom. The proposed extension enlarges the
upper floor by providing an architecturally seamless integration
of meaningful, increased amenity: small food prep, meals
desired, meeting their physical and well-being needs. The
balcony remains open.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h) Overshadowing.
The proposal complies with Res Des Codes 5.4.2 C2.1
’t .~II!! !ifri~,i!..(
,~1tu! _11 ,,’.~ 1
..,.
:.
EXISTING PROPOSAL
Currently a large street tree obscures much of the house, particularly when
walking or driving from properties to the east, down towards the ocean. In this
manner the tree eclipses part of the house - a lack of notice. There is no
footpath on the proposal’s side of the street.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Street Analysis:
A street analysis accompanies this report describing several houses adjacent
and opposite to the proposal. In general, the findings determined the
following: owing to the street curving and all with sloping sites, many houses
have been designed to enjoy ocean views. As a pedestrian casual
observations indicate proximity to the beach, Lots and houses are substantial
in size, individually different, family orientated and expensive.
Conclusion:
Judgment of merit is sought with regard to objectives and balancing these
with the consideration of design principles provided in the R-Codes.
Yours faithfully,
Alex C Willis
Planner, Design and Heritage Consultant.
M.Planning (Professional) (Urban Design Spec); M.Cult.Heritage; P.Grad Dip. Cult. Heritage; P.Grad Cert. Planning
(Urb Des); Cert BPArch; Dip Bldg. DesfTec; Dip. Int Des; Cert IV Arch. Drft.
MDIA; MPIA; Aft RAIA; M.ICOMOS; Aft AIM; Aft.AIB.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Site Analysis: Lot 100, #28 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach.
Local Planning Policy 3.3:
Surrounding Area: three properties on either side of the proposed development on both sides of the street (excluding laneways/right of ways) that the dwelling is
orientated towards.
LOCATION PLAN
Kingsland Avenue, extends east - west from Templetonia Crescent (east) to West
Coast Highway (west) consisting of thirty plus houses. Owing to the street curving
and sloping sites many have been designed to enjoy ocean views. As a pedestrian
casual observations indicate proximity to the beach, Lots and houses are substantial
in size, individually different, family orientated and expensive. A footpath is located
on the opposite side of the proposal. The closest bus stop (19382) is 693m away
(1 Omins) Templetonia Cr.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Current House: Lot 100 #28, Kingsland Avenue.
Style: Built 2012, Contemporary - modern.
Storeys: 2
Setbacks (proximity to street): well setback beyond the minimum Code
requirements
Vegetation: sparse, though some growth has been encouraged in front of the
screen wall; a huge street tree obscures much of the house looking directly from Kingsland Avenue.
Materials: Masonry - render with corrugated metal roof.
Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates some
compatibility with the slope of land: the driveway meanders and negotiates the
differences with a fairly level approach to the garage, circumnavigating around the tree, while sunken from the main house, set back, does not
dominate the landscape, particularly the street. The house while elevated is
expected to capture ocean views.
Building Height: Refer elevations.
Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane.
Notable Elements/Features: Street tree. Architectural style. Setback from street.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot 101 #17, Elouera Way, City Beach (first lot left (west) from proposal)
. ,
- -- ----~
Style: Built 1970 (original) with recent additions, Contemporary modern.
Storeys: 2
Setbacks (proximity to street): corner site with single storey garage and upper deck over projecting visibly at corner.
Vegetation: modest and attractive
Materials: Mixed - painted masonry with tiled roof; metal roof over balcony.
Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates
reasonably good compatibility with the slope of land: the driveway well to the
Lot’s side meanders and negotiates the differences with a fairly level approach to the garage located parallel to the road - quite discreet. The house while
elevated is expected to capture ocean views.
Building Height: With the balcony creating a large void, mass is obscured,
though, approximately 6m, from existing ground, the gable window noticeably exaggerates the height.
Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane. Glazed elements deliver variety and interest.
Notable Elements/Features: landscaped garden (corner lot). glazing feature,
yawning balcony/deck.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot 102 #15, Elouera Way, City Beach (second lot left (west) from proposal)
Style: Under Construction
Storeys: 3
Setbacks (proximity to street): close to street boundary.
Vegetation: nil
Materials: masonry - render
Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates a direct
street response; a transition of close proximity and identity. The house is
expected to capture ocean views.
Building Height: Little to distinguish with scaffold; approx 6m
Articulation: Little to distinguish: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent
with mass and void, large glazed elements anticipated across its broad
horizontal plane.
Notable Elements/Features: not applicable
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot 103 #13, Elouera Way, City Beach (third lot left (west) from proposal)
Style: Built 1960 - 1970. Modern
Storeys: 1 with 2 storey side addition
Setbacks (proximity to street): close
Vegetation: limited
Materials: render masonry with tiled roof
Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates
reasonably good compatibility with the slope of land. Terraced the house
while elevated is expected to capture ocean views.
Building Height: Terracing exaggerates the predominantly single storey house, the
storey part is approx 6m high from ground.
Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with Modern
architecture from the period. Earlier built and modest by comparison with
others in the locality the elevation lacks balance and has been poorly coloured.
