Project Description

Assessment is done on a proposed plan before approved so as to ensure that it has no negative impact to the environment and surrounding resident. The subject site should ensure its hid to the legal formality such as the local environment plan (LEP) 2000 policies. This is by ensuring the height structure and the environmental conservation are fulfilled accordingly. If the construction is a heritage item them the proposal should ensure it fulfills the heritage policies and there are approved by the local authority. The following is an assessment and proper recommendation of if the subject site proposals should be approved or not, (Zuo et al 2017). Examination is done on a proposed arrangement before embraced with the end goal to ensure that it has no negative impact to the earth and enveloping tenant. The subject site should ensure its concealed to the legitimate custom, for instance, the area condition plan (LEP) 2000 courses of action. This is by ensuring the stature structure and the environmental assurance are fulfilled suitably. If the advancement is a heritage thing them the suggestion should promise it fulfills the inheritance game plans and there are embraced by the area master. Coming up next is an evaluation and authentic proposal of if the subject site suggestions should be insisted or not.

Description Of Address And Proposal.

The proposed site is located at lot 1, 30 Belmore street, Enmore. It is legally registered as a government legal property description DP 1/783977. The subject site is rectangular in shape and is positioned along other rental houses such as the 32 Belmore street and 28 Belmore street. The existing dwelling is semi-detached to the 32 BELMORE STREET.  The site has a size of 212.5sqm with approximately 7m in the frontage and 6.9m in the rare. It has a setback of 2.65m and the nature of the site is build to the side boundary, (Conejos et al 2016). The existing construction consists of a 3bedroom house with a sitting room and kitchen in the ground flow with an out build carport in the rear. The proposed site is zoned R2 low density residential and is adjoins the B2 local centre business to the south.

The surrounding construction comprise of other rental houses, on the right of the subject site is Zebra bar, followed by queens hotel and Bon Appetit Selera Malaysia. On the left of the subject site are other rental houses, (Shen et al 2016).

Assessment of Proposal

The proposal which is a residential dwelling is aimed at renovating it to make it more suitable family home. The proposal suggest that they do a partly demolition of the ground and first flow and add a 2- storey structure which will comprise of a garage at the rear of the site and a studio in the first flow, (Park & Tucker 2017).  According to the proposal there is also a new form of landscaping in the rear. The proposal suggest that the permissible height of the construction to be 6.45m on the first and 6.1m on the ridge of studio. According to the proposal there is an introduction of a skylight to the roof. The garage should be able to replace the existing carport. The average cost to conduct the whole activity is 3500000$, (Tobias & Vavaroutsos 2009).

Internal Referals

Urban style design- the Australian architectural team designed the proposal and they have these to say about the proposal; the surrounded area around the rear area should be grown grass to facilitate environmental conservation, (Boarin 2016).

No objections subject to condition.

Surveyor; Andrew P. Mason

The landscape of the land if fit for construction.

No objection subject to condition.

External Referals.

Local environmental plan council.

Locality.

The flow space ratio should attain a maximum permissibility of 0.9.1 which as compared to the existing flow space of the proposed plan which has a permissible 0.89.1. The permissible height of the proposal is approved to be 6.45m on the first flow with it doesn’t exceed the maximum permissible height of 9.1m.

STATUTORY COMPLIENCE TABLE

SITE AREA (212sqm)	PROPOSED	CONTROL	COMPLIES
Flow space ratio	0.89.1	0.9.1	Yes

Planning Assesment

1.  

In the existing site there are no trees or plant grass although there is a small piece of vegetable garden on the rear. The proposal suggests to increase the previous opening space to increase rainwater capture which will hence reduce the runoff of the water. The rainwater can be channeled towards the garden. According to the proposal the opening space will be increase by providing a private opening space of 34sqm on the rear area. These will increase amenity and layout of the existing opening space, (Armstrong & Driscoll 2016).

The opening space which is used as the carport will be utilized differently on the proposed plan. By the addition of the of the garage which will always be left open to facilitate private outdoor open space there will be an extra 49sqm private open space. These will be used by children to play in the shade and also play ball games.

