Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

Name of Applicant

Forme Projex C/- Masterplan SA Pty Ltd

Address

42-48 Hurtle Square, Adelaide

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO AGENDA REPORT 2 – 26 ATTACHMENTS 27 – 345 1: DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVISIONS 27 – 39 2: ZONING MAP AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF LOCALITY 40 – 47 3: APPLICATION & PLANS a. Development Application Form 49 – 51 b. Certificates of Title 52 – 57 c. Planning Report by Masterplan SA Pty Ltd 58 – 98 d. Plans by Locus Architecture 99 – 131 e. Parking and Access Assessment by Cirqa Pty Ltd 132 – 147 f. Preliminary Environmental Site History Assessment by Mott MacDonald Australia Pty Ltd 148 – 233 g. Noise Impact Assessment by Resonate Acoustics 234 – 248 h. Services Assessment Report by BESTEC 249 – 253 i. Building Rules Compliance report by TECON 254 – 255 j. Specification for semi-automatic Uniparker N5303 system by Nußbaum GmbH & Co. KG 256 – 264 k. Previous Advice from the Office of Design & Architecture SA 265 – 270 l. Keim Royalan Brochure by Keim Mineral Paints Ltd 271 – 273 4: AGENCY COMMENTS 274 – 278 5: COUNCIL COMMENTS 279 – 282 6: REPRESENTATIONS 283 – 290 7: RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS 291 – 317 8: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION a. Original Application Plans 318 – 345

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

OVERVIEW

Application No 020/A040/16 Unique ID/KNET ID ID No. 1405 / Knet ID 2016/13983/01 Applicant Forme Projex C/- Masterplan SA Forme Projex, Locus Architecture, Masterplan SA, Mott Proponent Group MacDonald, Cirqa, Resonate Acoustics, BESTEC, Nußbaum GmbH & Co, Keim Mineral Paints Proposal Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a nine (9) storey residential flat building with ground floor commercial tenancy and associated car parking Subject Land 42–48 Hurtle Square, Adelaide Zone/Policy Area City Frame Zone Relevant Authority Inner Metropolitan Development Assessment Committee of the Development Assessment Commission Lodgement Date 10 August 2016 Council Corporation of the City of Adelaide Development Plan Adelaide City Council (consolidated 24 September 2015) Type of Development Merit Public Notification Category 2 Representations 2 (2 wishing to be heard by appearing personally) Referral Agencies Government Architect Report Author Ben Scholes, Project Officer RECOMMENDATION Development Plan Consent subject to conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The applicant seeks planning consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use building comprising residential apartments, ground-floor car parking and a retail tenancy in the City Frame Zone at 42-48 Hurtle Square, Adelaide.

The proposal is a merit, Category 2 kind of development that triggers a statutory referral to the Associate Government Architect (AGA) on the Government Architect’s behalf. Whilst affordable housing does not form part of the proposal, overall the proposed land use is considered acceptable.

The AGA is supportive of various amendments to the application undertaken in response to referral feedback and representors’ concerns, however the AGA does not support the proposed building massing and bulk recommending further refinement of architectural expression including consideration of alternatives to applied material finishes.

At 29.5 metres (excluding rooftop plant enclosure) the height of the proposed building marginally exceeds the maximum envisaged within the City Frame Zone. This is supported on the basis it achieves an adequate transition between maximum scale in the City Frame Zone and less intense development in the adjacent City Living Zone.

The proposal is largely consistent with Development Plan policy regarding design and appearance of buildings, activation, boundary setbacks, interface management, apartment amenity and environmental factors.

Traffic and access matters including car and bicycle parking, waste management, crime prevention through environmental design, energy efficiency and management of wind impacts are all considered to have been acceptably addressed.

Overall, the proposal is considered to display sufficient merit to warrant planning consent subject to conditions. Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. BACKGROUND

The applicant seeks approval for a 9 storey mixed use development at the south east corner of Hurtle Square and Halifax Street. It should be noted that two buildings to be developed in stages on the opposite (north) side of Halifax Street by the same proponent were granted consent by the Development Assessment Commission on 12 November 2015 (and varied on 17 March 2016) following a deferral on 24 September 2015.

One of the approved buildings, which is of a comparable scale and configuration to the development proposed in this application, is currently under construction at 34-40 Hurtle Square.

1.1 Strategic Context

A significant review of Adelaide City planning policies was undertaken in March 2012, resulting in a new policy framework that supports a city form aligned with the directions of the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and creating a more active and vibrant city. New policies of relevance place an emphasis on design quality, interface relationships and appropriate treatment of Adelaide’s Park Lands and Squares.

1.2 Pre-Lodgement Process

This application was lodged with the Commission on 10 August 2016 without prior engagement with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure’s pre- lodgement service and consequently, no pre-lodgement agreement has been reached.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The proposal includes demolition of two existing single storey buildings located on the subject land and construction of a nine storey mixed use building with associated vehicle parking at ground floor. Application details are contained in Attachment 3.

Land Use Mixed use building comprising ground floor commercial tenancy and Description associated vehicle parking with upper levels residential apartments Building Height 9 storeys / 29.5 metres to highest parapet (western section) Description of Ground floor commercial tenancy, entry foyer, vehicle parking, levels waste storage and service areas, 8 residential levels above ground Apartment floor Dwelling Type Floor Area (excluding POS) area (excluding Studio (Lots 107-707) 53-55.3 square metres balconies) One Bedroom (Lot 101) 77.7 square metres Two Bedroom (Lots 201-701) 94 square metres Two Bedroom (Lots 102-702) 94 square metres Two Bedroom (Lots 105-705) 65 square metres Two Bedroom (Lots 106-706) 94.3 square metres Two Bedroom (Lots 108-708) 83.5-83.7 square metres Three Bedroom (Lot 103-703) 113.9 square metres Three Bedroom (Lot 801) 267 square metres Three Bedroom (Lot 805) 145.8 square metres Three Bedroom (Lot 807) 122.5 square metres

Site Access Motor vehicle access from Harriet Street, pedestrian and cyclist access from Halifax Street and Hurtle Square Car and Bicycle 46 car parks and 61 bicycle parks at ground level, with 23 bicycle Parking storage spaces in apartments (84 bicycle parking spaces total) Encroachments Balconies on the east, north and west elevations and service enclosures doors at the building’s northeast and southwest corners projecting over the property boundary

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

3. SITE AND LOCALITY

3.1 Site Description

The subject land is located at 42-48 Hurtle Square, Adelaide and is comprised of 2 contiguous allotments situated at the eastern side of Hurtle Square on the southern corner of Halifax Street, with a total site area of approximately 700 square metres.

