Architectural review suggests changes for rejected plan

An architectural review of the design of a building rejected by the Local Planning Panel earlier this year has suggested changes should be made to the building's design.

The review of the proposal for a six-storey mixed-use development at 227-231 Ocean View Rd, Ettalong, was conducted by architect Mr Ken Dyer of Dyer Design Company, Umina.

The review concluded: "The western facade facing the village centre, needs further resolution to reduce the impact of the perceived scale and bulk specially to address the building height variation sought.

"The proposal has requested a variation exceeding the height limits, although this would appear minor in the context of a numerical value only, it is exacerbated by the non-compliances in the boundary setback and building separation variation."

Mr Dyer suggested the western facade towards the village centre could be reduced in bulk and scale to be treated like the south-east corner and street facade which "are articulated to appear more like a four storey building".

"Has the applicant explored an additional half basement of carparking, freeing up the ground floor for an additional unit and deleting the penthouse level - thus ensuring the building could be contained within the building height limits?"

My Dyer also suggested: "The building line of commercial tenancy should be setback to allow for an activation zone - outdoor dining etc.

"The bedroom to Unit 106 mezzanine protruding into set back zone should be deleted and remain void areas per unit 107, so those intrusions remain as transparent as possible."

He questioned the question the orientation of the pop-out windows to the rear of the site.

"This encourages overlooking (especially at high level) of the private back yards of the adjoining residential area.

"I would suggest these are orientated to the front of the site to the long distant views."

Mr Dyer said many of the bedrooms were not of the required minimum size and a number of the living rooms were less than the minimum width.

A number of the units did not comply with ceiling height requirements.

My Dyer said he could not see how this could be addressed without further affecting the building height variation.

SOURCE:

DA Tracker, 6 Aug 2021

DA55896, Central Coast Council