69 ROWENA Pde RICHMOND HILL VIC 3121

July 2014
69 ROWENA Pde RICHMOND HILL VIC 3121 ResCode 54 Assessment
Contents:
1. Clause 54 Res Code assessment for proposed Part Demolition,
Alterations & Additions to 69 Rowena Pde, Richmond Hill VIC
3121
2. Clause 22.02 assessment for proposed changes to a site with a
contributory heritage overlay.
3. ResCode 52.06 assessment for reduction of car parking to zero.
The Proposed has been developed and reviewed under the State Planning
Policy, M.M.S and Yarra Planning Policy framework; with application of the
Planning Zone Overlays, and Particular Rescode Provisions specific to the
site, amenity, neighbourhood, heritage overlay and fossil fuel reduction.
54.01-1, 54.02A1. Neighbourhood & Site Description
Rowena Parade joins Noddle Street opposite Yarra Park Reserve. The
roadway is lined with bluestone drainage and has power assets expressed
along the south side of the parade. The Victorian Heritage Database Precinct
statement of significance analyses and categorizes Richmond Hill into five
sub categories. Rowena Parade is a component of the Richmond Hill (West
Sub-area); noting the area is set out on an irregular plan, as an accumulation
of small private subdivisions, diverse lot sizes, and small cottage
developments. Besides building identification the analysis gives brief insights
into the early residential /land developments and manufacturing that made the
neighbourhood.
Refer H0332A Victorian Heritage Database
The street form and character is kind of Melbourne-messy, advantaged also
by the stepped housing contour and the long/diverse time span envelope of
building ideas.
Application of a figure ground form diagram provides a topographical footprint
that fits with the Heritage Database subdivision and built cultural analysis.
The built heritage includes single and double storey residential housing in
Victorian, Neo-gothic, Italianate, Edwardian/Federation, Bungalow hybrids
and war-years. Descending the hill, the scale ranges from building complexes
of faith and learning, significant isolated mansions with generous gardens,
now occupied by carparks mainly, row housing and the small worker cottages.
Most addresses include shallow garden frontages. Former mercantile
enterprises and some residences have zero set back. An active cafe milkbar
provides tangible amenity and story to the street culture.
The traditional residential wall materials are brick, cement render and painted
weatherboard, cast-iron/concrete post and balustrades. Roofs feature in tiles,
some slate and roofing iron. Fences abutting the street are various in
1
materials, character and scale. Some addresses have no fence, providing
broad crossovers for off-street parking that abuts the front setback.
By mid to late 20th C, a different type of housing formula, characterized by the
two to three storey apartment block, embedded a different form and dynamic
into the neighbourhood character.
Constructed mainly in the 60s, finalized in the 1980's, in typical concrete, brick
or rendered block, the apartment introduced a rhythmic pattern with large
windows, open balconies (POS) and car parks. Each home with its' individual
entry addressed along the lot depth has mingled the public and private
interface with an unofficial network of pedestrian thoroughfares linking streets
and laneways.
The last period of buildings in the postmodern manner, contrived a return to
history. The terrace row re-emerged as a development opportunity.
The latest neighbourhood additions, firmly embedded in planning and heritage
policy are middle class contemporary additions. Regarded in this very limited
neighbourhood context as secondary; they are built predominantly into the
back of an existing dwelling. Liberal in taste these endeavours have
introduced a solid urban character. Set contextual with heritage, they have
provided a refreshing aesthetic and identity with the street culture.
The neighbourhood character is significantly expressed through the
opportunities and services in and linking the local vicinity. The physical
presence of the Melbourne city backdrop and MCG is an essential aspect of
the neighbourhood character, intensifying the sense of physical and social
density. Richmond Hill is bordered on all sides with public transport choices,
freeway networks. beautiful parks, walks and bicycle networks.
Street parking is busy but there always seems to be available.
Public and commercial enterprises are walking distance in any direction. The
Richmond neighbourhood precinct can provide everything stated in the
Objectives of Planning Victoria.