One-way roadways abut the subject land to the east (Harriett Street) and west (Hurtle Square). The site’s frontages to Hurtle Square and Harriett Street are approximately 24.5 metres, with the frontage to Halifax Street in the order of 29 metres. The subject land is formally described in the table below.

Lot No Plan No Street Suburb Hundred CT Reference A5 F125389 Hurtle Square Adelaide Adelaide 5219/212 A576 F182228 Hurtle Square Adelaide Adelaide 5357/29

No easements are registered on the Certificates of Title for either property.

Figure 3 – Location Map

3.2 Locality

The subject land is developed with two single-storey buildings containing office tenancies each having primary frontage to Hurtle Square. The immediate locality consists of retail and office tenancies and dwellings in the form of semi-detached and row dwellings ranging from one to three storeys in height.

Hurtle Square provides the area with a spacious, landscaped setting characterized by substantial mature trees and a high level of pedestrian amenity. Halifax Street, a local connector road, intersects with Pulteney Street, a primary city access road and high concentration public transport route at the approximate centre of the Square roughly 70 metres to the west of the subject land. Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

A Development Plan Zoning Map and photographs of the locality are contained in Attachment 2.

4. COUNCIL COMMENTS or TECHNICAL ADVICE

4.1 Adelaide City Council

Advice was sought from Council administration regarding technical matters. The following points were raised for consideration:  Proposed canopies over Hurtle Square & Halifax Street footpaths are supported;  The extent of proposed balcony encroachment will require the Council’s consent acting as landowner;  Encroachments of east-facing balconies at Level 1 should be eliminated to avoid impact from large trucks / service vehicles (ie waste removal lifting mechanisms);  Screening applied to east-facing balconies is excessive and is not supported;  Provision of disabled-access car parking and re-use of harvested stormwater are encouraged; and  Changes to on-street parking will be subject to consultation and should be directed to Council’s On-Street Parking Controls Team.

Additional technical matters concerning Council assets and infrastructure are proposed to be dealt with via condition of any consent granted. The applicant’s responses to these matters is discussed within the Planning Assessment (Section 8).

5. AGENCY COMMENTS

5.1 Government Architect

The Government Architect is a mandatory referral in accordance with Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008. The Associate Government Architect (AGA) responded to the referral by citing a number of perceived deficiencies and nominating the following elements which he believed would benefit from protection as part of any consent granted:  Refinement of architectural expression to reduce apparent bulk;  Review of finish to concrete walls;  Reconfiguration of apartment layout to eliminate inboard bedrooms to provide quality access to natural light and ventilation;  Confirmation of ceiling height to apartments; and  Material sample board.

In response to the above, the applicant has selectively revised application details which were resubmitted to the AGA for further review. It was concluded that further design development and refinement are required to obtain the AGA’s full support.

The AGA’s statutory referral responses are contained in Attachment 4 and are discussed within the Planning Assessment.

6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application is assigned to Category 2 for public notification purposes as the site of the development is adjacent land to land in the City Living Zone and the development exceeds 22 metres in building height, in accordance with City Frame Zone PDC 27(b)(ii).

A total of 2 representations were received, which are summarised in the following table and located spatially on the Representation Map provided as Figure 4, overleaf.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

Representor ID Concern/s Raised  Building height and density  Traffic and parking congestion  Noise impacts R1  Overshadowing / access to sunlight  Encroachment of privacy  Potential wind impacts  Overlooking of indoor and outdoor living areas R2  Noise impacts  Traffic congestion

City Frame Zone City Living Zone

Figure 4 – Representation Map

The applicant’s response to concerns raised by representors is summarised below.

Concern raised Applicant’s response Building Height and  Stainless steel cable system introduced to a height of 12 Density metres on the south elevation adjacent the north-facing ground level courtyard of 9 Harriett Street / 50 Hurtle Square allowing for climbing plants to soften the visual impact of the proposed boundary wall  Commitment was given to the adjoining owner (R1) to finish all exposed sections of southern boundary wall in alabaster white mineral paint to satisfy aesthetic requirement  High level horizontal slot openings introduced to western edge of southern façade over levels 4-7 for further articulation Traffic and Parking  On-site waste storage area has been increased to reduce Congestion frequency of rubbish collection, from three times a week by Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

private contractor to once a week via Council contractor Noise Impacts  Northeast balconies over levels 1-7 have been reconfigured to focus activity to the central balcony area and mitigate noise impacts  Ground floor ventilation slots have been removed from the car parking area’s east wall to reduce transmission of engine noise  On-site waste storage area has been increased to reduce anticipated frequency of rubbish collection (refer above)  External air-conditioning compressors were relocated from east and west facing balconies (apartment types 1, 2 and 8) Overlooking /  North-eastern balcony encroachments over levels 1-7 have Encroachment of been reconfigured (depth reduced) to mitigate potential Privacy overlooking to the east  750mm high fixed planters with screening plants have been introduced at east facing balconies on level 8  1.6m high frosted glass privacy screens introduced to southern end of south west balconies (apartments 101-201)

Both representors have indicated a wish to be heard by the Commission by appearing in person. Copies of each representation and the applicant’s consolidated responses are contained in Attachment 6 and Attachment 7, respectively.

7. POLICY OVERVIEW

The subject land is located within the City Frame Zone as described within the Adelaide (City) Council Development Plan, consolidated 24 September 2015.

The proposal is neither complying nor non-complying within the City Frame Zone and will be assessed on its merits against the relevant provisions of the Development Plan.

7.1 City Frame Zone

The Zone envisages medium to high-scale residential development supported by a complementary mix of non-residential uses with building heights not exceeding 29 metres north of Gilles and Gilbert Streets.

The location and scale of buildings will achieve high quality urban design outcomes. Development on key corner sites and squares should create landmark buildings which provide a strong built form edge and feature strong horizontal emphasis with clearly defined and segmented vertical elements.

Built form should provide a transition down in scale and intensity at the Zone’s boundaries to maintain the amenity of properties located within the adjoining City Living Zone.

Development on larger (catalyst) sites will be designed to carefully manage the interface with sensitive uses in the City Living Zone, particularly with regard to massing, proportions, overshadowing, traffic and noise-related impacts.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

Figure 5 – Zoning Map

7.2 Council Wide

Council Wide provisions provide guidance in relation to achieving high quality architectural and urban design outcomes, suitable bulk and scale of buildings and appropriate housing choice with regard to private open space, minimum dwelling floor areas, functional apartment layouts and access to natural light and ventilation.

7.3 Overlays

7.3.1 Affordable Housing

The proposal is subject to the affordable housing overlay as depicted on Development Plan Map Adel/A (Overlay 15b) which recommends that development comprising 20 or more dwellings should include a minimum of 15 percent affordable housing.

8. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Adelaide (City) Council Development Plan, which are contained in Appendix One.

8.1 Quantitative Provisions

Development Plan Proposed Guideline Comment Guideline Achieved Building 29m north of Gilles and 29.5m to the top YES Negligible variance Height Gilbert Streets (Except of the highest NO to recommended where the airport’s parapet (31.2m PARTIAL height guideline operations require a to the top of roof considered lesser height) plant platform) acceptable Land Use Development should Ground floor YES √ comprise wholly commercial NO residential buildings or tenancy and PARTIAL mixed use buildings associated vehicle Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

with non-residential parking with development at the upper levels ground/first floor level residential and residences above apartments Affordable Development No dedicated YES Studio dwellings Housing comprising 20 or more affordable NO may satisfy the dwellings should housing included PARTIAL current affordable include a minimum of housing price 15 percent affordable criteria, however housing the applicant does not proposed to formalise this Car No minimum or 46 car parking YES √ Parking maximum allocation of spaces proposed NO on-site parking is at ground floor PARTIAL identified; sufficient supply of car parking is encouraged to meet community expectations and minimise traffic impacts Bicycle 1 space for every 61 bicycle parks YES √ Parking dwelling with a total at ground level, NO floor area < 150m2 23 dedicated PARTIAL 2 spaces for every bicycle storage dwelling with a total spaces within floor area > 150m2 apartments Additional provision for visitors of 1 space for (84 bicycle every 10 dwellings parking spaces in (equates to 61 spaces total) in total) Front Minimal or no setback Building YES √ Setback and provide tall walls constructed to all NO when viewed from the site boundaries PARTIAL main road frontage to achieve a consistent built form façade. Side Minimal or no setback Building YES √ Setback and provide tall walls constructed to all NO when viewed from the site boundaries PARTIAL main road frontage to achieve a consistent built form façade. Rear Development directly Building YES The City Living Setback abutting the City Living constructed to all NO Zone boundary is Zone should avoid tall, site boundaries PARTIAL located at the sheer walls at the centreline of interface by ensuring Harriet Street and walls greater than 3m does not directly high are set back at abut the subject least 2m from the rear land, which does allotment boundary not feature a with further articulation distinguishable at the upper levels rear boundary Private Studio – No minimum Studio – 7.8m2 YES √ Open 1B/R – 8m2 1B/R – 16.3m2 NO Space 2B/R – 11m2 2B/R – 11.5m2 to PARTIAL 3B/R – 15m2 15.4m2 3B/R – 21.1m2 to 106.6m2 Storage Studio – 6m3 Studio – 15m3 YES √ 1B/R – 8m3 1B/R – 18m3 NO 2B/R – 10m3 2B/R – 13m3 to PARTIAL 3B/R – 12m3 23.7m3 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

3B/R – 22m3 to 118.4m3

8.2 Land Use

City Frame Zone PDC 2 and PDC 3 encourage non-residential uses at ground floor level and residences above, provided non-residential uses comprise no more than 40 percent of any new building. The application satisfies each of these principles and the proposal is considered an appropriate use of land within the Zone.

8.3 Affordable Housing

The application does not incorporate affordable housing, although the applicant has indicated the studio living apartments included in development (constituting 13.5 percent of the dwelling offering) are likely to satisfy the current affordable housing price limit.

The applicant also asserts that the presence of additional studio dwellings under construction on the opposite side of Halifax Street increase the proportion of comparable housing over each of the developments to more than 30 percent of the total offering, thus satisfying the intent of the affordable housing overlay. Nonetheless, the absence of the formalised affordable housing as a component of the application is a departure from Development Plan and is considered a deficiency.

8.4 Building Height

City Frame Zone PDC 14 establishes that building height should not exceed 29 metres north of Gilles and Gilbert Streets except where the airport’s operations require a lesser height or the development is located on a site greater than 1,500 square metres, neither of which applies to the subject land.

The proposed building would reach 29.5 metres to the top of the western parapet and 31.2 metres to the top of the rooftop plant platform. The proposed vertical dimension marginally exceeds the maximum height envisaged by PDC 14 and is not dissimilar to the height of the development under construction by the applicant on the north side of Halifax Street (28.55 metres to top of the lift overrun).

The applicant’s corner site proposals will combine to form a conspicuous gateway to Hurtle Square and provide floor space yields considered capable of activating the locality and framing the Square as sought by City Frame Zone PDC 15. The proposed 29.5 metre scale is seen as acceptable and has the in-principle support of both the AGA and Council administration.

8.5 Setbacks and Transition

City Frame Zone PDC 16 anticipates buildings generally constructed to the primary road frontage to provide tall and consistent built form façades when viewed from the main road corridor. Conversely, PDC 17 recommends that development on land directly abutting the City Living Zone avoid tall, sheer walls at the interface by ensuring walls greater than 3 metres in height are set back at least 2 metres from the rear allotment boundary with further articulation at upper levels.

The proposed building will be constructed to the full extent of the subject land’s boundaries, satisfying the Zone’s desire for uninterrupted built form and meeting the intent of Council Wide PDC 19(a) which seeks development that reinforces the City’s urban character by defining and enclosing the City Squares with a continuous edge of peripheral buildings.

As the boundary between the City Frame and City Living Zones is located at the centreline of Harriet Street and given the subject land has no distinct rear boundary, Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016 the development is not bound by provisions of PDC 17. Accordingly, the siting of the proposal is considered suitable, albeit based on a perspective taken primarily from the expectations of the City Frame Zone.

Whilst it is accepted that the horizontal separation provided by Harriet Street (shown below) removes the need to adopt a notional boundary setback in this location, it is nonetheless considered appropriate for development of the scale proposed to transition down at the Zone’s boundaries to maintain the amenity of the City Living Zone, as sought by City Frame Zone Objective 7.

Harriett Street – View from South

Despite satisfying boundary setback provisions relevant to corner sites on a prominent City Square, the retention of maximum height built form in proximity to a common zone boundary can be considered incongruent with Development Plan provisions which promote reduced building scale where higher intensity development approaches lower scale, sensitive uses.

The proponent asserts that the development accords with the maximum height nominated by City Frame Zone PDC 14 which, in combination with the physical separation provided by the width of Harriett Street, satisfies the Zone’s building height hierarchy and appropriately manages the envisaged transition down to the 11-metre height in the City Living Zone.

The matter rests on whether Harriett Street’s 7.1 metre separation distance adequately substitutes for diminished physical built form as a realistic means of achieving a successful transition from the proposed 9 storey scale to the currently anticipated maximum height of 3 storeys in the adjacent City Living Zone.

