Target Complex TARGET -

Target originally applied for the erection of a Target Country store and three ancillary retail shops at Lot 1,and Lot 2, 119 Princess Highway, Ulladulla. This was the subject of a report from  the General Manager – Development and  Environmental Services (D&ES) on 17th August 2004.

 Whilst significant variations to DCP56 were sought the General Manager Development and Environmental Services recommended a variation to DCP56 in this instance and his recommendation was accepted by the Development Committee on 17 August 2004 and accepted unanimously by the Ordinary meeting of Council on 31 August 2004.

Although Development consent was granted on 14^th September 2004,

Development Consent DA 03/3462 was not secured.

On 12 April 2005 the General Manager –Development and Environmental Services advised that Council was in receipt of Development Application

DA 04/2728 or 2782 for the construction of commercial premises comprising 12 shops and 45 car spaces at Lot 1 and Lot 2, 119 Princes Highway, Ulladulla.

 The current application was submitted to Council on 4^th August 2004 as a mechanism to explore alternative development options for the site in the event that Country Target venture did not proceed. A development application DA 05/1515 was submitted for a Target Department Store on the adjoining Albacore Motel site to the north.

 The Development Application was considered by the Development Committee and the proposed variation to DCP56 regarding nominated building envelope and pedestrian link was supported.

 The variation to DCP56 was approved by Council on 24 April, 2005

 June 2005

 On 14 June, 2005 the General Manager – Development and Environmental Services submitted a report indicating that one development application had been received providing for roof top car parking over the Country Target store complex (DA 05/1515), whilst a larger scale development application has been submitted having Council’s concerns in mind (DA 05/1495). 

Details are shown in the following table: 

 Building Height Variation Request

 The General Manager – Development and Environmental Services informed Council that both Development Application proposals did not comply with the 8 metre height limit and a variation to this requirement had been requested as part of both development proposals.

 The two proposals for development detail the same building footprint and had followed a similar design approach. The design response details an architectural corner element to the Princes Highway frontage introducing a strong visual element to the streetscape. 

The development proposals sought variation to the nominated building height restriction under DCP 56 being up to 11.5 metres (corner element) and 5.5 metres for the greater proportion of the Mixed Use Development (Proposal 1); and 2.5 metres for the corner element of the retail component (Proposal 2).  

TARGET PROPOSAL 1 – DA 05/1495 – Mixed Retail/Residential Complex 

The larger mixed use development sought a more significant variation to the building height line restriction as almost the entire building was above the 8 metre line and this area is dedicated for residential floor space.

 The mixed use development building form, in terms of height, can be broken up to three distinctive elements. The architectural corner element at the Princes Highway street frontage represents the highest section of the building at approximately 19.5 metres.  

The second highest element of the building is provided for at the Princes Highway frontage. The building at this elevation provides for a five (5) storey section for the length of 26.8 metres (including area underneath the “hat” of the corner element). The height for this section varies between 16.5 and 18 metres above natural ground level. The building then scales back to four storeys to the southern boundary for the length of approximately 12 metres. This section varies between 12.5 and 13 metres in height.

 The remaining section of building, being the area visible from the link between Boree Street and Princes Highway present as four storeys (13.5 metres) in height. The Boree Street (western elevation) presents as 2-3 storeys (varies between 5, 8 and 13 metres) as the building sets down the site from the southern boundary.

 The approximate height of the distinct elements of the building is as follows: 

PLANNING SERVICES COMMENTS

 As detailed from the architectural plans, the majority of the proposal provides for a 4 storey building with a maximum height variation to the 8 metres height line restriction of 6 metres.

 The higher elements of the development have been located at the corner of the main street of the CBD of Ulladulla (Princes Highway) and the site link through to Boree Street to provide for visual interest and a focal point of the development complex. 

This proposal has the potential to significantly impact on viewing opportunities or view corridors to the harbour area, depending upon where and from what level (within a building) the viewer is positioned. Whilst the site is lower (some 21 metres) than the viewing areas located around the South Street area, there is a strong likelihood that it will obstruct or partially interfere with views to the harbour area from within a tourist development located in the South Street tourist precinct. 