The included street photo document shows best the complex neighbourhood/
street character. This can be compared with the subject site for comparative
analysis of the application.
The Site:
The following planning designations overlay the subject site:
Residential 1 Zone (RZ1)
Heritage Overlay Schedule; HO 332A: designation is contributory
Single residential dwelling has two build periods: Hanley, the original dwelling
built between the two wars is the contributory element. The 1980s' addition
does not form part of this classification.
The lot is bordered on the west boundary with a cobbled bluestone ROW.
NOTE: INFORMATION IN PLANNING PROPERTY REPORT incorrectly highlights the subject site.
A Lot size of 439.22m2, divided by a 13.41m frontage and a Lot depth of
32.753m.
The site has an average slope gradient of 1:32, or from the lowest to the
highest R.L. at ground level difference of 1.935m. (diagonal profile)
2
Existing P.O.S rear = 129.9m2
Existing built footprint = 217.52m2
Existing Permeability =152.18m2 or 36.65%
The dwelling is presented from two periods: Handley, a double fronted
contributory building in essentially Bungalow style. Dated between 1925
1930s, Handley features a single storey redbrick residence with Marsielles
terra-cotta tile roof. The roof form complements the plan, a primary hip pitch,
with an ornamental secondary shingle-gable to the forward room and a bell
hipped veranda roof supported by large ornamented timber beam and squat
concrete columns in front of the second room. The centred entry is
approached from a fan of red brick steps through the enclosed veranda,
decorated with redbrick balustrade and complemented with rendered
elements. The triple sash window treatments feature pseudo Japanese form,
with lead-lights expressing federation and art deco motifs. Featured stringercourses complement the facade and articulate the window composition within
the walls. The roof has wide eaves and extended bargeboards.
The brick front fence could possibly be original to the house, Butlers' report
notes it as such. He also notes the garden as being a significant feature, it is
not. The front garden was crazy paved in the early sixties, removing most of
the permeability, the original serpentine path and period ornamental plantings.
Refer to Richmond Conservation Study for further detail.
Built into the north plane of Hanley is a double storey addition in the1980s'
vernacular post modern style. The addition has elements which refer to
Hanley and the neighbourhood, but is more noticeable for an architectural
discourse that knew nothing about history. This is the building envelope for
this application. The heritage report does not include this existing addition as
contributory to the neighbourhood.
Clause 54.01-2 Design Response
The Proposed:
The proposed is a contextual addition and refinement of the 1980s' building
envelope.
The design changes will alter the existing (Ex) aesthetic by way of different
massing, cladding and fenestration formulas. The design addresses the
laneway by reconfiguring the Ex pedestrian entry and promotes a presence of
observation with abutting public open space.
The architectural integrity of Hanley is recognised as being the primary
building element constituent with the street. The Proposed does not disrupt
the heritage panorama or intervene an unrecognizable scale and pattern to
the streetscape. The appearance and profile of the primary building element is
not visually intersected from the street.
No significant views lines or vantages to neighbouring sites or heritage places
are intersected or obscured.
The design is not about sub division, it is about providing a reorganized plan
for a safe and integrated working environment applicable with the Client Brief.
Cont'
3
The scale and massing responds with the neighbourhood and features of the
site. The design response objective re-establishes a more distinguishable
code between the primary and secondary building elements.
The proposed changes though slightly increasing the upper footprint are
countered with a change to the material pallet, massing formula and form. The
overall appearance will be lighter than the current masonry massing.
The Proposed is set within the zone noted as appropriate area for additions
as per Figure 2 Clause 22.02-5.7.1
Special attention has been given to the bathroom of which only a small part of
can be viewed from the street: at an approximate 45°angle, at a distance of
38.0m, and only from a single point on the opposite footpath!
