According to the Applicant in their Statement of Environmental Effects:
"The design currently sits in the building envelope however does not comply with council DCP
Figure D2 10. We believe that this should be exempt as only a section of the raked/angled
roof/wall that does not negatively impact the neighbour’s lot or cause large issues of
overshadowing of their property. We are asking for the exemption because the roof design is an
aesthetic choice that best matches the local area."
I submit that deviations from the Council DCP should only be allowed if significant community or environmental benefit is achieved. I submit that suitable environmental benefits can be incorporated by way of these conditions I propose:
That the skillion roof descend or drain towards the north;
That there be a photovoltaic solar power system installed upon the roof with rated maximum output of 8kW which supplies power only to the secondary dwelling and can feed into the grid via the connection of the secondary dwelling;
That there be a solar hot water system installed upon the roof with boosting by gas -- in the alternate the applicant install a heat pump type hot water system;
The applicant install ceiling fans to each bedroom and living, in addition to provision of air conditioning;
Applicant install at entry a lockable security grill door and window security grills at living and bedrooms to promote passive cooling opportunites at all times;
That clothes drying hoist area be positioned to maximize solar gain according to the winter solstice and a suitable shadow diagram produced to verify this outcome;
Windows of the bedroom to be amended to aluminium framed double glass panel to replace single panel;
That any kitchen rangehood be ducted to exterior;
Insulation R values raised by 50%;
Roof space be ventilated by rotating mechanical vents and southern, eastern and western eaves be fitted with louvred ventilation grilles;
That a allocated off street paved parking area solely for use by the secondary dwelling with a 7kW capacity charging point for electric vehicles be installed by the Applicant;
That the applicant integrate throughout the world the updated Building Code of Australia disability access standards agreed to by the State of Victoria in 2020 but which New South Wales failed to commit to;
That these measures be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsibile Authority.
I submit there is insufficient information about the vegetation proposed for the landscaping. I submit that only native canopy trees, shrubs and plants are to be used, be of the local indigenous ecological vegetation class, 2 at least canopy trees to be minimum 1.2m height that can exceed 5.0m height upon maturity.
Western boundary setback of the secondary dwelling exceeds building line of the original dwelling. I suggest consent condition that amends western setback to 1.2m however that is able to be mediated towards applicant's original western setback proposal if they are amenable to amendments encompassing the above conditions.
I do not consider that given the 24 month local weather data to date, and the issues of climate change and rising energy cost that the proposal of the Applicant responds adequately to contemporary community expectations.
The proposal does not respond adequately to the statements by the Responsibile Authority in the 24 months to date, in media and upon its web sites, regarding extremes of weather, summer temperatures that have exceeded 50⁰ in recent years, and climate change. I submit that media comment by the Responsibile Authority can be used to provide global guidance to matters of planning and development control.
The proposal is a mediocre, unadventurous proposal that fails to contemplate contemporary best practices and as seen in the Basix section seeks to merely, at times barely, meet minimum requirements rather than respond to the community expectations and offset the 2 areas in which the applicant fails to strictly comply with the DCP.
It is clearly a build-to-rent structure designed for minimal cost in order to purportedly meet requirements rather than respond to the the community's expectations of excellence in internal amenity, livability, comfort and high energy efficiency so one can live a busy comfortable daily life without excessive carbon footprint and energy costs.
I do not believe the applicant's proposal is an appropriate planning outcome without substantial amendments and if the applicant is opposed to the amendments that they either be added as conditions by the Responsibile Authority or in the alternate, that the proposal be refused approval by the Responsibile Authority.