1. Storm water management.

Compliance with Legal Formalities

According to the proposal there is no interference with the existing sewage system. The will be minimum runoff of rainwater from the catchment areas in the room.

1. Local Environmental Plan2012 Assessment.

The aim of the proposal is to increase the housing properties for the site and also to utilize the existing land for the benefit of the individual. The site is zoned individual purpose hence it has a less adverse effect to the surrounding community. The proposal adheres to the landscape policies which ensure that at least 25% of the site is landscaped as required. The residence around have minimum response on the proposal because the is no interruption in terms of visual privacy and extended land, (Miller et al 2018). There is also conservation of the layout and culture of the residential construction because according to the proposal there is no unique design which is added.

There is reduction of traffic and street parking because of the construction of a garage in the subject site. King Street which is to the south of the site is a heritage conservation area, similar to 34 Belmore Street which is a heritage item, (Judson,  Iyer-Raniga & Horne 2014). The proposed construction is neither a heritage item nor constructed on a heritage conservation area, so therefore the proposal is not subjected to the Sydney heritage policies. After assessing the soil of the site it is clear that it has no acid sulfate on it making it healthy, (Noonan 2016).

Approval from other government agencies	Is the proposal integrated development/	No
	Does the proposal require concurrence from other agency/	No
Environmental planning and assessment	Is the land critical habitat/	No
	Is the proposal like going to have a threat on the species, ecological communities and the population/	No
	Is the site subjected to a private conservation agreement under the biodiversity conservation act 2016/	No
The nature of the soil	The content of the soil should have less acid suphate	Yes

The subject site is not affected by flooding making it fit for reconstruction. According to the proposal it is aimed at increase visual privacy to the site by minimizing the windows in the rear of the building. There is no balcony that is proposed and also no opening in the southern elevation of the of the proposed plan. The window facing the neighbors’ also maintains privacy because the view from the east is oblique hence maintaining privacy in the bedroom of the first floor. The subject site is located in a minor street hence there will be minor effect in terms of traffic noise during the operation, (Sattary & Thorpe 2016). Overshadow and solar access on the site according to the proposal is adjoined in that there is no adverse effect to the surrounding residence according to the shadow diagram drawn on the plan.

According to the architectural design of the house it is evident that they have considered the natural ventilations and air conditioning the proposed plan. These will lead to energy efficiency in the room.

1. Development control plan2012 (DCP)

Impact on Environment and Surrounding Residents

According to an assessment of the suitability of the site for development it is confirmed that the land is fit for alteration. The locality statement is positive; it is not a heritage item and the utterance effect is not visible from the streetscape because it is done on the rear area. The landscaping process according to the proposal will also ensure conservation of environment. The proposal fulfills the ecologically sustainable Development (ESD) principle in development which ensure that the proposal comes up with efficient room layout that reduce resource usage during the time of construction.

In terms of transport and parking, the proposal suggests an addition of a garage on the ground floor to replace the carport. These improve the parking of the private cars in the compound hence fulfilling parts of the plan. The proposal has a positive impact in the social and environmental responsibilities because the landscaping done in the rear area will give space to the children around the site to play and enjoy the shade. There is no impact on the public space according to the proposal, (Iyer-Raniga & Wong 2012).

The height of the building according to the proposal is standard because the maximum permissible height is 9m and the first flow addition is 6.4m.  

Development standards	Requirement	Proposed	compliance
4.1 building height	The maximum permissible height for rental construction is 9m.	The proposed height according to the plan is 6.4m	yes
4.2 building setbacks	The front setback of the site should ensure it conserve the existing pattern in the neighboring housing Measure taken if the proposed is a heritage item. Corner site.	The existing front setback remains the same according to the proposal. The site is not a heritage item so is no impact to the measures	yes
4.3residential Amenity	The construction should not have any adverse effect to the community.	N/A	N/A
4.4solar access	There should minimum overshadow of the neighbors’ property.	Shadow diagram is accessed and found that there is no overshadow from 9am-3pm on the rear of the site.	Yes
4.5solar collector	If applicable should be put where possible	N/A	N/A
4.6landscaping	At least 25% of the average land should be landscaped. The land should be well landscaped.	The proposed retains the landscape and tends to increase the rear private opening space to create a playing ground for children	Yes
4.7private open space	The proposal should ensure is increase public space and private property.	The proposal suggest an increase of a private opening space on the rear of the site.	Yes
4.8 visual privacy	The utterance should ensure that it maintain visual privacy to the owner and the residence around.	The proposal tends to minimize the window after the utterance of the first flow. The proposal denies addition of balcony in the rear to ensure the neighbors have privacy.	Yes
4.9 General	1.the utterance should ensure it maintain the existing structure formality. 2. Any pavilion addition. 3. Basement addition. 4. roof utterance and addition. 5. additional storey’s	The frontage of the site is maintained as per the proposal. There is no pavilion addition in the site. There is partly demolish of the ground flow to add a garage and also the first flow.	Yes