The Bathroom roof is set below the primary upper-south wall eaves. Its'
placement within the Ex is substantially concealed by Hanley's hip rafter and
east roof flank. The larger mass of the upper south wall plane and east
bathroom wall appears as a singular continuous wall incorporating both
bathroom and upper south wall.
The Proposed does not negatively impact neighbouring amenity or Ex solar
advantages.
Clause 54.03-1 A3. Street setback existing
The primary front setback is unchanged.
The infill additions are averaged at 14.82m setback.
The mostly obscure proposed upper bathroom is excluded from this setback
measure because it is not significant from the street vantage, being positioned
behind the primary front roof form.
Clause 54.03-2 A4. Building height compliance
The maximum roof height GL. centred east, to roof capping = 7.500m.
The maximum building height G.L. centred west, to roof capping = 8.400m.
Clause 54.03-3 A5. Site coverage compliant
TOTAL SITE = 439.217m2
Proposed Building Envelope = 233.605m2
Site Coverage percentage = 53.186%
Clause 54.03-4 A6. Permeability compliant
The Proposed Site Permeability = 138.985m2
This provides a permeability of 31.643% for the total site area.
NOTE Front yard excluded in permeability percentage
4
Clause 54.03-5 A7. Energy efficiency
The Proposed is designed and orientated within the limits of the existing site
and neighbouring conditions.
The Ex photo voltaic cells will be reinstated.
Roof insulation: bulk and membrane, maximum R5.4 rating.
Wall insulation: bulk insulation of R2.5.
Windows are double glazed where applicable and laminated in wet areas. The
selected glazing system provides 6 Star thermal and acoustic ratings.
The Living areas are orientated north and abut the private open space with
advantage of passive solar conditions.
All changes to Ex and new additions will be wired for LED illumination.
Clause 54.03-6 A8. Significant trees compliant
There are no significant trees subject to removal or removed within the
previous twelve months of the application or amendment application.
Clause 54.03-7 A9. Parking provision
There is no existing onsite car parking. Car parking is not included in this
renovation. There is no increase in occupancy or number of dwellings on site.
See Clause 52.06 attachment
Clause 54.04-1 A10. Side and rear setbacks compliance
Proposed ground & upper Lvl side setback EAST = Nil, being extended along
the boundary from the Ex masonry wall.
Proposed ground & upper Lvl side setback WEST = Nil, being extended to the
boundary, side ROW laneway.
The ground floor Ex rear setback does not really change, being an addition
which fills in an area enclosed by an existing masonry wall. The setback is
6.900m.
The Proposed upper floor setback also does not change. The rearrangement
with the upper Lvl converts half of the Ex veranda into a Bed 4/Studio. The
rear setback upper floor = 9.353m.
Clause 54.04-2 All. Walls on boundaries compliant
Refer to DRG N°7,11,12
The Proposed extends to both side boundaries.
East Boundary wall: Ex 7.600m length. Proposed east boundary wall: 9.600m,
at ground level. The Ex East boundary wall height is not increased.
West Boundary wall: Proposed length: 2.300m at Ground Level & 3.100m
Upper Level.
Cont'
5
The maximum West boundary wall height is 6.500m from G.L.,
The wall height does not meet this Standard. The Proposed wall abuts a
ROW laneway.
Clause 54.04-3 Al2. Daylight to existing windows compliant
The proposed does not alter existing neighbouring habitable windows clear to
the sky or other. The subject site additions on the east and west boundary
abutments are set approx 6.0m away from the closest neighbouring habitable
windows.
Clause 54.04-4 A13. North-facing windows compliant
The proposed does not impact upon existing, neighbouring north facing
windows.
Clause 54.04-5 A14. Overshadowing open space
Refer DRG N°23, 24.
The subject site does not negatively impact neighbouring private open
spaces.
The upper Lvl habitable window of the neighbouring site WEST, appears over
shadowed by the Proposed addition. A perpendicular shadow fall diagram
demonstrates this appearance is unfounded.