8.6 Design and Appearance

Buildings in the City Frame Zone will achieve high quality urban design outcomes with development on key corner sites at entrances to the Squares creating landmark buildings with strong horizontal emphasis, clearly defined and segmented vertical elements and tall, well-articulated façades.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

The building exterior is to be composed of extensive glazing and stack bond wall tiles at ground floor and two-toned mineral paint and granosite render finishes distinguishing the building’s base, middle and top sections.

North, east and west elevations are articulated with modulated balcony spaces bound by glass balustrades, floor to ceiling glazing and upper level windows where bedrooms and ensuites are positioned against north and east-facing external walls. Level 8 and the rooftop canopy are distinguished with dark material finishes, continuous glass balustrades and floor to ceiling glazing.

Repetition of indented balcony spaces over levels 1 to 8 and the north elevation’s glass lift shaft frame provide vertical definition to complement the horizontality of balcony soffits and balustrading. This aligns with design strategies encouraged in the City Frame Zone and reflects the design approach applied in the applicant’s approved development across Halifax Street, save for the symmetrical composition of that building’s frontage to Hurtle Square.

Upon review of the originally lodged plans the AGA was not supportive of the proposed form of building massing, suggesting that opportunities for further articulation of form existed to reduce the dominant bulk of the development whilst acknowledging Harriet Street would separate the subject land from the adjoining City Living Zone.

The AGA also recommended further consideration of materials with finish and colour integral to their fabric, rather than an applied finish.

In response, application details were selectively amended with the charcoal paint finish and black render originally intended over the building’s northwest exterior being replaced with alabaster paint finish and paper white render to reduce vertical emphasis; original and amended perspective images are provided below (and overleaf) for comparison purposes.

Original Perspective – View from West Amended Perspective – View from West

Perforated metal screens were removed from east facing balconies over levels 3 to 8 with permeable lower height balustrade treatments positioned over levels 1 and 2 to mitigate the building’s mass and bulk when viewed from the east whilst addressing overlooking concerns.

The top floor apartments were also set back from the eastern boundary with an elongated roof canopy introduced to further reinforce the building’s top section, replacing the original configuration of dark roof canopies formerly separated by an alabaster-finish parapet wall extended above the roof line.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

Original Perspective – View from East Amended Perspective – View from East

The removal of balustrade screens and level 8 modifications are considered to have improved the east elevation’s appearance by revealing a greater extent of articulation and modulated form, and further emphasizing the difference between middle and top sections. Substitution of colour at the building’s northwest corner also lightens the presence of the structure on the Hurtle Square frontage.

Amended plans were resubmitted for further review by the AGA who, despite being encouraged by the applicant’s amendments and the reduction in vertical emphasis, indicated that “further development and refinement of architectural expression and apartment layouts is required in order to warrant my full support for the proposal”.

On balance, the proposed design strategies are considered appropriate in the City Frame Zone. The quality of design as it presents to the Hurtle Square frontage and its Halifax Street corner is considered suitable, however the building continues to display considerable bulk and mass, principally at the Harriett Street frontage.

8.7 Interface

The City Frame Zone anticipates development on larger catalyst sites demonstrating quality contemporary design generally of greater height or intensity than their surroundings, with development designed to carefully manage the interface with sensitive uses in the City Living Zone.

Although the subject land is less than 1,500 square metres and does not qualify as a catalyst site for the purposes of City Frame Zone PDCs 18 to 22, the Zone’s desire for careful interface management remains a valid consideration in respect of amenity impacts caused by building massing, proportion, overlooking, overshadowing, traffic and noise-related impacts.

8.7.1 Massing and Proportion

Council Wide (Built Form and Townscape) policy concerning height, bulk and scale encourages development in non-residential Zones that abuts land in a City Living Zone, the Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone or the North Adelaide Historic (Conservation) Zone to transition between high intensity development and lower intensity development in the adjacent Zone by focussing taller elements away from the common Zone boundary.

Although the City Frame Zone expressly encourages residential development associated with non-residential uses and thus the Zone technically is not ‘non- residential’ in nature, the intent of this policy aligns directly with that of City Frame Zone Objective 11 and each are considered relevant to the assessment.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

The proposed building height and the site’s dimensions result in the development’s relative proportions being close to 1:1:1 and consequently, the building’s mass and form is virtually that of a cube which would sit prominently on its corner site as desired in the Zone whilst introducing a potentially disproportionate scale relationship with established development, particularly the 2 and 3 storey row dwellings to the east.

What may be interpreted as overbearing mass and excessive scale in this setting is expected to be moderated through positioning of indented balcony areas and transparency afforded by extensive glazing over all street frontages, which should contribute to minimising the structure’s overall mass when viewed in three dimensions.

Although further reduction in upper level built form would likely bring the proposal in closer alignment with Development Plan policy advocating for more gradual transition in intensity under these circumstances, the anticipated impact of the proposal’s mass and proportion on adjoining smaller-scale development is considered a satisfactory consequence of a contemporary infill opportunity which responds adequately to spatial relationships at remaining road frontages.

8.7.2 Overlooking

Potential for diminished privacy through overlooking or direct views into existing residential development has been acknowledged as a concern raised by representors for which effective interface treatments are considered necessary.

Council Wide PDC 66 encourages medium to high scale residential development designed and sited to minimise overlooking of habitable rooms within adjacent development. PDC 67 encourages development incorporating habitable room windows, balconies, terraces or decks to be setback from boundaries with adjacent sites at least 3 metres to provide an adequate level of amenity and privacy, and not restrict the reasonable development of adjacent sites.

The original application details included perforated metal screens to 1600mm with a maximum of 25 percent openings affixed to all east facing balconies over levels 1 to 8, to limit potential for overlooking. City Council administration did not support this configuration on the basis that the incidence of overlooking from east facing balconies would likely be confined to apartments over levels 1 and 2 (at a minimum) with further analysis recommended to confirm otherwise.

The applicant advises that following separate discussions with representors at 50 Hurtle Square / 9 Harriett Street (R1) and 153 Halifax Street (R2), balconies were reconfigured to reposition usable space at the building’s northeast corner (apartment type 6) to orient to the north, and east-facing balcony encroachments over Harriett Street (apartment types 6-8) were reduced to a maximum depth of 450mm to focus outdoor entertaining activity to the main balcony area.

Balconies for apartment types 7-8 (over levels 1-2) will incorporated fritted glass to 1600mm in height, obscuring clear views through balustrades by up to 75 percent to mitigate privacy concerns raised in relation to 153 Halifax Street. Similar vision screens are also proposed for the southern edge of balconies at the west elevation over levels 1-2, to minimise overlooking impacts on existing west-facing balconies at 50 Hurtle Square.