The building would present as a significantly different form of development to what currently exists with Ulladulla and that which is recommended for the future in the existing DCP 56. Objectors have put a strong argument that a development of this magnitude is out of place and character within a coastal location in terms of height, bulk and scale compared with other buildings in the area such as the Marlin Hotel in Wason Street and the proposal, currently under consideration, on adjoining land for a single level retail/commercial development to the south. 

The building will conflict with the existing character in terms of height, built and scale, and is likely to have a significant impact on view corridors to the harbour. 

Planning staff advised that “Under existing policy direction of Council. Varying the height limit specified within DCP 56 to the extent proposed should not be supported.” 

“However, Council has resolved to review this situation, unfortunately this review has not progressed to a stage where a clear policy position exists. In this regard acceptance to this departure would be pre-emptive.” 

“If such a proposal is to be encouraged by Council then, this should only occur following a full and comprehensive review of DCP 56 involving an open consultation with the community. Such review is consistent with recent Council resolutions. At the very least if this option is not timely, then, the applicant should be invited to prepare and submit a comprehensive visual analysis of the impact on the view lines to the harbour area from areas to the south and west by the proposed development”

TARGET - PROPOSAL 2 DA 05/1515 – Retail Development Only 

The architectural drawing for the smaller scale retail development identity only the architectural “hat” of the corner element of the building (10.5 metres in height) exceeding the 8 metre height line restriction. This area of exceedance represents only a small percentage of the building footprint and therefore, should not result in any significant impact in terms of views and sight lines.

 PLANNING SERVICES COMMENTS 

“DCP No. 56 is applicable to this DA. The DCP recommends the future development of the subject site as “large area retail opportunities” and therefore the proposed development (excluding the residential development) is generally in accordance with this provision of the DCP. However the proposed development is in excess of the 8 metre height restriction placed over the subject land by DCP No. 56. Justification provided in the SEE is considered insufficient. Application for variation from the Plan would be required for the development to proceed. Council has resolved to review the DCP including the requirements for height restriction; however, investigations have not proceeded to a point where a recommendation as to the appropriateness of a variation to the 8 metre height restriction can be made 

Building Height Envelope

 Maintaining harbour views in and around the Ulladulla CBD is considered as a very important principle of DCP 56 in maintaining the coastal atmosphere of the town. In this regard, the retention and maintenance of view corridors to the harbour from the proposed future tourist accommodation areas along South Street is also considered as fundamental to their likely success. 

A visual analysis that illustrates the extent to which the subject building minimises the potential impact on views associated with the variation to the height limit has not been submitted with the application. Similarly, while Council has resolved to review DCP 56 particularly with respect to building heights, this work has not progressed to a stage where there is a clear policy position.

 It is noted that it is only the architectural corner element that rises above the 8 metre restriction to a maximum height of 10.5 metres

 This proposal substantially complies with the building height limits of DCP 56 with the only exception being the corner architectural treatment which is allowable as a non-habitable space under the DCP

The General Manager – Development and Environmental Services recommendations was  

“that with regard to the Development Application for the erection of (1) Target Store, liquor store, retail store and 30 residential apartments at 113 Princes Highway, Ulladulla: and  (2) of a Target Store, liquor store and retail stare    The proposed variation to DCP No. 56 regarding nominated building height restriction of 8 metres be supported for proposed 2.

 b)     The request for a height variation for proposal 1 be deferred at this stage until a review of the existing DCP No. 56 is undertaken or a more comprehensive analysis of the visual impact of the higher stories is provided by the applicant for further consideration.

 c)      The proposed variations to the pedestrian link in DCP 56 be supported

 d)     The application be determined under delegated authority 

COUNCILS DECISION 

Council decided without providing any reasons that the arguments presented by the General Manager Environmental Planning and the Council Planning staff were inadequate to support his recommendation and they approved Proposal No. 1