The neighbouring site EAST, is partly impacted further with increased
overshadowing at the 3pm solar angle. The overshadowing increase is shown
to impact half of the 2.7m wide west facing ground Lvl window of the
apartment closest to Rowena Pde.
See attached photo document
Clause 54.04-6 A15. Overlooking objective compliant
Refer DRG N°25, 26, 27
All proposed upper floor windows in habitable rooms, that face neighbouring
habitable windows and private open space, have fixed opaque glazing to a
height of 1700mm, above F.F.L.. Some windows use fixed hood screens in
combination with solar shading requirements.
The proposed ground level windows and private open space are enclosed by
fencing to a height minimum of 1.8m above ground level.
Clause 54.05-1 A16. Daylight to new windows compliant
The Proposed has more than the required minimum standard for daylight
through habitable room windows, which directly face outdoor spaces greater
than the 3.02 metre minimum of clearance to the sky.
Clause 54.05-2 A17. Private open space compliant
The total private open space sum is 121.9m2, equivalent to 26% of the Lot
6
Clause 54.05-3 A18. Solar access to open space compliant.
The existing private open space has a north orientation and is not impacted
by the Proposed.
Clause 54.06 A19. Detailed design
Refer to DRG N°13
The amended form presents a typical vernacular inner-city addition, regulated
through the objectives of Rescode 54 Standards, Clause 52.06 Car parking
and Clause 22.02 Heritage Policy Guidelines of the Yarra Planning Scheme.
The design brief includes providing improved management, social function
and amenity for the living areas with private open space.
The redesign of the Upper Lvl offers specific independences to safely and
creatively accommodate a young adult with intensive needs and activities.
The layout is articulated to be stimulating and carer manageable.
The relocation of the Ex stairwell is best safe practice.
The roof retains the current tile and pitched form, though without eaves. The
East boundary wall is extended but not increased in height.
Building on the existing form the proposed provides a small palette of
contemporary materials typical of neighbourhood contextual-residential
interventions. The Ex roof tiles are retained.
The current masonry backdrop to Handley is too similar with Hanley's own
brick cladding. The visual bulk, even though it is mostly concealed behind
Hanley, appears very heavy and combative with the original building, The
upper Ivl masonry cladding will be replaced with Primeline weather board
profile.
The east boundary masonry wall and ground Lvl brickwork is retained.
The pedestrian entry proposition, abutting the west laneway, is scaled and
clad differently to the main mass. The material treatments provide a familiar
civic identity with the laneway, and are featured to initiate public awareness of
an entry. The selected metal cladding is applied in vertical profile and is
terminates in line with the top of the Ex rendered masonry fence. A bluestone
plinth of block veneer infills the demolished fence.
Window composition is complex. Where appropriate with the street identity
and Hanley, the profile is scaled to suit. In most instances, because the
window detailing is non public, the fenestration relates to the private open
space, privacy, practical amenity and the urban horizon.
The proposed envelope, excluding Hanley, is designed to meet a 6 star rating,
and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
A20. Front fence.
The existing front fence is not part of the application.
Author: Martins Apsitis
7
69 ROWENA PDE RICHMOND HILL VIC 3121 Rescode 22.02 Assessment
Clause 22.07 Development abutting Laneways
The Proposed laneway abutment has been designed with user and public
safety awareness.
The character of the laneway has been considered locally with respect to
character, scale and materials.
The design reconfigures the Ex side entrance threshold for safe pedestrian
and vehicular access along the laneway. The Proposed side entry is low-light
illuminated, and does not spill or direct light upon the neighbouring habitable
window.
Window treatments abutting the Laneway are proportional to the Proposed
and the laneway scale. The windows are designed to not overlook
neighbouring habitable windows or neighbouring POS.
The development does not obstruct existing access to other properties in the
laneway or have features that could protrude and block public or emergency
services access.
Clause 22.02-5.7.1 Refer DRG N°20, 21, 22.