The applicant asserts that east-facing balconies above level 2 will result in long distance views of adjoining land and as such, clear glass balustrades are specified at upper levels. Is should be noted that unobscured views of 153 Halifax Street from level 3 and above will continue to constitute ‘direct views’ as defined by Council Wide PDC 36, being where adjacent windows or outdoor Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

areas are located within a horizontal distance of 15 metres from any point of the balcony or deck.

Given PDC 36’s definition applies to Low Scale Residential and in recognition of the measures applied to mitigate overlooking reportedly undertaken following independent discussions between the applicant and both representors, the proposal is considered to adequately satisfy the intent of visual privacy provisions relevant to Medium to High Scale Residential development.

8.7.3 Overshadowing

Council Wide provisions encourage development designed to minimise solar access impact on adjacent land whilst ensuring adequate levels of daylight, and that overshadowing of buildings and public and private outdoor spaces is minimised, particularly in relation to existing development in (but not limited to) the City Living Zone.

Although the applicant has not submitted shadow diagrams in support of the application, it is likely the new building will cast shadow on development across Harriett Street for consecutive hours from early afternoon during the winter solstice. The proposal is also expected to substantially overshadow the existing 3 storey residences at 50 Hurtle Square 9 Harriett Street, which features north facing windows and a light well as shown below.

NORTH-FACING WINDOWS & LIGHT WELL

50 Hurtle Square – View from Northwest

As the light well does not appear to meet the minimum dimensions of 3 metres by 6 metres recommended for light wells of up to 18 metres in height established under Council Wide PDC 74(b), the applicant argues that the presence of this light well and the shadow conditions likely to be caused should not prejudice the development of adjoining sites for purposes consistent with the intent of the Development Plan.

The applicant references an Environment, Resources and Development Court ruling (Karidis Corporation Limited v The Corporation of the City of Adelaide [2014] SAERDC 2 at [58]) in support of this argument. In any event and in recognition of the reasonable application of the City Frame Zone’s height hierarchy, some degree of overshadowing is considered inevitable in this setting.

The proponent amended its original application details to incorporate a suspended ‘green wall’ system on an exposed portion of the southern elevation adjacent the light well and associated living areas as shown below, reportedly to Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

suit the preferences of residents at 50 Hurtle Square / 9 Harriet Street to soften the appearance of the boundary wall and partially compensate for the amenity impact anticipated through the overshadowing condition.

South Elevation – Proposed Creeper Planting on Suspended Cable System

Given this apparent concession and the collective impacts expected as a result of overshadowing, the proposal is not expected to unacceptably compromise the amenity of living areas within surrounding residential development.

Although the AGA is unconvinced the proposed green wall installation will be viable due to the minimum daylight available in this location, the applicant has specified the creeper plant selection as Chinese Star Jasmine (trachelospermum jasminoides) which is known to flower in either partial or full shade.

The applicant has also advised that the responsibility for maintaining the planting and all physical assets incorporated in the installation will transfer to the owners / occupants of 50 Hurtle Square / 9 Harriet Street.

8.7.4 Traffic Impacts, Access and Vehicle Parking

Access arrangements for vehicle parking, servicing or deliveries and pedestrian entry and egress should be designed to ensure safety and convenience whilst minimising potential for traffic hazards and vehicle queuing on public roads.

Adequate parking should be provided in accordance with Development Plan Table Adel/7 to satisfy the demand generated by the development, whilst meeting community expectations for parking supply and supporting a shift toward active and sustainable transport modes.

8.7.4.1 Car Parking

The proposal includes 46 car parking spaces facilitated by an automated car stacker system accessed via a central aisle connected to Harriett Street, as sought by Council Wide PDC 240. Cirqa Pty Ltd has assessed proposed car parking and access arrangements, concluding the access point and parking facilities will generally comply with the relevant Australian Standard dimensional requirements for a low-volume residential driveway and off-street car parking.

As the subject land is located outside of the areas designated in Table Adel/7 the residential component of the application is not subject to a minimum or maximum requirement for on-site parking provision, however Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

the proposed ground floor commercial tenancy fronting Hurtle Square will necessitate the provision of up to 4 spaces for employee use.

Cirqa has considered parking rates identified in the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (August 2013 update)” in estimating a demand for 40 on-site spaces, which is considered appropriate for high density residential development in metropolitan regional centres where there is a higher accessibility to public transport and employment areas.

As the proposed on-site parking provision exceeds Cirqa’s estimates of demand for the combined commercial and residential uses, the proposed car parking allocation is acceptable.

8.7.4.2 Bicycle Parking

Table Adel/6 anticipates all medium scale residential development to include 1 bicycle parking space per dwelling with total floor area of less than 150 square metres, 2 spaces for every dwelling exceeding 150 square metres and an additional space for every 10 dwellings, for visitors.

Commercial uses generate demand in the order of one space per 200 square metres of gross leasable floor area (GLA) for employees and 2 additional spaces plus 1 per 1,000 square metres GLA for visitors, equating to a total demand of 56 resident / employee spaces and 9 visitor spaces.

Secure bicycle parking will be provided in a ground level common store room accessible from Halifax Street and the building’s entry foyer with capacity to store 61 bicycles. A further 23 bicycles can be stored within several apartment types using a dedicated hallway shelf. Accordingly, the 84 bicycle storage spaces proposed exceed Development Plan guidelines and are considered suitable.

8.7.4.3 Traffic and Access Assessment

Cirqa has estimated the development will generate up to 10 morning and evening peak hour vehicle trips, based on traffic generation rates identified in the RMS Guide document referred to above. Cirqa considers the forecast number of additional vehicle movements outside of peak periods to be relatively low and would be readily accommodated by Harriett Street and the surrounding road network.

Despite the anticipated maximum waiting time for entering drivers of 60 seconds for cycling of a vacant space within the car stacker, Cirqa concludes that there would be minimal queuing associated with parking waiting time and little consequential impact on through-bound vehicles in Harriett Street.

The proposed access arrangement will also require the removal of an existing parking space on Harriett Street and conversion of a second space to a restricted and timed car park with priority given to waste collection.

Although this will be subject to the Council’s discretion, the reduction in Harriett Street parking provision is considered reasonable as the removal of the subject land’s existing use (which currently generates a requirement for 19 parking spaces with no on-site parking provisions) could potentially result in a net reduction in on-street parking demand in the locality.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

In summary and in recognition of conclusions reached in Cirqa’s assessment report, the anticipated impacts of traffic, parking and access arrangements proposed within the application are considered reasonable and well within Development Plan policy provisions.