The aerial view of the construction is observed that the subject is in the middle of other rental houses in Belmore street, Enmore. Alongside the construction is 34 belmore street. It is fenced and has wooden gate in the entrance. In the rear of the house there is a vegetable garden and a carport which and is roofed. A view from 28 Belmore street is evident that the site privacy is maintained.

According to the proposal it tends not distract any heritage item within its locality. It has tried to maintain the existing construction culture by the form of landscaping, fencing, guttering and also prevailing subdivision pattern. The proposal does not alter will the front streetscape and also the alteration of the rear is compatible with that of the surrounding residence. The contemporary design and the vehicular access are maintained to also maintain the streetscape appearance. There are safety measures on terms of fire exit of the premises, (Langston et al2008).  

According to the waste management report, the mobile recycle bin will be stored and colored within the subject site so as to store garbage and also be different from other materials.

Alignment with Ecologically Sustainable Development Principles

According to the proposal, it is needed because apart from reducing street parking along the street it improves the private open space for the house. The demolition process tend to bring some damage to the neighboring residences properties because of how close these houses are. The partly demolition will cause a lot of destruction to the residence because of noise coming out from the site. The proposal only focuses on improving the state of the house instead of also focusing in the surrounding environment such as renovating the footpath past the gate, (Rahman, Rasul & Khan 2010).

The construction has a minimum impact on the environment distraction hence making it fit for approval. The suggested site it not a heritage item hence giving it room for demolition. This makes it easy for the residence around to approve it. By ensuring the proposal consider the visual privacy of the residence and also the owner then it gives it room for approval by the surrounding residence. Most is no interference with the flow area according to the proposal hence the surrounding residence don’t see any adverse effect by the proposal. The proposal has no economic impact to the surrounding residence, (Olsen et al 2012). As demonstrated in the assessment above on the local environmental structure the proposal tend to have positive impact on the environment and respect to the amenity of the neighborhood making it to be considered due to the public interest.

 Recommendation

The proposal has minimum effect to the surround environment so if it approved the vegetable plantation should be maintained or even increased to conserve the environment. The recycle bin been placed on the rear of the construction should be colored differently do make it more identical. The bedroom window on the first flow of the house should be minimized well to ensure there is efficient visual privacy for the owner of the house, (Bullen & Love  2010). If the construction is to be approved then the rear pattern should be maintained. The roofing should remain as planned in the proposal.

The developer should ensure they give a seven day notice prior the demolition to the surround residence and the owner of the house. Inspection must be done before and after the demolition by the relevant authority. Any soil disposed should be done accordance with the EPA environmental guideline assessment, (Ma et al 2012).

According to the assessment done on the proposal regarding its environmental and legal impact, the proposal is approved and the site is fit for re-construction.

Recommendation

If the proposal is approved the rear area should have other reconstruction activities done in the near future because approximately 64sqm is left as a playing which is majorly a lot in terms of landscaping.

The site coverage should not exceed 67% as per the proposal because already it is compliant to the development standards. The merits regarding these are as per a lot there should be no more than 300sqm.Materials and the paint used to construct the garage should ensure they maintain the consistency of the lane and by that, they should put a metal garage door, (Ma et al 2012).

The private open space should be increase if the proposal is to be approved although according to the proposal it increases the private opening space from 23sqm to 34sqm.