The proposed secondary ground floor front setbacks, facing the street, are
guided by Figure 1 Clause 22.02-5.7.1, and established in response to the
site's heritage overlay HO 332A. This provides a recessive form to the
addition and retains the definition of the contributory built element within the
dual house set.
The upper additions to the Ex upper level, are established within the Figure 2
envelope.
Clause 22.02-5.7.1 Upper Storey Additions
The upper level setback, relative to the street, is established in accordance
with the policy guidelines in Clause 22.02 and with particular application of
clause 22.02-5.7.1 & 2. built into/out of and around the existing two levels of
the 1980s' addition.
Proposed materials and claddings are proprietary and common with those
displayed by other contemporary additions in the street.
Author: Martins Apsitis
8
69 Rowena Parade Richmond ResCode 52.06 Car Parking Assessment
The application permit is for a Rescode Clause 52.06-6, seeking a reduction
of car parking to zero requirement.
Clause 52.06
There is no increase in the demand for car parking requirements related to
this application.
The proposed does not alter the existing neighbourhood conditions of on
street car parking. Existing use of on street parking does not adversely affect
the amenity of the locality. It is the norm.
The application is relative to and supports existing sustainable transport
alternatives to the motor car, as also championed by the City of Yarra. The
subject site is minutes away via walking, from medical, public services and
other professional services. Shopping strips are provided in Bridge Rd, Swan
St and Church St.
Clause 52.06-1
No new use is proposed.
The site footprint increase is 7.0m2. This has resulted from articulating a safe
exit for the upper level directly with the ROW laneway, and also from shifting
the Ex north facing bathroom in order to provide improved habitable room
amenity with private open space.
Clause 52.06-5 Number of carpark spaces required
Application of the clause and Clause 54.03-7 requires provision of 2 on-site
car parking facilities which is relative to three or more bedrooms within a
single dwelling use.
The existing and proposed conditions do not permit provision of two cars
being parked manageably on site.
Clause 52-06-6 Application to reduce the carparking requirement to zero.
The application seeks a reduction to zero, based on the following site and
neighbourhood conditions.
All public transport infrastructure and services are immediate and accessible
after a few minutes walk from Rowena Parade. These services are available
from Punt Rd, Church St, Swan St and Bridge Rd. Public transport is currently
used for daily activities. Alternative transport facilities and walking options
instead of a car, is physically, financially, environmentally and culturally
advantageous for the residents, when compared to the logistics of using a car.
Being an inner city location, it is the car which is the alternative!
Melbourne CBD is only 1.6km distance. The walking time is approximately 12
minutes and provides the occupants a stimulating walk or ride through Yarra
Park or through the public park network for the arts precinct in South
Melbourne.
9
To create on site access a significant and useful Jacaranda tree would require
removal. The tree currently shades habitable rooms and private open space in
summer because of the various orientations. Importantly the tree obscures
some of the existing overlooking from the upper level neighbouring habitable
rooms abutting the north boundary.
The ground level would require excavation of 700mm to 610mm below the
site ground level to transition from the ROW G.L boundary abutment.
The ramp egress would be 4.0m min in length. The required pavement
including the ramp would be 7.2m minimum length into the private open
space.
The north-west corner of the existing and proposed would require deepening
of existing footings or part demolition and reconstruction to ensure that the
angle of repose from the walls in proximity is not undermined by the
excavation.
With the amount of site clearance required for a single car park, the upper
level-down looking from the neighbouring residences flanking the east and
north boundary would establish an unacceptable overlooking/privacy
experience. The limited existing privacy within the POS and habitable rooms
could not be provided as per Standard A15. The private amenity would be
compromised in all of the secluded/private open space, sitting room, living
room and kitchen.
With these compromises to some standards and costs to make off street
parking viable it does appear counter intuitive to the application.
NOTE this site has also been numbered as No 67 by the Titles Office
see attachment
The Planning Application is numbered as 69 Rowena Pde
Author: Martins Apsitis
10

Download Report