8.7.5 Noise Emissions

Development in the City Frame Zone should be designed to carefully manage noise-related impacts at the interface with residential development. Council Wide policy encourages development with potential to emit significant noise to incorporate attenuation measures to prevent unreasonable interference to the amenity and the desired character of the locality.

Resonate Acoustics has undertaken an environmental noise impact assessment of the development against the Development Plan’s noise ingress and noise emission requirements. The report recommends mitigation treatments in the form of specified glazing and that appropriate means of attenuating mechanical noise emissions be investigated and implemented during detailed design, which would be in accordance with the intent of Council Wide PDCs 95-100.

Adherence to Council wide PDC 99 and PDC 100 will be subject to compliance with the Building Code of Australia to be confirmed upon issue of Building Rules Consent; the associated recommendation within the Resonate Acoustics assessment is proposed to be dealt with as a condition of consent.

The proponent also amended application details to respond to representors’ concerns related to excessive noise; air-conditioning compressor units proposed on balcony ‘nooks’ in proximity to adjoining residences were relocated to ground floor gantries or on the roof mounted plant platform. The dimensions of east- facing balconies were reconfigured to limit occupant activity and associated disturbance to residential uses.

Ventilation slots intended for the ground floor parking area’s eastern wall were removed and replaced with a main switch board to limit engine noise transmission, and the ground floor waste storage area was increased to accommodate additional bins reducing the anticipated frequency of rubbish collection on Harriett Street.

Anticipated noise impacts are considered acceptable subject to adherence to the Resonate Acoustics assessment recommendations and in light of the proponent’s amendments to the application to address representors’ concerns.

8.8 Apartment Amenity

Medium to high scale residential development should provide high quality living environments which achieve minimum spatial dimensions, ensure adequate areas are dedicated for storage and private open space and provide sufficient access to natural light and ventilation whilst maintaining adequate levels of privacy and amenity.

All dwelling units satisfy the minimum floor area, private open space and storage areas encouraged for the range of apartment types encouraged under Council Wide PDC 59, PDC 70 and PDC 81 respectively. All apartments have access to a suitably sized balcony providing external outlook and direct natural ventilation.

It should be noted the balcony dimension for the proposed studio dwellings (apartment type 7) does not satisfy the minimum depth of 2 metres established under Council Wide PDC 61, however as no minimum provision of private open space is required for studio dwellings the allocation is considered adequate.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

With the exception of apartment types 1 and 2 over levels 1 to 7, all habitable rooms would be positioned within 8 metres from a direct means of accessing natural light and ventilation in accordance with Council Wide PDC 54. The kitchen areas of apartment types 1 and 2 are located marginally further than the recommended guideline, a layout which the AGA does not support due to impact on access to light and diminished amenity.

The AGA also does not support bedrooms in either ‘inboard’ or ‘hammerhead’ configurations proposed within apartment types 5-8 over levels 1-7 and in one bedroom of apartment 805, on the basis of compromised access to light and ventilation and considerations of best practice in residential development. The applicant has addressed an initial concern of the AGA related to final ceiling heights by giving appropriate consideration to structural elements and service locations to maximise habitable room amenity.

Overall, the proposed apartment are designed to feature a suitable level of amenity which is generally consistent with Development Plan guidelines.

8.9 Address and Activation

The City Frame Zone seeks an interesting pedestrian environment and human scale at ground level integrated with the Park Lands and Squares. Small-scale licensed entertainment premises, nightclubs or bars may occur in limited numbers where they are designed and sited to maintain day and evening activation at street level.

The development offers a 70 square metre commercial tenancy with a frontages to Hurtle Square and Halifax Street of approximately 17 metres and 4 metres respectively. An entry foyer, glass front lift and bicycle store room present a combination of clear and obscure glazing along to the remaining Halifax Street frontage broken up by service enclosures and external walls.

The extent of ground level glazing exceeds the recommended minimum of 70 percent of the ground floor primary frontage nominated by City Frame Zone PDC 11 to contribute towards active street frontages and maximise passive surveillance.

The ground floor tenancy is designed to suit small scale office or retail uses capable of adapting to changing consumer demand, and is likely to provide a means of encouraging pedestrian activity whilst adding to the range of local services, shopping facilities and employment opportunities in the area. The commercial occupancy will also assist with providing street-level interest and further relief to building mass, as encouraged by Council Wide PDC 196.

8.10 Encroachments

A verandah canopy is proposed at approximately 3.6 metres above ground level along the full extent of the building’s Hurtle Square frontage and the majority of the Halifax Street frontage. The canopy will extend 2.2 metres over the Hurtle Square footpath and 2 metres over sections of the Halifax Street footpath.

The proposed canopy is supported by Council administration and is consistent with existing verandahs encroaching over footpaths at the northern and southern entrances to Hurtle Square, reinforcing a proportion of human scale at street level via pedestrian shelter as contemplated by Council wide PDC 169(b).

Although balcony encroachments over Harriett Street were amended to respond to Council’s technical feedback, the overall extent of the balcony configuration exceeds 30 percent of the north, east and west building elevations and will necessitate Council’s consent acting as landowner for acceptance of those encroachments.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

Access doors to a SA Power Networks transformer at the building’s north east corner and the fire pump room at the south west are designed to swing out over adjacent footpaths and are likely to be included amongst the items requiring encroachment consent. Air-conditioning condenser units positioned on balcony spaces for apartment types 5, 6 and 7 over levels 1-7 will not encroach over Council property and are to be screened from view, a measure supported by the AGA.

8.11 Environmental Factors

Development within the Council area should ensure that community safety and security are maintained, micro-climatic impacts are minimised and the development is compatible with the long term sustainability of the environment through reductions in energy consumption and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

8.11.1 Crime Prevention

The configuration of apartment living areas and extensive glazing overlooking public realm in accordance with City Frame PDC 13 will facilitate passive surveillance of Halifax Street and Hurtle Square, promoting community safety and security as encouraged by Council Wide PDC 82 and PDC 83.

The building will provide a legible and secure pedestrian entry from Halifax Street and the commercial frontage to Hurtle Square will increase the potential for passive surveillance of the ground plane and public realm, dependent on the nature of the occupying use.

Internal circulation areas are functional and are unlikely to give rise to incidents of entrapment, opportunities for concealment within the building or otherwise present unacceptable risks to occupant safety. Vision screens installed at the southern extent of selected balconies will prevent access between the balconies and roof of the 3 storey building at 50 Hurtle Square, consistent with Council Wide PDC 84.

8.11.2 Waste Management

Council Wide waste management policy encourages the use of discrete on-site facilities dedicated to collection, storage and disposal of domestic waste that do not cause unacceptable levels of smell and odour which would detrimentally affect amenity.