The opening space in the rear gives room for double parking and also it can be used in storing of waste vehicles which is often parked along the Belmore street, hence the space should be increased.

If the proposal is to be approved then there should be a way in which the windows orienting to the neighboring residence are reduced. By fulfilling this they will ensure they maintain the visual privacy of the facility, (Wilkinson,  James & Reed 2009).

The proposal being close to a heritage item, it should ensure that they conduct their activities in a manner that it doesn’t distract or demolish the item.

All the activity in the site should strictly remain in the site to avoid disturbance to the surrounding residence. There should be no uniqueness in the nature of the construction to ensure the construction structure and culture of the houses is conserved.

References

Armstrong, B. and Driscoll, T., 2016. Mesothelioma in Australia: cresting the third wave. Public Health Res. Pract, 26.

Boarin, P., 2016. Bridging the gap between environmental sustainability and heritage preservation: towards a certified sustainable conservation, adaptation and retrofitting of historic buildings. In 50th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association. School of Architecture and Built Environment, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Bullen, P.A. and Love, P.E., 2010. The rhetoric of adaptive reuse or reality of demolition: Views from the field. Cities, vol.27, no.4, pp.215-224.

Conejos, S., Langston, C., Chan, E.H. and Chew, M.Y., 2016. Governance of heritage buildings: Australian regulatory barriers to adaptive reuse. Building Research & Information, vol. 44, no. 5-6, pp.507-519.

Iyer-Raniga, U. and Wong, J.P.C., 2012. Evaluation of whole life cycle assessment for heritage buildings in Australia. Building and environment, 47, pp.138-149.

Judson, E.P., Iyer-Raniga, U. and Horne, R., 2014. Greening heritage housing: understanding homeowners’ renovation practices in Australia. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol.29, no.1, pp.61-78.

Langston, C., Wong, F.K., Hui, E.C. and Shen, L.Y., 2008. Strategic assessment of building adaptive reuse opportunities in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, vol.43, no.10, pp.1709-1718.

Ma, Z., Cooper, P., Daly, D. and Ledo, L., 2012. Existing building retrofits: Methodology and state-of-the-art. Energy and buildings, 55, pp.889-902.

Miller, W., Liu, L.A., Amin, Z. and Gray, M., 2018. Involving occupants in net-zero-energy solar housing retrofits: An Australian sub-tropical case study. Solar Energy, 159, pp.390-404.

Noonan, C.W., 2016. Environmental asbestos exposure and risk of mesothelioma. Annals of translational medicine, vol.5, no.11.

Olsen, N.J., Franklin, P.J., Reid, A., de Klerk, N.H., Threlfall, T.J., Shilkin, K. and Musk, B., 2012. Increasing incidence of malignant mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos during home maintenance and renovation. Medical Journal of Australia, vol.195, no.5, p.271.

Park, J. and Tucker, R., 2017. Overcoming barriers to the reuse of construction waste material in Australia: a review of the literature. International Journal of Construction Management, vol.17, no.3, pp.228-237.

Rahman, M.M., Rasul, M.G. and Khan, M.M.K., 2010. Energy conservation measures in an institutional building in sub-tropical climate in Australia. Applied Energy, vol.87, no.10, pp.2994-3004.

Sattary, S. and Thorpe, D., 2016. Potential carbon emission reductions in Australian construction systems through bioclimatic principles. Sustainable Cities and Society, 23, pp.105-113.

Shen, L., He, B., Jiao, L., Song, X. and Zhang, X., 2016. Research on the development of main policy instruments for improving building energy-efficiency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, pp.1789-1803.

Tobias, L. and Vavaroutsos, G., 2009. Retrofitting office buildings to be green and energy-efficient: Optimizing building performance, tenant satisfaction, and financial return. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

Wilkinson, S.J., James, K. and Reed, R., 2009. Using building adaptation to deliver sustainability in Australia. Structural survey, vol.27, no.1, pp.46-61.

Zuo, J., Pullen, S., Rameezdeen, R., Bennetts, H., Wang, Y., Mao, G., Zhou, Z., Du, H. and Duan, H., 2017. Green building evaluation from a life-cycle perspective in Australia: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, pp.358-368.