Back to all issues

Moderate to strong concern

Shadow and sunlight

A07 shows a noon winter-solstice shadow. That single labelled time does not show the duration of shadow through the day or quantify added shadow for each property.

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.
Primary sourceApplicant's planning report in the DA26/1308 package | Page 12“The internal padel court clearance requirements for the competition grade doubles courts result in an overall building height of up to approximately 12m relative to natural ground level.”Open the source page
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.
Primary sourceCity Policy 4.5 Private Institution Design Guidelines | Page 2“Where buildings over 6.0 metres in height are proposed:”Open the source pagePrimary sourceCity Policy 4.5 Private Institution Design Guidelines | Page 2“shall include information which addresses the impact of the proposal having regard to matters such as amenity, overshadowing, wind impacts and building design, siting, bulk, scale and colour.”Open the source page
Open this evidence note
Information missingEN-0009

Review of the supplied DA file did not identify detailed afternoon shadow results

The recorded review of every page image and transcription in the supplied 47-page DA file identified A07's noon winter-solstice overlay. That review did not identify a property-by-property table or afternoon shadow sequence.

What this does not prove: This is a result of the stated review methods within the supplied file. It does not prove that other material does not exist or is not held by the City or applicant.
Primary sourceApplicant's DA26/1308 plans | Page 44“Shadows shown 12pm on Winter Solar Solstice”Open the source page
Open this evidence note

Questions worth asking

  • What additional shadow would fall on each affected window, garden and outdoor area through the day?
  • Can a lower or smaller design reduce the impact?

CAMPAIGN POSITION

Refuse DA26/1308 in its current form.

Only if approved anyway: If approved anyway, require clear property-specific shadow analysis and redesign to reduce impacts.