Back to all issues

Strong concern

Height, bulk and residential setting

The applicant describes a 2,743 square metre building reaching up to about 12 metres. Policy 4.5 requires the impact of height, bulk, scale and siting to be addressed.

Applicant's claimEN-0005

The applicant states an overall height of up to about 12 metres

The development summary says court-clearance requirements result in an overall building height of up to about 12 metres above natural ground level.

What this does not prove: “Approximately 12m” is the applicant's stated precision. This note does not independently survey the building height.
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0006

Policy 4.5 sets different height controls across the site

Policy 4.5 states a 6 metre wall-height control within 10 metres of residential lots or street boundaries in R50-or-below areas, and a 12 metre wall-height control on the rest of the site.

What this does not prove: Whether each part of the proposal complies requires the City's assessment of the drawings, boundaries and height measurement method.
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0007

Policy 4.5 requires impact information for certain buildings over 6 metres

For buildings over 6 metres that require Council approval under Clause 8.1, Policy 4.5 says the application shall include information addressing amenity, overshadowing, wind impacts, building design, siting, bulk, scale and colour.

What this does not prove: This note records the topics the policy says must be addressed. It does not decide whether the applicant's information is adequate.
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0016

A04 shows a 2 metre planting strip and 6 metre green-wall rigging

Drawing A04 labels a 2 metre wide landscaping strip and green-wall rigging fixed vertically to a wall at a height of 6 metres.

What this does not prove: The drawing does not prove the time to maturity, final coverage or long-term survival of planting.
Open this evidence note
Applicant's claimEN-0020

The applicant says the tallest courts were moved away from the eastern boundary

The applicant says the three competition-grade courts need extra ceiling height and were placed furthest from the eastern boundary to reduce perceived bulk and scale.

What this does not prove: This is the applicant's design explanation. It does not establish that the resulting impact is acceptable.
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0029

Policy 4.5 aims to protect amenity and respect surrounding scale

Policy 4.5 aims to avoid adverse effects on surrounding amenity, encourage development sympathetic to nearby scale and bulk, protect transport efficiency and integrate development with the community.

What this does not prove: Policy objectives guide assessment. This note does not decide whether the proposal meets them.
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0030

Policy 4.5 calls for street-facing development to face the street

Policy 4.5 says the street-facing part of a development should face the street, with features such as entrances and windows, to soften an institutional appearance.

What this does not prove: Whether the plans satisfy this requirement is a design assessment for the City.
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0032

Policy 4.5 generally sets a 6 metre front setback

Policy 4.5 says front setbacks should be 6 metres, with an allowance to match a smaller setback on an adjacent site.

What this does not prove: Applying this rule requires identifying the relevant frontage, adjacent sites and dimensions on the plans.
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0036

The Scheme tells the City to consider height, bulk, scale and appearance

Local Planning Scheme No. 3 tells the City to consider the proposal's relationship with adjoining and nearby development, including likely effects from height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance.

What this does not prove: This establishes a relevant assessment topic, not the outcome of the assessment.
Open this evidence note
Different descriptionsEN-0049

The report and parking-area drawing differ by one square metre

The planning report states a 2,743 square metre footprint. Drawing CP1 labels the padel centre as 2,744 square metres.

What this does not prove: The cited report page and drawing do not explain the one-square-metre difference.
Open this evidence note
Shown in documentsEN-0050

A07 labels wall heights from 6.4 to 11.3 metres above natural ground

Drawing A07 labels six wall heights above natural ground: 6.4, 6.9, 9.5, 11.3, 6.7 and 6.5 metres.

What this does not prove: Applying Policy 4.5 also requires locating each wall relative to the residential-lot and street-boundary zones and confirming the City's measurement method.
Open this evidence note

Questions worth asking

  • How does the City assess the building's full bulk and scale beside nearby low-rise homes?
  • Which walls are within the policy's 10 metre residential or street boundary area?

CAMPAIGN POSITION

Refuse DA26/1308 in its current form.

Only if approved anyway: If approved anyway, require a substantially lower and smaller design.