| JustificationJustification |
JustificationThe applicant’s request has adequately addressed the matters required to be addressed by subclause (3).
In summary, the applicant’s request is based on the following rationale; the variation is relatively minor in the scheme of the building, with the majority of the building complying with the standard, in addition to the matters listed below.
The applicant has noted the variation has correlation with the raised floor level due to the flooding affectation, which requires the floor level and overall building to be raised approximately 1m. Whilst the correlation is acknowledged, the design could
arguably be amended to comply with the standard. The variation is more accurately caused by the intent of the architectural design.
With respect to the design of the building, the designing architect has maintained the raised section of the building is a significant component of the design, in order to visually differentiate the showroom from the service areas, and to not conflict with the
adjoining built elements of the service area component. To this effect, it is also noted the Cl 9.2.2 (5) of Chapter B4 of the DCP supports strong corner elements and increased building heights, and reads:
“The street corners of any new corner building should be strengthened by massing and building articulation to both street frontages. In this regard, Council may permit a variation to the height limits contained in this DCP (but no greater than the building height limit in the LEP) by permitting an additional 1 – 2 storeys for the corner element of a building where in the opinion of Council a strong corner element is necessary for the building. Any such variation to the height limit will only be supported by Council in circumstances where in the opinion of Council, the proposed development will exhibit design excellence through the provision a strong corner element in the proposed building.”
Acknowledging the control reinforces application of LEP building heights, it does provide context for general support for this architectural approach to development of corner locations within business zones.
The applicant has made reference to the abandonment of the standard (in addressing the ‘five part test), noting that whilst it is a matter for interpretation, whether it has in fact been abandoned, Council has shown flexibility in applying the standard, citing several examples. In reviewing the provided examples, examples where variations have not been supported and this application, it is clear that Council has considered each proposed variation on its merits, individually, and the standard has not been abandoned.
In this instance, the unique circumstances that support the variation include, the relatively minor scale of the variation, there are no adverse impacts, there is no additional FSR or commercial advantage, consistency with zone and standard objectives and architectural intent to siting on the corner and differentiation of the showroom component.
Further, with consideration of the site and surrounding development (current and future), the variation will have no detrimental impact on solar access, views, redevelopment of adjoining sites or visual impact on the public domain.
The applicant’s request also addressed the ‘five part test’ established by the NSW Land and Environment Court.
The written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be addressed under subclause (3).
The applicant’s request has addressed whether the development will be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the standard and B6 zone.
The objectives of the building height standard (Cl 4.3) are as follows:
(a) to establish the maximum height limit in which buildings can be designed and floor space can be achieved,
The development is compliant with the maximum allowable floor space ratio. The variation to height and related elements of the building design do not have a direct correlation to gross floor area, the building is two (2) stories high, however the element of the building that is subject to the variation is single storey with vaulted ceiling.
It is noted the variation does not grant the development any additional GFA or notable commercial advantage with respect to commercial floor space.
(b) to permit building heights that encourage high quality urban form,
With respect to the design of the building including bulk, massing and modulation, the designing architect has maintained the raised section of the building is a significant component of the design, in order to visually differentiate the showroom from the service areas and being a corner block, to address the intersection of Corrimal and Beach Streets.
To this end, the variation could be interpreted to permit high quality urban form.
(c) to ensure buildings and public areas continue to have views of the sky and receive exposure to sunlight.
With consideration of the location and scale of the exception to the building height standard, the variation will have little to no impact on views of the sky or solar access.
The site and surrounding public areas will continue to have an acceptable views to the sky and exposure to sunlight.
The development is consistent with the objectives for Clause 4.3.1
The objectives of the Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor are as follows:
- To promote businesses along main roads and to encourage a mix of compatible uses.
- To provide a range of employment uses (including business, office, retail and light industrial uses).
- To maintain the economic strength of centres by limiting retailing activity.
- To encourage activities which will contribute to the economic and employment growth of Wollongong.
- To allow some diversity of activities that will not—
(a) significantly detract from the operation of existing or proposed development, or
(b) significantly detract from the amenity of nearby residents, or
(c) have an adverse impact upon the efficient operation of the surrounding road system.
The development entails a permissible land use located on a classified road (main road).
The development will provide local employment opportunities, contribute to economic growth whilst not detracting from retail activity anticipated for the Wollongong City Centre.
The variation will not lead the development to detract from related existing or proposed development. Nor will it unreasonably detract from the amenity of nearby residents or have an adverse impact on the surrounding road system.
The variation has limited implications with regard to the zone objectives as they do not make reference to built form or related impacts.
The development is consistent with the objectives of the B6 Zone.
Given the development is consistent with the related objectives and context surrounding the variation (i.e. flooding affectation and building design ethos) there are sufficient environmental planning grounds specific to the site to justify contravening the development standard.
The proposed exception does not hinder the development in terms of consistency with the aims of the LEP generally and in particular does not to hinder the attainment of the objectives specified in section 4.15(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act.
Further, for the reasons stated above, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.
Considering the minor nature of the variation, limited impacts and the development’s consistency with objectives for Clause 4.3 and the B6 Zone, there is not a public benefit of maintaining the standard in this instance. |