Original application details were amended in response to representors’ concerns to increase the capacity of the ground floor waste storage area to accommodate 4 x 660-litre recycling bins, 5 x 660-litre general waste bins and 4 x 240-litre organic waste bins enabling weekly collection from Harriett Street by Adelaide City Council contractors, substituting for the previously proposed 3 weekly collections by private contractor.

This is considered a superior solution which is intended to meet the Council’s waste management guidelines and minimises the frequency of waste collection, including associated noise and traffic-related amenity impacts on the locality.

8.11.3 Energy Efficiency

Substantial rooftop areas have been allocated for installation of two 5-kilowatt solar photovoltaic rays intended to offset power consumption in common areas and the largest penthouse (apartment 801).

High efficiency inverter split-system air conditioning equipment will be provided in individual living areas only, with ceiling fans in all living areas and Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

bedrooms for circulation of air. Insulation will be provided throughout the building and energy efficient LED lighting will be fitted in private and common areas controlled by motion sensors in the latter to prevent unnecessary energy consumption.

Apartment configurations provide for significant natural ventilation and daylight penetration over all levels with west-facing apartments incorporating low- emissivity glass capable of reducing heat loads conducted through the glass.

Amendments to the building’s exterior result in a predominantly white finish over areas exposed to the highest degree of sun exposure to reduce solar loading, although these surfaces are not considered likely to produce unreasonable levels of glare due to building articulation and anticipated effects of shadow throughout daylight hours.

The sustainability initiatives applied throughout the development satisfy various strategies and design techniques recommended under Council Wide (Energy Efficiency) policy and are considered appropriate for these purposes.

8.11.4 Wind Impacts

Development Plan provisions related to potential wind impacts encourage development designed to minimise impacts to adjacent land or buildings and maintain the integrity of the streetscape. The applicant has not undertaken a wind analysis for the proposal on the basis of primarily qualitative Development Plan provisions applicable to the application, and due to the proposed building height generally according with the maximum height recommended within the City Frame Zone.

Although the potential impacts of wind tunnelling have not been quantified, the return canopy proposed at 3.6 metres above ground and balconies encroaching over all street frontages are considered adequate means of reducing the potential for unwelcome effects of wind on pedestrians and adjacent land.

8.11.5 Site Contamination

Mott MacDonald has researched the subject land’s environmental history to assess the potential existence of soil contamination as a consequence of current or previous land uses. The subject land has previously been occupied by land uses that had the potential to contaminate the site, however the information revealed in the site history investigation was not considered to present a significant risk of environmental impact.

Mott MacDonald concluded that the likelihood of gross or widespread soil contamination existing in shallow soils or groundwater (at levels considered likely to preclude the proposed land use) is low, recommending that soil sampling and broad testing for chemicals of environmental interest be undertaken following site demolition works to confirm its assessment.

Final confirmation of the investigation’s preliminary findings would satisfy Council Wide (Site Contamination) PDC 105 and is intended to be dealt with as a condition of consent.

9. CONCLUSION

The applicant seeks planning consent for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use building comprising residential apartments, ground-floor car parking and a retail tenancy in the City Frame Zone at 42-48 Hurtle Square, Adelaide.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

Although the AGA is supportive of various amendments to the application undertaken in response to referral feedback and representors’ concerns, the AGA does not support the proposed building massing and bulk, recommending further refinement of architectural expression including consideration of alternatives to applied material finishes.

At 29.5 metres, the height of the proposed building marginally exceeds the maximum envisaged within the City Frame Zone. This is supported on the basis it achieves design outcomes considered appropriate at a primary entrance to Hurtle Square whilst adequately managing the transition between maximum scale in the City Frame Zone and less intense development in the adjacent City Living Zone.

Reduction in built form intensity at the Harriett Street frontage would likely bring the application in closer alignment with Development Plan provisions advocating more gradual scale transition in proximity to Zone boundaries, however on balance the maximum scale proposition at all frontages is not considered fatal to the application.

The proposal is generally considered to be consistent with the most relevant Development Plan provisions and worthy of conditional Development Plan consent on the basis of the following:

 building articulation and architectural expression introduce strong horizontal emphasis with well-defined vertical elements considered highly desirable design features within the City Frame Zone;

 boundary setbacks accord with building siting envisaged within the Zone to achieve a continuous built form edge in order to frame Hurtle Square;

 anticipated interfaces with adjoining uses are not considered likely to result in or cause unacceptable impacts on residential amenity;

 apartments are configured to provide a high level of amenity that generally satisfies Development Plan policy and is considered commensurate with the intended market offering; and

 the proposed ground floor commercial tenancy has the potential to contribute to further activation of the locality and increase the range of services and employment opportunities in the area.

Whilst the proposal will marginally exceed the maximum scale of development anticipated within the City Frame Zone, it is considered to adequately satisfy the Zone’s intent for landmark buildings at a key corner site, providing a well-defined built form edge and suitable contributions to primary road frontages and the public realm. Conditional Development Plan Consent is recommended.

10. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:

1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with the policies in the Development Plan.

2) RESOLVE that the Development Assessment Commission is satisfied that the proposal meets the key objectives of the City Frame Zone.

3) RESOLVE to grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal by Forme Projex C/- Masterplan SA for 020/A040/16 at 42-48 Hurtle Square, Adelaide subject to the following conditions of consent:

PLANNING CONDITIONS:

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

General

1. Except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by conditions imposed by this application, the development shall be established in strict accordance with the following details and plans submitted in Development Application 020/A040/16:

Drawing Title Drawing No. Rev. Date N/A DPC-001 1.1 14.09.16 Perspective View Looking South East DPC-002 1.1 14.09.16 Perspective View Looking South West DPC-003 1.1 14.09.16 Perspective View Looking East DPC-004 1.1 14.09.16 Ground Floor DPC.01 1.1 14.09.16 First Floor DPC.02 1.2 12.10.16 Second Floor DPC.02A 1.2 12.10.16 Floors 3-7 DPC.03 1.2 12.10.16 Ceiling Heights DPC.03A 1.1 14.09.16 Level 8 DPC.04 1.1 14.09.16 Roof DPC.05 1.1 14.09.16 Section DPC.06 1.2 12.10.16 West Elevation DPC.07 1.2 12.10.16 North Elevation DPC.08 1.2 12.10.16 East Elevation DPC.09 1.2 12.10.16 South Elevation DPC.10 1.2 12.10.16 Ground Floor Foyer DPC.18 1.1 14.09.16 Typical Foyer DPC.19 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.20 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.21 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.22 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.23 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.25 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.26 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.27 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.28 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.29 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.30 1.1 14.09.16 Individual Plan Type DPC.31 1.1 14.09.16 Analysis Drawing DPC.91 1.1 14.09.16 Analysis Drawing DPC.92 1.1 14.09.16 Analysis Drawing DPC.93 1.1 14.09.16 Analysis Drawing DPC.94 1.1 14.09.16

