2560130
1. Minor amendments to elevations of house types A, B, C, D and E, including amendments to window and/or door size and design. 2. Minor amendments to house type G comprising of reduction in footprint and floor area; changes to side gable elevation design; removal of flat roof to side; addition of pitched roof to rear ground floor projection and minor internal layout changes. 3. Minor amendments to duplex types F1 and F2 comprising minor internal layout changes, change of rear projection flat roof to lean to roof, change of front projection to maisonette en-trance from flat roof to lean to roof and reduction in height from three storey to single storey, size of entrance area at ground floor area providing access to upper floor apartments reduced, ridge height reduced by circa 100mm, and stone cladding to front elevation extended to eaves level. 4. Lowering of finished floor level of units 42 and 43 by 500mm and of units 36 to 40 both inclu-sive by 225mm. 5. Minor layout changes including relocation of accessible parking opposite duplex block 1 to space between duplex block 1 and block 2, amendments to road and footpath levels, amendments to communal and public open space levels and configurations including removal of retaining walls. And design of private rear gardens revised to eliminate steps. 6. Reduction in overall roof height of house types by circa 1.51 metres for Type A, 1.38 metres for house types B, 1.32 metres for house type C, 1.51 for house type D, 706mm for house type G, and 100mm for duplex types F1 and F2, and an increase to ridge height of 230 mm for house type E. 7. All associated and ancillary works
Core Refusal Reason
The proposed amendments to site levels and boundary treatments are considered to result in an overbearing impact and negative visual amenity for neighboring properties, compounded by an unjustified omission of landscaping.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed changes to levels on the southeastern boundary would result in excessively tall boundary treatments (retaining wall + fence), leading to overbearing impacts and negative visual amenity for properties to the south.
- The omission of tree planting in the rear gardens of the southwest portion of the site has not been adequately justified and, in combination with ground level changes, negatively impacts the residential amenity of the dwellings.
- The applicant failed to clarify the nature and extent of 'associated and ancillary works' and did not demonstrate that internal boundary treatments would comply with the specific requirements of Condition 18 of the parent permission (PRR 21/1005).