Notable Elements/Features: while the terracing displays a sensible application in
transition from the street the house is not a quality, I
Modern’, example.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot 99 #26, Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (first lot right (east) from proposal)
Style: Indistinguishable through dense vegetation. Likely 1960-70 owing to growth of trees.
Storeys: Unknown
Setbacks (proximity to street): The house is not visible from street being isolated
at the rear on higher ground.
Vegetation: Extremely dense with well established trees and shrubs
Materials: Unknown, though glimpses indicate masonry walls.
Topography: Owing to the screen wall, the available knowledge is obscured.
Building Height: Unknown
Articulation: Unknown
Notable Elements/Features: Dense vegetation - screen wall.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot 98 #24, Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (second from Lot right (east) from
proposal.
Style: Built about 2000 - 2015 Contemporary modern.
Storeys: 3
Setbacks (proximity to street): Close, making full use of Residential Design Codes
with garage, portico and gateway.
Vegetation: Modest though artificially limited by space.
Materials: Rendered masonry with metal roof.
Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates reasonably
good compatibility with the slope of land: the driveway located to the lower
side approaching the garage almost directly level to the road. The house
while significantly elevated is expected to capture ocean views.
Building Height: Substantially high, both the portico and mass formed by the
balconies is well in excess of 6m.
Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane. Deep setting voids allow for a passive
interpretation with deviation.
Notable Elements/Features: Large portico; sense of occupancy (mass on site).
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot 117 #22 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (third Lot right east) from proposal.
,..-
Style: Built 1990’s, Contemporary, modern (international).
Storeys: 2
Setbacks (proximity to street): Very close, adopting corner, secondary street
setbacks
Vegetation: light.
Materials: rendered masonry with concealed roof
Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates
reasonably good compatibility with the slope of land. Assisted by stepped
terracing, which creates a series of relief patterns. The house while elevated
is expected through widespread use of glazing to capture ocean views.
Building Height: With the balconies creating a large void, mass is obscured,
though, approximately 6m - 8m, from existing ground, the terracing offers a certain relief.
Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane. Glazed elements, terracing deliver variety and
interest.
Notable Elements/Features: Broad, landscape architecture, the entire block
appears to be well used, occupied by a large mass with much horizontal
emphasis.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot 129 #31, Kingsland Avenue, City Beach. (opposite Lot (west) from proposal.
Style: Built 1980’s, Contemporary, modern.
Storeys: 1 with 2 storey at garage.
Setbacks (proximity to street): Very close with car port side on (parallel) with
street.
Vegetation: light.
Materials: rendered masonry colorbond metal roof.
Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates reasonably
good compatibility with the slope of land particularly with the use of the
driveway from the low point.
Building Height: Predominantly single storey, recent alterations maintain original
heights. Garage and rooms to viewing side approx 5m.
Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its horizontal plane. A large central penetration delivers variety and
interest.
Notable Elements/Features: Curved car port roof - low impact form.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot 128 # 29 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (directly opposite Lot from
proposal)
Style: Built 1980’s, Contemporary Nostalgic - Mediterranean
Storeys: 2
Setbacks (proximity to street): Very close, particularly the garage.
Vegetation: light. Street tree
Materials: rendered cream masonry with tiled roof (Spanish).
Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates
reasonably good compatibility with the slope of land. Positioned on a north- south axis and assisted by steps into the house, while elevated is expected
through the upper balcony to capture ocean views.
Building Height: With the balconies creating a large void, mass is obscured,
though, by a large street tree, approximately 6m - 7m, from existing ground, The side entrance to the house is a good example of utilizing the slope.
Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its axis. Glazed elements, the balcony and style offer variety and
interest.
Notable Elements/Features Nostalgic, bold style with large street tree.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lot 127 #27 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach (diagonally opposite (east) of Lot
from proposal).
I
l
Style: Built 1970’s, Contemporary colonial - nostalgic.
Storeys: 2
Setbacks (proximity to street): The garage parallel to the street is exceptionally close, though concealed behind a screen boundary wall.
Vegetation: well established - quite dense
Materials: rendered masonry with tiled roof
Topography: The arrangement, both artificial and natural illustrates a very good
compatibility with the slope of land with a slim form following a north south
axis.
Building Height: With a long balcony mass is obscured, though, approximately 6m, from existing ground.
Articulation: The architecture style, the formation, is consistent with mass and void, across its axis. The colonial style verandah, delivers variety and interest.
Notable Elements/Features: Verandah and well established trees.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In close proximity to the proposal and not a requirement of the policy for determining
height, owing to such a large number of residential properties along the street, a
need to demonstrate other nearby examples, through their imposing form,
characteristics typical of Kingsland Avenue.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
# 35 Kingsland Avenue
#30 Kingsland Avenue
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared by:
Alex C Willis
Planner, Design and Heritage Consultant.
M.Planning (Professional) (Urban Design Spec); M.Cult.Heritage; P.Grad Dip. Cult. Heritage; P.Grad Cert. Planning (Urb Des); Cert BPArch; Dip Bldg. DesfTec; Dip. Int Des; Cert IV Arch. Drft.
MDIA; MPIA; Aft RAIA; M.ICOMOS; Aft AIM; Aft.AIB.
Willis Design Group P/L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
19/9/2019
I
I
I
I
I
14