Reports / Correspondence  Planning Report Reference 14505REP01 Revision 3 dated August 2016 by Masterplan SA Pty Ltd;  Response to Representations and Agency Comments Reference 15035LET01 dated 21 September 2016 by Masterplan SA Pty Ltd;  Parking and Access Assessment Reference 16090 dated 28 July 2016 undertaken by Cirqa Pty Ltd;  Supplementary Parking and Access Assessment Reference 16090 dated 19 September 2016 undertaken by Cirqa Pty Ltd;  Preliminary Environmental Site History Assessment Report Revision O Dated 21 July 2016 undertaken by Mott MacDonald Australia Pty Ltd;  Noise Impact Assessment Reference A16439RP1 Revision 0 dated 25 July 2016 by Resonate Acoustics;  Services Assessment Reports Reference PMcL:AJM 55278/1-2-4-5/1 dated 26 July 2016 by BESTEC; Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

 Building Rules Compliance Statement dated 2 August 2016 by TECON Australia Pty Ltd;  Uniparker N5303 Specification dated 24 April 2015 by Nußbaum GmbH & Co; and  Email with attachments from Forme Projex dated 19 October 2016.

2. The applicant shall submit a final detailed schedule of external materials and finishes for review prior to Building Rules Consent to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission.

3. A statement from a suitably qualified person (who may, if required, be a Site Contamination Auditor accredited by the Environment Protection Authority) that the land is suitable for its intended use shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission prior to any substructure works.

4. All external lighting of the site, including car parking areas and buildings, shall be designed and constructed to conform with Australian Standards and must be located, directed and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.

5. The overhead canopy proposed at the frontages of Hurtle Square and Halifax Street shall incorporate and operate lighting designed in accordance with under-verandah lighting requirements set out in the Adelaide City Council Lighting Policy and Operating Guidelines.

6. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with current industry standards – including the EPA publications “Handbook for Pollution Avoidance on Commercial and Residential Building Sites – Second Edition” and “Environmental Management of On-site Remediation” – to minimise environmental harm and disturbance during construction.

The management plan must incorporate, without being limited to, the following matters: 1) air quality, including odour and dust; 2) surface water including erosion and sediment control; 3) soils, including fill importation, stockpile management and prevention of soil contamination; 4) groundwater, including prevention of groundwater contamination; 5) noise; 6) occupational health and safety; and

A copy of the CEMP shall be provided to the Development Assessment Commission prior to the commencement of site works.

For further information relating to what Site Contamination is, refer to the EPA Guideline: 'Site Contamination – what is site contamination?': www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/guide_sc_what.pdf

7. All vehicle car parks, driveways and vehicle entry and manoeuvring areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and be constructed, drained and paved with bitumen, concrete or paving bricks in accordance with sound engineering practice and appropriately line marked to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission, prior to the occupation or use of the development.

8. All stormwater design and construction shall be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standards and recognised engineering best practices to ensure that stormwater does not adversely affect any adjoining property or public road.

Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

9. Any water collected from the basement drainage channel incorporated in the proposed Uniparker automated car parking system must be discharged to the sewer.

10. All Council, utility or state-agency maintained infrastructure (i.e. roads, kerbs, drains, crossovers, footpaths, street lighting etc) that is demolished, altered, removed or damaged during the construction of the development shall be reinstated to Council, utility or state agency specifications. All costs associated with these works shall be met by the proponent.

Advisory Notes

General / Procedural a. The development must be substantially commenced within 12 months of the date of this Notification, unless this period has been extended by the Development Assessment Commission. The authorisation will lapse if not commenced within 12 months of the date of this Notification. b. Any act or work authorised or required by this Notification must be completed within 3 years of the date of the Notification, unless this period is extended by the Commission. The applicant will require a fresh consent before commencing or continuing the development if unable to satisfy these requirements. c. The applicant has a right of appeal against the conditions which have been imposed on this Development Plan Consent or Development Approval. Such an appeal must be lodged at the Environment, Resources and Development Court within two months from the day of receiving this notice or such longer time as the Court may allow.

The applicant is asked to contact the Court if wishing to appeal. The Court is located in the Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide (telephone number (08) 8204 0300).

Construction d. Any work proposed within the public realm adjacent to the subject land, including (but not limited to) reinstatement of footpath and kerb water table levels and modifications of on-street car parking should be undertaken in consultation with the Adelaide City Council and, subject to Council approval, should be completed to the satisfaction of the Council. e. The applicant should consult with owners and / or occupiers of property at 50 Hurtle Square and 9 Harriett Street, Adelaide in relation to the proposed construction, handover and ongoing maintenance requirements associated with the vertical cable ‘green wall’ installation intended for a portion of the development’s south elevation. f. An encroachment permit will be required for the proposed encroachment of building elements into public realm prior to Development Approval being granted. The applicant’s attention should be drawn to the following particular items: 1. An annual fee may be charged in line with the Adelaide City Council Encroachment Policy; 2. Permit renewals are issued on an annual basis for those encroachments that attract a fee; 3. Unauthorised encroachments will be required to be removed; and 4. Improvements to the adjacent public realm areas require the approval of the Adelaide City Council and are not part of this planning consent. g. The proposed development requires amendments to the existing on-street car parking arrangements. Separate approval for the possible on-street car parking Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2 10 November 2016

changes is required from the On-Street Parking Coordinator of the Adelaide City Council. h. Any requirement to prune and / or remove existing street trees adjacent to the subject land will be at the discretion of the Adelaide City Council. Removal of street trees, if required, will be undertaken with the trees being assessed for value using Council endorsed “Amenity Tree Valuation” formula. No removals will occur without full payment of this assessed value which will include the addition of the cost of replacement tree(s) and the installation of a Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) tree pit if suitable for the site. Adelaide City Council will only be responsible for removal(s) and replacement at the end of the project timeline.

Environmental Duty i. The applicant is reminded of its general environmental duty, as required by Section 25 of the Environment Protection Act 1993, to take all reasonable and practical measures to ensure that the activities on the whole site, including during construction, do not pollute the environment in a way which causes or may cause environmental harm. j. Any information sheets, guidelines documents, codes of practice, technical bulletins etc. that are referenced in this response can be accessed on the following web site: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/pub.html k. The emission of noise from the premises is subject to control under the Environment Protection Act and Regulations, 1993 and the applicant (or person with the benefit of this consent) should comply with those requirements

……………….…………

Ben Scholes PROJECT OFFICER INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE